Yeah, as far as tournaments go - I would never suggest eating the larger fish.  But let's face it, most of our members will never release a legal fish, even though it is small - just to get something on the board.  The majority of fish I've seen at our tournaments were never monsters.  So just as an non-tournament angler still has to make wise decisions about what fish to keep and eat, and which trophies should be released for the betterment of the fisheries, so would a club.  A fish-fry would/should only include the smaller fish - but as I say, I've never run across a WBC tournament where finding smaller fish among the entries was ever a problem. lol

Troy..........Tournaments are a different critter.... we have the option of changing size limits and catch/retention limits but if we all really cared about things we would stick to the 12"minimum or maybe even just raise the bar to 14 inches! Tournament anglers are not the only fish in the sea...... W.D.F.W. has to think of the whole pie rather than the individual pieces. I want them to do as much for tournament anglers as we can get but in this economy and with the mis-information that seems to be provided to policy makers we are only seeing the beginnings of what could be. We all have a mandate to get the policy makers to listen to what our concerns are rather than what the big lobby groups want. Impossible? no....but it is a large obstacle to overcome. I am all for catch and release and even get sickened when a large fish dies after being gut shot (I had one at 3.4 lbs die at potholes) so much so I had to give the fish to a family fishing from shore as I would not be able to enjoy it. Look at the problem as if you owned a small pond.......you have 200 bass in the pond and all are around 10 inches.... after a year you have 30 1-1/2 lbers and 170 12 inchers....... year 2 you have 25 3 lbers and 75 1 pounders and 100 12-13 inch 3/4 lbers  but now the next class is at 250 10 inchers for a pond population of 450 fish. Year 3 shows 10 3-1/2 pounders 15 2 lbers and 300 1 pound fish 125 10-12 inchers and also 350 new 10 inchers for a total pond population of 800 fish...... year 5 now shows 2 four pounders 25 2 pounders 350 12 inch 1-1/4 lb fish and the rest are runts of 10-8 inchers who are much faster and efficient at eating anything that hits the water. A controlled harvest is the most efficient means of improving size as, by adding more forage, the smaller fish would devour them and continue to stunt the larger, slower fish. Basic I know but we have lost the ability to control outgoing information with all the internet information sharing going on we can only try to keep informing the public about what is the right thing to do and get more involved in true stewardship where we actually get involved in the improvements to our fisheries. My hope is that some of the general public is reading this thread and asking themselves the question "How many fish do I keep and of what size" and that they ask questions before just filling a bucket.

A fish fry just doesn't make sense to me...an anglers goal during a tournament is to go out and catch the five BIGGEST fish he can and your telling me those are the ones we are going to eat.  If your argument is that these fisheries are overpopulated with smaller fish why would we want to harvest the "trophy" sized bass?

The size of the fishery has to be a consideration as does the fact it is drawn down every year....a fishery of that size...going from a river...basically...to a lake and back to a river where all species are grouped up.....spread out and then grouped up again can only lead to an inconsistent result with individual species having intermittent spikes in population. If the river was left at pool longer allowing for a higher spawn success as say, Potholes has been then maybe we would see better size numbers....I like the fact I can go to Roosevelt...catch 50+ Smallies and a few Walleye and the next day go to Banks and get 4-5 pound Largemouth and the third day go to Rufus Woods and catch some Triploids!! A few harvested Smallies from Roosevelt are fine with me but the increase in harvest numbers (Past 10 less than 12 inchers one over 17" now 15 under 12"and one over 17") is maybe too many but with lower numbers of folks taking trips this was inevitable.

Its basically a "supply and demand" issue.  If the food supply in a lake is limited, only so many meals will be provided for the predator species.  If there are too many predators, they each get just a small piece of the pie, and growth is limited.  But if the smaller bass are regularly eaten by a two-legged species that drives and watches TV, then the remaining bass have more to eat, and grow bigger.   All over the country, Fish and Game Departments manage lakes for two possibilities; size (trophies), or lager populations of smaller fish.  (Naturally where ecosystems provide more food that the predators can possibly consume, there can be both.)

Rob makes a good point about Lake Washington - larger fish can be caught on a regular basis.  But Lake Roosevelt just won't produce the same number of quality fish.  And if smaller bass are eaten by rod-equipped humanoids, the lake's remaining food supply is greedily consumed by the remaining bass who start resembling me; older and fatter.  One thing is fore sure - eating 60 of them at a tournament with a fish-fry, is certainly not going to harm the fishery at Lake Roosevelt.

Yeah Troy but look at the chance of a really big one. You can throw a dropshot all day on Lake Washington and not catch a million dinks, but you can catch 5 pounders pretty regularly. You aren't gonna catch as many 5's at Roosevelt. I don't know if Roosevelt is "stunted" but there are probably too many small fish there and it might help to thin them out. There are probably others reasons why a fishery doesn't produce more quality fish, but the pounds of fish to forage is a scientific reality in lakes. Lets say a small lake or pond can sustain 100 pound of fish....100, 1 lb fish or 20, 5 lbers, both equal 100 lbs.  So if you have too many small fish, they are using up poundage of a lake, thus making less "quality" fish. Banks has also been this way for several years until recently when some nicer fish have been caught. A possible result of the big draw down a few years ago. That's why they changed the bag limit to keep more fish under 12 inches.

I will agree to disagree.  Ever weigh-in a fish that has cull tag or scale scars on it?  There are no lakes that I fish that I feel are overpopulated with stunted fish.  Sure if you go throw a dropshot next to shore at banks or Roosevelt you're gonna catch a TON of small fish that doesn't mean they are stunted.  Stunted lakes don't produce high teens tournament winning bags they produce 6-8lbs across the board. 

I always thought that every Lake Roosevelt tournament should be a "fish fry" event.  There are too many cookie-cutter smaller bass, and they need to be thinned out.

What other lakes do you think should have bass removed for the betterment of the fishery?

Follow this link to interesting reading: http://www.news.wisc.edu/21942

Then ask your self if your practices are good for the fisheries?