Sam Posted February 13, 2006 Posted February 13, 2006 As it stands now on all of Norfolk, Bull Shoals, and the ARKANSAS portion of Tablerock - the minimum length limit is 15" for largemouths and smallmouths and 12" for spotted (Kentucky) bass. On the MISSOURI portion of Tablerock it's 15" for spotted bass also. I'm guessing that the tourist industry in Branson wants it that way, so visitors to the area can C/R lots of undersize spotted bass. I'd like to see MDC adopt a 12" minimum for spotted bass in Tablerock, though. There are several reasons: The majority of spotted bass never reach the legal 15" size - studies show that they die of old age first, and that's a waste. Lots of people, like me, often fish in both states on Tablerock during the same trip. When I'm on the Arkansas side it doesn't seem right that the Arkies fishing around me can keep 12" to 14 3/4" Kentuckies while I can't (knowing that I'm going back into Missouri). Those fish are a good eating size. But mostly, I think it's good for the largemouths, smallmouths, white bass, and crappie to cull out more spotted bass at a smaller size. An acre of water can only support a certain weight of living things - whether it's sportfish, rough fish, turtles, or whatever. Since the spotted (Kentucky) bass is smaller and slower-growing than the other two species of black bass, there's no advantage to fishermen in having large numbers of undersize ones. Every pound of spotted bass taken out of the lake puts a pound of weight on something else, like largemouths and smallmouths. Comments?
Root Admin Phil Lilley Posted February 13, 2006 Root Admin Posted February 13, 2006 MDC fisheries would like to do the same thing but the bass groups on Table Rock have gotten very upset at the suggestion. From what I understand it's a very, very volatile subject.
Sam Posted February 14, 2006 Author Posted February 14, 2006 the bass groups on Table Rock have gotten very upset at the suggestion. Bass groups like the tournament guys? I wonder why they'd want habitat and food sources taken up by a bunch of short bass that won't count in tournaments. Seems strange. Like everyone, I occasionally catch 15 1/2" or 16" spotted bass on Tablerock. Maybe even a 17-incher once, but those fish are in the minority. According to the charts, those are five-year-old fish, and if they were largemouths or smallmouths they'd be 22 or 23 inches or more at the same age. If the bass guys are protecting 12" to 14 3/4" spotted bass because they think they can fill their limit with the few that actually reach 15" or better - I think they're 'way wrong.
Root Admin Phil Lilley Posted February 14, 2006 Root Admin Posted February 14, 2006 I guess I'm speaking out of hat... I saw alot of anamosity towards a fishery biologist at a gathering last year at Forsyth and afterwards I talked to him (MDC guy) and he told me he had threats against him because he had suggested the 12 inch limit on spots. And yes they were big tournament guys. Reason? I have no clue. I don't know much about the sport of tournament bass fishing so I can't speak to the issue. But I agree with your accessment.... and I guess so does Ark Fish & Game.
Members Bobby M. Posted February 14, 2006 Members Posted February 14, 2006 good topic! I really dont understand why people, especially tournament fishermen, would be opposed to this. I do not get to do any tournament fishing, but I try and read all of the results from the tournaments. Rarely, maybe never, has a tournament been won with a limit of spots. a guy with 3 or 4 quality largemouth beats the guys who cull through a dozen spots to produce their heaviest five fish limit. I wonder if some of these guys are remebering a few years back after the Largemouth die off the lake experienced. for a year or two, it was pretty tough to find quality LM. but now, I think the population has rebounded very nicely. A few tournament fishermen shouldn't be able to throw a fit a prevent the rest of us (I would even say the majority of us) from enjoying more fish on our tables. However, as I think about this, on beaver lake the length is 12 in. I have a cousin who recently moved from here to fayetville. he says guys get all exited about a BIG spot when they catch a 15 incher, when on table rock a 15 incher is not a big deal at all. so maybe there is something to the longer length limit.
Sam Posted February 14, 2006 Author Posted February 14, 2006 I'm not a tournament fisherman either, so I'm just trying to guess WHY tournament fishermen wouldn't want the length limit on spotted bass lowered to 12". In a tournament, they weigh the heaviest six fish per boat, right? The methods and locations that produce big largemouths are often different from what catches spotted bass (Kentuckies). So if a boat spent all day targeting big largemouths, and had four to weigh - and if another boat did the same and came up with four slightly smaller fish --- what if the guys with the smaller largemouths spent the last hour of the tournament targeting suspended spotted bass in the channels with spoons or whatever? It's not hard to catch a few that are currently not of legal size - 13" or so. So if the rule was changed, the guys weighing six fish (including the two little spots) would probably beat the guys weighing the four biggest largemouths. Maybe THAT'S why they're opposed - in order to win a tournament you'd have to complete a six-fish limit by partly targeting spots instead of sticking to only largemouths and smallmouths. If that's it, then their opposition only comes from strategy to win a tournament. And as you say, a small group of tournament fishermen shouldn't be able to keep the rest of us from bringing home a good fish dinner.
Members Bobby M. Posted February 14, 2006 Members Posted February 14, 2006 interesting idea, you know, getting a few LM and then finishing up your limit with spots is a very good strategy. you'd almost think these guys would be for the short length for this very reason. oh well, who knows what is going through their heads. maybe buster loving can give us some insight, he is a very knowledgable deep fisherman, so I think his insider view would spread some light on this situation. hey phil, maybe you could ask buster to share his opinion about the subject on the forum. thanks
Wayne SW/MO Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Great points Sam, but I'm at a loss also about why there would be a lot of protest over a shorter length on Spots. Of course I can't understand why a lake the size of TR would have a 15" length limit on Smallmouth and the tributaries wouldn't or other streams wouldn't . Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
gonefishin Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I would think tournament fishermen are the minority of fishermen on any lake. Why do they have such a loud voice in determining policy? I would rather be fishin'. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Members Ping Posted March 3, 2006 Members Posted March 3, 2006 I don't necessarily disagree with you guys, but the 12-14 3/4" fish will be much harder to catch after a few years of a 12" limit....because there will be less of them to catch. Now, I am not saying that's a bad thing, but the argument to go drop a spoon and catch a couple of spots that size will be easy will not be the case after a few year...you will begin to catch fish that are 11 7/8" jmho
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now