codfish

Could this happen in CCB??

Rate this topic

63 posts in this topic

Posted (edited) · Report post

Food for thought?? Just my two cents "increase the size back to 34 inches, 1 fish per person"

66189826_10219517328501875_8812122076379873280_o.jpg

Edited by codfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing this "increase the limit to 1@34" and don't understand how that's "better" than 1@28.  I can see 1@34"MAX being more beneficial.  Can someone explain the theory behind "1@increased size limit" benefit?  Is it simply a numbers game that anglers will take less fish over the course of the season if they can take larger ones?  If so, that's laughable IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 mins ago, FoliFish said:

I keep hearing this "increase the limit to 1@34" and don't understand how that's "better" than 1@28.  I can see 1@34"MAX being more beneficial.  Can someone explain the theory behind "1@increased size limit" benefit?  Is it simply a numbers game that anglers will take less fish over the course of the season if they can take larger ones?  If so, that's laughable IMO

It gives the fish a couple of extra years of spawning before they can be killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

37 mins ago, FoliFish said:

I keep hearing this "increase the limit to 1@34" and don't understand how that's "better" than 1@28.  I can see 1@34"MAX being more beneficial.  Can someone explain the theory behind "1@increased size limit" benefit?  Is it simply a numbers game that anglers will take less fish over the course of the season if they can take larger ones?  If so, that's laughable IMO

It might give the big females another season to breed, was it ever 36 inches??

Edited by codfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 mins ago, FoliFish said:

I keep hearing this "increase the limit to 1@34" and don't understand how that's "better" than 1@28.  I can see 1@34"MAX being more beneficial.  Can someone explain the theory behind "1@increased size limit" benefit?  Is it simply a numbers game that anglers will take less fish over the course of the season if they can take larger ones?  If so, that's laughable IMO

It allows fish to spawn more before they are killed.    It also helps with the biodiversity of the species ensuring a healthier overall biomass. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it used to be 36 inches. At 34 inches the fish will get an extra two spawns at 36 inches they would get an extra three spawns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rather see it be catch and release :banghd:  with STRICT penalties for rule breakers. Plenty of other fish in the sea to catch for dinner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Implement a tag system. X number of 28-34" bass per year per license holder. May - Sept. No commercial. No trophies. 

 

No tag or outside of slot size = automatic seizure of equipment, large fine, not eligible for license renewal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad idea, the C&R mortality would go through the roof, it is far better to keep one fish at 28", catch it and go home...…………….OR figure out a way to breed some true sportsmen...…..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 mins ago, beerdoh said:

Implement a tag system. X number of 28-34" bass per year per license holder. May - Sept. No commercial. No trophies. 

 

No tag or outside of slot size = automatic seizure of equipment, large fine, not eligible for license renewal.

Great idea but no way to enforce it sadly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was 1@ 36" in the 80s.  There is a proposal already on the table for 1@ 35" from what I've heard.

 

I vote "yea".  Those 36" years were great for the fish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my confusion lies in the common belief that "breeders" are the larger fish.

What are the prime spawning age (length) of male and female stripers?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 mins ago, golden said:

It was 1@ 36" in the 80s.  There is a proposal already on the table for 1@ 35" from what I've heard.

 

I vote "yea".  Those 36" years were great for the fish.

1 @ 36" was what probably allowed the population to rebound in the 80s and 90s.  I vote yea 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.