If You Caught The Smallmouth Of A Lifetime.........

[Mitch f]

Electrofishing and net surveys reflect what's there (or not there)

I'm not convinced the electro studies are that accurate. Based on people I know who have followed the shock boats around on the rivers.

[bfishn]

They get what they get. If they miss fish then the reports err on the slim side, creating a potential need for stricter management. The only way electro or net surveys could give misleading results leading to relaxed management is if they caught lots of big fish that didn't exist.

[Mitch f]

They get what they get. If they miss fish then the reports err on the slim side, creating a potential need for stricter management. The only way electro or net surveys could give misleading results leading to relaxed management is if they caught lots of big fish that didn't exist.

BTW, how do you like your new Revo?

[bfishn]

I'll play. What's a Revo?

[Quillback]

They get what they get. If they miss fish then the reports err on the slim side, creating a potential need for stricter management. The only way electro or net surveys could give misleading results leading to relaxed management is if they caught lots of big fish that didn't exist.

Isn't that the basis for fishing stories - "Big fish that didn't exist"?

[Wayne SW/MO]

bfishn I'm not sure that electrofishing can show much when it comes to stream smallmouth and the lakes are to deep. We know that smallie in a stream travel depending on water temps and O2. In order for it to be accurate in accessing how fishing were being taken they would have to have a stable population in the sample zone. I can't see them achieving that.

[bfishn]

That's why they call it sampling instead of overall population counts. They're well aware of the limitations of the methodology. If you needed to know the exact count and size information, you'd have to poison the stream or drain the lake and count the carcasses, but I think we'd all agree that's kind of defeating the point.

You don't have to have an exact count to observe trends though. If you shock the same way at the same places and times year after year you can identify trends, and drastic changes become very evident.

Please don't take my word for it though. I'm not a statistical analyst, nor would I care to be. Plenty of folks have dedicated lifetimes toward improving sampling statistic though, so since I'm unwilling to devote that kind of energy, I'll take their word(s) for it;

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLD_enUS318US318&q=electrofishing+statistics&meta=cr%3DcountryUS

[Wayne SW/MO]

Oh I'm not questioning the worth of sampling for all things, but I don't see how they could arrive at any usable information concerning methods. I would think there would be too much room for error. In a river i would think the delay between creel sampling and electrofishing would be enough to skew the results.

[Mitch f]

I'll play. What's a Revo?

I'm sorry, I must have gotten you mistaken with someone else. I thought you won a Revo reel on a bet

[CaptainNemo68]

I caught my Smallmouth of a lifetime last year, but I was by myself and in a very bad spot along the river bank. It was extremely muddy where the river had resided. After I finally reeled the fish in the poor thing was completely covered with mud. The ground along the bank was extremely slick and I was afraid of falling (I had had back surgery), so with that I got the hook out and let it go. It was about the same size as Blazerman's wife's Smallie. I didn't get any pictures for my own safety reasons - I was in an extremely terrible spot.

It was actually the easiest fish I have ever caught. I saw it out in the river and just simply threw the bait right on top of it. I kid you not - it took one second and the bait was already in it's mouth.