What's The Secret?!

[luckycraft]

Here's my opinion on that one. Keep the dinks. The more big bass there are, the better the genetics in the lake would be. Anything over 12" needs to be turned back. It's really the same scenario as taking a smaller buck as opposed to a larger one so that your heard has genetics for bigger deer left in them.

The problem therein lies with the fact that the smaller bass are competing with larger bass for food. Likewise, a short bass produces short bass. If you want a case-in-point scenario, look at the conservation methods developed by FL and TX.

I agree with you about thinning out the smaller fish, but think that the reasoning is wrong. Doesn't the MDC have an antler point restriction on deer to assure that more deer get to maturity and more larger deer are out there. When you talk about thinning out smaller fish it is usually due to stunting of the fish because they are competing for food ext. Just like the gold fish only grows to the size of the tank and food available. I am not quite sure if this is what is going on ins Lake Springfield. I am pretty sure the people keeping the 12 inchers and shorter wouldn't hesitate to take home a 6 pounder and eat it either. Just my 2 cents

[MSUFisherBear]

I agree with you about thinning out the smaller fish, but think that the reasoning is wrong. Doesn't the MDC have an antler point restriction on deer to assure that more deer get to maturity and more larger deer are out there. When you talk about thinning out smaller fish it is usually due to stunting of the fish because they are competing for food ext. Just like the gold fish only grows to the size of the tank and food available. I am not quite sure if this is what is going on ins Lake Springfield. I am pretty sure the people keeping the 12 inchers and shorter wouldn't hesitate to take home a 6 pounder and eat it either. Just my 2 cents

I too agree with you. There has to be a happy medium there. I don't like when folks take the larger ones, and it's sickening to watch that happen. Even at a 2 or 3 pounder, I am happy for that fish to be back in the water. I just think letting the big ones get bigger and giving them a chance to continue on their lineage and keep the genes in that pool really help.

Part of the reason that I think this would work is based off of the MDC's stats of recent fish surveys. http://fishing.mdc.mo.gov/reports/22313-prospect-report-lake-springfield. My thought is that this would indicate that keeping a short one wouldn't have massive effects on the population. But, I can see the flip-side in the thinking of those fish being young. Some of them may just not have reached maturity. I would be interested in an MDC study on the average size of a sexually mature largemouth.

[luckycraft]

I too would be interested in that study

[Calwood kid]

Shooting small bucks absolutely does not make for bigger bucks or better genetics. Theres no such thing as that. The only two factors you can control in a wild population are age, and nutrition. Genetics are out the door. In fact, does contribute more to antler characteristics in a given population due to their unlikelyness to travel or roam like bucks do. Seeing as how most people in mo hunt the same farms each year, they usually hunt the same family group of deer each season. this is not to say that in a heavily managed area, such as mine, there aren't "cull" bucks, because they most definitely are. But, those deer are generally the ones doing less than 5% of the breeding either due to their immaturity or even from their elderlyness.

[aarchdale@coresleep.com]

I'm sure you see all this on you lil 5 acres too. Haha

[Mule659]

I have never kept a bass out of Springfield Lake...don't plan on it either. I personally just enjoy going out and catching them. If I'm after eating fish there are plenty of other species I'm happy to take home.

[MSUFisherBear]

Mule,

I am with you, but if they are going to take the bass home, take the smaller ones home. Leave the trophy fish to fight another day.

There are a lot of bass in that lake. Enough so that even on what should be a slow day on most lakes, I can still go to Springfield and catch a few and may even have a few decent ones at the end of the line.

And Calwood, while I understand that thinking and agree that its not possible to completely control genetics in any wild animal, helping to push it in one direction or another doesn't hurt. My point isn't totally controlling it (that would be farming) but to help push it in that direction (ultimately what our MDC tries to do in improving hunting areas and fisheries) by helping to keep the genes that produce more trophy sized game in the gene pool.

And I do have to say that yes, food and cover are a big portion of what helps in making bass grow bigger, but to say genes doesn't have something to do with it is overlooking the fact. If it didn't, how then have we been able to make animals grow bigger, be more disease resistant, etc. etc. in a controlled environment.

Again, don't think of my statement as completely controlling the genetics. Just helping the situation out a bit.

[MSUFisherBear]

I'd also just like to tack on, thank you all for the great discussion on this. I have thoroughly enjoyed the thinking behind the genetics vs. food sources and how it relates to bass growth. It's always interesting to see opinions of others on wildlife management and promotion of conservation. I think the most enjoyable part of it all is that there are several other like-minded individuals like myself who are always trying to make our resources better.

[jbtiwns30]

Oh by the way bass are hitting my horny toads early in the morning. Lol

[MSUFisherBear]

Oh by the way bass are hitting my horny toads early in the morning. Lol

Have you tried any poppers or buzzbaits yet? I knew the frog bite should start any time soon, the grass was starting to green the last time I went out.