Throw The Big Ones Back.

[jdmidwest]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080416/sc_nm/...Zlqm7EOWCYE1vAI

Research supports the release of bigger fish back into the wild and keeping the smaller/younger fish. Makes sense. Most managed bass areas have a 12-15 slot to encourage more spawners. I normally keep the fish below 12 and toss all of the others back. When I moved into the subdivision, the pond was filled with 8-10 in bass and not many others. I started keeping a limit each time and now, 5 years later the average catch is 15 in. I also restocked with large bluegill that spawned and made good forage.

[Project Healing Waters]

It's hard to argue with the documented scientific results of many surveys and studies over about the past decade where this management strategy has been employed and measured. Your results are right in line with everything I've read/heard. This is why we give the C&R awards to folks who return trout over 20" to Taneycomo, etc. It's all about the limited amount of food available for a certain # of fish. It's called "carrying capacity," and is based on biomass metrics. If there is a lot of food and a few fish, the fish grow faster. The more fish you add, the slower they grow. It's easy to toss fish into a fishery. It's not easy to grow the biomass. It tends to have a very sharp law of diminishing returns and quite often simply cannot be increased. So what you are saying is especially true of waters that are stocked to beyond the carrying capacity. This is where you will notice the most dramatic results of this management approach.