# Div. of Wildlife Bass Forum 09' INPUT



## Nipididdee

The past two years I have attended a now annual meeting offered by the folks of the Div. of Wildlife Fish Management team at the District 1 office in Columbus.

Their Objective: To provide an overview of the current DOW review and revision process for Ohio bass regulations and gather input regarding tournament bass angler opinions,attitudes and preferences.

There are four data types of info the DOW collects and uses while reviewing bass regulations for Ohio - *elctrofishing surveys, creel surveys, tournament results, and angler opinion surveys*. Together, this extensive amount of data will help Ohio fisheries management critically review and possibly propose revisions to regulations.

Specific to this meeting, directors from around the state have the opportunity to present our input from an organizational perspective and also share our anglers opinions,attitudes and preferences specific to bass regulations, the current state of bassn' and as well, looking at Ohio bassn' in a crystal ball- all from a tournament anglers eyes. We are but one facuet into the data types mentioned above.

I'm being real careful here...  as I already see the dogs ears are raised!

Anyhow....

Let me try to nutshell some things I have determined along the way from these meetings and ongoing conversations with these folks the past couple of years.

1. These dudes are hardcore - they know what is going on in our drink and with the bass in Ohio. They could teach old dogs new tricks... 

2. They work for the fish and the public...and unlike the many preceptions of government employees, these folks care- their heart is in their job...it's a passion for them.

3. They want their work to cater to everyone's needs, while following the science that tells them how best to, and doing it on a shoestring budget.

4. The data sets they have compiled specific to Ohio's bassn' regions/waterways are long term, large and ongoing

5. They might be able to help improve both the size and numbers of our "basses" in many waterways by applying the science to revised Ohio bass regulations of bag limits and sizes in the future.

Now let me hit you with this... some things I liked hearing at the last meeting.

A closed season for bass fishing would be based on cultural demands opposed to improving the quality of bass fishing in Ohio. Not happening.

Year class recruitment is most impacted by consistent spring (spawning) time water levels. Which in most instances the DOW has zero control over, especially given most of our tributary waterways designed for flood control/water supply. Forget stocking.

Now my question(s) for all... leaving the above closed season and stocking discussions out of it.

If bass fishing in Ohio could be improved in the years ahead by both increasing numbers of bass and size of bass...

*1.Would you support a reduced daily bag limit of 4 fish?

2.What if that bag limit was to be 2 fish under 15" and 2 fish over 15"?

3. (opinion?) How would competitive bass angling change for you if these regulations above were in place.*


Please ID in your post your region in Ohio - whether you are a tournament angler or not- and any thoughts you had deciding your response.

I hope to add your input...

I don't plan to respond to your posts- this isn't for me, it's for them and you.

BTW- don't freak out- it's simply questions, ALL regulations from every number and every size is on the table at this point- and don't look for any changes even in the next couple of years...this is simply one step in them getting to that point.

nip
www.dobass.com


----------



## Cull'in

Nipididdee said:


> A closed season for bass fishing would be based on cultural demands opposed to improving the quality of bass fishing in Ohio. Not happening.
> www.dobass.com


Cultural demands?
Can you exlain this one a little further please?


----------



## Nipididdee

> I don't plan to respond to your posts


not blowing the topic off...it is just a whole other topic that could consume the thread. 

I had hoped the simple version of it explaned, is just that- explained simply

If you feel "closed seasons" an important part in your discussion, include it in your response to the questions.


----------



## Procraftboats21

no to the reduced bag limit.

no to the 2 under 15'' and 2 over 15''.

What about a Florida or Texas rule, just shorten it up.

ex) 5 bass, only one can be over 18''


----------



## Nipididdee

> no to the reduced bag limit.
> 
> no to the 2 under 15'' and 2 over 15''.


why? why not? why the 18" like TX?

Why about question #3...


----------



## Cull'in

Nipididdee said:


> not blowing the topic off...it is just a whole other topic that could consume the thread.
> 
> I had hoped the simple version of it explaned, is just that- explained simply
> 
> If you feel "closed seasons" an important part in your discussion, include it in your response to the questions.



Oh for God's sake!
Simplified yes, clarified no.




No to questions #1 and #2!

How about just a statewide 4 or 5 fish limit of 14" or 15".
Better yet keep it at 12" and further investigate the impact of a "catch and release" season, not to be confused with a "closed season"!

A smaller creel limit of say 4 fish probably wouldn't affect most team tournaments that could still allow 5 or 6 fish to be weighed per team. 

Let's face it, size and creel regulations are really only enforced among bass tournament anglers. The guy sitting on the bank dunking minnows or nightcrawlers to catch dinner could care less how big a bass has to be or how many he can keep. I've seen it way to much over the years. I might hold the record for number of calls to 1-800-POACHER!

As far as I'm concerned the state can do what they want in respect to limits and regulations. As tournament anglers we'll adjust and do our small part and that'll be it until it becomes an issue again. Until then I'll make my regular trips to Pennsylvania and New York for consistent trophy bass fishing in the region.


----------



## HeadwatersEd

I believe i can clarify the "cultural demands" comment a little. It means there is no scientific evidence that closed seasons will have a great impact on the fisheries. People assume that closed seasons, stocking, and limits will always improve a lake, when this is not usually the case. Bowing to public pressure to institute policy can have a negative impact. The fact is, each body of water needs to be managed differently, but ODNR does not have the budget to do this, so they must make the best choice available that will best impact all the regional lakes. Not an easy job. I fish mostly NE ohio lakes, and will happily abide by any rules they decide on. These guys know what they are doing. So make all the new rules you want if it will improve things in the long run. People are going to complain, someone always does. But fishermen will adapt, and some rules could make tournaments more interesting.


----------



## Lewzer

I'm from NEO.

1.Would you support a reduced daily bag limit of 4 fish?

*Yes*

2.What if that bag limit was to be 2 fish under 15" and 2 fish over 15"?

*Yes* For me it makes no difference but I can definately see where a tourny fisherman wouldn't like it. It adds a decision making factor to the equation rather than just catching the biggest fish like there is in certain walleye tournaments.

3. (opinion?) How would competitive bass angling change for you if these regulations above were in place.

No as I don't fish tournys.

I have a couple of other thoughts I'd like to see with bass regulations in Ohio.

Pick one or two lakes in each of the five districts for no possession whatsoever of any bass rules.

Pick lakes where a true trophy bass fishery would be feasible.

Pick lakes where the impact on tournys would be minimal such as electric motor only lakes like Nimisila, Modadore, Ladue or WINGFOOT in NEO, Lake Alma in SEO. etc......

No tournys would be allowed as all bass must be immediately returned to the water unharmed.

Of course this would only be done if scientific evidence shows that a true trophy (for Ohio) fishery would be the result of a no kill/possession policy in the respective lake/reservoir.


----------



## mikeshookset

no to question #1 no to question#2 my opinion is those 2 things will not help tourny fishing at all. if odnr really wants tohelp bass fishing they could add structure to these lakes other than just a few pine trees.


----------



## fishin4five

...from the north east.

1. I would not be against a reduced bag, but as Cull'in mentioned it would not affect most team tournaments.

2. No, can't stand watching Redfish Cup tournaments with teams releasing huge redfish while searching for that perfect fish just 1/16" under the limit. Although that's nothing that a pair of nail clippers couldn't fix...but no bass angler would ever think of doing that!!! 

3. 1 would only affect guys fishing solo in team tournaments and I hope to never find out about 2; who doesn't want to fish for the biggest bass in the lake? 2 might also open up another opportunity for the "enemy" to strike as mentioned above...especially in the spring or bodies of water where the fish get beat up sometimes (Erie beakwalls or in a livewell after a long ride in 5 footers).

Any discussion on habitat/forage base improvement? 

Or maybe nothing needs to be done and we just need to ride the wave as our lakes cycle...just like the Earth and that so called "global warming" stuff.


----------



## Nipididdee

This is going really well so far! I'm impressed!

If you are just getting into it make sure to read the first post!

Thanks HeadwatersEd !% !

There was much discussion about habitat...but you also have to consider what you have to work with. 

Our tributary impoundments are aging and not controlled by fish management. Habitat improvement could be awash without MANY of the other variables controlled. It also comes with a price tag...

Lewzer had some cool insights. Knox Lake in Ohio is along the lines currently of that you spoke of- minus some "posession" aspects. I think Torphy Bass fishery management in Ohio for specific waterways will be in the future!

Keep 'em coming!!!!


----------



## ProAngler

Yes...to both 1-2! We already follow a system, for number 2 would only add a few more minutes to culling.( if we're on em)

For #3 it really wouldn't for myself. Prefishing would be altered to some degree, knowing the type of fish I'm after to place in an event. I can also see longer weigh in lines, knowing that more fish will be closely measured with 2 under 15" and 2 over 15" compared to the usual 12"ers that have to be checked. Example, Mosquito lake produces a lot of fish in the 14-15" range. With a 60 boat field, you may be looking at 4 fish X 30+ teams, maybe more, to be closely measured. This longer time really isn't a huge issue either to me, but along those lines I can also forsee maybe some more disagreement to which fish makes it and which one doesn't. I realize it is solely up to the directors call on measured fish, but with 20 years plus tournament angling, I have seen many disagreements at weigh in lines over a 32nd of an inch. What would happen to a fish that fell right on 15" would it be under, over or tossed back in, I have a golden rule, what rule is the director using? some say 12" is 12"! But for some reason rule companies make it a difference. Again, not starting fires, just throwing out some discussion about some things that come to my head.

NEO tournament angler, my thoughts came from past experience, that's all. I do however have a hard time believing a lot of the theories to which help and hurt a fishery. If solid evidence clearly shows a better overall effect on the water we fish then I'm 100% behind the movement.

Thanks for this thread, I'll be interested to see other relies.


----------



## CARP 104

Winter is enough of a closed season for me, although I know your pointing out the spawning period. Don't most states go by the system used here in Ohio....or maybe slightly altered depending on geographic location or other factors. 

I don't see any problems with the bass fishing in Ohio...especially compared to most other states in the vicinity. Personally I think the rules should be kept as is....just enforced better if anything.


----------



## Nipididdee

> I can also see longer weigh in lines, knowing that more fish will be closely measured with 2 under 15" and 2 over 15" compared to the usual 12"ers that have to be checked. Example, Mosquito lake produces a lot of fish in the 14-15" range. With a 60 boat field, you may be looking at 4 fish X 30+ teams, maybe more, to be closely measured. This longer time really isn't a huge issue either to me, but along those lines I can also forsee maybe some more disagreement to which fish makes it and which one doesn't. I realize it is solely up to the directors call on measured fish, but with 20 years plus tournament angling, I have seen many disagreements at weigh in lines over a 32nd of an inch. What would happen to a fish that fell right on 15" would it be under, over or tossed back in, I have a golden rule, what rule is the director using? some say 12" is 12"!


 - this was a BIG initial concern that I somewhat voiced as well, as a promoter/director. The bump board and check-in areas are usually where penalties indeed ocurr

As a side bar... all of our rulers for dobass are precision machined and identical. We clearly spell out how we will measure a fish in each series' rules. We also have a pictorial diagram to help explain at the weigh-ins. We also make our boards available for participants in the AM for them to compare their ruling system to. The Fish Crew and I also all cary firearms if it gets ugly 

Come on anglers....more please! Read the first post and answer these questions:



> 1.Would you support a reduced daily bag limit of 4 fish?
> 
> 2.What if that bag limit was to be 2 fish under 15" and 2 fish over 15"?
> 
> 3. (opinion?) How would competitive bass angling change for you if these regulations above were in place.
> 
> 
> Please ID in your post your region in Ohio - whether you are a tournament angler or not- and any thoughts you had deciding your response.


I have some "followups"...


----------



## lordofthepunks

ok, so i know that catching spawning bass does reduce the yearly repopulation of any body of water and tournament fishing doesnt attempt to keep this from happening but, and maybe im just stupid, how does the daily bag limit effect the quality of a fisherys bass since a tiny percentage of bass caught in tournaments are actually killed. if bag limits and size slots etc. are the answers to higher quality fish then tournament anglers are not the problem since we return most of the fish we catch unharmed. if these restrictions are put into place then most of the effect will be against tournament anglers even though we do not keep our fish anyway. im failing to see what benefit would come from telling tournament anglers that they can only keep 4 fish instead of 5 because technically we dont keep them at all. maybe these restrictions should only be in regards to people who actually harvest fish from fisheries instead of a general law that lumps tournament angling in with a guy thats harvesting for food.


----------



## flwboy2010

I agree with most if they would check the bank fisherman and make them play by the rules it would surely help our fisheries.I watch guys throw 8 inch bass in buckets at berlin all summer long.If they keep fish under 12 inches do you really think a new rule would help?One prop to bass tournys our TDs do a great job on getting the tournament fish released alive.Almost all big tournys have rejuvenade bins on site.


----------



## Spot

amen .... the people I've seen harvesting bass or fish in general pay no attention to bag limits


----------



## Spot

and how about the amish, these rules should apply to all


----------



## flwboy2010

**** most the amish dont even buy i liscence,let alone follow the rules.Just look at mosquito 8 or 9 of them in a 14footer no one ever says anything to them.They KEEP anything they catch big or small.


----------



## Spot

Hey Nip have you ever asked dow how the rules apply to the amish? Not trying to bash or single them out, but this is what I have witnessed


----------



## Basscat2

Ok, I'm from NEO
1. 4 bag limit would be fine, if its for the better.
2. to much gray area for DOW and every one else
3. For us tourny guys, its not ganna change our thought on entering tournys or not, but, it could be a great challenge in figureing out two different patterns, could you imagine to try and catch two smallies in lake Erie under 15'', thats harder than catching 19''ers.

To respond about trophy lakes, that would be great for a couple like the one guy said below. If the DOW is reading this, WINGFOOT, make it a trophy lake, the timing is perfect for you guys to make up the rules.

Also to bring up planting structure and other stuff, If you guys pay attention, WEEDS, thats the best structure. Mosq. Portage, Nimi, Moggie, all have weeds and is the best Bass fishing state lakes in NEO.

We have to stop the home owners from contracting out companies from killing the weeds, I thought it was illeagle for anyone to kill weeds in a state lake in ohio,only the dow was aloud to do it. we all saw what the weed killing did to east 2,3 years ago.

Sorry for rambling on.


----------



## Nipididdee

this was going in the right direction...

thanks for an appropriate response basscat2


----------



## Nipididdee

I had initially thought I could manipulate some thought here with my intial questions, and hoped to lead slowly into some additonal discussions of the actual proposals. 

Those questions I posed were some of the areas that were most perplexing to me during the presentation at the last forum, and where I needed help from anglers and their perspectives.

Out of fear of continued post-happy hour holiday traffic with non-topic related responses...

Maybe it's best to give a clearer picture of what was on the table....

I warn you, you have to turn on your brain and actually read, opposed to flaming a heartfelt petition.

Here is straight from the horse the DETAILED info....thoughts??? 




> Please note that we are not proposing a statewide reduction of the daily bag limit to 4 fish. Rather, we proposed the idea of the base statewide regulation being a 12-inch, 5-fish daily limit (rather than the current no length limit, 5-fish daily limit statewide), with other options used in a subset of lakes where they have good potential for improving fishing, very similar to what we currently do.
> 
> For example, we believe that the 4-fish daily limit with 2 fish under 15 and 2 fish over 15 would be applied to a subset of lakes like the existing 15-inch minimum lakes or slot length-limit lakes after continued evaluation of data in the upcoming year.
> 
> Our sense is that this approach could be more effective in achieving the fishery objectives that were the foundation for the 15-inch and slot length limit regulations. As was indicated in our meeting, the split-bag approach is not a new one; it simply hasnt been used before in Ohio.
> 
> 
> *So to clarify, the Ohio Division of Wildlife (Division) has proposed three potential length limit strategies to improve the bass fishing in Ohios inland reservoirs/lakes. The strategies were developed based on an extensive review of the Divisions historical bass sampling data, 30 years of Ohio bass tournament results from our inland reservoirs, and input from anglers obtained through online surveys, creel surveys, and tournament organizers during the 2008 Ohio Bass Forum.*
> 
> For example, based on the on-line survey from 2008 (3,634 responses), 11% of anglers favored a 6-fish daily limit, 22% favored a 4-fish daily limit, and 41% favored something less. Opinions vary, and this is important for us to know, we serve a diverse public.
> 
> In the upcoming year the Division will be carefully evaluating the lakes where biological information says a strategy will improve bass fishing, so the exact lakes where a particular strategy might be put in place is not set. The list of lakes where the Division might apply a strategy will be presented and discussed at the 2010 Ohio Bass Forum held around December next year.
> 
> The three potential length limit strategies considered for Ohios inland reservoirs are:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A statewide 12-inch minimum length limit and 5 fish daily bag limit for bass to be implemented at all inland reservoirs unless they have a special regulation as discussed in numbers 2 and 3 below. The objective of this strategy is to have many 12-inch bass with the traditional 5 fish bag limit or harvest. It is anticipated that this strategy would likely be applied to the existing 12-inch minimum / 5 fish daily bag limit lakes (so no change from what is already in place), all lakes that currently do not have a minimum size or daily bag limit regulations for bass, and likely at lakes that do not appear to respond well to larger length limits. In addition, we would propose using this regulation on all rivers and streams for simplicity.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. A 15-inch minimum length limit and 4 fish split daily bag limit of 2 fish under 15-inches and 2 fish over 15-inches. The objective of this strategy is to maximize catch rates of 12 to 15-inch bass, promote larger fish and allow limited harvest. It is anticipated that this strategy would likely be applied to those lakes where an existing 15-inch minimum size limit works well, but we see reductions in bass growth and condition due to slight crowding of the population, or in slot length limit lakes were anglers are not keeping sub-slot length fish. Naturally, this approach might also be tried in a subset of other lakes that the Division of Wildlife believes it would improve the growth and size of bass.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. A 14-inch to 20-inch slot limit and with a 3 fish split daily bag limit of 2 fish under 14-inches and 1 fish over 20-inches. The objective of this strategy is to create a trophy bass fishery. It is anticipated that this strategy would be applied to those lakes with an existing 18-inch minimum size limit (Knox, for example) and a few other lakes the Division of Wildlife believes have trophy bass potential.
> 
> 
> The Division of Wildlife is highly interested in hearing what our anglers think about these proposed length limit strategies.
> 
> The input received through this post on OhioGameFishing is just incredibly valuable as we move forward to improve bass fishing in Ohio.
> 
> Anglers can expect us to be asking questions about their feelings toward these approaches through an on-line survey or during on-the-water creel surveys during 2010.


----------



## Cull'in

Nip, 
After reading the details, perhaps your initial questions were just to broad. They lead one to believe that a 4 fish, 2 under/2 over 15" limit might be norm statewide, replacing the current 5 fish - 12" limits that cover most of our water.

Upon reading the detailed info it doesn't sound like the bodies of water most used by northeast Ohio tournament fishermen (Portage, Berlin and Mosquito) would be affected at all. It does however sound like lakes such as Milton and Salt Fork could be impacted, either by the proposed new split bag limits or being reduced back to the 5/12".

That being said, I'm not opposed to the split bag limits on _specific_ bodies of water.
I do not believe the split bag would negatively impact tournaments either team or solo. If anything it might make them more competitive, always a good thing!

Finally...with any regulations the ODNR must realize that enforcement is the only way they work. Reading through the posts it seems that is a major area of concern among the tournament guys. You (Nip) probably know better than anybody that tournament anglers on the whole are a pretty responsive and adaptable group regardless of the circumstances. We have and will do our share to promote and better our fisheries in conjunction with the plans of the ODNR. All we ask is that we get that effort in return from those that govern and police our fisheries.


----------



## Nipididdee

> You (Nip) probably know better than anybody that tournament anglers on the whole are a pretty responsive and adaptable group regardless of the circumstances.


 lol

actually... no comment 

Harvesting is an important factor, it's what makes it spin.

For fun....what about Mosquito,Berlin and Portage managed as new Trophy lakes?


----------



## Procraftboats21

the limit if reduced to 4 wouldn't affect tournaments like cull'n said, because you could still keep 5 between you and your partner, but what if you fish solo? 

every lake is different and should have its own size limits but we all know this would nearly be impossible.

like the ODNR said, slot limits under 12'' and over 15'' only work if fish are taken from both sides and i don't know to many people who fish for food that would take a 12'' over a 15'' to complete their limit.

i really do not have an answer for the size limits other than NO slot limits, i'm kinda torn here 

Here's a thought, drain west branch, take the 4 bass that live in there, put them in near by Milton... fill the lake in and make a high tech bass research center


----------



## flwboy2010

Nipididdee said:


> this was going in the right direction...
> 
> thanks for an appropriate response basscat2


All we were saying is that it doesnt matter what they change the regs to,if the people that are harvesting the fish dont pay attention to size and bag limits now, what good would a new rule do?


----------



## mikeshookset

odnr is hung up on size limmits has it helped saltfork a 15 inch lake? wolfrun a slot limmit lake? when ray scott builds a bass lake whats the 1st thing he puts in it ? STRUCTURE. resavors are man made and was made many many moons ago so most of the structure has rotted away such as trees and stumps. odnr will stock muskie fingerlings at $10 a fish at the rate of 300 to 400 with no proublem . why wont they put the same money into some thing construtive for bass fishing? has odnr had a survey on structure in the last 20 years? if so it would be interesting to see it in print. before words start getting put in my mouth i am not against odnr i just think they are to stuck on size limmts its time for them to try something differant.


----------



## flwboy2010

i agree it seems to me the bass guys dominate the lakes around here but they dont want to do anything to help our sport, I HATE THEM DAMN MUSKIES


----------



## Nipididdee

ah ha...now were talkn'!

Much of what you all speak of were topics...muskies particulary! Remember they are a sport fish also and only 9 reservoirs are provided their stockings out of 143...which mostly all have basses.

Bass have been determined to be the primary sportfish targeted in Ohio- they are then of course, a central feature of their work to improve bass angling opportunities. Hence the EXTENSIVE studies specific to bass directly on our reservoirs and the anglers targeting bass.

I think the structure talk is more about "cover" maybe??? Again, dealing with what we have in Ohio and the uncontrolled variables of things such as sedimentation, water flow, aging, costs, etc....not the most productive option.

Indeed slot limits aren't working the way it had been hoped...the data compiled from these waterways with current slots and/or 15" limits, including their rates of harvest, suggests that changing the regulations could benefit some of the bass fisheries. Specifically- reduce crowding and improve growth and size. 

They have been studying these regulations for years guys...some real work, compared to sticking a few hundred muskies in the water  

Right under our noses we have been giving them all the data they need to get to the point we are at now...and yes, they know people keep fish, they have harvest rates much well figured out more than our weekend arses who subjectively perceive notions by a few bank anglers at our local watering hole...these folks work daily, on the water, YEAR ROUND...and analyize all the data...around the ENTIRE STATE. 

The stats from the MASS amounts of real sampling data, specific to OUR Ohio bassn' waterways (electroshocks,creel surveys,tournament stats-30 years worth, etc) was charted for us in a variety of fashions (very cool- need a copy!)... what it ultimately showed- they can assist in improving proportional stock density rates & improve catch per effort rates along the lines with bass anglers desires- by way of targeting these specific regulations to specific waterways.

Some lakes just stink too- not much you could do period. A waste of time and resources. Apply all the structure, cover, lack of muskies, no amish, closed seasons, size/creel regulations, police it for violations, put dragon pee in it....it still stinks for bassn' 

Maybe we can persuade one of them to give us some of the goodies they presented this past weekend... maybe they could post their powerpoint presentation online with commentary from say Ray Petering or Scott Hale...


----------



## ProAngler

Thanks for the added detailed info! I am no scientist, biologist, or any kind of ist! These are just thrown out thoughts from that last info, so take it for what it's worth I guess.

1) Regarding the online survey- Those numbers make me scratch my head! 

11% wanted 6- I think harvest fisherman and Advanced/Pro Tournament anglers.
22% wanted 4- I think avid fisherman wanting to improve the fishery and struggling Tournament anglers.
41% wanted less- I think fisherman that feel that catch and release is the way to improve a fishery and a struggling tournament angler that loses most of his fish at the boat.

Personally, It doesn't matter what the number is, Im a tournament angler and follow the rules of each lake as they are set forth. Tell me what the length limit is, how many I'm aloud, and what time check in is- Done! But I am also just a guy that loves to bass fish and loves to hook into the best the lake has to offer. With that being said I am all for whatever limit is set to maximize the full potential of an individual lake. But yet not having it effect the overall number of catch ratios to a extent. 

1) Regarding the first strategy- Wondering how many Ohio lakes do not have any type of set limits? Applying 12"-5 seems standard to start. ** Moving a 12"-5 to a lake that now has an 15"-5 needs to be addressed or at least test run, some 15" lakes in this state need a tweak. Which leads into....

2) Strategy) In all honesty, it's hard to draw an opinion on this one. This is more on the science end with trying to make those tweaks and survey the results as time goes on. The hard part is each lake has it's own characteristics that make it what it is- some tweaking is going to help and also hurt, it's going to be trial and error with always continuos changes. I wonder how much surveys would change from lake to lake instead of the overall question on Statewide number limits? (your online survey results) I can name a few lakes that I fish very often that need different regs put on to improve those fisheries.

3) Strategy- Very interesting! Here are my feelings- feel free to shoot em down. First I assume trophy fishery would be by Ohio standards, 5# to say 8#(8's are possible!) Are we also talking about converging some bass strains to make a true Northern Bass also J/k My point is are we looking to just increase numbers of quality bass with this one, (knox the past several years with the 18") or are we looking to create a fishery with potential of record class ohio bass? Having a 2 fish under 14" with a 1 fish over 20" might be a little steep. It may take many year classes to have sificiant data to create what you're really after. You will see alot of 2 fish tournament days, but yet again some electric only lakes now would produce some nice 3 fish bag weights, so again it goes back to how much can you really change a lake if the lake doesn't want to change? Can we groom Moggy along year after year with a sub par spawn? Can we change Mosq into a Ladue? A lot of questions for me on this one- Top of my head- Mog, Ladue, Knox, Burr Oak, Hargus, Tycoon, Ross, they all produce quality and are small inland lakes, they have mainly 15" slots- with 2 I believe @ 12" all receive fairly heavy pressure. Is it the gene,fertility,regs,spawn or all of the above that is the answer? I will add this, sorta off the subject but needs to be typed under this 3rd strategy. The biggest largemouth that I have seen on any ohio lake in 30+ years came from Mosquito- Fish was pushing 8#'s it came from a school of bass that were packed tight together roaming the shallows- 2 other fish out of that school which were hooked and boated went 4 and 5#'s Best part, it was last year. Most know Mosq is a stud lake, but it lacks the 5# bite! As mentioned in a previous post, weeds play a key role, but now we're facing a possible new issue with the zebra and the choking of that lake. 

Lastly, there are many more issues that play major roles here. Spawning, and how we fish it. Restrict it or not? Foreign species, (gobies, zebras,ruffe) do we have funds? Dumb birds starting to become an issue,(cormorants) should I call kin and load the shotguns for a bird massacre? DOW please open a [email protected][email protected] Over harvesting from anglers, this does become a issue from lakes that are undersized and suffer from bad spawns. This is not an issue that will break a strong larger fishery. It's late but I'll be throwing pennies at this thread again.


----------



## fishin4five

I think we should put heaters in all our lakes and stock Florida strain largemouth...then we'll have some trophy fisheries. 

After reading Nip's additional info, I would open to the proposed revisions. A little extra time at weigh-in (measuring fish) is a small price to pay for better fishing; if the fish are handled correctly, no harm done. Change can be good. We have some lakes in NE Ohio with strong bass populations, now would be a great time to attempt to manage those populations and create a true trophy bass fishery. A couple NE Ohio lakes went and it did on their own without revised regulations...can't wait to see 2010 EEI weights!!!

I'd like to thank the DOW for all their hard work. Noticed a larger presence the last couple years, I took more creel surveys than ever before. They even electroshocked Hinckley Lake last year!

Nip, do you know if/when the DOW plans to publish their presentation/findings/plans?!


----------



## Cull'in

Has or would the state ever consider imposing a seperate creel limit for bass tournaments only on inland waters?
I just throw this out there because I'm willing to bet tournament catch release rates are better than 99% and with the advancements in livewells and fish care that mortality is also very low.

Say all inland bass tournaments were allowed 5 fish/12" and we fished Salt Fork where the normal bag limit is 5/15". For one there would probably be a few more tournaments at Salt Fork  and second wouldn't this help the ODNR to get a better overall picture of fish class populations in addition to other methods? Think of all the 12", 13" and 14" fish they could count opposed to just those 15" or bigger!

Crazy? Probably. Just a thought.


----------



## Nipididdee

real good stuff now to all !!! I wanna respond to it all but don't have time at moment, or knowledge of much of it 

I did wanna say something to Culln' about tournament exemptions...this was an area I have suggested from the first meeting onward and was again a topic this time around.

My take is have standards that have to be met- proper organizational fish handling/release, insurance, mandated stat reporting in order to meet exemptions...shoot, even to run a tournament for that matter.

My impression this time around was that an exemption might draw more harm than good - and looking at it outside of the box from my end...I could see some hurdles for us as a group to possibly overcome with a " tournament exemption" perception from other anlgers. I think we could overcome it though... but I'm not so sure the State wants to position themselves with granting specific groups exemptions to their regulations.

more later...I gotta run back to WORK!

nip


----------



## jpbasspro

I am in Central Ohio, but my heart is in northeast Ohio.

*1.Would you support a reduced daily bag limit of 4 fish?*
Yes. Ive not been up to speed on harvest data, but as a tournament angler myself; I feel we have the greatest impact positive and negative on bass fisheries across the state. Yes the majority of the bass are released alive, however many factors come into effect on survival rates which NIP has explained in past threads, but during spawning phases bass taken from beds allows for predation of eggs and/or unguarded fry. Lets face it a 60 boat team tournament field resulting in 120 fisherpersons on one lake in one day takes its toll. Just think how many tournaments are held each week on the popular bodies of water, there is a tournament just about everyday of the week for the entire open water season. Not only that, our waters are much smaller than southern lakes, therefore probably receive much more pressure. Have you ever seen that many recreational bass fisherpersons on the same body of water at one time for that duration?? Doubt it. What data does ODNR have to support this or negate it?

I know you wanted to keep the closed season discussion out of it, but as you stated in your initial post these folks work for us and if we as anglers want a closed season, so be it. I support Culln, and also favor a catch and release season. And to clarify, cultural demands is what the people accept as reasonable regulations, where several factors are considered and gets very complicated. I highly doubt there has not been a study done to prove or disprove the closed season theory. As for budgets, yes there has been cuts everywhere, but think where does ODNR get their funds?? Yes, that is right fishing license sales is one major avenue. So I encourage the bass clubs/organizations across the state to promote fishing in Ohio, which in turn will allow for better fish management. 

We have to ask ourselves, why do some of our neighboring states have such great bass fisheries?? Several have the same demographics as our lakes; several have the same creel limits, etc. etc. I dont want to come to a conclusion, but it seems to me the states with great bass fisheries also have some sort of season. We all know Erie is a world class smallmouth fishery. So why is there a season on Lake Erie bass in Ohio??

2.What if that bag limit was to be 2 fish under 15" and 2 fish over 15"?
I would support this, it seems it would take pressure off a single size limit. For instance if I had 2 fish under 15 in the livewell, I would target larger fish and immediately return those fish under the 15 limit, therefore increasing their rate of survival.

3. (opinion?) How would competitive bass angling change for you if these regulations above were in place.
It wouldnt change for me, Id abide by the state and tournament rules set forth.


----------



## ProAngler

jpbasspro said:


> 2.What if that bag limit was to be 2 fish under 15" and 2 fish over 15"?
> I would support this, it seems it would take pressure off a single size limit. For instance if I had 2 fish under 15&#8221; in the livewell, I would target larger fish and immediately return those fish under the 15&#8221; limit, therefore increasing their rate of survival.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the 2 under 15" be released once you caught 2 over 15" - I took it as limit is 4, 2 under 2 over. Those fish would either be culled by larger fish under 15" or would remain as part of your 4 fish limit.
> 
> 
> I also had to change my first post to YES for both.
> 
> I'd like to hear some opinions on what lakes most bass anglers feel are struggling in Ohio. I know a lot have dislike with West Branch, but yet I catch fairly good numbers and size, yet I have struggled more times trying to lock on a pattern at say Berlin. Personally one lake that surprises me is Alum, the lake has it's days, especially on those brown fish, but for a lake that can have so much potential, it seems to fall short of expectations. And I might be wrong but Mosq. gets just as much fishing pressure. Not my home lake, but it used to be.


----------



## Nipididdee

> This is more on the science end with trying to make those tweaks and survey the results as time goes on. The hard part is each lake has it's own characteristics that make it what it is- some tweaking is going to help and also hurt, it's going to be trial and error with always continuos changes.


maybe not just for "#2" proangler, but for the entire big picture... this is what I think is important for us all to grasp- there's no magic wand in managing all 100+ fisheries, what is guiding regulations is where it's at and what responses have been measured thus far with past and current regulations, make some changes according to the desired potential, add the data and move onward hopefully progressing these and future efforts along the way.



> but it seems to me the states with great bass fisheries also have some sort of season. We all know Erie is a world class smallmouth fishery&#8230;. So why is there a season on Lake Erie bass in Ohio??


I can answer that specific to the data presented, it dealt strictly with inland waterways...Erie is an entire beast in and of itself. Prior to gobies...predation wasn't much of an issue. The smallies possession time frame regs of recent years, I believe were indeed reported at the meeting to be indicating a positive response on ERIE (a massive great lakes ecosystem... w/ a gobie infestation).

*Personally* on closed seasons ...I don't see it. It doesn't add up to me- never did. Number crunching electroshocks and tourney results just on my own of many NE Ohio waters (Moggie,LaDue,Mosquito) does more than just hold a candle to the brilliant lights we shine onto neighboring states' bass populations when we make a drive or two! 

Carrying capacities of each system are limited...closed seasons or not. Any fishery can only support so many pounds of basses.

The proposed strategic regulations could address those lakes where crowding might not allow the full, faster potential of growth...of fish that are ALREADY there and were not reported to show problem issues of future recruitment.

I really wish I took some more notes now.... way too much for me to regurgitate accurately. I'd love to spell out some of the long term data compiled from Knox lake that has been "trophy" managed if you will, by way of size limit regs...and has no closed season.

MAYBE... this is a great time to remind DOW of the importance of an online review...


> they could post their powerpoint presentation online with commentary from say Ray Petering or Scott Hale


 :Banane09:


----------



## JignPig Guide

Nipiddee has done a great job with this post. 
And I don't have much to add, other than how impressed I was with the presentation and data that was given at the Division of Wildlife Ohio Bass Forum.

Here are my 2-cents worth on this discussion:
* Since the angling communities/tournament organizations and the Ohio Division of Wildlife have the lake specific data that is required to enact one regulation or another, then any regulation should be lake specific.
And we all can agree with Nipididdee regarding the carrying capacity of each system is limited onto itself. But not only the carrying capacity, but also: the recruitment/reproduction rate, predominant size of bass, habitat, forage, and all other biological factors are lake specific.
So in my opinion... Any regulation enacted (regardless of what it is) should be lake specific.


----------



## Putzin

2 under 15" and 2 over 15" for a tournament? Really? The *biggest, strongest, fastest, smartest* have always been attributes of winners in sports. For fishing tournaments it's been the heaviest weight for you five heaviest fish. I know changing the rules would have a different meaning on the heaviest bag, best angler, and fishing methods, I get that. My point is: from a traditional best of the best scenario, the absoulte best wouldn't be the best anymore. The best would be the best at being mediocre. The best would now be the guys who could catch two great average fish & add two more bigger fish? Does that really signify the best angler that day? What about the guy that has the ability to catch a 20lb bag, w/ nothing under 15", but is restricted from bringing it in? Again, I understand changes in rules would indicate different fishing methods.


----------



## Nipididdee

Therein is the "paradigm shift" Putzn'- it'd be game changing from the bionic angler you described to more of a strategic factor...or I'd even argue lucky:clover:, when it came to winning a tournament in that scenerio.

Conversely- in a combined team format (as many pointed out) now you are at not so much of a factor, and opening the door to fish under the lakes previous 15" min. regs to more weighin opportunities for all anglers.

Jignpig- I think that is indeed the sweetest part of their data- lake specfic. Then as not to confuse the public with multiple regs that would take an attorney in the boat to figure - grouping the waters into the 3 proposed strategies.

Most still won't know their boat number or chekin time though...


----------



## Cull'in

Putzin said:


> 2 under 15" and 2 over 15" for a tournament? Really? The *biggest, strongest, fastest, smartest* have always been attributes of winners in sports. For fishing tournaments it's been the heaviest weight for you five heaviest fish. I know changing the rules would have a different meaning on the heaviest bag, best angler, and fishing methods, I get that. My point is: from a traditional best of the best scenario, the absoulte best wouldn't be the best anymore. The best would be the best at being mediocre. The best would now be the guys who could catch two great average fish & add two more bigger fish? Does that really signify the best angler that day? What about the guy that has the ability to catch a 20lb bag, w/ nothing under 15", but is restricted from bringing it in? Again, I understand changes in rules would indicate different fishing methods.


It is hard to imagine sack'n two pigs then going "dink" hunting!

How bout tell'in your buddy in the back, "Buckle down and fish hard, we need two under 15 inches if we're gonna have a shot at this thing!" 

On the bright side, Murphy's Law always applies to tournament fishing so about the time your trying to catch two under all you'll be able to catch is giants!!!


----------



## JF1

Northeast ohio angler here.

1) I would have no problem with a 4 fish limit as opposed to 5.

2) I don't like the idea of 2 under/ 2 over. I'm not sure that this would honestly improve the fisheries. I would have to see research supporting where it has made a difference. 

3) I don't think competitive angling would change for me. Obviously if rule #2 was adopted, strategy would change but that is the only difference it would make to me.

Additionally, I am against a closed season. I have been in OH for only 2 years moving from western pa and I feel like we just as good, if not better bass fisheries than they. I also see an extreme difference in the competitve side of the sport. Many more tournament trails, more clubs, and more guys who fish competetively as a whole. I'm sure this is in large part due to the longer tournament season we have. It is shortened enough due to ice on the water, imagine if we could only fish the first week of april, and no more tournies until late june/early july.

What about a program similar to the "share a lunker" program in TX, only make the size restrictions smaller? This would help to keep a stronger gene pool by breeding the bigger fish??


----------



## Richman

I could tolerate a reduced limit if it is proven it would have a positive effect on the fishery. It seems by what is being proposed that DOW is intimating that tournaments are having a negative effect on the fishery? Show me the data on tournament mortality

No on size limits...no reason for two over and two under if the fish are dieing because they are being handled it makes no differnce if they are over or under

Any new regs would not affect my tournament fishing as it would apply to all who compete. However I would hope that the regs would be based on biologic data versus public demand or perception

I'm not sure why stocking is off the table? (We stock muskie,walleye, saugeye, wipers, etc)

Let's recap the real issue..... 
The most sought after fish...
Affected by unstable water levels during the spawn(ODNR has no control)...

Why not help mother nature when a flood occurs on the river or the Corps manipulates water levels that may cost us a total year class on any of our waterways?


----------



## Cull'in

Regarding water levels....

The Corp of Engineers has worked with the ODNR regarding water level at Berlin in relation to the walleye spawn, in fact the ODNR has requested in the past that Berlin be drawn down to a certain level in the fall/winter to flush sediment from walleye spawning areas...


----------



## JignPig Guide

Richman said:


> I could tolerate a reduced limit if it is proven it would have a positive effect on the fishery. It seems by what is being proposed that DOW is intimating that tournaments are having a negative effect on the fishery?
> 
> Let's recap the real issue.....
> The most sought after fish...
> Affected by unstable water levels during the spawn(ODNR has no control)...
> 
> Why not help mother nature when a flood occurs on the river or the Corps manipulates water levels that may cost us a total year class on any of our waterways?


At the 2009 Ohio Bass Forum, the Ohio Department of Wildlife had not alluded or suggested that tournament anglers have a negative affect on fisheries. The reality is the opposite of what you're suggesting. The reality is... The DOW respects the opinions of the tournament anglers and the recreational anglers. And uses their data to better manage the fish management & research efforts throughout Ohio's inland waterways.

But Richman, you are absolutely correct when you suggested the Corp of engineers manipulation of water levels has a negative affect on year class losses. That is one of the biggest obstacles we Ohio bass anglers face. If we could get a few representative of the Corp of engineers to attend a session of the Ohio Bass Forum, it may help us. But from what I understand, their turnover rate of personnel is not condusive for a long term relationship with the DOW folks and the angling public.


----------



## Tom Uber

Nip.

I greatly appreciate the work you've done with this post. I am really encouraged the the ODNR has taken the opinions and comments of Ohio's bass anglers to heart. We all know that our fisheries could use as much help as possible.

1)Pertaining to a reduced bag limit, I am not opposed as it would really only change tactics for individual events. I am most in favor of making that regulation applied to a limited number of lakes as you mentioned in the later post. 5 fish for 12 inches is a good standard for most of Ohio's reserviors. Berlin and Alum creek for example have a strong population of both largemouths and smallmouths. However, the shorter growth season prevents a large population of fish reaching over 15 inches.

2) Having 2 over and 2 under 15 inches in select lakes only makes for better weighins at team tournament, while it changes strategy a bit for individual events. Fishing alone being allowed only 2 above the 15 inch mark, and 2 between 12 and 15 would be interesting. We could see more tournaments on Milton and Salt fork. In the team format you would still be able to weigh 4 fish over 15 inches, and let's face it. Catching four 15 inch fish in Ohio is a challenge on most days. Being forced to weigh in one 12 incher wouldn't really affect many bags.

Tom


----------



## Richman

JigNPig.......thanks for the clarification.

I must then assume that harvest by non-tourney anglers versus natural reproduction is out of balance to the detriment of the fishery? 

If we only concentrate on the angler-harvest side of the equation....then we only have half the picture. 

If loss of year class is an issue, or if harvest is too high, why can the population not be supplemented with stocking? Am I missing something? Is this a policy statement by DOW that they will not stock black bass?

Rich


----------



## Nipididdee

Richman- checkout the entire discussions in this thread and hopefully this will clear things up for you giving you a broader picture to your questions. 

Recruitment isn't the issue, there are good years, great years and poor years-harvesting is expected by all anglers, even pretty well measured through a variety of efforts of the Division, and part of the equation into developing strategic regulations to improve many fisheries that show promise.

Specific to the Corp. of Engineers...their mission is geared towards flood control and water cupply. They follow their directives under authority other than the DOW. 

In a perfect world it be great to see a healthy balance... last I checked, quite a bit of growth remains until the world is perfect, despite the Christmas holiday 

*For anyone just joining this thread... I can't stress enough how important it is to sit down with it, read and re-read.

There is a whole lot of opinions, information and discussion to digest. Starting from the begining will provide some continuity of flow.*


----------



## Marshall

First off i am happy that the dnr is looking at trying to improve our fisheries. 
Im still liking the 5 fish limit on healthy reservoirs with good populations of bass. If a 4 fish limit will improve the fishery im for it, just not statewide. I would rather stay away from the 2 under 15" and 2 over 15" theory. This could get confusing going from one lake to the next. I know this is not all about tournaments but the overall fishery. Tournaments are won by total weight caught so if someone was on some real good fish they could not finish at the top even though they found the better fish. It would change how tournaments are fished and would have contraversial endings. One thing im not in favor of which you did not mention is team tournaments where you are allowed more than 5 bass. So if there was a 4 fish limit per angler you may see a team tourney allowing 8 bass to weigh in. I have fished these types of tourneys and have benefitted from them but don't feel it is good for the fish. 5 fish is enough to put in the livewell. 

Im a believer in good habitat = good bass fishery. The more suitable habitat the better the bass population. I don't have many weedy lakes around me but the ones i do fish seem to have more bass in them. Ohio's lakes are old and siltation is a huge problem effecting habitat in general. So i get the reason the dnr does not stock bass. Without habitat improvement the lake cannot hold more bass. Improving habitat is more than just cutting a few trees down on the bank and planting a few brushpiles. Some lakes are just better suited to having better bass populations based on food supply and structure(transitions in lake bottom, channels,hard bottoms and spawning flats etc.) This we have no control over unless we can stop the sediment issues and its too late for many of our reservoirs.

Either way its good to see that the dnr is working with the people to try to improve our fisheries wether i understand their thoughts or not. Something is better than nothing.


----------



## norseangler

1.Would you support a reduced daily bag limit of 4 fish?

2.What if that bag limit was to be 2 fish under 15" and 2 fish over 15"?

3. (opinion?) How would competitive bass angling change for you if these regulations above were in place.

Great thread! Wish I had known about the meeting. To answer the original 3 questions: 1) Yes, on lakes where the data indicates such a need. 2) Don't particularly like it; it would seem most of its effect would be predicated on bass being kept, which most bass anglers don't do. (then we get into the delayed mortality issue, which requires concrete data). 3) probably not much. I mostly fish club tournaments, not opens or circuits.
Bottom line: I like the idea of a 12-inch/5 fish baseline with variations based on specific lake conditions. For example, Dillon has a track record showing it will support a big population of 12-inch bass, but doesn't produce trophies, despite the forage base. It has a lot of tournament pressure, but the fishing remains quite consistent (ups and downs occur, of course, but after 45 years of fishing it (35 of it for bass), i'd say its producing more bass over 15 inches these days than I remember in most years. Therefore, it seems the 12\5 works just fine. Other lakes? each has different problems and strengths.


----------



## Nipididdee

norse and marshall- great posts! You both sound like you were at the discussions we had.

To expand a little as well. The end of the meeting in both instances were devoted to organizational fish handling practices and indirectly, delayed mortality.

Many of us at the meeting urged for recommendations to be in place for any organization handling fish...to reduce overall mortality, especially that which we don't see - delayed mortality.

Specifically oxygen levels in livewells and weigh bags were addressed. Which is accepted as a HUGE contributing factor to delayed mortality.

The Federation guys had used an O2 meter to show the actual PPM in anglers livewells, and their bags last season as they trailered and brought fish to scales. 

For organizations that do not provide *well areated holding/line tanks* and make participants wait in line with just bags- there is a real potential problem.

O2 levels begin to PLUMMET quickly in bags as we await to weigh. Even with the best O2 treated water going into it from the livewell, lethal depreciated levels of O2 usually occurr in less than a few minutes.

We all like to "feel" like we are doing the right things simply because we do indeed care- but as anglers/particpants who holds the fish a majority of the day- if you aren't running areators constantly, ice downs on water above 75 degrees and assisting with methods of reducing stress on held fish...you are increasing the chances of death post release.

If you are running events and don't provide access to treated tanks THAT ANGLERS MUST USE , fish _just_ held in a bag, present a high liklihood of having a tougher recovery post release...leading to more delayed mortality issues, arguably some real problematic ones. 

Otherwise- most events at this day and age regionally are making top notch efforts to minimize the risk.

Here's some things we do organizationally at our events:
http://www.dobass.com/live/together.html

nip


----------



## basscat10

nip,

what is your oppinion good or bad odnr poss regs
changes. you are tap dancing


----------



## Nipididdee

No tapping here. 

I completely support their goals and objectives via the use of the proposed regulatory measures.

I smell some of my favorite waterways possibly turning into trophy managed lakes. From a promotional standpoint it would kind of stink, but I would be interested to see the final numbers in the years ahead compared to what a standard 5/12 reg has done. I'd be willing to go through a decade or so of them crunching it out to see if indeed the practices can do what other similar trophy managed lakes have done. If there are significant measurable improvements in numbers and quality of fish compared to what these lakes have done since being built...I'm in.

No question a 5/12 reg is easiest for me as a director. There's no change (bass anglers hate change)- it allows anglers into the sport without them getting spooked thus, further developing their angling quests. You measure the shortest fish in the bump tank and the rest are good- quick, easy, and "the standard".

The 2&2 reg will be challenging at many directions from running an event perspective. There will be a lot of counting at the bump board- longer measuring times and I think it also invites "the enemy" into our group, something we indeed must overcome. Competitive solo anglers just well stay home in most of the team formats regionally. BUT- do I think it will improve bass angling according to the goals and objectives of the state- I do. There are also some advantages to it if applied to current lakes with any already
15" reg - it might open up waters for us we would usually never attend.

Bottom line. Implementation of the regs will have been slow, studied and allowed for input. I'm a bass angler- I don't always like change, but I'm willing to roll with it after what I have seen. The intentions are solid, purposeful and proven- not to mention implemented by an exceptional team.

Bring closed seasons into the equation and then I start organizing, calling/writing politicians, standing naked outside of DOW central office demanding open opportunity with my rod in hand 

nip


----------



## mikeshookset

no tapping here either 10 more years of the same ole same ole will just give us more lakes like saltfork and wolf run. i dont understand how when some thing fails on a small scale how doing the same thing on a bigger scale will do any thing but be a bigger failure. and give them anouther 10 years to prove it? when was the last state record bass caught in a slot lake or 15 inch lake in ohio? if odnr is so set on a trophy lake maybe they should build one thats not a water control lake and keep speed boats and water skies of of it and make it a catch and release lake only .


----------



## Nipididdee

Actually Mike, the trophy management regulatory practices in the last 10 or so years in select Ohio lakes have showed great promise to do just that, further enhance trophy bass fishing. The numbers are there...shocking actually! I know I intend to spend some time on Knox next season!!!

You might be surprised at the density rate and catch per effort rates pre/during and post the 15" managment on a variety of regulated lakes.

Indeed though, the "slot" has room for improvement to meet the goal. One of the guiding principles of the 2&2 reg is to promote faster growth rates in those waters.

Nature takes time- you can't see the big picture in just a couple/few years. Regulations have transcended from early 1900's until present with many changes in between.

Make sure you attend in 2010! It's pretty cool stuff.


----------



## Cull'in

Nipididdee said:


> Make sure you attend in 2010! It's pretty cool stuff.


Can anyone attend?

Where can I see all the research results (electroshocking, surveys...) and data?
Anything online?


----------



## Nipididdee

The invite emails sent have been pretty comprehensive with CC's to almost every director I know (and didnt know) and those involved with sport fishing from a promo position. I doubt they can facilitate a "public" invite- but I'm sure if you express interests they will accomodate.

Here is "raw data" from tournament reports link:
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Home/Fis...der/fishingobfdefault/tabid/6145/Default.aspx

Their electroshock data is more in a prospective forecast, opposed to that like from PA linked in the other thread, but it has plenty of numbers:
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Home/Fis...w/fishingprospectsd3/tabid/18253/Default.aspx

The data from the forum is not online...YET! 



> Maybe we can persuade one of them to give us some of the goodies they presented this past weekend... maybe they could post their powerpoint presentation online with commentary from say Ray Petering or Scott Hale...


Just start emailing everyone who publishes something online that catches your eye culln' - I have been impressed with the willingness of many folks from accross the county these past years returning emails to my specific questions from their research. Find a few here and there, who are passionate about helping laypeople understand what their findings were. Some have actually called me out of the blue- not just Ohio, any state wildlife agency, interns,profs,etc.


----------



## Triton20X

Nipididdee, 

You do know you have more faith in the state's fishery management than about 90% of bass anglers right?

It's a tough sell no doubt. Perhaps the state needs to set up a series of public info meetings specifically on our inland bass waters. I think guys would show up in droves. Just looking at the links you provided, there is not enough specific info available, at least not enough to answer some of the tough questions guys have.

I know tournaments are a great source of info for the state but why would tournament anglers be a focus of proposing size and bag limits? Sure it might change how we fish or approach events but when it comes to actually affecting the body of water the state should probably focus on the anglers who harvest the fish for food. That's where the damage can and will be done.

I think we all appreciate the inclusion of tournament fishermen into any decision regarding bass but we're probably not sure the focus is in the right place.

Come on Ohio/DOW, if your really out there listening, speak to us. We *are *listening!


----------



## mikeshookset

Nipididdee said:


> The invite emails sent have been pretty comprehensive with CC's to almost every director I know (and didnt know) and those involved with sport fishing from a promo position. I doubt they can facilitate a "public" invite- but I'm sure if you express interests they will accomodate.
> 
> Here is raw data from tournament reports link:
> http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Home/Fis...der/fishingobfdefault/tabid/6145/Default.aspx
> 
> Their electroshock data is more in a prospective forecast, opposed to that like from PA linked inthe other thread, but it has plenty of numbers:
> http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Home/Fis...w/fishingprospectsd3/tabid/18253/Default.aspx
> 
> The data from the forum is not online...YET!
> 
> 
> 
> Just start emailing everyone who publishes something online that catches your eye culln' - I have been impressed with the willingness of many folks from accross the county these past years returning emails to my specific questions from their research. Find a few here and there, who are passionate about helping laypeople understand what their findings were. Some have actually called me out of the blue- not just Ohio, any state wildlife agency, interns,profs,etc.


good luck at knox lake since they opened it up to big boats its getting more pressure and making it harder to catch 18 inch fish than it was when it was a 9.9 lake. if the idea of slot limmits and 15 or 18 inch limmits is to reduce fishing pressure then they will get that job done as guys wont tournament fish those waters. numbers are a funny thing . they can be controlled by where the information comes from and how its used. i keep bringing up saltfork and wolfrun for a reason. the 15 inch limmit and slot limmit did not work there so why keep those regs in place on waters where it dont work? instead they want to add more lakes to the same path. the links you posted has some funny information in it. like what did electroshocking the kidds pond at berlin prove? i have seen tournament fishermen dump thier fish in there for the kidds wich isnt a bad thing to help keep kidds interested but electro shoking it was a wast of money and time we know there are fish in it.on tappen they say there is very little shore line cover? what do they think the chunk rock all the way down 250 is? and its no secret that there is a ton of bass takin off of it every year. did they say what lakes they want to impose these regs on? i would venture to say that if they put em on lakes like tappen mosquito portage that thier phone will ring off the hook. if they want to try regs on a couple new lakes and take em off the lakes where it didnt work fine maybe they will eventually find a lake that it works on but simply adding more lakes and asking for anouther 10 years is way to much to ask.


----------



## mikeshookset

Cull'in said:


> Can anyone attend?
> 
> Where can I see all the research results (electroshocking, surveys...) and data?
> Anything online?


i dont think that they will ever open these meettings up to the general public because it would be way to hard for them to answer all the questions that they would be hammered with.


----------



## Nipididdee

Triton- you're talkn' to a guy who trusts no one, it's my character and further developed from working in criminal justice field for 15+ years. I even expressed this at the first DOW meeting...heck I still don't trust 'em- or you 

I also know bass anglers. I have a feel for how they tick- I am one.

I know the scientific types as well- always pickn' things apart- how I despise the "professionals" always purporting answers about the delinquents I work with and backing it with nonsensable data when I'm in the field living it.

I just try to educate myself on what I can in any situation. Use some common sense. Go into things objectively and make the best judgements I can...then work it, and work it hard, making adjustments as I go for the best outcomes that I can foresee.

There are no real answers to most anything. You just have to play your role in the big picture and make things happen with the best information you have.

BTW- "pressure" to me is a manmade term.  I don't subscribe to "pressure"- we aren't that powerful in my world, short of mass pollutive type scenerios.

Tournament anglers are just a segment of the DOW entire view and public they serve. In no way do they feel we are a detriment- quite the opposite, hence our inclusion. Tournament anglers have provided them with massive amounts of long term data.

Again- regs aren't a magic wand, but there are things I can do as a promoter and angler. 

No doubt my biggest impact could be unintentionally killing a majority of the fish we handle annually by not having appropriate holding systems.

I can provide my groups angling data annually to assist in real samplings. 

I can also attempt to disseminate information before it hits the shelves to the masses- take "the enemy" out of it and hopefully get others to play what ever role they have in the sphere of it all ; before-during and after.

I just hope it all works out  for anglers particularly... and I hope the DOW is hearing everyone's take.

Mike- Knox lake has so many bigbass in it now the bullfrogs had to move to Licking county, possibly why they shocked the pond at Berlin...bullfrog movement with growing populations of black basses.

Mark my words too- any meetings would end up with fewer than 10 people in attendance unless they were giving away coffee in the morning, hot dogs in the afternoon and raffling a 50/50 for a rod or something...


----------



## mikeshookset

Nipididdee said:


> Triton- you're talkn' to a guy who trusts no one, it's my character and further developed from working in criminal justice field for 15+ years. I even expressed this at the first DOW meeting...heck I still don't trust 'em- or you
> 
> I also know bass anglers. I have a feel for how they tick- I am one.
> 
> I know the scientific types as well- always pickn' things apart- how I despise the "professionals" always purporting answers about the delinquents I work with and backing it with nonsensable data when I'm in the field living it.
> 
> I just try to educate myself on what I can in any situation. Use some common sense. Go into things objectively and make the best judgements I can...then work it, and work it hard, making adjustments as I go for the best outcomes that I can foresee.
> 
> There are no real answers to most anything. You just have to play your role in the big picture and make things happen with the best information you have.
> 
> BTW- "pressure" to me is a manmade term.  I don't subscribe to "pressure"- we aren't that powerful in my world, short of mass pollutive type scenerios.
> 
> Tournament anglers are just a segment of the DOW entire view and public they serve. In no way do they feel we are a detriment- quite the opposite, hence our inclusion. Tournament anglers have provided them with massive amounts of long term data.
> 
> Again- regs aren't a magic wand, but there are things I can do as a promoter and angler.
> 
> No doubt my biggest impact could be unintentionally killing a majority of the fish we handle annually by not having appropriate holding systems.
> 
> I can provide my groups angling data annually to assist in real samplings.
> 
> I can also attempt to disseminate information before it hits the shelves to the masses- take "the enemy" out of it and hopefully get others to play what ever role they have in the sphere of it all ; before-during and after.
> 
> I just hope it all works out  for anglers particularly... and I hope the DOW is hearing everyone's take.
> 
> Mike- Knox lake has so many bigbass in it now the bullfrogs had to move to Licking county, possibly why they shocked the pond at Berlin...bullfrog movement with growing populations of black basses.
> 
> Mark my words too- any meetings would end up with fewer than 10 people in attendance unless they were giving away coffee in the morning, hot dogs in the afternoon and raffling a 50/50 for a rod or something...


 whats bullfrogs and licking county have to do with the pond at berlin ? lol. how many people was at the meetting you was at? since they return all of your phone calls how about getting us a answer to why they leave 15 inch and slot limmits on lakes when it hasnt helped. and do i smell a n.o.a.a tournament on knox in the future? they could get the coffee hotdogs and a rod donated to them if thats what it takes lol but they need to use the profits from the 50/50 to stock bass and not use it to shock the kidds pond at berlin lol


----------



## mikeshookset

ok i do give credit where credit is due. i talked with a friend of mine that is in the federation that goes to the meettings in columbus.. the state in conjunction with the federation is working with spawning areas in a couple lakes with mud bottoms and a couple pools on the ohio river. when the subject of the amish not respecting game laws comes up its said to be politcal and a sticky subject. i have nothing against religion but they should be forced to go by the same laws the rest of us do on state property or stay off of it. why should we pay tax dollars and then watch a few people do what they want when they dont have any money in it? isnt that kinda like buying a house then have the people next door come over and do what they want and then tell you its thier religion so you cant do a thing about it? the federationn has also argued the 15 inch and slot limmits. what i got from the conversation is that the federation also feels that more 15 inch lakes and slot limmits will hurt tournament angling.


----------



## bman

Im a Central Ohio fisherman who occasionally fishes small scale/local open bass tournaments.

*1.Would you support a reduced daily bag limit of 4 fish?* Yes

*2.What if that bag limit was to be 2 fish under 15" and 2 fish over 15"?* Not statewideonly if applied on select waters

*3. How would competitive bass angling change for you if these regulations above were in place. * It wouldnt. I would continue to occasionally fish local open tourneys and just follow whatever rules were in place at that lake.

*Some additional questions:*
1.)Do saugeye populations decrease the biomass/carrying capacity of a lakes bass population? In other words, do saugeye compete directly with bass and have an impact on bass population?

2.)How much does the state spend on saugeye stockings annually? Muskie annually?

3.)How does the DNR regulate/monitor/manage tournament fishing (all species not just bass) in Ohio waters? Are there maximum tournament #s allowed by lake, by day? By year?

*Some additional comments:*
1.)I grew up in the Chicago, Illinois metro area and fished there all my life until I moved here 10 years ago. Shockingly, the bass fishing in Illinois is much better than here in central Ohio. That counts the 120 mile radius SW of Chicago. Hands down, no question about it. The better bass lakes in Illinois have steady water levels, huge shad populations and many (but not all) have some form of vegetation or tons of stumps/wood.

2.)Related to my saugeye questions above - I surprised at the huge emphasis placed on building saugeye fisheries in Ohio. They seem to be in just about every lake/river in Ohio. Anecdotally, I feel the state could better-balance the resources spent on saugeye fisheries vs. bass fisheriesor maybe it is in balance? I dont know. Would be interested in seeing some numbers on this  maybe its just a myth we can debunk. Even outside of dollars and sense, I also have a hard time believing the extensive saugeye fisheries many Ohio lakes dont have a negative impact on the bass fisheries (carrying capacity/biomass.)

3.)Closed seasonsIm not a fan of a perpetual, statewide closed season (although thats a part of both Wisconsins and Michigans bass management programs  both highly successful IMO but very different types of lakes than what we have in Ohio.) That being said, I would be in favor of cycling some of our lakes for tournaments. Our Central Ohio lakes get a ton of tourney pressure every weekend (heck, even weekdays now) all spring, summer and fall. I fish some tourneys so Im not an anti-tourney guy, but you cant tell me 20 boats fishing a 300 acre lake like Griggs during the spring spawn doesnt have an impact. None of the bass weighed in during the spawn that were on beds make it back to their beds. Why not cycle some of the lakes on a year-to-year basis for tourney fishing? I sense this is the elephant in the room in this thread but figured Id put it out there again.

4.)Lake-specific regulations / carrying capacityhugely in favor of lake-specific regulations. The carrying capacity isnt the same at each lake. Im excited about the Griggs and OShay watershed improvement projects  particularly to manage sedimentation and runoff. Should help those fisheries some (not to mention our drinking water!) Alum Creek is a structure fishing haven but I too think the bass fishing is underwhelming for whatever reason. It should be able to carry an excellent population of largemouth and smallmouth, but its just OK in my book. I would also be a fan of more lakes being managed as trophy fisheries but not limit them to only low-or-no horsepower lakes.

Whats funny is the worse the bass fishing is in Ohio, the more I want to fish tourneys. Its the only way I can get excited about spending my Saturday mornings catching a handful of 12-14 fish! The competition factor makes it fun.

*Nip * thanks for creating this forum/thread. Awesome reading and good to be able to voice an opinion on something we all love (bass fishing.) If the scope of my post goes beyond what you intended this thread for, let me know with a PM and Ill delete my personal comments/thoughts.


----------



## Cull'in

bman said:


> 3.)Closed seasonsIm not a fan of a perpetual, statewide closed season (although thats a part of both Wisconsins and Michigans bass management programs  both highly successful IMO but very different types of lakes than what we have in Ohio.) That being said, I would be in favor of cycling some of our lakes for tournaments. Our Central Ohio lakes get a ton of tourney pressure every weekend (heck, even weekdays now) all spring, summer and fall. I fish some tourneys so Im not an anti-tourney guy, but you cant tell me 20 boats fishing a 300 acre lake like Griggs during the spring spawn doesnt have an impact. None of the bass weighed in during the spawn that were on beds make it back to their beds. Why not cycle some of the lakes on a year-to-year basis for tourney fishing? I sense this is the elephant in the room in this thread but figured Id put it out there again.



Interesting thought.

Nip?


----------



## Basscat2

I don't know about everyone, but i know there isn't a ton of lakes in NE Ohio for bass tournys. Yes they're at every lake in some form or another ,but in NE ohio we have about 5 lakes for the big boats. Bass boats most guys take mortgages out on! And to even talk about closed seasons your NUTS.

YES I want the best for our public waters, but there has to be many more ways to go about this. 

If people keep bringing up C----d seasons thats giving you know who more crazy ideas.

If people think the fishing is so bad here and better somewhere else, go somewhere else. (Just my opinion)


----------



## Cull'in

Basscat2 said:


> I don't know about everyone, but i know there isn't a ton of lakes in NE Ohio for bass tournys. Yes they're at every lake in some form or another ,but in NE ohio we have about 5 lakes for the big boats. Bass boats most guys take mortgages out on! And to even talk about closed seasons your NUTS.
> 
> YES I want the best for our public waters, but there has to be many more ways to go about this.
> 
> If people keep bringing up C----d seasons thats giving you know who more crazy ideas.
> 
> If people think the fishing is so bad here and better somewhere else, go somewhere else. (Just my opinion)


Don't get closed season confused with catch and release only(a la PA. and NY regs)!!!

Regardless neither will probably ever happen in Ohio so you can rest easy.

I think you might be missing bman's point. He seems to be talking about cycling tournaments among different lakes at different times of the season (mainly spring I presume).
For example, maybe one year the state not issuing any tournament permits for Mosquito until after June then maybe the following year doing the same thing at Berlin, etc...
Not avoiding them completely.

Might be a decent option on some bodies of water, that would be the DOW's call.


----------



## Procraftboats21

hopefully you guys can make something of my rambling... here it goes


Not every lake in the spring has the water clarity for sight fishing for the females, lots of variables here but mainly heavy spring rains and some lakes are just flat out not clear enough... now i know the females can still get picked off by traditional fishing methods but the impact would be greater in lakes with clear water... (portage)

I don't think anyone can argue the amount of sight fishing the goes on at portage in the spring, then again I don't think anyone can argue the bags this place still kicks out year after year and the amount of solid fish is higher than most lakes in NEO.

Taking females off the beds no doubt has to hurt the population but it doesn't seem to show it. I think the ungodly amount of bass in the lake masks it


----------



## flwboy2010

Maybe a thought,TDs should stop trying to target lakes during the peak spawning time.Every one wants to catch fish and its pretty easy when there on fry.Each lake is different and the TDs have it down on when to fish which lake.Its up to the fisherman because the DOW doesnt care about bass all they do is stock muskie and walleye.


----------



## JignPig Guide

bman said:


> Im a Central Ohio fisherman who occasionally fishes small scale/local open bass tournaments.
> 
> [4.)Lake-specific regulations / carrying capacityhugely in favor of lake-specific regulations. The carrying capacity isnt the same at each lake. Im excited about the Griggs and OShay watershed improvement projects  particularly to manage sedimentation and runoff. Should help those fisheries some (not to mention our drinking water!) Alum Creek is a structure fishing haven but I too think the bass fishing is underwhelming for whatever reason. It should be able to carry an excellent population of largemouth and smallmouth, but its just OK in my book. I would also be a fan of more lakes being managed as trophy fisheries but not limit them to only low-or-no horsepower lakes.


Good post bman. 
I agree with your lake-specific vote. It just seems sort-of easy to me. An angler just looks at the regulation sheet, or the sign at the launch ramp.


----------



## Nipididdee

BMAN, excellent fresh thoughts!

Much of what you spoke of is WAY outa my league to even think of answering. I'd hate to play scrabble with your kind  Mike is on though 

I can say this. Given the top targeted species by all Ohio anglers being bass, the DOW provides it's services and funding appropriately towards them- as well other sport fish such as saugeyes,trout (yuk!),muskies,eyes,etc.

Two things struck accord with me that you brought up and was also discussed previously or at the recent meeting. 

The importance of consistent water levels for strong year class spawns.

The other, no "blanket" regs, rather lake specific. I agree totally and commented on this at meeting one. You do have to consider though how the total angling group might respond with 100 different regs- confusion  I think this has impacted the grouping if you will of certain waters exhibiting certain traits, and now the three proposed strategic regs.

The "elephant in the room" is pretty small to me.


> None of the bass weighed in during the spawn that were on beds make it back to their beds.


 is inaccurate. There is a lifetime worth of discussion and research on this- it usually goes the "chevy-ford" route. We all know Chevy's are better so I'll stop there 

C&R seasons- closed seasons- cycling seasons, etc. just serve no purpose other than masturbating the massess. So many other uncontrolled factors mean so much more in the totality of it's goal, it'd be a dumb luck variable that is controlled only for appeasement.

*Subjective ramble follows...*

Central Ohio bass fishing does stink, I agree with you. Many Dist.3 waters are downright amazing fisheries. They all have been managed by DOW. 

We are seeing year class cycles right now in Mosquito that first reared their heads in 2005 events with 7-8lb limit bags galore. Everyone complained about the "golden years" of Mosquito of 13-15lb bags...well, here we go again, nature cycling. 

This season most likely will result in even more mortgages refinanced to catch this perdominant year class(es) fish that are going to hit 3+ lbs. 

They did this with all the tourney "pressure"- open seasons, amish lol, bankfishermen keeping all the fish running out of our release area  , birds, lack of consistant weeds, walleyes being stocked, events during the spawn, need I go onward.

If you really get in tune with places like LaDue and Moggie- oh my. 

I can tell you the biggest survival of fingerling basses I have ever seen was at lado this season. 5-7 years from now, pending the cycle of nature between now and then, you'll see those fish show up again as they have in 03,04,05 as giant field weight averages. Nature does all of this despite our interventions. 

Moggie is just downright sick with 3lbrs the past two years and 15 minutes from my driveway to the first cast  Those surviving in the next couple few years will be the horses that she is famous for.

Both these waterways are further referenced by what we "see" and what is shocked during samplings - often catchable fish and whats really in there are two different things.

Maybe Portage is one of nine canal system waterways in Ohio and it's consistant water levels impact the fishery.

_Can we credit the DOW involvement with these lakes for what's happening? Or can we only discredit them when it's bad and ugly._

It's "the enemy" talking usually in my book.

Sometimes tournament bass anglers are indeed their own worst enemy.

nip


----------



## Triton20X

nip, 
if the DOW ever needs a poster boy, your their man!

Mogadore and Ladue...they've probably been successful because the DOW doesn't screw with them. The blanket 5-12" limit, a little electroshocking and that's it and of course lack of heavy pressure.

Mosquito. From good to bad and back again except you can count on two hands the number of fish exceeding 4lbs. each year. Whats the "natural" answer for that? Carrying capacity? Just because?

here's an idea for the DOW, move some of your manpower out of District 3 and put it in central and southern ohio where you can really maybe make an impact.

As far a catch and release or cycling season, probably 99% of bass only anglers practice catch and release all the time anyway so it's no big deal either way. 
I wouldn't expect a tournament director to be in favor of it, cuts down on business.


----------



## mikeshookset

Nipididdee said:


> BMAN, excellent fresh thoughts!
> 
> Much of what you spoke of is WAY outa my league to even think of answering. I'd hate to play scrabble with your kind  Mike is on though
> 
> I can say this. Given the top targeted species by all Ohio anglers being bass, the DOW provides it's services and funding appropriately towards them- as well other sport fish such as saugeyes,trout (yuk!),muskies,eyes,etc.
> 
> Two things struck accord with me that you brought up and was also discussed previously or at the recent meeting.
> 
> The importance of consistent water levels for strong year class spawns.
> 
> The other, no "blanket" regs, rather lake specific. I agree totally and commented on this at meeting one. You do have to consider though how the total angling group might respond with 100 different regs- confusion  I think this has impacted the grouping if you will of certain waters exhibiting certain traits, and now the three proposed strategic regs.
> 
> The "elephant in the room" is pretty small to me. is inaccurate. There is a lifetime worth of discussion and research on this- it usually goes the "chevy-ford" route. We all know Chevy's are better so I'll stop there
> 
> C&R seasons- closed seasons- cycling seasons, etc. just serve no purpose other than masturbating the massess. So many other uncontrolled factors mean so much more in the totality of it's goal, it'd be a dumb luck variable that is controlled only for appeasement.
> 
> *Subjective ramble follows...*
> 
> Central Ohio bass fishing does stink, I agree with you. Many Dist.3 waters are downright amazing fisheries. They all have been managed by DOW.
> 
> We are seeing year class cycles right now in Mosquito that first reared their heads in 2005 events with 7-8lb limit bags galore. Everyone complained about the "golden years" of Mosquito of 13-15lb bags...well, here we go again, nature cycling.
> 
> This season most likely will result in even more mortgages refinanced to catch this perdominant year class(es) fish that are going to hit 3+ lbs.
> 
> They did this with all the tourney "pressure"- open seasons, amish lol, bankfishermen keeping all the fish running out of our release area  , birds, lack of consistant weeds, walleyes being stocked, events during the spawn, need I go onward.
> 
> If you really get in tune with places like LaDue and Moggie- oh my.
> 
> I can tell you the biggest survival of fingerling basses I have ever seen was at lado this season. 5-7 years from now, pending the cycle of nature between now and then, you'll see those fish show up again as they have in 03,04,05 as giant field weight averages. Nature does all of this despite our interventions.
> 
> Moggie is just downright sick with 3lbrs the past two years and 15 minutes from my driveway to the first cast  Those surviving in the next couple few years will be the horses that she is famous for.
> 
> Both these waterways are further referenced by what we "see" and what is shocked during samplings - often catchable fish and whats really in there are two different things.
> 
> Maybe Portage is one of nine canal system waterways in Ohio and it's consistant water levels impact the fishery.
> 
> _Can we credit the DOW involvement with these lakes for what's happening? Or can we only discredit them when it's bad and ugly._
> 
> It's "the enemy" talking usually in my book.
> 
> Sometimes tournament bass anglers are indeed their own worst enemy.
> 
> nip


well since its on lol wheres our answer to why dow dont remove slots and 15 inch limmits from laKES THAT DONT WORK? is moggie or ladue a 15 inch lake or slot lake? how many tournaments are held on them? how many amish do you see on em taking what ever they want? did dow make ladue and moggie electric only lakes? what specificaly did dow do for ladue or moggie? if you can answer that question i would be glade to give them credit as i did in a earlyer post when i found out some thing good they did.


----------



## bman

> BMAN, excellent fresh thoughts!


Thank you.



> The "elephant in the room" is pretty small to me. is inaccurate. There is a lifetime worth of discussion and research on this- it usually goes the "chevy-ford" route. We all know Chevy's are better so I'll stop there
> 
> C&R seasons- closed seasons- cycling seasons, etc. just serve no purpose other than masturbating the massess. So many other uncontrolled factors mean so much more in the totality of it's goal, it'd be a dumb luck variable that is controlled only for appeasement.


This is reference to my statement that no bass on beds caught during a tourney ever goes back to their orignal bed. I'll give you this . .. .it's possible they do if the bed is near the release point but remember tourneys typically make the release area off limits to fishing so you aren't releasing anywhere near a bed you took a fish off of. Ask yourself this - what are the chances that a bass you took up at Hayden Run on Griggs on a bed returns to that bed when released at the launch area near the dam? No way, no how. We will agree to disagree on this one! 

Admittedly, I have only one study to reference. Several years back, the DNR or Ohio State (or both orgs??) did a study on catch and release bedding bass on Erie. The study was primarily done to measure the impact of goby predation on nests during the time the fish was away from the nest. Anyway, this was a C & R study and it was shocking the very high percentage of smallies that went back to their nests when immediately caught and released. For whatever reason, largemouth were not quite as good at going back to their nests - not a huge difference but noteworthy nonetheless. Bring that bass 1-5 miles from his nest and see if the bass gets back to his nest. Even if he does, there would likely be little if any eggs/fry left to guard.

A counter to my point would be that female bass often spawn with multiple males so taking a female and releasing her probably is better than taking the males, which are the primary nest defenders.

I certainly can't say without a doubt anything that resembled a closed honest bass fisherman would say their is absolutely *no* negative impact to the bass fishery by taking bedding bass either out of the lake or "relocating" them away from their nests for 2-4 days per week...I think the question is "how much is the impact?" Like everything in life, "it depends". Depends on the lake, actually. A closed season on a low density, small lake (Griggs) might make more sense (ie, more impact) than a closed season on a larger lake with a large carrying capacity (Alum or KY Lake-my favorite.) Alum is much larger and I'm going to guess has a whole lot more carrying capacity per square acre of water than Griggs.



> *Subjective ramble follows...*
> 
> Central Ohio bass fishing does stink, I agree with you. Many Dist.3 waters are downright amazing fisheries. They all have been managed by DOW.
> 
> We are seeing year class cycles right now in Mosquito that first reared their heads in 2005 events with 7-8lb limit bags galore. Everyone complained about the "golden years" of Mosquito of 13-15lb bags...well, here we go again, nature cycling.
> 
> This season most likely will result in even more mortgages refinanced to catch this perdominant year class(es) fish that are going to hit 3+ lbs.
> 
> They did this with all the tourney "pressure"- open seasons, amish lol, bankfishermen keeping all the fish running out of our release area  , birds, lack of consistant weeds, walleyes being stocked, events during the spawn, need I go onward.
> 
> If you really get in tune with places like LaDue and Moggie- oh my.
> 
> I can tell you the biggest survival of fingerling basses I have ever seen was at lado this season. 5-7 years from now, pending the cycle of nature between now and then, you'll see those fish show up again as they have in 03,04,05 as giant field weight averages. Nature does all of this despite our interventions.
> 
> Moggie is just downright sick with 3lbrs the past two years and 15 minutes from my driveway to the first cast  Those surviving in the next couple few years will be the horses that she is famous for.


I know one thing I'd like more than any change to regs and it's one we would all agree on . .. . here's my list:

1.) Weeds on Alum Creek!!!!! What HAPPENED to them? I fished it years ago with my father before I had my own boat and was shocked this season when I was barely able to find any sort of weed anywhere. Tell me it's because they have messed with the water levels and the weeds will come back again this season!!!!

2.) Improved water quality

My comparison to Illinois fishing was just to drive the point home that Illinois - in spite of MUCH greater fishing pressure - has some seriously decent bass fishing in and around the greater Chicago area. Talk about pressure...my father and I used to sleep overnight in the truck at the launch road gate on some of the power plant lakes just so we wouldn't have to wait our turn to get on the lake in the spring! The fishing pressure at Griggs and O'Shay and Alum don't even come close to the fishing pressure at some of my old Illinois fishing spots - yet the fishing is worse. I guess I can't understand why.

Last caveat - this past summer was my first as a boater in Ohio and really my first season fishing O'Shay, Griggs and Alum so I'm sure I've got a learning curve. That being said, most of the weights for the tourneys at Griggs and O'Shay were really weak this year - me included!!! Pretty unimpressive, and I think the other tourney guys fishing those two bodies of water would agree it was a light year.

I've enjoyed this thread - the good and the bad. Thanks again for starting it.


----------



## Nipididdee

man you guys are really stirring....that means your re-thinking...the paradigms are shifting lolololol 

Mike I have answered your question, several times actually. AND lado is the amish capital of the world it's beautiful to see a stringer of 5lbrs going home to someone who appreciates them 

Triton- DOW did nothing for ladue and moggie like everyone is asking for...that's the point, oops they did stock some channel cats- I hear that from the guys that blank "cats ate em"  ps- they did "nothing" for mosquito either...now you guys are starting to follow some natural thought...again if we discredit DOW for our lack of success, why can't we credit them for when things are good? ...our enemy- the same reasons we won't admit we saw Cullin's bait the day he won his ninth tournament of the season...and have it tied on at the next event  

Harvesting is measured and expected- that was presented early on. There is more to anglers than tournament folks- harvesting is important to regs- besides you guys gotta make up your mind in your arguments- which is it- something is harvesting all the fish or no one is harvesting them- typical bipolar bass swings I have heard ladue is the most pressured bassn' lake going...again, just another "enemy"

bman-


> I think the question is "how much is the impact?" Like everything in life, "it depends". Depends on the lake, actually.


 I couldnt have said it better-awesome! Like I commented to the silly walleye guy Bluedolphin- how many successfully spawning bass does it take to sucessfully regenerate year to year... it's a loaded question, and...I don't know an honest bass fisherman.

AND PLEASE..would someone tell me which day of the 61 in April and May all the fish are spawning, I'll be sure to not have a tournament. Really?

Stop think for a minute. When do the fish spawn? All at once?- what about prespawners,ok? OR just beatup post spawners guarding fry... when would holding those fish or relocating them have the biggest impact in the totality of it all?

I know that when water is above 75 degrees the liklihood of increasing post release mortality is very high,especially post spawn/early summer periods. How about I release 600, 3-7 year old fish after being held in the lowest O2 water of the season with an acceptable 72 hour survival rate of say 80%...which does more harm than good- increasing the number of those events or holding in cool water periods that nature spreads herself out with the spawn with 95-100% survival rates?

What if I didn't invest in holding tanks, filling them, treating them and didn't manage my bags- run a weekly event during summer months without it and trust me...bass anglers are doing their share of harvesting, if not the lions share. 

You guys are all awesome- this is the longest- most passionate thread to date in the tourney boards without Misfit having to close it.

Just please make sure you know your boat numbers...


----------



## mikeshookset

Nipididdee said:


> man you guys are really stirring....that means your re-thinking...the paradigms are shifting lolololol
> 
> Mike I have answered your question, several times actually. AND lado is the amish capital of the world it's beautiful to see a stringer of 5lbrs going home to someone who appreciates them
> 
> Triton- DOW did nothing for ladue and moggie like everyone is asking for...that's the point, oops they did stock some channel cats- I hear that from the guys that blank "cats ate em"  ps- they did "nothing" for mosquito either...now you guys are starting to follow some natural thought...again if we discredit DOW for our lack of success, why can't we credit them for when things are good? ...our enemy- the same reasons we won't admit we saw Cullin's bait the day he won his ninth tournament of the season...and have it tied on at the next event
> 
> Harvesting is measured and expected- that was presented early on. There is more to anglers than tournament folks- harvesting is important to regs- besides you guys gotta make up your mind in your arguments- which is it- something is harvesting all the fish or no one is harvesting them- typical bipolar bass swings I have heard ladue is the most pressured bassn' lake going...again, just another "enemy"
> 
> bman- I couldnt have said it better-awesome! Like I commented to the silly walleye guy Bluedolphin- how many successfully spawning bass does it take to sucessfully regenerate year to year... it's a loaded question, and...I don't know an honest bass fisherman.
> 
> AND PLEASE..would someone tell me which day of the 61 in April and May all the fish are spawning, I'll be sure to not have a tournament. Really?
> 
> Stop think for a minute. When do the fish spawn? All at once- what about prespawners,ok? OR just beatup post spawners guarding fry... when would holding those fish or relocating them have the biggest impact in the totality of it all?
> 
> I know that when water is above 75 degrees the liklihood of increasing post release mortality is very high,especially post spawn/early summer periods. How about I release 600, 3-7 year old fish after being held in the lowest O2 water of the season with an acceptable 72 hour survival rate of say 80%...which does more harm than good- increasing the number of those events or holding in cool water periods that nature spreads herself out with the spawn with 95-100% survival rates?
> 
> What if I didn't invest in holding tanks, filling them, treating them and didn't manage my bags- run a weekly event during summer months without it and trust me...bass anglers are doing their share of harvesting, if not the lions share.
> 
> You guys are all awesome- this is the longest- most passionate thread to date in the tourney boards without Misfit having to close it.
> 
> Just please make sure you know your boat numbers...


you havent givin a straight out answer to why they havent lifted the 15inch limmit from saltfork or the slot from wolfrun both lakes have had them limmits for 20 plus years with no results! so we should not question it?its clear most fishermen are against these regs so the defence to that is we are totally against dow? we complain about amish not following the laws that we have to follow and the responce to that is its beautiful to see them take a stringer of 5lbs home ? where did any of us complain about them taking legal fish or numbers? if dow is scared to make them abide by the laws maybe they should wait till them illegal fish are put in a van then nail the van driver for having illeagle fish.


----------



## Nipididdee

> Indeed slot limits aren't working the way it had been hoped...the data compiled from these waterways with current slots and/or 15" limits, including their rates of harvest, suggests that changing the regulations could benefit some of the bass fisheries. Specifically- reduce crowding and improve growth and size.





> Indeed though, the "slot" has room for improvement to meet the goal. One of the guiding principles of the 2&2 reg is to promote faster growth rates in those waters.
> 
> Nature takes time- you can't see the big picture in just a couple/few years. Regulations have transcended from early 1900's until present with many changes in between.


What results are you looking for on the slot lakes? What results do you have? You should provide your tourny data to DOW from those lakes to assist them-it could make a difference...

Mike- love em hate em ingnore them...it really makes no difference to me whether it's the DOW or the almighty Amish, you can accept the information and opinions we all are sharing or discard it.

You are directing many of your questions to me...i'm just a dude. call DOW talk to these folks, get involved with them and have them answer your specifics best they can.

I can't possibly respond to twenty questions in each of your posts- get all the trees out of your way and the forest is awaiting.


----------



## mikeshookset

Nipididdee said:


> What results are you looking for on the slot lakes? What results do you have? You should provide your tourny data to DOW from those lakes to assist them-it could make a difference...
> 
> Mike- love em hate em ingnore them...it really makes no difference to me whether it's the DOW or the almighty Amish, you can accept the information and opinions we all are sharing or discard it.
> 
> You are directing many of your questions to me...i'm just a dude. call DOW talk to these folks, get involved with them and have them answer your specifics best they can.
> 
> I can't possibly respond to twenty questions in each of your posts- get all the trees out of your way and the forest is awaiting.


by no means was my questions asked ment to be a personal attack on you! i thought since you said that they answer all your phone calls that you could get straight simple answers because they dont answer every ones phone calls. as a member of 2 federated clubs i did give them tournament results from both of them lakes and NO CHANGES WHERE EVER MADE. i dont think the question should be what results i was looking for because i didnt impose them regs dow did. the question should be what results where they looking for in what time table and what where the results? i am sure dow has been on this thread but i havent seen em get on and answer 1 question let alone 20 .


----------



## Cull'in

Well, after reading and ingesting all the info in this thread I have to say I'm in the camp supporting lake specific regulations _with_ a 5 fish/12" limit baseline kept in check for _most_ of our inland fisheries.

In regards to those lake specific regulations I think the DOW must also include the possibilty of a closed/catch and release season for any one particular body of water that might need it. Nip, count me among part of those masses that needs masturbated from time to time!
I really do think it's a viable management tool when and where needed. Again, keep in mind I'm talking lake specific, *not* statewide (which I had been a proponent of!).

Among fisheries that I'm familiar with I would really like the DOW to concentrate on "struggling" lakes such as Milton and Salt Fork. 
*As these places classic candidates for the 2 under/2over split limits? 
*Does the size limit need reduced to 12"...or even 13" or 14"?
*How much study is done on forgage bases, especially at Milton?
(Too many shad may be the real problem out there!)

This is just the tip of the iceberg. We could go on and on and do it for every lake in the state...here's that term again, _*lake specific regulations*_!

It would be an arduous task no doubt but I get the feeling it's one the DOW may be willing to undertake. They have shown great ferocity in their collection of information and data and now just need to figure out how to best utilize it.

One last thing, I would like to see the ODNR/DOW make more specific information and data regarding the study and implementation of projects on state fisheries available to the public online such as they do now with various other info.

Ummmmm....I think that's it......for now......thanks ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## Nipididdee

The only thing I have taken personally Mike is your spelling... !%

When I spoke of reporting your stats, I'm talking your 10HP trail and registering with DOW as the director for a passcode to enter the groups catch data online. Email me for info if needed. Maybe you already are...

Culln'- still hanging onto at least one lake eh :Banane26:


> One last thing, I would like to see the ODNR/DOW make more specific information and data regarding the study and implementation of projects on state fisheries available to the public online such as they do now with various other info.


 TOTALLY AGREE!!!!

Ejoying the thread all...I'm whooped


----------



## Cull'in

Nipididdee said:


> Culln'- still hanging onto at least one lake eh :Banane26:


Only because I'm right!


----------



## norseangler

mikeshookset said:


> you havent givin a straight out answer to why they havent lifted the 15inch limmit from saltfork or the slot from wolfrun both lakes have had them limmits for 20 plus years with no results! so we should not question it?its clear most fishermen are against these regs so the defence to that is we are totally against dow?


Hold on a minute. I can't speak as to the decline or improvement at Wolf Run over the years as I haven't fished it enough, but Salt Fork is another matter. I've fished Salt Fork for more than 30 years and saw it go from good to miserable. After the present regs were put in place, the bass fishing there eventually improved. Maybe not to the level of some other lakes that come to mind, but far better than it was. And the electroshocking results (at least those I talked to the Athens biologists a few years ago about) there indicate that good fish are there in good numbers. I just haven't been able to get into them, especially during tournments.
Have the regs in place there made it a great lake? No. But have they improved the bass fishing? Yes, definitely.


----------



## mikeshookset

norseangler said:


> Hold on a minute. I can't speak as to the decline or improvement at Wolf Run over the years as I haven't fished it enough, but Salt Fork is another matter. I've fished Salt Fork for more than 30 years and saw it go from good to miserable. After the present regs were put in place, the bass fishing there eventually improved. Maybe not to the level of some other lakes that come to mind, but far better than it was. And the electroshocking results (at least those I talked to the Athens biologists a few years ago about) there indicate that good fish are there in good numbers. I just haven't been able to get into them, especially during tournments.
> Have the regs in place there made it a great lake? No. But have they improved the bass fishing? Yes, definitely.


 i also have fished salt fork for many years both for pleasure and in tournaments. i would also agree it went up from miserable to alittle better but then again its a short hop to improve from miserable. the natural cycle of fish can do that. in the spring during the spawn when fish are more congrigated you can get some bags of fish but when the spawn is over then its a differant story. just wondering? during the tournaments that you fish there would you rather see it a 14 inch limmit or a 15 inch limmit?


----------



## mikeshookset

Nipididdee said:


> The only thing I have taken personally Mike is your spelling... !%
> 
> When I spoke of reporting your stats, I'm talking your 10HP trail and registering with DOW as the director for a passcode to enter the groups catch data online. Email me for info if needed. Maybe you already are...
> 
> Culln'- still hanging onto at least one lake eh :Banane26:
> TOTALLY AGREE!!!!
> 
> Ejoying the thread all...I'm whooped


thanks for the offer but i will pass on that one the last thing the guys in the 10hp circuit want to see is dow putting 15inch limmits or slots on them lakes heck i had to pull wolfrun off the schedule 2 years ago because of the slots.


----------



## Nipididdee

Mike- if you provide the DOW with your tournament stats from all lakes it will assist them possibly to make adjustments that you might desire. Your groups numbers are important especially on the lakes you visist with already limited tournament data. 

You are no longer allowed to complian about slot "limmits" if you don't take action yourself


----------



## Cull'in

mikeshookset said:


> thanks for the offer but i will pass on that one the last thing the guys in the 10hp circuit want to see is dow putting 15inch limmits or slots on them lakes heck i had to pull wolfrun off the schedule 2 years ago because of the slots.


Nip is right Mike.

Your info is valuable because of some of the lakes your 10 horse and under circuit visit.
Aside from that, at the end the day when you want to make some noise about what the DOW is or isn't doing, your voice may seem a little louder since your already working to help them. Just something to think about.

Though our thoughts may differ our goals are the same and we only get there by working together.


(Gosh, that last sentence sounded kinda sappy didn't it?!!)


----------



## mikeshookset

Nipididdee said:


> Mike- if you provide the DOW with your tournament stats from all lakes it will assist them possibly to make adjustments that you might desire. Your groups numbers are important especially on the lakes you visist with already limited tournament data.
> 
> You are no longer allowed to complian about slot "limmits" if you don't take action yourself


like i said i was part of all that a few years back. this is nothing new . if they ever get off of this slot kick and 15 inch kick i would take the time again to give them stats.


----------



## mikeshookset

Cull'in said:


> Nip is right Mike.
> 
> Your info is valuable because of some of the lakes your 10 horse and under circuit visit.
> Aside from that, at the end the day when you want to make some noise about what the DOW is or isn't doing, your voice may seem a little louder since your already working to help them. Just something to think about.
> 
> Though our thoughts may differ our goals are the same and we only get there by working together.
> 
> 
> (Gosh, that last sentence sounded kinda sappy didn't it?!!)


i didnt think it was sappy it makes sence but on the isssue of slots and 15 inch limmits i have been that rout. now if you and nipp get them going in a differant direction and i could be of help count me in both feet.


----------



## norseangler

mikeshookset said:


> i also have fished salt fork for many years both for pleasure and in tournaments. i would also agree it went up from miserable to alittle better but then again its a short hop to improve from miserable. the natural cycle of fish can do that. in the spring during the spawn when fish are more congrigated you can get some bags of fish but when the spawn is over then its a differant story. just wondering? during the tournaments that you fish there would you rather see it a 14 inch limmit or a 15 inch limmit?


Just trying to point out (for accuracy's sake) that fishing at Salt Fork did improve with the current regs, but as to whether or not the regs were the main factor, I can't say. As for 14-inch limit instead of 15, I'd certainly find it easier to catch a few keepers, although then I would probably catch 13 3/4-inch fish instead of 14 3/4 inchers!


----------



## basshunter11

Let me start by saying the ODNR guys do there best but I think there hands are tied. Ohios stand that stocking dose not help. Texas diagrees. They have a big time stockimg program Many states do stock bass. Habitat comes first Ohio says. Some lakes need habitat added, but more need better water quality first (Grand lake St. Mary). I read once that we have more bass fisherman in Ohio per capita than any other state and the fewest acers of water. OUR FISH ARE PRESHERED. Many states turn to the clubs and organizations for help with stocking, by raising money and with the acutal stocking. Other states hold tournaments where each boat is given a bag of fingerlings at blastoff and they must dump them in the lake at there first stop, fingerlings are bought with money raised by fundraisers and private donations. The bass fisherman spend more money than all other fisherman combined, when you consider everything, boat, truck, fuel, hotels, equipment, acetra, and we love it, but Ohio stocks no BASS. We should not put all of this on the state, every bass organztion should work with the state they will let you help, are club did when I was in it, I am not shure what they do now. If your club or organation wants to help cal ODNR they will give you a contact to call and you can help with there habitat projects,but they do not want to listen on the stocking issue. I did not make this stuff up, I read most of it, and I was the enviermental rep for my bass club for years. Call the odnr they will let or club or organization help.
I think 14 inch size limit state wide would help. It would give the bass a couple more years in the lake to spawn before they can be harvisted.


----------



## Nipididdee

http://www.ohiooutdoornews.com/articles/2010/01/29/top_news/news04.txt


nip
www.dobass.com


----------

