No more Slot Limit?

Robchik · Post by **Robchik** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:48 am

Anyone else heard of this?
http://www.norcalfishingnews.com/storie ... kes?id=770

Kwin · Post by **Kwin** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:28 pm

"Oroville anglers disagree. Locals wanted to increase the slot limit and voiced that opinion at a meeting with a DFG representative two years ago. The Fish and Game Commission opted to vote in favor of regulation simplicity rather than [b]managing a trophy bass fishery[/b]."

What trophy bass fishery? I didn't realize their standards were so low.

Delaney · Post by **Delaney** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:18 pm

Finally, a constructive move on this. It made no sense to protect a breeding population of 12 to 15" spotted bass in lakes thats are over populated by small spotted bass anyway. I don't think a lot of people knew that with these slot limits you were allowed to keep under 12" anyway. Nobody that I knew did. This seemed stupid anyway....protect a size population to breed, and then encourage people to keep the small ones to reduce the numbers, didn't make any sense to me. The quality of fish in these lakes would probably vastly improve if we kept more spotted bass.

Urban · Post by **Urban** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:08 pm

Slot limits are put on lakes that have high recruitment in the first few cohorts (i.e., sub 12 inch fish), and its these first few cohorts that create a stunted population by decreasing growth rates (i.e., imbalance in predator prey numbers, too many predators not enough resources per predator). The protective part of the slot only ensures that you protect enough of the optimal spawners to ensure your population doesnt crash through overharvest. Oroville is a classic stunted fishery, typical of spotted bass lakes, and the slot limit is the correct strategy to attempt to increase the quality of the fishery.

Heres the thing. Slots only work if anglers are willing to harvest sub 12 inch fish, and in the case of Oroville it appears anglers are not doing there part. Would you like to consistently catch fish bigger than 1.2 pounds at Oroville? Then start eating sub 12 inch fish. Pretty simple. So stop moaning about the reg on that lake, its the right reg, and put your pre-conceived yet wrong notions aside and start eating small spotted bass. You would be surprised how quickly the population structure will change. By releasing that small bass you wont later catch it in a tournament when it is bigger, you will be contributing to a continued decay of the fishery.

Jason Milligan · Post by **Jason Milligan** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:18 pm

It would help if more people knew you could keep fish under 12 inches. I had no clue!

Thanks Urban. It's crappie sized spotted bass fish tacos every time I go to Oroville from now on!

Urban · Post by **Urban** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:58 pm

Right on Jason, glad to see a positive response. Last time I pre-fished a tourny at Oroville I kept a limit of sub 12 inchers and cooked them for many of the tourny anglers that night. Most of them agreed on two things: they tasted great and you got a pretty big fillet from a 10 inch spot. I guess this was my way of trying to convince tourny guys that it was ok to harvest small fish from a stunted lake and that there was a tasty reward by helping DFG achieve management objectives.

Delaney · Post by **Delaney** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:27 am

I can't understand the statement above that a slot limit is the correct strategy to correct a stunted fishery. Aren't stunted fish caused by an over population in the first place. Wouldn't a slot limit tend increase that same population? These lakes are over populated with spotted bass....period, reduce their numbers....period.

Urban · Post by **Urban** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:06 am

Delaney, slot limits are the right remedy when you have very high survival in the first few years of a population (slots are used for other reasons but we are talking in terms of stunting) and its within this part of the population that the stunting occurs. At Orville the stunting occurs in those fish under 12 inches. So the slot, which in this case means you can harvest fish under 12 inches and above 15 inches, is aimed at harvesting the problem area which is fish under 12 inches. So its doing exactly what you said needs to be done. The number one reason why slots dont work, and this is well documented, is because the public cant get it in their head that its ok to harvest these small fish. And this is exactly why managers are reluctant to put slots on a fishery.

You can do your own research online and see when slot limits are appropriate and when minimum length limits are appropriate. Figure out what recruitment means: slots are for high recruitment in the first few years, minimum lengths are for low recruitment in the first few years. Really, completely removing all regs at Oroville is probably what needs to be done but you will never be able to convince the Fish and Game Commission to do such a thing. I tried once and it didnt work

Delaney · Post by **Delaney** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:30 am

Urban, isn't the slot limit allowing fish to replace the stunted fish that are over populated anyway? I will never understand this line of thinking.

J.Rios · Post by **J.Rios** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:36 pm

Probably safest to take the cynical view, and accept that the DFG will not currently adopt any policy that would enhance a trophy bass fishery. Due mainly to the invasive species issues that various groups are touting to the press and legal system.

After all they could have left well enough alone. Perhaps even left the lake as a standing project of fish management.

Really, after first fishing that lake over twenty years ago I have to say that overall fish quality has improved greatly, and been getting better by the year.Why change that now????

fish_food · Post by **fish_food** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:57 pm

J. Rios wrote:Probably safest to take the cynical view, and accept that the DFG will not currently adopt any policy that would enhance a trophy bass fishery. Due mainly to the invasive species issues that various groups are touting to the press and legal system.

It's due mainly to CA DFG being a salmonid-focused agency. Warmwater fisheries management seems to get the short shrift in this state.

J. Rios wrote:Really, after first fishing that lake over twenty years ago I have to say that overall fish quality has improved greatly, and been getting better by the year.Why change that now????

If a segment of Oroville's fishing improved it's despite the slot limit, not because of it.

J.Rios · Post by **J.Rios** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:47 pm

Not sure about that. Results would be similar to having spike only hunts for deer, or elk.

Take the pressure off the larger branch antlered animals, and you get better breeding results and carry over.Developing a trophy area. Not sure why fish wouldn't mirror that model. I'm sure all here have caught fish with hook holes in them.Protect the larger breeders,and yes,you will achieve a larger juvenile pop.
Unlike ungulates though your juveniles also become part of the food chain for humans and fish alike. Looks like a win-win ta me.

You are very correct though about the salmonid issue with DFG. That could definitely bring about the drastic decline of all bass species.(especially Nor-Cal

)

GKramer · Post by **GKramer** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:28 pm

Any management tool that relies on the modern bass angler taking fish home will fail. That guy thinks black bass are his children/grandchildren and he will get watery eyes (or ramp rage) if he even sees a stringer. If you have an overpopulation, you really need an over-harvest. Unfortunately, the Pavlovian catch-and-release ethic in bass fishing is irreversible. Without an attitude adjustment in the angler population, you might as well wish in one hand and rotenone in the other.

kb · Post by kb » Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:59 pm

I am amazed at the opinions of the shade tree fisheries biologists here on Westernbass.com. First guys the slot limit was put on Lake Oroville in the 80's to get rid of the Redeye bass that were abundant in the lake. You could catch 4 under 12 and 1 over 15 and that is how we fished many tournaments on that lake. The Redeye bass only grows to about 14 inches but multiplies very well. Now they are pretty much gone from Lake Oroville.

Oroville has not been a Largemouth fishery in decades and despite the efforts from a local club of planting Florida Largemouth it has not become a trophy largemouth fishery. Although there are smallmouth in the lake it really isn't considered a trophy smallmouth fishery either. With a couple of exceptions the average tournament bass in the past several years is under 2 pounds and big fish in an event is less than 4 pounds and DFG has this information from every tournament as they are required to submit a catch report.

The fish size in Oroville is increasing but not because of a decades old slot limit but the addition of Coho Salmon in the lake as a major food source other than pond smelt. The way this lake fluctuates and the cover and spawning habitat it will never be a trophy fishery. Now since the supplier of the Coho in the Pacific Northwest cannot guaranteee a sterile "triploid" smolt to be planted and with high water conditions causing the Coho to pass over the spillway and into the Feather River system they will no longer be planting Coho into Lake Oroville. They will be planting King Salmon in the near future and these smolt will once again be a great protein for the bass.

By taking the slot limit off of Lake Oroville it willl operate very much like all of our other lakes like Shasta, Oroville, Folsom, New Melones etc and can be used as a tournament lake by clubs, smaller events without needing the slot limit exemption and will help the surrounding businesses in the Oroville area.

The one comment I see here is the comment regarding the warm water fisheries getting the shaft and the DFG is only interested in Salmon...that is not correct and couldn't be further from the truth. The warm water management of our current staff at DFG is the reason that most of our lakes are doing very well. It isn't a crime to take a few spotted bass home and it shouldn't be and our current catch and release moto is the reason that many of the eco systems on our lakes have changed.

I ask one more question of the bass anglers of our state. How many of you are members of CIFFI (California Inland Fisheries Foundation)? This group is the one that is doing the egg takes, raising the Kokanee, King Salmon and Trout in many of our lakes. They fund the pen projects at many of the lake with Trout including Berryessa, they fund the planting and feeding of these fish in conjunction with the DFG.....bottom line is they are making swimbaits work!!!!! and I bet there isn't 1% of the posters here on WB that support their efforts but have benefited from their efforts by catching larger fish. They are planting hundreds of thousands of put and take fish that in turn feed the bass in every major lake in our state......

So the DFG has done many years of study on Lake Oroville and see no reason to manage it differently than the other spotted bass lakes in our state.....I say they are doing a great job and Oroville is a great fall and winter fishery so get out there and give it a try!!!!!!

kb

GW · Post by GW » Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:00 pm

Once again Kramer is using big words I had to look up :

Rotenone is an odorless chemical used as a broad-spectrum insecticide, piscicide, and pesticide. It occurs naturally in the seeds and stems of several plants, such as the jicama vine plant.

fish_food · Post by **fish_food** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:03 pm

kb wrote:The one comment I see here is the comment regarding the warm water fisheries getting the shaft and the DFG is only interested in Salmon...that is not correct and couldn't be further from the truth. The warm water management of our current staff at DFG is the reason that most of our lakes are doing very well. It isn't a crime to take a few spotted bass home and it shouldn't be and our current catch and release moto is the reason that many of the eco systems on our lakes have changed.

I'd be curious to see a comparison of the funding appropriated for DFG's salmonid programs versus funding appropriated for warmwater management programs. The budget galleys might be available through DOF...

J.Rios · Post by **J.Rios** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:19 pm

Not debating any of your comments KB, but can you expand on what they have done as far as warm water species management ??

Especially in the Northern portion of our state.

FISHIN · Post by **FISHIN** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:32 pm

KB is right on the money. The slot limit has done nothing for the lake. The bass get bigger because there is more food and bigger food for the fish to eat when they do the plants. Pond Smelt is the primary source of food unless they do the salmon plants and thats like eating a french fry compared to a triple cheese burger which the salmon are.

Urban · Post by **Urban** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:10 pm

[quote="kb"]I am amazed at the opinions of the shade tree fisheries biologists here on Westernbass.com.

kb[/quote]

Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. As mentioned the only reason the slot hasnt done much at Oroville is because the fishing public did not do their part by harvesting sub 12 inch fish. And thats pretty much the end of the story.

Gary Dobyns · Post by **Gary Dobyns** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 9:02 pm

Guys the slot limit was installed because of Red eye bass populations. The spotted bass fixed this problem. When Spots were introduced we saw our smallmouth, largemouth, and red eye populations take a huge hit. We now have a spotted bass fishery and it's quite healthy. The plants of the Coho are helping with BIGGER spots and the largemouth population is on the up swing. This fall I caught far more LM than I've caught in years.

Personally, I think it was a good move by Fish and Game. Lakes like Oroville and Shasta cannot be hurt by anglers keeping a limit of fish. Also, most anglers release all their catch anyway. The guys that do want to keep a limit to eat, most will release the LM and big spots anyway.

I think it was a good move on the slot and hope they keep planting the Coho's.

Urban · Post by **Urban** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:11 pm

[quote="Gary Dobyns"]The plants of the Coho are helping with BIGGER spots...[/quote]

Gary, can you explain why the introduction of Coho salmon has equated into BIGGER spots?

Delaney · Post by **Delaney** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:11 am

I don't understand that part about the Coho's either as they don't live in the same water column as bass do. Some of the lakes that I fish have Coho's and a declining bass fishery.
Also, what's this about the red eye bass. All the lakes that I fish with spots have a lot of fish with red eyes. Is that the problem on other lakes besides Oroville.

Gary Dobyns · Post by **Gary Dobyns** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:18 am

[quote="Urban"][quote="Gary Dobyns"]The plants of the Coho are helping with BIGGER spots...[/quote]

Gary, can you explain why the introduction of Coho salmon has equated into BIGGER spots?[/quote]

Just this. Prior to this past January...I had caught 3 spots over 5 pounds out of Oroville in my life. In January and Feb this year I caught 4 spots over 5 pounds and one almost 6 pounds. I caught probably 30-40 over 4 pounds in those two months. Several of these were chasing Coho and I saw and cast to them. I caught many spots late last year and start of this year that had big knots or bulges on their sides ( large fish inside their stomachs ). I caught one in December tournament with Corey Fenske last year on a spook. Corey netted it, unhooked it, and started laughing...look at this fish. He had so many Coho's inside of him ( big bulges on sides ) and one sticking out his mouth...and still ate the spook. The spots are getting "thicker" and bigger. This is not coming from Pond Smelt. If you fish Oroville much at all, you'll see Coho’s jumping out of the water with big swirls behind them. The spots are eating the Coho’s and getting larger. I hope Dept F&G continues to plant them.

The Coho's are a high protein meal in Oroville, just like the Kokanee are in Bullard’s.

Gary Dobyns · Post by **Gary Dobyns** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:36 am

[quote="Delaney"]I don't understand that part about the Coho's either as they don't live in the same water column as bass do. Some of the lakes that I fish have Coho's and a declining bass fishery.
Also, what's this about the red eye bass. All the lakes that I fish with spots have a lot of fish with red eyes. Is that the problem on other lakes besides Oroville.[/quote]

I'm definitely no fisheries biologist...but I've caught my share of the Coho's while bass fishing ( they can be a pain in the butt ) and I've seen many of them on or near the surface. I really don't know about water column statement. This could be true maybe at some times of the year, but most of the year, I'd disagree about water column. I know a bunch of guys that troll for Coho's and trout......they all complain/talk about all the spotted bass they catch. Anyone that thinks Spotted Bass don't eat Coho's is badly mistaken.

Red eye bass are a different species. A couple of quick ways you can tell is they'll have some blue color on their sides and white on the tips of their tails. They rearly get to 14 inches, but most are under 12 inches. They were a problem in Oroville and this was the reason for the slot limit.

fish_food · Post by **fish_food** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:09 pm

As explained in an FGC document for the regulation change:

http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/2012/5_00isor.pdf
The Lake Oroville black bass sport fishery has been managed with a slot
limit regulation since 1983. The current slot limit prohibits the take of
black bass between 12 – 15 inches total length - anglers are allowed to
take black bass less than 12 inches and greater than 15 inches total
length. Statewide, black bass sport fisheries are managed with a 12-inch
total length minimum regulation.

Slot limit regulations are used to reduce fishing mortality of black bass in a
particular size range, and allow harvest of black bass in smaller or larger
than protected sizes.

The slot limit regulation was enacted at Lake Oroville to promote the
harvest of redeye bass, which were abundant in the reservoir but seldom
reached the statewide minimum length of 12 inches total length. In
addition, the slot limit allowed the harvest of the abundant black bass less
than 12 inches in total length and provided for an increase in the catch
rates of black bass greater than 15 inches total length.

Review of angler survey data from 2002 – 2010 shows that spotted bass
is the dominate species in angler catches with no redeye bass reported.
Anglers reported releasing 97% of all black bass caught even though 43%
of the black bass caught were legal for take. With the extirpation
of redeye bass and the high release rate practiced today by sport fish
anglers, the current slot limit regulation is no longer warranted.

The slot limits for black bass in McClure and Millerton reservoirs, and Orr
and Siskiyou lakes have also not yielded the desired results as originally
anticipated. This action would streamline fishing regulations which have
been publicly criticized for being too complicated and eliminate the need
for tournament fishing exemptions which have, in the past, resulted in
conflict with Title 14, Section 1.87.

Title 14, Section 230, allows the Department to issue exemptions to the
slot limit regulation for Event type contests. While tournament anglers are
allowed to possess fish within the slot limit for purposes of the tournament,
in so far as possible all fish weighed-in must be returned to the lake alive
and in good condition. If a bass is weighed that is within the slot but is
dead, this creates a conflict with Title 14, Section 1.87 as an angler should
not be in possession of a slot size bass after the fishing contest is
concluded. Dead bass weighed-in during a tournament that are legal to
possess by Section 7.50, are usually given to a receptive angler with a
valid sport fishing license. The elimination of tournament exemptions
would also reduce department processing time and costs.

It is recommended that all black bass angling regulation where slot limits
exist be changed to the statewide standard - 5 bass, 12” minimum total
length.

The benefits of the proposed regulations are sustainable management of
sport fishing resources and promotion of businesses that rely on sport
fishing.

The proposed regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with
existing state regulations.

The Commission does not anticipate non-monetary benefits to the
protection of public health and safety, worker safety, the prevention of
discrimination, the promotion of fairness or social equity and the increase
in openness and transparency in business and government.

CN · Post by CN » Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:22 pm

Wish they would put some Coho in Nacimiento. Do most orginizations rules not allow an angler to keep fish they catch during a tournament. Might be something to look into. Like Nacimiento most limit's come in at 6-7 lb's and 9lb's will get you check. A 7lb limit of Spot's is what 5 13"-14" fish. I keep a limit of the small one's everytime I go down there but most don't and the Spot's have killed that lake. It used to be a Smallmouth factory and I have only cought one in the last say 10 year's and when you get lucky and catch a Largemouth it's not in the best shape.

KB can you give us some examples of what the DF&G has done to help warm water fish ei: Largemouth Bass because they do nothing for the Lakes I fish that I know of.

Oldschool · Post by **Oldschool** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:38 pm

GW wrote:Once again Kramer is using big words I had to look up :

Rotenone is an odorless chemical used as a broad-spectrum insecticide, piscicide, and pesticide. It occurs naturally in the seeds and stems of several plants, such as the jicama vine plant.

And used to kill off fish; the meat axe solution to stunted bass populations.
Tom

Urban · Post by **Urban** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:55 pm

[quote="Gary Dobyns"][quote="Urban"][quote="Gary Dobyns"]The plants of the Coho are helping with BIGGER spots...[/quote]

Gary, can you explain why the introduction of Coho salmon has equated into BIGGER spots?[/quote]

Just this. Prior to this past January...I had caught 3 spots over 5 pounds out of Oroville in my life. In January and Feb this year I caught 4 spots over 5 pounds and one almost 6 pounds. I caught probably 30-40 over 4 pounds in those two months. Several of these were chasing Coho and I saw and cast to them. I caught many spots late last year and start of this year that had big knots or bulges on their sides ( large fish inside their stomachs ). I caught one in December tournament with Corey Fenske last year on a spook. Corey netted it, unhooked it, and started laughing...look at this fish. He had so many Coho's inside of him ( big bulges on sides ) and one sticking out his mouth...and still ate the spook. The spots are getting "thicker" and bigger. This is not coming from Pond Smelt. If you fish Oroville much at all, you'll see Coho’s jumping out of the water with big swirls behind them. The spots are eating the Coho’s and getting larger. I hope Dept F&G continues to plant them.

The Coho's are a high protein meal in Oroville, just like the Kokanee are in Bullard’s.[/quote]

Nice. I didnt realize Coho's were being stocked at such small sizes (relatively speaking). Kinda like the Bullards effect.

Oldschool · Post by **Oldschool** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:31 pm

What the coho eating spot population should tell everyone is there was a good population of spots over 3 lbs in the lake before the cohos were planted. 15" spots are not going to be successful eating 6" to 8" bait fish. It takes a longer frame like 17" to 18" spots to eat larger baitfish, then those spots will take advantage and grow larger. You more than likely had a large population of spots of all sizes, the larger prey activating more feeding periods.
Tom

Delaney · Post by **Delaney** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:54 am

I still don't know about the red-eye bass.
Were they only in Oroville?
Where did they come from?
Are they in any other of the mentioned lakes? If not, why was the slot limit put on the other lakes.
If they are in the other lakes, maybe that's a problem too. If the slot limit worked at Oroville, why not leave it in place at the other lakes?

Oldschool · Post by **Oldschool** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:16 am

Spotted bass come in 2 strains; northern Kentucy spots that were introduced in 1939 in the Merced river and southern Alambama spots introduced in 1974 lake Perris. The Kentucy spots are smaller bass and grow to about 3 lbs maximum, the Alabama spots grow much larger over 10 lbs! Lakes with Kentucky spots will never have a spotted bass population with numbers over 15", slot limits are worthless for these fisheries. Lakes with Alabama spots a slot limit may have an impact if anglers kept the smaller bass.
Red eyes, like spotted bass are river and stream bass and that may have been the intent of stocking them; to give anglers a chance to catch bass in rivers and streams. The problem is bass prefer lakes and simply migrate down stream into the reservoirs. The red eyes spawn in streams, not in lakes, so high predator loss occurs from smallmouth bass and brown trout that also live in the streams where the Red eyes spawn. Spotted bass will spawn in lakes like smallmouths and largemouths and compete with smallmouth bass for prey and appear to be able to displace smallmouth where they coexist.
California DFG who was responsible for stocking Kentucy spots should eradicate lakes with Kentucy spotted bass, they have no angler appeal; too small compared to Alabama spots.
Tom

fish_food · Post by **fish_food** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:31 am

Delaney wrote:I still don't know about the red-eye bass.
Were they only in Oroville? - See below.
Where did they come from? - Like all other large centrarchids in CA, they were transplanted from the American Southeast
Are they in any other of the mentioned lakes? If not, why was the slot limit put on the other lakes.
If they are in the other lakes, maybe that's a problem too. If the slot limit worked at Oroville, why not leave it in place at the other lakes?

In California: Alder Creek in Sacramento County, Stanislaus River in Tuolumne County, Dry Creek in Nevada County, Santa Ana River in Riverside County, Lake Oroville in Butte County, San Margarita River in San Diego County, and Sisquoc River in Santa Barbara County, California (Goodson 1966b; MacCrimmon and Robbins 1975; Moyle 1976a; Dill and Cordone 1997; Shapovalov et al. 1981). They're established in more waters than the ones just listed though.

They're also in the north Delta.

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factshee ... ciesID=395

Means of Introduction: Intentional stocking for sportfishing. Introduced into California between 1962 and 1964 (Moyle 1976a). Goodson (1966b) gave exact dates and numbers of fish introduced. Introduced into Kentucky around 1950 with stock obtained from Georgia (Burr and Warren 1986). Populations in the Hiwassee system in Tennessee are the result of introductions in 1943 (MacCrimmon and Robbins 1975; Etnier and Starnes 1993). Populations in the Cumberland Plateau were introduced in 1953 (MacCrimmon and Robbins 1975; Etnier and Starnes 1993).

Status: Presumably extirpated in Arkansas (Robison and Buchanan 1988). In California, only the Sisquoc River introduction was successful (Moyle 1976a). This location was the only one in California to receive a sizeable number of stocked fish (Goodson 1966b). Established in Georgia (Dahlberg and Scott 1971a, 1971b; Page and Burr 1991), Kentucky (Burr and Warren 1986), and Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Unknown in North Carolina.

Impact of Introduction: Introduced predatory centrarchids are likely responsible for the decline of native ranid frogs in California and for the decline of California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense populations (Hayes and Jennings 1986; Dill and Cordone 1997).

The redeye bass was introduced into headwater streams in Tennessee in the 1950s for sportfishing. Smallmouth bass were native to these same streams farther downriver. Eventually the redeye bass extended their range downriver and became sympatric with the smallmouth bass and hybridized (Turner 1989; Turner et al. 1991; Pipas 1996; Pipas and Bulow 1998). The redeye bass has been documented to hybridize with native smallmouth bass M. dolomieu in parts of Tennessee, including the Ocoee and Obed systems in the Tennessee drainage and Roaring Fork system in the Cumberland drainage (Turner 1989; Turner et al. 1991; Pipas 1996; Pipas and Bulow 1998). These hybrids are fertile and are also capable of backcrossing. Hybridization and backcrossing has occurred over several generations and resulted in altered genetics of the parental species. These introgressed individuals are phenotypically similar to the parental species but differ genetically (Turner et al. 1991; Pipas and Bulow 1998). It was recently determined that 67% of the Micropterus sampled in nine streams in Tennessee were electrophoretic hybrids; 31% sampled from 11 streams were meristic hybrids (Pipas 1996). Meristics of both parental species and the resulting hybrid are given in Turner et al. (1991).

Remarks: Although Page and Burr (1991) reported M. coosae as introduced into the Altamaha, Dahlberg and Scott (1971a,1971b) and Etnier and Starnes (1993) reported it as native to that drainage. Redeye bass were originally brought into California in 1953 as broodstock. However, none of these fish were released into the wild and none survived (Kimsey 1957). Although Menhinick (1991) list redeye bass as introduced into the Tennessee drainage in North Carolina, his map shows the collections are actually in the Tennessee portions of the drainage. MacCrimmon and Robbins (1975) showed a map depicting this species' native and introduced range.

References (click for additional references)

Shapovalov, L., A.J. Cordone, and W.A. Dill. 1981. A list of freshwater and anadromous fishes of California. California Fish and Game. 67(1): 4-38.
Tilmant, J. T. 1999. Management of nonindigenous aquatic fish in the U.S. National Park System. National Park Service. 50 pp.

Erdsman, D.S. 1984. Exotic fishes in Puerto Rice in Distribution,Biology, and Management of Exotic Fishes. John Hopkins.

Other Resources:
FishBase Fact Sheet

Author: Pam Fuller

Revision Date: 12/16/2010

Citation Information:
Pam Fuller. 2012. Micropterus coosae. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL.
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factshee ... ciesID=395 Revision Date: 12/16/2010

Delaney · Post by **Delaney** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:13 pm

What about the two questions above that weren't answered re the other lakes mentioned. The reason I'm asking is I don't fish Oroville, and am concerned only about the others.

Oldschool · Post by **Oldschool** » Fri Nov 23, 2012 8:04 am

The Kentucky spots first introduced to California by a hatcury located what now is Friant dam lake Millerton in 1939 was used to plant the smaller northern strain spots for decades, therefore Kentucky spots are more common throughout the state. The larger Alabama spots are becoming better established. You can't tell the two spotted bass apart visually, other than larger size spots are Alabama spots. Redeye bass are different species, they are bluefish color and very small average about 8".
Fish_For_Food posted a very detailed and excellent info thread, the answers are in there!
When you consider the FLMB stocking program was a mistake according to DFG biologist because they didn't improve the catch rate size of bass per man hours fished, the DFG goals are far from the bass anglers goals of catching larger bass verses numbers of bass.

Tom

MGJR · Post by **MGJR** » Sat Nov 24, 2012 7:41 am

KB, thanks for taking the time to put together that post. As a fishery biologist and an avid bass angler, I've been advocating a regulation change for Oroville for years now. I know there have been a variety of alternative regulations proposed, but the bottom line is, the existing regulations were outdated. I am elated to see DFG moving forward with new regulations to manage the contemporary fishery at Oroville. As you, Gary and others have noted, this fishery has changed through the years. The one thing to remember, Oroville will never be a "trophy fishery." The size and age structure of the bass population will undoubtedly fluctuate over time, our hope is that DFG will continue to monitor and dedicate what resources they have available to manage our reservoir fisheries.

Cheers,

MIKE GORMAN

biteme · Post by **biteme** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:18 am

Glad I read this post. As someone that doesnt keep fish thats going to change. When I hit Oroville those 12in spots are going in the box.

Kevin Evans - Kap · Post by **Kevin Evans - Kap** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:20 am

Sounds like we need a good ole fish fry.... remember them days as a kid when we stocked the freezer until we had enough to put on a good feed.

Happy holidays,
Kap

vinny · Post by **vinny** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:50 pm

They should have no limit at all on the spots. Catch all you want and eat all you want.

fish_food · Post by **fish_food** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:56 am

kb wrote:The one comment I see here is the comment regarding the warm water fisheries getting the shaft and the DFG is only interested in Salmon...that is not correct and couldn't be further from the truth.

Salmonids programs get far more attention compared to the warmwater fisheries. Warmwater fisheries do indeed get the shaft. From the FGC web page on fisheries policies:

It is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission that:

Maintenance stocking of warmwater game fish is not recommended because satisfactory populations are usually sustained by natural reproduction. Accordingly, such stocking shall be limited to:

I. Lakes, reservoirs and streams where natural reproduction is inadequate to maintain populations capable of supporting fishing, which demonstrate acceptable growth rates or are capable of producing trophy-sized fish, and where such stocking can be demonstrated to be cost effective.
II. Waters selected for evaluation of experimental management techniques.
III. Reintroduction of desirable species that have been eliminated either by natural causes or management actions intended to remove unwanted species.
IV. Introduction of new species or subspecies consistent with existing policies and under guidelines provided by the Department of Fish and Game.
Captured wild fish will normally be used to stock all waters. Artificially-produced fish also may be used if circumstances warrant.
Privately owned waters not open to the public will generally not be stocked by the Department. These waters can be stocked by registered aquaculturists under the authority of a private stocking permit issued by the Department.

Only two short sentences and four bullet points devoted to warmwater policy. Warmwater species do get the short shrift when you compare what's programmed for salmonids:

It is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission that:

I. Salmon shall be managed to protect, restore, and maintain the populations and genetic integrity of all identifiable stocks. Naturally spawned salmon shall provide the foundation for the Department’s management program.
II. Salmon populations shall be periodically inventoried by the Department, or its agents, as necessary for management and protection of salmon stocks and their habitat, as outlined in this policy.
III. Salmon streams shall be inventoried for quantity and quality of habitat, including stream flow conditions. Restoration and acquisition plans shall be developed and implemented to safeguard such critical habitats as estuaries, coastal lagoons, and spawning and rearing areas, and to protect or guarantee future instream flows. Fisheries Restoration grants and other funding may be directed to implement the plans.
IV. Existing salmon habitat shall not be diminished further without offsetting the impacts of the lost habitat. All available steps shall be taken to prevent loss of habitat, and the Department shall oppose any development or project that will result in irreplaceable loss of fish. Artificial production shall not be considered appropriate mitigation for loss of wild fish or their habitat.
V. The Department shall strive to improve habitat conditions, alleviate threats, and renegotiate mitigation requirements at appropriate opportunities to eliminate the need for fish rescue operations. Salmon rescue will not be considered as mitigation for proposed water development. Only under the following circumstances shall salmon be rescued:
A. When they will be returned to the stream system of origin; and
B. When fish can be held until habitat conditions in the place where they were collected improve, or when fish can be immediately released in nearby areas of the same stream and the Department has determined that no adverse impacts would occur to existing salmonid populations; and
C. When, in the opinion of the Department, habitat conditions are temporarily inadequate or when conducted pursuant to a permitted in-stream construction or restoration activity.
VI. Hatchery releases of Chinook salmon in anadromous waters will be externally marked and coded-wire tagged at the current Department standard.
Vll. New programs that propose to propagate state-or federally-listed salmon shall conform to the Department’s guidelines for establishment and operation of recovery hatcheries found in the Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon, Appendix H. In coastal streams without Department hatcheries, artificial rearing shall be limited to areas where the Department determines it would be beneficial to supplement natural production to re-establish or enhance the depleted wild population. In the Sacramento, American, Feather, San Joaquin, Klamath and Trinity River systems, hatchery production shall be used to meet established mitigation goals. At the discretion of the Department, excess eggs from non-listed salmon from the State, Federal, or cooperative hatcheries may be used to provide additional fish for the commercial and sport fisheries. Because of potential adverse impacts, all salmon reared from excess eggs that are intended to be released into estuaries, bays, or the ocean for fisheries enhancement must be marked so that potential impacts and efficacy of the project can be evaluated. Specifically, the projects must provide to the Department, within five years of the adoption of this policy, a written evaluation of their operations that specifically addresses: 1) potential impacts to nearby stream environments; 2) potential impacts to ESA or CESA listed salmonid populations; and 3) efficacy of the project in meeting project goals and objectives. The Department will assess the evaluations and will provide a recommendation to the Commission on whether this section of the policy should be continued.
VIII. Domesticated or non-native fish species will not be planted, or fisheries based on them will not be developed or maintained, in drainages of salmon waters, where, in the opinion of the Department, they may adversely affect native salmon populations by competing with, preying upon, or hybridizing with them. Exceptions to this policy may be made for stocking drainages that are not part of a salmon restoration or recovery program.
IX. The best available scientific information will be used by the Department to assess the salmon resource and to develop management strategies and recommendations

It is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission that:

The golden trout, designated as the state fish of California, will be perpetuated and maintained as appropriate to support its designation.

I. Certain waters within the high mountainous areas of Madera, Fresno, Inyo, Mono and Tulare counties may be designated by the Department as "Golden Trout Waters of California". Within that area, they shall include, if possible:
A. All of the native golden trout streams: and
B. Any other stream or lake in which non-native but self-perpetuating wild golden trout form the bulk of the population.
Within these waters golden trout will be preserved and maintained in as genetically pure a state as possible. Rainbow trout and other species of trout shall not be planted in designated golden trout waters. Barren lakes in this area may be reserved by the Department for future stocking of golden trout.
II. A brood stock shall be maintained in lakes set aside for the sole purpose of egg production to provide fingerlings for planting waters.
III. Hatchery-reared or wild fingerlings may be used for initial stocking in streams and lakes designated by the Department. In lakes containing other fish populations, the fingerlings will be of such size that a reasonable survival may be expected. Fingerlings may be stocked to maintain populations in lakes. Whenever practicable, the range of golden trout will be extended through wild fish or fingerling plantings in native waters through a recovery plan, or in other waters possessing adequate spawning grounds.
IV. The Golden Trout Policy prevails over the general Trout Policy if the two are in conflict.

It is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission that:

I. Natural reproduction and rearing of trout will be encouraged to the greatest extent possible by protecting and improving habitat and by affording protection from disease, predators and competing fish species.
II. Populations of wild trout shall be sustained in suitable waters to provide a diversity of angling opportunities. In some waters it may be necessary to restrict angler harvest to the extent that such harvest has virtually no long-term effect on numbers and sizes of fish in the populations.
III. Artificial propagation and rearing of trout is a major Department program, but will be utilized only when necessary to augment natural production. Stocking fingerling and sub-catchable-sized trout shall take priority over planting catchable-sized trout in the hatchery stocking program when the smaller fish will maintain satisfactory fishing.
Hatchery trout shall not be stocked in waters where they may compete or hybridize with trout which are threatened, endangered or species of special concern. Exceptions may be made for stocking waters which are not part of a species recovery program.
IV. Catchable-sized trout shall be stocked only:
A. In lakes, reservoirs and streams where natural reproduction and growth are inadequate to maintain populations capable of supporting fishing; and
B. When it is reasonable to expect at least 50% by number or weight will be taken by anglers.
In stocking catchable-sized trout, lakes and larger streams shall have priority over smaller streams. Suitable waters with heavy fishing pressure compared to the size of planting allotments shall have priority. Trophy fish, weighing one pound or more may constitute up to 10% by weight of each load of catchables stocked, if they replace an equivalent poundage of catchables in the allotment for the water stocked.
V. Subcatchable-sized trout may be stocked in lakes, reservoirs and streams where appropriate to augment trout populations in such waters, and to increase fishing opportunities and success. Fingerlings shall be stocked primarily in waters where reproduction is limiting and satisfactory angling can be supported with fingerling stocking, where the population has been destroyed, and in lakes where they will establish a new fishery or augment the existing fishery.
VI. Water companies, utility districts and other public or private agencies in control of urban lakes shall be encouraged to finance put-and-take trout fishing in such waters when suitable for such purposes. The Department shall provide technical advice and otherwise assist in the development and maintenance of such programs.

It is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission to:

Recognize there is a tremendous demand for fishing in reservoirs, lakes and streams. The Department of Fish and Game cannot meet all of the demands for catchable-sized hatchery fish for such waters. Therefore, to the extent possible it should encourage the involvement of the private aquaculture industry.

The Department shall not stock fish in (1) private waters that are closed to the public, and (2) fee-fishing lakes operated by registered aquaculturists privately for profit. As long as they are open to the general public, the Department shall stock two types of waters: (1) those in which most, if not all, fish are reared and stocked by the Department, and (2) those in which the reservoir or recreation operator, under a Cooperative Stocking Program, plants an equal or greater weight of catchable-sized fish than does the Department.

The Department alone cannot plant enough fish nor improve enough habitat to develop the full recreational potential of many waters. Although the Commission recognizes the prerogative of a local entity to rely on a fishing program of this type, it also recognizes the resulting loss in recreation fishing opportunities in areas where the demand is so great. It, therefore, directs the Department to encourage local entities to shift to the more successful Cooperative Stocking Program.

I. Waters Where Anglers Pay Small Fees to Defray Only Costs of Essential Services:
A. The Department may stock public and private waters where a nominal fee is charged to defray the costs of maintaining sanitary and safety services, roads, parking, gatekeeping and patrol services, liability insurance, licenses and taxes, and fish habitat improvement projects, providing all revenues are used to pay for these costs only. Access fee revenues may be used also to purchase fish to supplement the state allotment, at the discretion of the recreation operator.
B. The recreational operator will be required to demonstrate that their acess fee revenues are necessary for recovery costs of essential services or additional supplemental stocking upon request by the Department. The Department may stop stocking public and private waters that charge access fees that are determined to be unusual or unreasonable for recovery of costs of essential services or additional supplemental stocking.
C. Access fees charged by state parks are not covered by this policy. State park fees are established and set by the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
II. Waters With Cooperative Stocking Programs:
Cooperative programs may be entered into by the Department with public and private entities. In these instances, the cooperator supplements the Department fish planting allotment by purchasing additional fish. The Commission encourages the Department to enter into such cooperative stocking programs, provided they conform to the following requirements:
A. Each proposed cooperative stocking program will be in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding; and
B. Each year the cooperator shall purchase and stock at least as many pounds of fish as the Department stocks, and hopefully, considerably more as the program develops and the annual income from fees increases.
However, to facilitate the starting of a new program, the cooperator may delay the matching commitment until the second year of the agreement when fee revenue from the first year will become available for purchasing fish.
If any cooperator does not match or exceed by weight the fish stocked by the state in the second year of the cooperative program, no additional Department fish shall be delivered until the commitment is met.
C. In order to generate revenue to finance the cooperator's share of fish and fish habitat improvements, daily fees higher than those required to pay actual costs of necessary sanitary and other essential services required for fishermen at a water stocked by the state may be charged, provided that all resulting revenues in excess of those needed for such necessary services be used to purchase fish for stocking or to implement habitat improvement projects in the water.
D. The cooperator shall not divert any profits resulting from daily access fees to support any other operation. The cooperator shall keep separate financial records for each water stocked by the Department under a matching program in such a manner that costs of sanitation and other necessary services for fishermen and costs of stocked fish and habitat improvement can be readily determined. These records shall be made available to the Department upon request.
E. To the extent of its ability, when requested, the Department will assist any cooperator with advice on technical, procedural and business policies to help in developing a financially self-sustaining operation.
III. Davis-Grunsky Waters:
The Department will not stock fish in place of those which the local water agency is required to stock by its Davis-Grunsky contract in order to realize the anticipated recreational benefits from the project.

Tags

Notice