Quote:
Originally Posted by Smalls
So in other words, what this article says about limits and fish size goes completely against what Waltrip says. As Kajun said, liberal limit = 25 fish and smaller based on the article. Restrictive = bigger fish. So answer me this, based on your source, if by your standard 15 fish has caused less big trout, then based on this article, the limit should reduce even more. maybe to 10?
Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
|
In the 1990's it began to be clear to many wildlife agencies that overpopulated deer are smaller deer because they stress their food sources, but it wasn't until the last 5-8 years that the wildlife management agencies began to realize that food availability and growth rates, rather than survival to older ages is the key to producing bigger fish, especially in relatively short lived species like the spotted seatrout.
The Colorado wildlife managers have had great success restoring the size and growth rates to lake trout in Blue Mesa Reservoir by removing the harvest limits on this species and by aggressive culling of smaller fish using gill nets. I've also seen a number of farm ponds in the midwest overpopulated with bluegill. You get tons of fish only a few inches long and none of them grow bigger than 6" long because there just isn't the food. Add ample predators (often bass and catfish) to keep the bluegill numbers down, and you get the big bluegill again. Humans can also effectively fill the predator role to prevent overpopulation of species with high fecundity in many ecosystems.
Lower limits produce older fish. But older fish are only bigger fish if the food supply is sufficient to feed them all for high growth rates.