Size limit

ScottyP · Member

Size limit

WytEurp · Senior Member

Scotty, Id leave the monsters alown. If your going to take a fish take a small one. Personaly anything over 12 inches does not tast a good....

brian clemens · Senior Member

i agree, its like venison. the older the deer, the gamier it taste. give me a yound deer over an old one anyday. so i would agree with wyteurp. the bigger they are the crappier they will taste.

cole · Senior Member

-- Edited by cole at 13:53, 2008-10-05

SK60 · Senior Member

On PC, there is no size limit (confirmed by an official of DFG earlier this year). Besides the taste/flavor issue is one of reproduction and removal of�potential spawners from the gene pool, not to mention the actual loss of eggs. A large fish is a predictable good spawner unless its getting too old; on the other hand, a small fish is going to grow to be a replacement "breeder" for these old fish. On a population basis, the creek can only carry so much fish "biomass". The trick is to know what the balance should be between wild youngsters and oldsters; this is some of the data DFG will collect in evaluating the health of the fishery. I release all PC fish I catch, but right now, I would keep a small fish for eating, if so inclined.

-- Edited by SK60 at 15:33, 2008-10-05

Black Cloud · Senior Member

Not only are the big fish not as good to eat there is probably a build up of unhealthy toxins in these fish. If you are going to eat the fish, I would only keep the planters.

ScottyP · Member

Thanks alot guys. i do agree the smaller ones do taste better, and No size limit on putah huh, wow.

grahler · Veteran Member

Putah fish do not taste good.

ONEWEIGHT · Senior Member

It's been so long since I've kept a fish, that I can't remember the minimum size regulation.� If memory serves me correctly, the DF & G has a minmimum size requirement for trout in all California waters.� I think that the size is 6" and I don't believe that has changed at all?� Here is a picture of a fish caught on the Rubicon which did not meet that requirement!

AbelBoy · Senior Member

I'm not going to get into the debate about removing fish from Putah since we all can agree that Putah is a valuable fishery to everyone.� The original post was in regards what would have more of an effect: removing small or large fish.

I'll take a stab at it.� Sorry, I don't have any scientific data for support.

I think removing the larger fish will have more of an effect than removing smaller fish.� If a large fish is removed, smaller fish are going to flourish since a larger fish isn't around to prey on the smaller fish.� Keep in mind a 24" trout can eat a 12" trout.� With the large trout gone,�larger populations of�smaller trout compete for the limited food sources.� Two things can happen because of this.� Either a new alpha trout can get established, or as food sources deplete, growth rates�get stunted.

So in review.� The way I look at it, larger alpha trout keep the smaller fish in check.� If the alpha is removed (and a new alpha isn't established) the population balance goes unchecked.

If anyone has any opinions, I'd love to read about it.

AB

windknots · Senior Member

Hi AB, actually there are studies on this and you can find them on the web, they've been done in various states for their local DFG as they were trying to determine methods for managing their fisheries. They're easy enough to google on if you're looking for something to do on a rainy day and you can skim through to fine the interesting parts. The large fish are very important in that they have been the most successful in surviving and thriving, so they've got the best DNA in the creek and you want more of that. Second, you can run into trouble if you have lots of small fish, they can reproduce so quickly that you end up with stunted populations where there are tons of skinny small fish but no big ones due to excessive competition for food, there are a number of Sierra lakes I've read about that go in and out of this phase. At times fishermen are encouraged to keep fish from specific ponds to cull the population of small fish and help the population stabilize.

A common and effective management strategy is to allow slot limits where people can keep a couple of fish within a size range, like 14-18". This helps keep the fishery in balance.

AbelBoy · Senior Member

Thanks, Windknots for the reply. I was just too lazy to look up specific articles. I remember a lecture that I had in a biology class about this topic back from my college years.

I've read about the phases of those Sierra Lakes. The brookies that were planted years ago were aquacultured to reach sexual maturity much earlier than their original strains. These fish overpopulate lakes. Growth rates get stunted due to competition of their food sources. That explains a bag limit of 25 brookies in some parts of the Sierras.

AB

THE BIG PIKER · Veteran Member

YES I AGREE ; THE BIG FISH HAVE A LITTEL TO MUCH MERCERY IN THEM. I GOT IT FROM A GOOD SOURCES HE SAID SMALL ONES TASTE GOOD . AS YOU CAN SEE BELOW !!!!��

��

-- Edited by THE BIG PIKER at 22:51, 2008-10-06

-- Edited by THE BIG PIKER at 08:41, 2008-10-07

JT · Senior Member

ONEWEIGHT wrote:

If memory serves me correctly, the DF & G has a minmimum size requirement for trout in all California waters.� I think that the size is 6" and I don't believe that has changed at all?
�

As SK60 stated earlier, Putah Creek does not have a minimum size limit for trout.� This was confirmed by a DFG official.