Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 21:49:15 GMT -5
If the notion of more bait is anecdotal then it would seem to me that work should be done to quantify this absolutely important variable.
I do like making changes to controlled singular variables..but good science suggests a decent hypothesis should be driving this change and more importantly...resources must be present to accurately study the impacts of this change. Everything I have read thus far seems to suggest that there is no solid hypothesis and a there is a lack of resources to collect the appropriate data.
Thus...it occurs to me that doing nothing at this point is the best option. And while Dan continues his lobby for more resources..time might be all that was required for what history may call a simple two year hiccup.
|
|
|
|
Post by mwardncsu on Feb 6, 2014 21:53:48 GMT -5
The down growth trend is more than 2 years. I think I have the data - from me a PM with your email and I'll try and send it to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by striperjohn on Feb 7, 2014 7:22:20 GMT -5
Being one of the "old farts" on here let me say this. I fished Santee Cooper in its heyday period from 1971-1977 when I got out of the Navy. We caught huge stripers routinely 25-30 lbs at least once or twice a month, and every now and then a 40. They're now having the same problem that SML is having. A couple of the lakes in my home state of Tennessee are having similar issues as well.
I would like to think that Wilson and the game people here and in SC and TN are all talking but I sincerely doubt that is happening simply due to the budget problems they're all having. This seems to be more than just a copepod problem. There's been mention of some lakes with lack of oxygen and nutrients, others talk about genetic growth rates, others have even thrown in water content and pollution.
But I will tell you this, in Watts Bar Lake (where I grew up in Rockwood,TN) we used to routinely catch 35-45lbers near the tailrace of the Kingston dam. Then the clean water act was implemented, and that has been reduced to a 35 every now and then and mostly 15-20lbers. Many people in that area believe the clean water act caused many commercial organizations to quit dumping certain things in the water that actually aided the bait and caused nutrient growth etc etc. Big chain of events. When that stopped fish growth begin to slow down exponentially.
I tend to agree that it seems Dan Wilson is reacting to minimal data (not his fault--so back off me) versus actual hardcore long term data based on good scientific analysis. When was the last time any of you saw a Fish and game boat taking samples etc etc.
My 2 cents worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by mwardncsu on Feb 7, 2014 8:44:42 GMT -5
StriperJohn - as to them taking samples - DGIF had annual taken gill-net surveys in the fall - but did not last year (2013) due to staffing issues, but my understanding was this was the 1st year they did not at least in a long, long time - this is another area the Striper Club volunteers and helps out with for those that did not know. The gill net surveys provide data on the younger (say 1-4 or so yr fish) - and the age/length data for older striper come mainly from fish-heads turned in as those fish are typically too large to be caught in the gill net during sampling.
As mentioned, they have not done a bait/forage study for a long time - something we discussed and pushed as a concern that was needed - even exploring if there were ways private funding could be arranged to do a forage study. I feel it would be helpful to have this data so that we better understand the trend so that it can factor into conclusions on "why" - but I think the feeling that "it is what it is" may be prioritizing this lower - just my sense of why....
I don't know if any water samples have been taken by DGIF on any regular basis. I know they have some DO measurements take across time but do not believe those have regularly been taken nor in the last few years.
You may recall the recent post about some positions for folks to do creel surveys this year - my understanding is that this will be on & off water creel surveys being conducted - so let's all make sure we support that and participate and provide accurate data when asked.
It is clearly a challenging environment to work in - lots of variables - many you can't measure, many for which there are not resources to measure - but plenty of opinionated folks from every angle with different agendas, concerns, views, etc all making themselves heard. I guess my goal for all of this discussion is to help educate the wider angler community to the issues out there, the actions going on (or not) to work to manage the fisheries and how folks can help get involved to protect the resource that we all enjoy and share.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 9:46:57 GMT -5
No doubt, the lake is full of 20-25 inch fish. Just my opinion, but I think we need to keep those around to keep the meat fishermen happy. (and I'm not bashing them, to each his own) there are a lot of folks out there that don't fish much that are tickled to death to catch "2" 25 inch fish.
My question is....what about all the mid to uper 20 lb. fish we were catching couple years ago??? are they still growing??? if so, why are the 30lb. fish not showing up???
|
|
BentRod
Global Moderator
Posts: 2,252
|
Post by BentRod on Feb 7, 2014 9:48:53 GMT -5
Mward, do you know how many fish heads Dan receives a year?
Dan has at least 14 years of catch and head data that I know of and I think quite a bit more on back into the mid 90s. Is it the best data he could hope for? No certainly not, but he's using what he has to make the best decision he can. At the end of the day, I'd much rather have a biologist that cares enough to look at this stuff, even ask our opinions on it, than a biologist that doesn't even care and does nothing at all. I certainly understand the doubts, because I have them myself (had even more before we sat down with Dan and really looked at this stuff and discussed it), but I'd much rather be able to have a productive conversation about these things, than to be yelling and screaming that something's wrong with nobody listening to us.
I'm with Striperjohn that this lake, along with a lot of others, can't be what it once was. Pressure more than anything is what I think the cause of it is. You've got a lot more and a lot better fisherman with better electronics, better equipment, etc. These fish have no where to hide and get big.
|
|
|
|
Post by mwardncsu on Feb 7, 2014 9:56:16 GMT -5
Mward, do you know how many fish heads Dan receives a year? Not off top of my head - I've seen some info before.... I thought it was in the data packet he shared with us this summer but it does not look like it - at least not specific to angler fish-heads vs. gill nets. There is the age/growth sample data and given no gill-net collection was done in 2013 I guess all the data he had at that time was from angler-submitted fish-heads (a lot of which came from a couple of guides as well). 132 fish in the 2013 dataset - which he shared with us late summer so he perhaps got some more late in the year. 86 from 2012 and 145 in 2011 - not sure if this was angler submitted fish-heads only - or angler+gill net.... maybe there was no gill-netting in 2012 as well? thought there was.... |
|
BentRod
Global Moderator
Posts: 2,252
|
Post by BentRod on Feb 7, 2014 9:58:46 GMT -5
No doubt, the lake is full of 20-25 inch fish. Just my opinion, but I think we need to keep those around to keep the meat fishermen happy. (and I'm not bashing them, to each his own) My question is....what about all the mid to uper 20 lb. fish we were catching couple years ago??? are they still growing??? if so, why are the 30lb. fish not showing up??? They're dead or not growing. The little fish will always be there. They're stocking 300,000+ a year and they reach 20" in like 2.5years or something..maybe less. They've been free game..nothing new there and they're still here. People don't seem to be understanding the point here that our fish are not growing!!! Our 10-11yr old fish are averaging 28-29" I think. They'll never make it to 30+lbs. Our fish get to 25-26" in no time (4-5yrs) then there's 4-5yrs of literally no growth..they'll never make that back up. |
|
|
|
Post by mwardncsu on Feb 7, 2014 10:00:29 GMT -5
My question is....what about all the mid to uper 20 lb. fish we were catching couple years ago??? are they still growing??? if so, why are the 30lb. fish not showing up??? My suspicion is that many of them are no longer in the lake to grow  It's why I feel pushing the slot up on the high-end is important - provide protection to those larger fish too.... (whoops - posted while Bentrod was posting.....) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 10:01:22 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree also, it won't ever be as good as it was. It is a known fact, that as lakes age, they become less fertile and less productive.....it is what it is...but still a great fishery and I wouldn't trade her for any other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 10:12:44 GMT -5
My question is....what about all the mid to uper 20 lb. fish we were catching couple years ago??? are they still growing??? if so, why are the 30lb. fish not showing up??? My suspicion is that many of them are no longer in the lake to grow It's why I feel pushing the slot up on the high-end is important - provide protection to those larger fish too.... (whoops - posted while Bentrod was posting.....) I totally agree that the fishing pressure on the lake is insane now days....but hard to believe that most of those big fish are being kept and no longer in the lake....Kinda makes me question whether the slot is really working.......are the fish really surviving when we release them?  The bait, fishing pressure, nutrients are always changing...the only constant variable is the slot limit the past several years....please tell me i'm totally wrong in my thinking....... |
|
|
|
Post by mwardncsu on Feb 7, 2014 11:04:54 GMT -5
Bigun - certainly not all released fish survive - the studies show varying numbers based on water temp, size of fish, method of catch. This time of year the survival is high if the fish is handled properly, released quickly. Summer time - its pretty low regardless. I do know that 0% that go in the cooler survive though  We don't use the slot the way its used with fish that are capable of breeding - the thought there is to protect fish to get to breeding size so they can successfully reproduce. We use it to protect a class/size of fish. I guess the way I look at it - without a slot, there is still a creel limit - and there would still be C&R - it would just mean that if someone was going to keep a couple that they would/could keep bigger ones that are currently protected by the slot.... The slot is protecting the bigger fish to give them a chance of surviving to be caught another day. |
|
|
|
Post by CorneliaGale on Feb 7, 2014 11:12:17 GMT -5
If the Water Authority is still testing the water, years ago they tested it above Roanoke and a few places in Roanoke at Hardy and Hales Ford bridge. I remember the lake used to have a lot of algae in it and only a few of the weed beds everyone hates and are trying to get rid of. I also know the health department used to monitor SML, don't know if they still do, I'm not in contact with them like I used to be. The bad thing about all the testing is it costs money and with all the cutbacks and loss of funds the places don't have the extra money to do the testing. Without the volunteer help they can't do no where near as much. Comes down to priorities as to where they spend the money, where they get the most out of the dollars they spend or who yells the loudest, the squeaky wheel get the grease. The more information we can give them, with the creel information and the heads so they can check them, maybe they can figure out why the fish are not growing past a certain size. There is most likely more than one reason, May just take time, may take a bigger slot limit, may take a closed season, I don't want that to happen, but they have done it in Saltwater and it helped.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 17:23:47 GMT -5
Ok guys, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer and am certainly not trying to argue, but this thread has me lost. If the fish are hiting a brick wall at the lower end of the slot and the bigger fish are being caught out, then how did the bigger fish we have get there? If the bigger fish we have now (35-36 inch at the top of the slot) are not growing, how is it going to do any good to raise the slot to 40 inches, if we aren't going to have any fish that big? I'm no biologist, but I've thought about the fish growth alot. I honestly think the growth should have recovered somewhat by now. (since the fish kill) ....really thought the slot was the ticket but now I don't know. Next month will be my 34th year fishing SML...just my observations over time...There are 2 types of serious fishermen on the lake...those that would rather catch 15-20, 8lb. fish in an outing, than one 25lb. fish ( which doesn't hurt the big fish) and the ones that would rather catch one 25lb. fish than twenty 8 lbers. ( I know several who target bigger fish but they are the most conservative minded ones out there and you can bet your last dollar they will not kill a big fish. (so thats not going to hurt the bigger fish.) Not to say that joe blow couldn't make his first trip to the lake, put out bait and 5 minute later catch a 25lber., but that is pure luck, (that's not going to hurt the bigger fish population) it takes alot of skill, knowledge, patience and love for the fish to target and consistently catch bigger fish. They won't hurt the population... so what the heck is the problem? ?  again i'm no biologist, but it has got to be the bait.....back during the fish kill there were a lot of long skinny fish due to the shortage of bait in the lake. I honestly don't think the copods would have had such a bad effect on the fish if they weren't so stressed from lack of food........The only difference in the bait that I have noticed since the big fish days, is the lack of threadfins. Back in the 80's and 90's during the winter when the water temp in the winter would get below 40, every big cove and creek would have 1000's of dead threadfins floating. When they would sink the fish simply would engulf them without exerting any energy to feed. Thats only happened once since the fish kill, but there wasn't a lot of threadfins that year. Is it possible? ...sorry BentRod, I know you hate threadfins, but i'm sticking with that until you convice me otherwise.  |
|
|
|
Post by Shadslinger on Feb 7, 2014 18:15:57 GMT -5
Bigun has made the most logical and sensible explanations I have seen.
Has Dan talked with the buggs island biologist any about their stripers. The fish there are smaller than ours and not growing very well also so whats their explanation?
If it is genetics than that would be our problem as well since its all the same strain of fish.
Stripers in buggs not only compete for food within themselves but also with the blue cats so is it insufficient food source.
If its genetics then from the all the articles and stuff ive read on this coal ash spill we will know in a few years cuz we'll have to be getting stocked from another lake anyways after this.
|
|
It's why I feel pushing the slot up on the high-end is important - provide protection to those larger fish too....
The bait, fishing pressure, nutrients are always changing...the only constant variable is the slot limit the past several years....please tell me i'm totally wrong in my thinking.......
