SML Striper Growth

[Deleted]

You guys are the best. I teach stats at JMU and the thing I tell my students that sticks is I am 100% certain that I don't know shieeit! It's all a freaking illusion anyway.

Bigun, you have said nothing to prove that I ain't crazy. Yet you made it so I can sleep better tonight.

Thank you sir.

[grasscutter]

I'm sure y'all know....there are no dummies here .....what can mess up nature in a year....will or can take many more to fix....survival of the fitess .....in dew time I think nature will straighten this out and may not even be a problem.....this has been a great discussion and a good read .... With different opinions

[BentRod]

You said 30"+ fish "not present at all in 2013 data?" The 2013 data we received was as of July of 2013 I think, if that, so it was not a complete year. That's likely what you're looking at as well. My guess is he would have gotten a few more 30"+ in the summer months of August and Sept..whether or not that increases the percentage of 30" vs the total, I don't know. It appears to me his sample data, while not ideal, is still pretty consistent year to year. We'd all love more 30"+ data but you have to kill em to get that. I know we caught at least 50-60+ fish 33" and over this year on my boat. But nothing over 38.5" and most all of them 33-36". We do that every year though since probably 2009 and never see much of anything on up into the 40"+ range. It's like all of our fish hit that slot and never break out of it. Maybe that's all SML is capable of? But when you look at all the different charts (even the citations), everything points to a downward trend the past few years.

Bigun, can you prove to me that moving the slot up will deplete all the small fish in the lake? Or is that just an emotional reaction? There's a year round opportunity to deplete fish under 26"..why doesn't that happen? 5 months out the year, you can deplete anything you want, but we still catch 30"+ fish all day everyday. Also the problem being discussed is growth in length. Weights fluctuate throughout the year on most every lake..that's not necessarily an indication of positive or negative growth in the fish. I respect your opinion and I know you're fearful of change and what it might bring, which I am too, but I disagree that this change will deplete all the small fish in the lake. In fact I think this is about as minor of a striper reg change as is possible. The only thing less we could do would be nothing at all, which doesn't appear to be an option. If Dan tried to increase the creel, I would fight right beside you. Now, when the hell are we going fishing?!

[CorneliaGale]

Hope the weather don't come and spring does, I'm ready to fish.

[Deleted]

No, I can't prove it anymore than you can prove to me that this move is absolutely nessary   It just seems logical to me that the more you eat = more weight = more growth. ......I mean heck, look at mwards belly!!!!

[kicknrocks]

Wow, I guess ill actually get in on this topic. I do regularly fish with decent results. Mainly from the bank, but sometimes from a yak. Im not generally one to give out much personal fishing info but I had issues this year, and I think its directly connected to a food source, or an inability to process their food.
I caught 4 decent sized(34-36") fish around hardy launch this year. 0 breaking 13lbs. No girth, and no fight. One 40 yard run and done on a 40 series spinning rod. Heres the kicker. Not a single one on a lure. Threw a 1,2, and 3 oz spoon for 2 straight months, daily... and not one fish over 30" would touch the thing. Plenty of 5lbers on bucktails, swimbaits, spoons, rubbers, etc. Nothing good on boards, alabamas, or trolling when i can get out. Now a frozen peanut gizzard tail?! My ol lady drops a 34" 14lber. Still no girth or fight. My biggest was 17lbs and 38" on, brace yourself, chicken liver, at niagra, in late june!? She had no fight, a full belly, but no girth. All were pictured and released. But it has felt different for the past 2 years.
10lbs seems to be the upper normal nowadays, readily taking everything you have to offer. If you can find them. Its hard out here on the bank, but I put time in and get fish out. I will keep a very strict journal this year, as I am moving to the moneta area near a deep cove. I lurk alot but dont post much, but ill be checking in through out the spring and summer.

[Deleted]

Feb 11, 2014 23:45:28 GMT -5 BentRod said:

You said 30"+ fish "not present at all in 2013 data?" The 2013 data we received was as of July of 2013 I think, if that, so it was not a complete year. That's likely what you're looking at as well. My guess is he would have gotten a few more 30"+ in the summer months of August and Sept..whether or not that increases the percentage of 30" vs the total, I don't know. It appears to me his sample data, while not ideal, is still pretty consistent year to year. We'd all love more 30"+ data but you have to kill em to get that. I know we caught at least 50-60+ fish 33" and over this year on my boat. But nothing over 38.5" and most all of them 33-36". We do that every year though since probably 2009 and never see much of anything on up into the 40"+ range. It's like all of our fish hit that slot and never break out of it. Maybe that's all SML is capable of? But when you look at all the different charts (even the citations), everything points to a downward trend the past few years.

Bigun, can you prove to me that moving the slot up will deplete all the small fish in the lake? Or is that just an emotional reaction? There's a year round opportunity to deplete fish under 26"..why doesn't that happen? 5 months out the year, you can deplete anything you want, but we still catch 30"+ fish all day everyday. Also the problem being discussed is growth in length. Weights fluctuate throughout the year on most every lake..that's not necessarily an indication of positive or negative growth in the fish. I respect your opinion and I know you're fearful of change and what it might bring, which I am too, but I disagree that this change will deplete all the small fish in the lake. In fact I think this is about as minor of a striper reg change as is possible. The only thing less we could do would be nothing at all, which doesn't appear to be an option. If Dan tried to increase the creel, I would fight right beside you. Now, when the hell are we going fishing?!

Ahhh I see.. I should have said all the 30 inch fish not present. My bad. Dern words.



I still can't understand a few more things. First let's throw down some points:

1. Both you and MWard seem to be agreeing that there may be a lack of 30 inch plus fish that are not being accounted for in the sample data
   
2. And let's just say that bigun is correct when he implies that most people who can catch 30 inch plus fish ain't giving them to Dan
   
3. MWard seems to agree with Point 2 in some manner
4. And finally ..just now.. after days of prodding and poking... you..bentrod ... and you... bigun have finally admitted that you both have caught a ton of 30-35 inch fish this year (the word ton should not be taken literally... or should it?)
5. And if I extrapolate my own personal data as a newcomer to the rest of you board members, my guess is that all of you have kicked my ass in terms of size

With all of the above, is it fair to say that there may be a chance that the sample data is not representative??  And if this is the case, does this even matter?  

Some more points from Mward:

1. "The key discussion point to which the hypothesis was formed is not the number of fish over 30" - it is if our fish are growing at the right rate as they get into the mid 20 range"
2. And...."Although what is in question is not the number of fish over 30 or whatever, but their growth-date-size/age...and the fish caught should provide valid data for this."

Thus it seems that Mward may not feel that a representative sample matters all that much..although sometimes he says a few things that are contrary. Honestly, I am a bit confused on how Mward really feels.  I definitely understand how bentrod and bigun feel.  Mward doesn't seem to let his feeling be known as well to the devil. 

So this is where I come in with my points:

1. I'm no biologist but my guess here is that you want growth/age to be bigger than what your current samples show
2. If in fact the 30 inch plus fish are not being represented well in the data, then how in the world is growth/age even remotely accurate? 
3. Wouldn't a bunch of numbers in the 30s increase the growth part of this equation?
4. The only way these 30+ fish would hurt this study is if they were all as old as bigun.  Because a 30 inch fish who is 80 years old would be worse than a 20 inch fish who is 10 years old. 
5. However..if these not accounted for fish are say healthy 6-10 year olds ...wouldn't this increase our variable of interest (growth rate) substantially?
   

The data itself shows these spooky outliers (30+ 6 year olds) that are puzzling to the hypothesis that our growth is decreasing. And the explanation I have seen is simply, "some fish are breaking through the barrier."  Thus the devil must then counter with "These spooky outliers are more common then your current sampling methodology is capable of accounting for"

[BentRod]

The question is the sample representative of the real population or not? You don't even wanna know how many fish under 30" I catch in a year in comparison to the fish 30"+. Sure you can claim that all the mystery fish are 6yrs old and 40" fish, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything when there's continual signs of older and older sub 30" fish, which is the majority of the population in the lake anyways.

[BentRod]

Feb 12, 2014 0:18:17 GMT -5 @bigun2 said:

No, I can't prove it anymore than you can prove to me that this move is absolutely nessary   It just seems logical to me that the more you eat = more weight = more growth. ......I mean heck, look at mwards belly!!!!

So we agree! The same thing seems logical to me...but clearly (or not so clearly) that's not the case with our fish overall.

[mwardncsu]

Bigun - I've been trying but keep eating and eating but I just don't seem to get any taller.......

[Deleted]

Feb 12, 2014 7:07:13 GMT -5 BentRod said:

there's continual signs of older and older sub 30" fish, which is the majority of the population in the lake anyways.

BentRod, can you prove this, or is that just an emotional reaction? 

[Deleted]

when did increased roudness ever become....not growth?  me thinks some are still looking for the perfect butt......

[BentRod]

Feb 12, 2014 7:49:09 GMT -5 @bigun2 said:

Feb 12, 2014 7:07:13 GMT -5 BentRod said:

there's continual signs of older and older sub 30" fish, which is the majority of the population in the lake anyways.

BentRod, can you prove this, or is that just an emotional reaction? 

Yeah I can prove it by catch rates and my own catch data. Are you trying to tell me that there's more 30"+ fish than sub 30" fish or even remotely close?

[Deleted]

Feb 12, 2014 8:09:23 GMT -5 BentRod said:

Feb 12, 2014 7:49:09 GMT -5 @bigun2 said:

Are you trying to tell me that there's more 30"+ fish than sub 30" fish or even remotely close?

I figured that would get you a little excited...   I was told you keep an exceptionaly detailed fishing log and was hoping you would post up some numbers ....I never did say I played fair.

I'm saying with the numbers being stocked each year, there should be a lot more sub 30" fish than 30"+ fish.....

[BentRod]

Numbers or locations?!

Yes there should be..thats pretty obvious. So what's your point? My point is that the sample population of Dans is probably pretty representative of the actual population of <30" fish and >30" fish..maybe it's not? I don't know but I would hope it is. Either way, the sub 30" fish are showing slower than normal growth, which might lead to there being even less 30"+ fish and even more sub 30" fish (thats a reasonable thought, right?) until we wake up one day and it's Kerr lake! (This is an example of an emotional reaction!)