Been mentioned here and there. Think it would work? Personally I don't think it would work everywhere but I'd be for trying it a couple years on public waters.
Printable View
Been mentioned here and there. Think it would work? Personally I don't think it would work everywhere but I'd be for trying it a couple years on public waters.
Well I think in public waters if they'd do a 10" limit AND take the pressure off the crappie for a few seasons by trying to get alglers to target other species of fish for the 1st couple years the crappie would have to thrive. Here's another idea, reduce the daily limits on that lake just a season or 2 to increase numbers and let that 10" size take effect? I think more than anything though, it's all about being somewhat conservative. Where's the brush sinking programs, where's the improved stocking programs, where's the bait fish stocks, or the lake levels left at the right position for a good spawn to take place instead of 20+ ft high and then dropping it like it's hot....i.e poor water management. So many other things would have to fall into place before we'd see a 10" length limit to really work at it's best.
Some lakes it would not work. Nimrod has an over population problem IMO .
We need some way to thin them down such as reduced limit on 12'' and bigger while relaxing limits on those under 10''. They tried a 10'' limit years ago and said it did not work. Some lakes with low numbers already have length and or reduced creel limits.
Can't use a one size fits all approach. Besides I ain't cuttin' 4 inches off for nobody!!!
I am all for the limit being reduced to 10 daily limit and a 12" minimum length limit statewide for 4 years. If changes are being thought about we should atleast entertain the thought of making it interesting for sure enough results. there are plenty of other species of fish out there swimming around that are really good eating and provide equal fun for catching. you can hardly tell the difference between walleye and crappie fillet after they are cooked, and bluegill and catfish are good to, bass as I have heard are just mearly good fertilizer for meatgetters garden.
I say leave it like it is, if it ain't broke don't fix it!!!! 12" would never work, lots of lakes would just over populate and this would just defeat the purpose, 10" would be better overall but every lake is different.
amen on the fertilize, tomatoes loves bass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would vote to change the limit to 30 statewide instead of just Southeast, and put in a 10" min length limit. Texas had these same arguments but implemented it statewide and they have very good crappie fishing. Just like deer hunting, don't shoot the spikes, let them grow up to be big deer.
The length limit is also way easier to regulate/enforce than counting slimy fish to 20 or 30......
We're jumping in over our head when we think they are "plenty" of other fish to chew on.
The only way i see it working on any lake is by county by county with someone over each countys waters.
They would have to post signs on each waterway as to lenght size limit,maybe 5 limit on one and 50 on another. Plus make war on what we call trash fish on each waterway to thin them out as to have more food for are prize winning fish. Each fish has its purpose in a waterway,even the gar,bufflo,carp,drum have their purpose. Why,its to costly unless we want pay more tax dallors to support the gettem bigger ideal it be as is.
Do you think if the woods were full of tree rats eating every nut in sight that a 4 point rule would be better then a 8 point. Is that the season tree rats can be shot year round now,thin them out,more food for the 3 ponit rule. Control the trash fish first......
Well lots of different opinions looks like. If Nimrod has good numbers wouldn't that prove the worth of that 10" slot years ago though. I keep hearing how many crappie Nimrod has, it may have just worked. It reminds me of that lake Pine Creek over in OK that's chocked with smaller ones. I still have plans of transplanting some fish from that lake into others. way I see it is if your going to catch them lil buggers while trying to achieve a mess of decent ones you might as well keep the bubbles on and take em to lakes that actually need em. It's the wrong time of the year to do it now though so we should wait for colder weather. As with the brush the state game and fish do not appear to be stepping in to transplant fish so us anglers might as well do it ourselves. I can't see how it could hurt, a 10" length limit that is. A lot of folks throw that size back already. I can also see state wide limit going back to 20 or less state wide. Lets face it if a guy has a partner in the boat 20 good crappie makes a lot of meat! That would only be a 10 and 10 limit doing it that way. I'd go for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIMROD
Limit in Charles needs to be 3 hunnert per person, agin the law to throw back anything that gets to the boat. The 10 inch minimum would probably work for some lakes. The smaller lakes may suffer with the minimum.
Just think. Up until a minit ago I couldn't even spell byolojist and now I R one.
That is one lake that comes to mind every time this topic is mentioned. It did NOT work there. But you look at Norfork, and it DID work there. It obviously ain't gonna work on every lake, just like the 3 pt rule doesn't necessarily make monster bucks across the state. Maybe there needs to be a slot limit on charles. 47 fish under 10" and 3 fish over 12".
That 10" rule works wonders on lakes that don't get pounded every day. I'm not a big fan of length limits for the simple reason the length limits have caused some of the lakes i fish to be full of fish that are just at the length limit where we used to catch some true slabs.
Maybe they need a population of good ole' MS River GAR! Them gar will thin the small ones out pretty quick! Not to mention making the fishing more exciting, LOL!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dblevens
All of our opinions are good BUT, none of us are in charge! All we can do is call the AGFC and others and tell them what we would like to see happen. AND do you really think that will do any good?
What about the places you find nobody's fished in years. Sometimes all they have are small fish. That would be better than a 10" limit you'd think.
NIMROD and I catch plenty of keepers but also way too many small ones here. He says a 10'' limit was tried but did not work.
I just wish the game and fish would quit stocking stripers. They (biologists) will tell you that the stripers don't eat game fish like bass and crappie but I ain't buying that load of bull. Any fish that grows to be 50-70 lbs will eat whatever gets in it's way. As far as a 10" minimum; I would personally not have a problem with it on the waters I fish but I'm not so sure it would be good for smaller waters that seem to be overpopulated already. Seems like it would just create more overpopulation leading to limited food sources and/or growth stunting but then again I'm not near as smart as those biologist, or so I'm told.
I'll not waste a minute of my time talking to the AG&F about anything,,unless restrained already.....Its a waste of breath..been there,,done that..no thankyou
These are all great opinions. AGFC does like to hear from everyone, especially here in Northeast Arkansas. Your opinions are very valuable to us. This is why we come on this site.
Constructskeeter,
It is illegal to transfer fish from one water body to another.
I agree, the AGFC will listen. They have not always done it and sometimes they still tend to be a little hard of hearing, but the repeated message will get through. I'll leave my beef with the AGFC for another site
No it works on lakes with low reproduction. On lakes with big spawns every year it can actually be counter productive.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkcrappie
Crappie tend to over populate in some fertile waters. The reason Nimrod has a big spawn ever year is spring floods as it is for flood control. Only folks wanting reduced limits is those not catching fish.Quote:
Originally Posted by constructskeeter
Better be careful transplanting fish , not only illegal but could spread diseases and parasites!
i'm against any statewide reg regarding limit. the state has enough regulatory power over us as it is. i see no valid reason to give them more unless there is scientific proof a size limit is needed. if there are population issues on some waters (after a thorough scientific evaluation by trained biologists on said waters), then i would agree with some size limits on that (or those) waters only. a cookie cutter approach is rarely good for the general population.
What he said and that goes for all fish and game species! Just as long as the commission does'nt make it so complicated it takes a philadelphia lawyer to interpit regulations.Quote:
Originally Posted by slaters#1
My reference was towards 2 lakes in northern Mississippi. One is full of 11 3/4" fish and the lake is on a 12" limit. The other lake doesn't have near the pressure and produces.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIMROD
Boy you can sure tell when it gets hot outside and everyone in sitting in the AC
I've always wondered what is so magical about a 10" crappie...my favorite eating crappie is about the size of a big bream...anything big enough to fillet I save for the wife and kids...10 years ago the crappie on Charles were the perfect size to eat...after the slot limit (10") the crappie are so small I dont pursue them...not everyone fishes for fillet size crappie...it is obvious to me that the crappie in Charles do not get enough to eat...