Taste of fish (Page 2): jlb603 Ditto for me. One thing I've noticed over the years in many Canadian fish camps is that pike now seem to be the preferred shore lunch, not walleye. They...

Gary Northrop Loc: Richland WA

jlb603

Ditto for me. One thing I've noticed over the years in many Canadian fish
camps is that pike now seem to be the preferred shore lunch, not walleye.
They have more flavor while providing a walleye's firm, white meat.

ranger632 Loc: Near Yosemite Park Ca.

To each their own. I eat what I like, not what someone thinks I should like.

bapabear Loc: Blaine, Washington

FS Digest wrote:

What do fisherman keep largemouth bass for they are not very tasty.........and pike
& pickeral there all bones
Best eating freshwater fish are RAINBOW TROUT (wild caught).......YELLOW
PERCH.......WALLEYE PIKE..........
& CRAPPIE.

--
by Harvey

Pike are very good. I just recently got the first one (4.5 lb.) sense I was a kid over50 years ago. Dad used to say throw them back as they have to many bones. I used the five fillet system for the first time. It worked great and the fish was also great eating.

Catfish hunter Loc: Riggins idaho (Paradise)

FS Digest wrote:

What do fisherman keep largemouth bass for they are not very tasty.........and pike
& pickeral there all bones
Best eating freshwater fish are RAINBOW TROUT (wild caught).......YELLOW
PERCH.......WALLEYE PIKE..........
& CRAPPIE.

--
by Harvey

Can’t argue with that one.

Snapperjohn1 Loc: Miami Florida

Taking out that amount of small bass is the best way to create a big bass lake! I did the same thing and it wasn’t very long before the average size went from 1 to 3 pounds. I always threw back the big ones and I caught a post-spawn 8.5 pounder. Anybody know what it could have weighed with eggs? But I digress. The little ones tasted great, lol.

6482bodean Loc: Northern Indiana

MAS fish wrote:

Hey Harvey, back to your original comment, I belie... (show quote)

If you're keeping that many bass every year from the same lake, I'd expect you'd only catch 12" and smaller fish!

Snapperjohn1 Loc: Miami Florida

I actually read an article that says cull the medium sized bass to give the larger bass less competition for food. They probably feed on the smaller ones too

MAS fish Loc: Peoria,IL

Snapperjohn1 wrote:

Taking out that amount of small bass is the best way to create a big bass lake! I did the same thing and it wasn’t very long before the average size went from 1 to 3 pounds. I always threw back the big ones and I caught a post-spawn 8.5 pounder. Anybody know what it could have weighed with eggs? But I digress. The little ones tasted great, lol.

Hey SJ1 that is what we are working toward and have seen a big change in the size of the LMB. We also introduced walleye, hybrid stripers, and tiger muskie on the recommendation of our state biologist. It is working but takes a little time.
MAS fish

MAS fish Loc: Peoria,IL

6482bodean wrote:

If you're keeping that many bass every year from the same lake, I'd expect you'd only catch 12" and smaller fish!

The state biologist said to take out 2000 to 2500 bass 12inch and under plus all the gills and crappie we can catch and we are now starting to catch 6-8 pound LMB . Keep in mind that a 10 inch bass is a lot faster at getting to the food supply than a 20"+ fish is. The biologist comes every 2 years and does a pond seminar and sees the progress we are making.
MAS fish

6482bodean Loc: Northern Indiana

Very much depends on the size of the lake to be sure. But imagine if even 20% of the people fishing that same lake kept 2000 small bass per year, it would have to have an impact on the overall bass fishery. The panfishing might improve with the removal of so many predator fish. I'm not condemning or criticizing, just another non-scientific point of view.

jlb603

makes me happy to hear all of you think this way

MAS fish Loc: Peoria,IL

6482bodean wrote:

Very much depends on the size of the lake to be sure. But imagine if even 20% of the people fishing that same lake kept 2000 small bass per year, it would have to have an impact on the overall bass fishery. The panfishing might improve with the removal of so many predator fish. I'm not condemning or criticizing, just another non-scientific point of view.

I have had a good control of what is taken out of my lakes with the people who take fish from them document the bass that are taken. The state biologist says to take as many gills and crappie out as possible each year. And he recommended the # of bass to be removed as per the size of the lakes.
MAS fish