Lake Oroville slot limit. DFG meeting

Fast 492 · Post by **Fast 492** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:22 pm

Where-RCBS lunch room at 601 OroDam Blvd, Oroville.

There will be a meeting to discuss the possibility of changing or eliminating the slot limit on Lake Oroville. This limit (12-15") was set to restore the abundance of fish on our lake. DFG has said that since it is a changeable management tool, they had no objection in changing it, if they had enough public input to justify doing it.
We know that not everyone can attend this meeting, so we would like anyone with a few minutes to post their opinions on this matter ( for or against) , and we will take ALL of these posts to the meeting and present them on your behalf.
Here are some of the idea's that have already come in:
1. No change
2. Eliminate and use state wide 12" regulations.
3. Change to 14"-17" ( keeping 4 under/1 over)
4. Change to 13"-16" ( keeping 5 under / none over)
5. Keep 5 fish 14" and under only
6. Manage -per biologists- for a trophy fishery

Keep in mind that these are limits pertaining to recreational fishing and not tournaments or waiver sanctioned events.

Thank you for your posts. Anything posted prior to Thurs. 5pm will be taken to the meeting.
Any quetions can be directed to Don Reighley at 530-589-1818.

gt5bass · Post by **gt5bass** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:27 pm

I can't be at the meeting as I am working in So. Cal. for several weeks.

I would support #3 - 14-17" slot this protects the good quality fish from being taken and allows for the harvest of 12 and 13" fish, which there seems to be an over abundance of. These are the better eating fish anyways.

B.Cline · Post by **B.Cline** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:37 pm

I vote for #5 There are plenty of 14" and under fish. I would like to see the quality fish protected

Mark Hiser · Post by **Mark Hiser** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:18 pm

Would be great to see something done. I believe that # 5 on the list would prove to be the most beneficial. 14" fish are just about right for people who want fillets, and probably the most abundant, I would think that the individuals who just fish for the sport or food would be inclined to get behind a regulation change such as this one, and as tournament folks, we need all the help we can get. Would be nice to see Oroville back to the fishery that it once was.
IMHO
Mark Hiser

sdisturber · Post by **sdisturber** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:24 pm

in my opinion #4 would would work the best for all fishermen .i have fished the lake over 40 days a year since 1988.the original reason behind the slot was eliminate or at least control the redeye population.while this was succesful the slot limit was never adjusted and the spot population just took off.the slot needs to be readjusted to thin the spot population.i also beleive 2 other things need to be accomplished.one is a return of threadfin shad populations to what they once were.the pondsmelt have overtaken the lake as the predominate food source and as most fisherman can see by the size of the pond smelt any species of fish probably has to eat 30 pond smelt to equal the size and value of a couple shad.the DWR and DFG need to manage baitfish populations and the food source for these baitfish.one only needs to look at folsom lake to realize pond smelt and shad can coexist.one also can look at the fish size and weight at folsom lake to realize an adjusted slot limit to harvest bass from lake oroville would likely reduce spot populations because a 12 or 13 inch bass is worth keeping to eat, if the reason that you fish is to eat fish.one other thing i would like to see implemented is a restriction on any possesion of smallmouth or largemouth bass even in tournaments for a couple of years ,while lake bioligists could study this to see if it could help restore fish populations.not only fishermen but also merchents in town that cater to all fishermen of all species have vested interest in making this an excellent fishery.while some people say big largemouth suffer in this type of lake.one only has to look at don pedro to see an excellent population of big largemouth bass,and while yes i know they have trout to eat i will bet the nutrional value of a planted salmon in oroville is pretty much the same. thanks for letting me vent .my only hope is they listen . david hill

sdisturber · Post by **sdisturber** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:27 pm

i am bad i also meant option #5 not #4 pardon my error.thanks again david hill

DanO · Post by **DanO** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:22 am

Keep the slot limit, but allow anglers to keep 10 fish under 12-inches.

5 fish under 12 is not enough to feed many folks, and if they allowed 10 fish to be kept, the smaller ones would more likely be harvested, allowing the larger fish to gain ground.

I wrote an article on just this subject in the Bass Angler News pullout section of the Fish Sniffer Magazine in August or September. Give me a call and I can get that piece for you, or call Dan Bacher at The Fish Sniffer, he can get a copy of it to you as well to take to the meeting.

Dan O'Sullivan
Fish Sniffer Staff Writer
(916) 412-5232 cell

Dan Bacher
Managing Editor - Fish Sniffer MAgazine
(916) 685-2245

Alax · Post by **Alax** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:29 am

I'll vote for #5

Alax

Skeeterman · Post by **Skeeterman** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:31 am

Steve · Post by **Steve** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:09 am

If DFG is serious about wanting a better quality fishery, Id go with #3. However, I would have to see a few years of length data to be able to choose the right slot length.

Glad to hear DFG is addressing the issue and open to ideas from the public.

BassTraveler · Post by **BassTraveler** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:27 am

I'm with DanO.
Spots Only. Catch and release Smallie's and Largemouth.
I would like to add that there should be a fish fry after every tournament for one year.
If it works, continue the fish fry.

Sieg Taylor

gt5bass · Post by **gt5bass** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:48 am

Here something to consider:

I "googled" for growth rate of spotted bass and got some interesting info:

Age and Growth - Tends to grow slower than largemouth bass and does not attain as large a size as other species. The young grow to 1-1/2 to 4 inches the first summer. Maturity is reached at about seven inches. Average lengths for fish aged 1 to 8 years are 4, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 inches.

This is why I support the 14-17" slot as well as the fact that I spend half the year living near Lake Oroville and working with one of the local tackle stores. Most of the complains are people catch fish that are in the 12-13" range and that they can't keep them to eat them. If they go with the 14-17" slot and let them keep anything under that would help alleviate the "runt" population everyone complains about.

On another note, I spent the last week and a half fishing Oroville and only caught a few fish under the slot. Most of the fish I caught were between 13 and 17". Under the current rules, if I wanted to feed the family, I would have had to starve or keep some real quality fish.

Steve · Post by **Steve** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:22 am

....growth rates are lake specific, so what you found on google likely doesnt characterize the growth characteristics at Oroville.

B.Cline · Post by **B.Cline** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:34 am

Under proposal #5 people can keep anything under 14".You know as well as I do that there are too many of this size fish in the lake.If
someone was to keep a limit of 14" fish that would be more than enough for a meal for the family. Under proposal #3 they would be able to keep 1 over 17" also. I think those fish should be protected
to enhance our fishery. Just my opinion.

B.Cline · Post by **B.Cline** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:42 am

sdisturber,
I totally agree with you.When we had threadfin shad in this lake we had a bigger average fish than we do now. It used to take .
almost a three pound average in spring tournaments to win. That
was with spots too. I think that with the overubundance of small fish and small food source (pond smelt) is why we have the low weights we have now.

gt5bass · Post by **gt5bass** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:57 am

Steve,

I know growth rates are lake dependant, but most are real similar. I just chose that one quote as it was easy to cut and paste into the forum. If was just a little extra info for people to think about.

Phil · Post by **Phil** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:16 pm

#5 AND DO THE SAME FOR MC CLURE !!

Chad L. Dwyer · Post by **Chad L. Dwyer** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:39 pm

I'd have to vote for number 5 as well. To me it's either that or just go ahead and empty the lake, sell the water to southern Ca. and use the profits to re-stock the lake with some quality fish.

I've heard (have no facts) that New Melones and most recently Don Pedro have began to show larger numbers of Spotted bass at the weigh-ins.

It's my understanding that the DFG doesn't (or didn't) want them there and apparently didn't plant them. Is this the work of a few anglers that can't figure out how to catch Blacks and are transporting fish or is there some bizzare super-natrual occurence forcing our once great fisheries to turn into over-grown minnow buckets???????

Lake Oroville was once one of the greatest fisheries we had....key word, HAD. Something really needs to be done!

Chad L. Dwyer

Elmhurst bassman · Post by **Elmhurst bassman** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:25 pm

#3 seems like the best solution to me. I have never even tasted a bass, let alone kept one but there are folks who fish for different reasons. #3 would allow those individuals to take a select few of the bigger bass but this solution really focuses the harvesting on the little balance beam buggers we all seem to catch. I have been fishing oroville since 93 and have noticed a huge decline in the number of largemouths and smallies that I catch. Everything seems to be a spot nowdays.

Hardshell · Post by **Hardshell** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:28 pm

it will take care of it's self. Have you seen what it takes there lately and most of those 11 to 15 pound bags are all spots. And yes Chad, the spots in Don Pedro and New Melones are a result of illegal plants. I was TD of Merced Bass Club for most of the ninties and never weighed a spot on Don Pedro, now they are starting to show in weigh-in bags all the time. On the other hand New Melones has been "infested' longer and the problem there is much worse. In regards to the slot, IMO it don't work period, because there are not the meat fisherman that there used to be on these lakes to even make a small dent in the fish population, small or large. The remedy is to do our best to enhance the feed base of these spot lakes and hope for years like the one we are currently wittnessing at McClure.

Hardshell-Jailer

Chad L. Dwyer · Post by **Chad L. Dwyer** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:30 pm

Jeff Jewell · Post by **Jeff Jewell** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:26 pm

I'd have to agree that it probally won't make much of a difference. The spots are thriving to the detriment of smallies and largmouth due to the flucuating water levels.
Look ar Berryessa, late 80's a killer smallmouth lake, with a good largemouth population and a few spots. By mid 90's with the water going up and down, it had become a runt spot lake. 1999 Solano County buys the water rights and keeps the lake at or near full pool all year. Look at the Largemouth and Smallies now they are getting bigger and badder. The spots are only in the narrows now and slowly the smallies are driving them back toward the dam.
JMHO
Jeff Jewell

Joe Bruce · Post by **Joe Bruce** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:36 pm

the answer happined this year throughout the motherload. dont take the water till after the lg mouth spawn then flood the grass after the bait hatches.

Bill K · Post by **Bill K** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:40 pm

I would have to go with #5.. Eat those spots and release all S/M and L/M. Bill K

Double-G · Post by **Double-G** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:57 am

First I'll vote #2. I want them to just remove the slot completely.

Now comes my reasoning. From what I understand DFG had created the slot to help remove the Red Eye that were in the lake. There are still red eye in the lake!
Lets face it there are reasons the largemouth populations have declined and it has a lot to do with the "Flood controle measures" by DWR, that conflict with the spawning habits of the large mouth and not with the spots.
These releases are timed with snow melt and rain run offs and not directly tied to or for the southern Cal water needs. The drawdowns may not be good for us but If we think that our little sport of bass fishing is more important than their safety concerns of flooding we are mistaken.

If I were to make a suggestion to DFG I would say "eliminate the confusion by removing the slot completly, post adaquate identification for the Red Eye's and treat them like any other brim with no/or an enhanced bag limit. It still isn't going to hurt any thing if some one brings in few 10-11 inch spots on accident".

As for what you and I can do to help the size and population control of the spotted bass just keep in mind that; bass are not sacred cows, and make great table fair. The next time you go to Oroville or Shasta and are catching a bunch of 12-13 inch spots...Take your limit home if you don't like fish share them with an eldery family member or neighbor!

sTony · Post by **sTony** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:23 pm

I'd have to vote for #6. I know I'm likely alone in that thought based on my count in the voting here. Oroville is SUPPOSED to be managed as a trophy fishery based on DFG's on wording several years ago.

Whatever the biologists deem it would take to make it so is what I would have to vote for.

sTony

gt5bass · Post by **gt5bass** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:42 pm

They have managed it into a trophy numbers lake HAR! not size!

Mikey G · Post by **Mikey G** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:31 pm

I have been waiting all day to make this post so here goes.

Slot limits are tools often employed by fishery resource managers to achieve a specific managment objective. In the case of lake oroville, that objective (over twenty years ago) was to manage the large population of red eye bass dominated by 12" fish. Keep in mind the spotted bass population then wasn't what it is now. With that in mind, things have changed. The distribution of bass species is now spot dominant, with some redeye...and nowhere near the number of smallies or largemouth (this is because of water management, not likely a result of slot limits.

Currently the fish population in lake oroville is dominated by 13-14" fish. This works against us. This allows more fish to be propogated in that size class, leading to a large population of 13-14" fish. Fish above this, are open for harvest. Additionally, the're are fewer fish because all the dominant proportion of the population is competing against itself...all the 13/14's are fighting to make it to that larger size. Also, slot limits assume a certain harvest rate...which is not what it was in 1984...catch and release has taken a strong hold in the mind of most anglers.

The bottom line...the regulation should be changed to reflect managment objectives for TODAY not 1984!!!! I've been pitching this to DFG for a few years now...believe me, as a fishery biologist, this slot limit has drove me nuts.

I could give you guys a ton more information about slot limits, different managmentment tools and their objectives and utilities...but, I am really really busy...

What needs to happen is anglers as a cohesive user group make proposals for change in a professional manor to managment agencies. These agencies are understaffed and they are trying to do the best they can with limited resources at their disposal ($$$).

It sounds like tonights meeting is a great step in the right direction.

14" or better...this will make for a more diversified size distribution.

If folks have specific questions, I would be happy to try and answer them.

Regards,

Mike Gorman

Steve · Post by **Steve** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:07 pm

Mikey G · Post by **Mikey G** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:24 am

Biologist...either way, what's it matter, biology is biology.

Granted my thoughts and grammer weren't entirely cohesive, but I had my 2 year old hanging off of me while I was trying to cook dinner, I hope my post provided some insight for everybody.

Thanks,

Mike

sTony · Post by **sTony** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:13 am

Keep in mind Steve, this is the lake you have talked about hating to fish so that they're talking about making changes to the slot to enhance the fishery ought to be good news for you, especially with your proximity to the lake.

Hope you're doing well,

sTony

Fishin' Dave · Post by **Fishin' Dave** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:14 am

Almost any tournament I have fished there has has a slot exemption, or did a paper tournament. From my twisted mind, I figure 75% of the fish caught each year are caught in a tournament. The slot limit seems worthless as every one circumvents it. We don't have any fish killers anymore! I like the fish fry idea Seig suggested. Joe Bruce is right on target too with the water remaining high; Melones is still near full!

gt5bass · Post by **gt5bass** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:47 am

Fishin' Dave,

Try going back in Spring Valley this spring and the bank will be lined with the harvesters each with 15 to 20 fish of any size on their stringers. We report it each time we see it, but the DFG usually has bigger fish to fry

Steve · Post by **Steve** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:49 am

I know, Oroville has been my whipping post for years!! LOL!!

Really though, Im totally stoked (and surprised) that DFG is willing to be more aggressive with "sculpting" the size structure of the population in Oroville. A high slot would be fantastic, but can we still make fun of Oroville for being DFG's cornerstone for their trophy program?

Fish Chris · Post by **Fish Chris** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:45 am

Where are you guys heads all at ??? (please understand my excitement here, and try bare with me, as this subject is very close to my heart)

Slot or no slot ? Who freaking cares ! Management of size limits on Oroville are almost certainly NEVER going to make much difference ! I can't believe we have this big long thread here and few, if any of you have focused on the real problem with Oroville..... and Shasta..... and Comanche... and Collins..... and on and on.... with more coming all the time !

Spotted Bass !!!!!! Just perfect for some lake in Alabama, but the most disasterous mistake that our Ca DFG has ever made, for anyone who cares about a quality Largemouth Bass fishery in most Nor Cal waters ! And I'm not just talking about what Spotted bass do to trophy fisheries for giant Florida strains, but even just to good quality Northern strain Largemouth fisheries !

You want a quality fishery at Oroville ? Then drain the freaking thing, get rid of that plague called Spotted bass, and start over from scratch.
Then, sometime down the road, you might consider slot limits, and management for a quality / trophy fishery.

Yes, of course I know this is extreme (like me) and will never likely happen...... but sadly, I also know that as long as Spotted bass remain in that lake, it will never be worth a #$#$

Sucks, don't it ?

Deep breath....
Fish

PS, Again, please nobody take this as a personal slam. I think we all want the same thing..... quality Largemouth lakes with a shot at a big one.

Fish Chris · Post by **Fish Chris** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:16 am

in the arse for missing that meeting !

How I would have loved to have told them that their is not an option on this list, 1 through 6, that is going to make any appreciable difference !

SPOTTED BASS !!!!!!!!! Is their some way I can scream this any louder ?!?!

Okay, I do not have a degree in fisheries biology, but I have studied fisheries biology on my own, for most of my life...... and when I get stumped, or need some deeper info, I call my buddy Dennis Lee, Cheif Fisheries Biologist Ca DFG, or Steve Quin, In-Fisherman chief biologist / editor. Dennis and I have talked at length about Spots. Don't believe me about how much of a problem Spots are ? Just talk to any fisheries biologist.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again: I dream often, of some sort of biological method which could completely zap every Spotted bass in a lake, or completely interupt there reproductive process......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But anyway, while you guys are talking about slot limits, I'll just try to focus on the lakes which haven't been destroyed by Spots already, and then in 10 or 20 years when "all" of the quality Largemouth lakes are gone, (and if I'm still alive) I'll just have to switch over (completely) to big Catfish, Sturgeon, Carp, whatever........ anything but 100, 10" Spots

Fish

B.Cline · Post by **B.Cline** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:23 pm

I agree that the little spots are a problem.So how do we make it so they are not so little? I t is all in the food source and protecting the bigger ones.Just look at Folsom or Shasta they have trophy size spots.Right now the way it stands the meat fisherman cannot keep anything between 12 and 15 inches,They can keep 5 over 15 or 5 under 12.Believe me they are keeping none under12.So the only answer I see is to do something about the food source and protect the larger fish. just my opinion (no biologist)

Fish Chris · Post by **Fish Chris** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:55 pm

Of course I still contend that it would be 10 X's more desirable if we could completely eliminate the Spots, and then properly manage a strong quality and / or trophy fishery with solid strain of Floridas....... But their I go dreaming again

Of course you are right B.Cline, that even a Spotted bass fishery can (and now that your stuck with them, might as well be) maintained so that the quality of the those Spots is better.

Personally, I'd say that the minimum size for Spotted bass should be done away with completely, as well as no creel limit on Spots under 12 inches. Then say, a 5 fish limit on Spots from 12 to 17 inches. No Spots over 17 inches may be kept.
Then run a big campaign on how great Spotted bass are for the kids... how easy they are to catch.... and show them how Selective Harvest of the little ones, can make the fishery even better.
You would sure have plenty of places to choose from, to start something like this.

.......then, 10 years from now, if the Ca DFG has actually produced a high quality, if not a straight up trophy Spotted bass lake, you might even find me their once in a while....... especially if, by then, all the "real" quality / trophy Florida strain bass lakes have been completely destroyed. Yikes !

Scary stuff here !
Fish

Fish Chris · Post by **Fish Chris** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:38 pm

Ya' know it's funny, I posted my couple of rants this morning, and then all day at work, I was concerned that somebody might have taken me wrong.

So I get home, and head straight for the PC.... and almost nothing ? {Thank you B.Cline, your absolutely right that a quality Spotted Bass fishery is still much better than a poor, stunted Spotted bass fishery}

Now I'm sitting here wondering if every single one of you just totally agree with every word I typed ? (that would be a first

Or, if maybe some of you disagree, but don't want to start any arguments. Look guys, I promise I won't make fun of the glitter on your boats

Seriously though, if there is anything I have said in this thread that you don't totally agree with, please, lets discuss it. Or heck, if you do agree, how about some support ?

Again, I think we all would like to see more quality fisheries, with a shot at a good one.

Great fishing to all of you,
Fish

Mikey G · Post by **Mikey G** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:55 am

Scenario:

Fish Chris, this ones for you.

Drain Lake Oroville, start over, no spots.

Lets think back to say, hmmm, 1980.

Lake Oroville, non-spot dominated, lots of smallmouth and redeye bass. Larger and more abundant LMB, but not by any means a trophy fishery.

I can remember many a day fishing oroville and not catching anything...nothing. If I had a choice, I'd rather catch a few spots. Granted, Oroville is going through a rediculous faze right now...a function of management, partially.

Bottom line, lake oroville willl never be a trophy fishery, especially for LMB, northern strain or florida strain,or spotted bass for that manor. This is because of two reasons:
1) the lake is managed for water storage, not the fishery.
2) the lack of cover and habitat conducive of trophy LMB fisheries will never be there.

Even with stocking thousands of Florida strain, there just wont be this trophy LMB fishery that everybody would love...it just wont ever happen. Could it increase the number of LMB...maybe, but the stocked LMB have to be large enough preclude them from being spotted bass snacks. These larger fish are very very expensive. So, the cost to benefit ratio is shot.

Also,I dont care how many christmas trees they put in the lake, it wont make a darn bit of difference...they are only submerged for a few weeks a year...and in small pockets...what about the other 167 miles of shoreline??? Where do most of the Largemouth get caught...around wood. Bottom line, they maximize what cover there is available.

Additionally, lakes are dynamic, they are always going through cyclical changes as a result of water quality/quantity, climactic changes, etc. There will be shifts in baitfish from year to year, succussful spawns, and non-successful spawns. Its not always going to be great...could it be better than it is now...probably, but we can't always expect it to be great.

Lake Oroville can be a beautiful lake to fish, can be rewarding at times, and who ever said catchig 100 fish a day isn't any fun!!!!!!

There is my Sunday morning rant and rave.

Tight lines fellas,

Mike

Fish Chris · Post by **Fish Chris** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:54 am

Thank you for your response.

Their is only one thing I need to make clear. For some reason, often when people see my name in a thread, they immediatly think, "Oh here we go again... This guy doesn't care about anything but bass over 15 lbs...." But no, no, no...... I'm not saying that Oroville should be, or could be a straight up trophy bass lake. I'm simply saying, that I have heard that Oroville "used to have" a very solid fishery for Largemouths from 3 to 5 lbs, with a shot at a 7 or 8, and also, some very good Smallies to 5 lbs (that might be enough to get me over there). Admittedly, I'm going by heresay. If I was being lied to, please set me straight.

Anyway, I simply do not believe that Oroville will ever provide the kind of fishery I described above, as long as it is over ran by the Spotted bass plague, regardless of creel, size, or slot limit management. BTW, their used to be a lot of great quality bass lakes, in which the Ca DFG did as little then, as they do now (or to put it another way, they were great "in spite of the Ca DFG) The major difference in many of these lakes today, is Spotted Bass.

Hmmmmm,
Fish

Mikey G · Post by **Mikey G** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:32 pm

I wasn't eluding to you referring to Oroville being, or implying that it could be a Trophy fishery, but often times I hear things to that affect from other anglers.

I've been fishing Oroville for 25 years, I've grown up there, its in my back yard.
There is some truth to the numbers and size of LMB. There used to be more and better largemouth...but no where near the numbers of fish that there are today.

Additionally, three things have changed in the past couple decades. First, there is a tremendous amount of pressure in comparison to 20 years ago. Where there used to be some LM haunts, everybody knows of them and picks on them. In addition, those often fishing to take know of those places too...not helping us trying to maintain the LM. Second, there are a lot more fish to catch now...meaning more people have fun and bend a rod. And third, the lake takes some big swings in storage around the time largemouth spawn, not helping the recruitment.

I fished many a freezing cold morning and day with my father when I was a kid, catching a fish or two...now I still freeze, but have the opportunity to catch more fish. Also, this forces me to learn more and better ways in catch larger fish...Dobyns has it figured out...I guess I should be out fishing not typing.
I hope my daughter knows what she's in store for!!!

I still think the slot limit is obsolete. I'm glad to see DFG being proactive. What came out of the Oroville meeting anyhow??? Who attended, what was discussed, etc. In the futue I will try to attend these events.

TKS,
MIke

Fish Chris · Post by **Fish Chris** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 6:05 pm

first off, you obviously have a lot more first hand experience with Lk. Oroville than I do, so then, your exactly the kind of guy I would want to discuss this with.

But when you said> First, there is a tremendous amount of pressure in comparison to 20 years ago. < Hmmmmm....... this typically leads to lower numbers of fish overall, but with more larger fish available.

Then when you said> And third, the lake takes some big swings in storage around the time largemouth spawn, not helping the recruitment. < .....This also typically leads to lower numbers, but with more larger fish. (BTW, I love lakes with low recruitment,

However, it's quite obvious that low recruitment has not been the problem at Oroville. On the contrary, if those overpopulating little Spots could be slowed way down with their baby making, Oroville might just make a quality Spotted bass lake.

Anyway, I'm sorry for sounding like a broken record, but I still truly believe that the single largest problem with Oroville, and many other Nor Cal lakes, has been the introduction of Spotted bass, and furthermore, I have seen nothing anywhere in this thread which would indicate otherwise.

Thanks again though Mike. I'm reading all of this with an open mind, and again, if anyone wants to show me where I'm mistaken, I'm all ears.

Peace,
Fish

Mikey G · Post by **Mikey G** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:39 am

Chris,

Good conversation. You are right about the recruitment leading to fewer larger fish...but what I failed to elaborate on is the fact that LM are less tolerant and fewer in number than spots when it comes time to spawn. So if all the LM in the lake spawn in a few feet of water in a 3 week period and the lake takes a big swing upward around that time, viaoa less successful spawning.

Spots will spawn on just about anything, at almost any depth (within reason). They have much better recruitment under changing conditions than do largemouth. I've seen spotted bass spawning on tops of large rocks (boulders) in 15' of water with levels rising? Spots also spawn over a greater time period. Sometimes it seems like spots will be on the spawn for a few months.

Spots are much more dynamic and adapted to the water fluctuations.

More pressure doesn't mean more harvest either. It could just mean they sit on some structure and watch your and everybody elses jig hop on by.

Good monday to ya,
Mike

Fish Chris · Post by **Fish Chris** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:56 am

well now I totally have to agree with you on this. Unfortunately, most of the "impacts" you mentioned, fishing pressure, fluctuating water levels, etc, play against Largemouths, much more so than with the Spotted bass, and of course this only exasperates the Spotted bass problem

I could go on and on about the Spotted bass plague, or as I see it, the biggest problem with quality / trophy bass lakes in Nor Cal (and growing) but I'll try to take a break now.

Peace,
Fish

Jeff Jewell · Post by **Jeff Jewell** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:39 pm

Remember Berryessa back in the Late 80's. It was a good Smallie and Largemouth lake. Early 90's I caught a spotted bass there. By the late 90's spots had taken over. 1999 or 2000 Solano County buys the dam and keeps the lake near full pool all year long. Largemouth come back strong in the main lake and along with the smallies have driven the spots back into the narrows. It seems that the smallies are trying to take over the narrows now and are pushing the spots back toward MArkley and the dam. What do you think?

Fast 492 · Post by **Fast 492** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:11 pm

FYI, the meeting went well,there were about 20 people that showed and listened to what Don Reighly and the two DFG gentlemen that were present had to say about Oroville and all of the stats that they have copiled over the last 20+ years of research. I would have to say that the majority of the people present and the people that voted or left comments on the internet wanted to see some kind of change in the slot limits to try and improve the average size of the fish in this lake. The recommendation that was brought forward by the people at the meeting was to try and get a (14"-17" slot limit ) and ( 5 fish limit with only one over 17" allowed). We had lots of ideas and input from all over the state, most were excellent choices, but we had to come up with one request for the DFG personnel to take back to the table of higher-ups, and that was the majority. Most of us don't have any pre-conceived notion that a simple slot change is going to magically turn Oroville into the ClearLake of the North. Every post on this topic has some validity to it and it is nice to see people give their input so that others can try to open their mind to all of the options and opinions of others. Thank you all for the responses, all of which, will be given to DFG to take into consideration.

Fish Chris · Post by **Fish Chris** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:44 am

Several years ago, when I first talked with Dennis Lee, at length, about the spotted bass situation, he said that whether or not Spotted bass would destroy (overtake) a particular fishery was about a 50/50 proposition. Among the 50% that were not completely overtaken, one would find anywhere from a large impact (albeit, not quite a complete overtaking) all the way to no impact whatsoever, and everything in between.

Interestingly, Dennis told me, their was no "for sure" way to say in advance, which lakes would be the most affected by Spotted bass (large or small, shallow or deep, clear or turbid, etc), and which lakes would not.... or to put it another way, their has been no hard and fast rules which make for a predictable scenario.

Dennis and I did speak of Berryessa in particular, and he said that because of Berryessa's size and greatly varying types of cover and structure (almost many different types of lakes in one) it "might" have a better chance at holding onto some quality Florida strain bass..... but he wouldn't swear to it.

Of course I would sure love to see Berry do well "in spite of the Spots", as that's my home lake.... and I'm still shooting for my 15 to 17 from there

Peace,
Fish

Mikey G · Post by **Mikey G** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:20 am

Who were the DFG gentlemen involved?

The Lone Angler · Post by **The Lone Angler** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:10 pm

As B Cline mentioned, I remember in the 80's when it took over 20 lbs for spring tournaments using 7 fish limits.

Back in december of 1990, a dramatic cold snap hit the sac valley. It froze my flooded rice field so thick, a 250 lb guy could walk all the way across the ice and never broke through. This weather lasted about 7 days.

Prior to this freeze, I remember sitting in my truck on stringtown road several hundred feet above the south fork where I could see 5+ dark clouds of shad in the cove in the late spring. I have never seen a cloud of shad there in the last 15 years.

I have read that shad do not tolerate dramatic temperature changes, cold snaps well.

Remember clearlake in the early 90's, 91 to be exact. The water was gin clear and the fishing sucked horrible for more than several years. My thinking here is that the freeze of 1990 caused a massive shad dieoff in Clear Lake(possibly algae also) and a complete dieoff in Oroville.

Shad, so what? Are not pondsmelt a baitfish of equal nutritional value? The energy expended locating and catching a belly full of pondsmelt would logically be far greater than eating a bellyfull of shad. I am not an expert, but maybe shad have more calories/oz than pondsmelt also.

All I know is prior to 1990 with shad in Oroville, 3 lb spots and largemouths were very common in the spring.

My overall thinking here is that the slot limit may have outlived it's usefullness, but I think the lack of shad has had the major impact of an average smaller fish in Oroville.

Was there any talk at the DFG meeting about reintroducing shad in Oroville? Maybe, being plankton feeders, shad may compete with the small salmon. I believe that is why no shad were introduced to Bullards bar when the bass used to grow past 11".

I apologize for the long winded post here, but this is a theory that I have been developing since I stopped seeing shad in Oroville. I just hate to see the demise of a quality fishery looked at from a single focus.

Phil Thunen

Slot Limit on Lake Oroville ???

Tags

Notice