release or keep the big guys?

stankemp

just soliciting some opinions.
In a lake asssociation meeting a month ago, we were discussing fishing on the lake (always a topic of some considerable length).
In the discussion , I heard a line of conventional wisdom , specifically, that "taking big fish out (keeping , not releasing) is good for the lake". Hmmmm!? I talked to my son, a dedicated fisherman and notable biologist with fisheries research background, about this statement widely acknowleged to be true. "No, Dad" was his reply , "if you think about it, natural selection will give a higher survivability to genetically small adults because bigger ones are removed from the gene pool" Sounded logical to me. Also, "good for the lake" proponents might just be rationalizing their taking the big fish.
What's your say in this? Is keeping fish really good for the lake?
PS ... we have a small lake and I think any swing effect will be rapid.

Glock23Expert

What I read on this subject pertained only to keeping vs. releasing in ponds. In a pond, I'd keep the occasional big one but throw other big ones back to try to catch again and again. The small and medium sized fish, as long as they're legal length to keep, I'd keep for eating. That's my take on it. As far as lakes go, I'd keep or release depending on whether I was fishing for sport or food, as long as the fish is legal length.

iwannausername

How big is the lake, whats the forage base and cover like, whats the fish population like? consider slot limits, limits on bass over X pounds (or inches or whatever) per member per year, no keeping fish over X weight for a month or so pre-spawn and thru the spawn, etc.

tsavo303

I think anything bigger than 2 pounds should be thrown back

Dak To 68

Don't know how keeping/releasing big fish affects a pond. As to the eating quality of fish, the best flavor comes from young adults, not grizzled old hogs. A 2-3 lb. largemouth is perfect eating size. Pretty much the same for catfish. Cut up a really big flathead (46lbs.) once and it was nowhere near as good as the 10lb. & unders are.

2-barrel

Wisconsin several years ago went from no size limit to 14 inch size limit saying we would be catching bigger bass and more. I am still catching about the same size small bass and the bigger ones. I don't catch more but seems I have to fish very hard to even catch as many.
I blame that on fishing pressure.
I keep whats legel for eating and I don't see much effect on the fishing
in size than it was when their was no size limit and I fish the same waters. I probley only take about 20 bass a year to eat so I don't put that big a dent in them. So where are all those big bass that DNR said their would be?

COLT

...Even in a private lake, it AIN"T good to keep the big ones. Almost ALL the big bass ARE females.
In a smaller private lake, it is important (as long as there is plenty of bass) to keep all the 3lbs and under...even w/ an abundance of food, and everything bass need to thrive. If you dont, it will be only a short time till the bass become stunted.

At the ranch, the 30 ac private lake has been stocked w/Florida strain bass for over 20 years, everything 3 and under...comes out.
There are some 15-16lb plus fish in there, partly due to weeding out the dinks. A 1-2-3 lb fish is growing fast, and will eat like a pig, direct competition with the big fish....[;)]

...Here are a few 1-3 1/2's I thinned out earlier in the year, a crappie or two also.

jonk

Biggest Walleye I caught, I ate. 9 lbs. You can see in the meat that it was fattier than the little ones; it tasted good fresh, but not quite as sweet as the little ones either.

If you DON'T throw it back eat it, or mount it, don't just waste it.