Lower Susky closure for spring bass fishing rescinded.

[afishinado]

I read on another site the regulation closing any fishing for bass in the lower susky during the spring spawn has been rescinded.

Sure enough, I check on the PFBC page and the reg is no longer there in 2019 > https://pfbc.pa.gov/fishpub/summaryad/bass_cr.htm

The lower Susky is still C&R for SMB all year round and no spring tournaments allowed.

From the link > NO HARVEST—CATCH AND IMMEDIATE RELEASE ONLY. It is unlawful for an angler to cast repeatedly into a clearly visible bass spawning nest or redd in an effort to catch or take bass

 

[raftman]

Very interesting... thanks for sharing afish. Good catch on that one.

 

[steliejim]

And this applies to the Juniata as well?

 

[Dave_W]

steliejim wrote:
And this applies to the Juniata as well?

I would assume so.

 

[Mwheaps32]

I was out yesterday on the north branch Susquehanna water level is finally just about right but unfortunately there was a little bit of ice floating around. I did have a small fished hooked but ended up taking a skunking for the afternoon. It final seems like alot of folks fishing the river are not keeping the stringers of bass like they used to I don't see it around my stretch anymore. In the first place smallmouth aren't that great of table fare compared to say a walleye swimming in the same run or for that matter even a mid sized catfish. I also think the tournament world has done good for the smallmouth alot of the local guys truly respect the fish and in turn convince other guys to do the same. Now just think of we could get this same group of people to respect trout like they do smallmouth.

 

[krayfish2]

It's unlawful to cast to fish on a redd. Well, unless law enforcement is standing beside the fisherman doing the casting, good luck enforcing the rule.

I'm hoping that the Instagram / Facebook hero shots of these spawning fish doesn't negatively impact things. I know that several guides we'll be cruising the spawning areas looking to pick up big fish. Not because it's easy, because they're awful people for doing so. Just as with trout fishing in the fall, let him go and make the babies. I don't disturb them.

 

[Susquehanna]

Iam not a fan.
Look something is working, let's screw it up!

 

[raftman]

Really interesting article about how fishing for spawning/nesting bass can negatively affect their spawn...

https://www.outdoorcanada.ca/fishing-for-nesting-bass/?fbclid=IwAR06hAIDqT8i5Ux9oIUmp82sW4sYJJAAy8Z-g8uh-4rFI27egmC4xp5JsZ4

 

[AFISHN]

raftman..thanks posting for link to the article.
I learned in the Boy Scouts,while earning my Fishing Merit Badge 65 years ago that fishing for spawning fish hurts the survival rate of eggs and fry!!!!DUH..
I'm with Kray 100% on this and can't figure out why there isn't more outrage on this disgusting practice

 

[Paraleptalata]

I believe that this change was brought on by a few very vocal anglers on the lower Susquehanna that love targeting spawning bass. A few things to keep in mind. First as a whole the fly fishing community is the conservation community and they are generally concerned with trout and trout alone. Also I don’t know if it is going to matter whether the spawning season is open or not. With catch and release still in place on the river I kind of doubt we will notice a fishing difference. All beds can’t be targeted and a lot of bass are spawned and reared in tribs. Time will tell. Just thoughts

 

[Mwheaps32]

I heard that the local fisheries manager can change the rules back if they see any harm being done to spawning fish this year without going through the open comment period. This might be the only silver lining I see hear.

 

[Mike]

I would be careful about applying the observed longer term effects of a lake bass nesting study to that of a free-flowing river environment. While nesting sites may exist in a narrow band of suitable depths around the perimeter of a lake and thus can be easily fished over in a single lap of a lake, I challenge an angler to be equally effective on a river where nesting sites can be spread far and wide not just along shore but over a much greater expanse.

 

[Susquehanna]

My terms?
I never said anything of the sort.
However, your colleagues disagree with you:
https://www.timesleader.com/sports/665965/smallmouth-bass-thriving-in-susquehanna-river

The catch-per-hour rate this year for smallmouth bass 12 inches and larger was nearly 12, higher than the average of five per hour. For bass 15 inches and larger, the catch-per-hour rate this year was just over four, continuing an upward trend.

Smallmouth bass that are 12 inches or larger are typically 4 years old, while those 15 inches and greater are 5 years of age.

“It’s been increasing every year,” Wnuk said of the larger fish. “I attribute it to an increase in catch-and-release angling. It’s very rare to see smallmouth bass on a stringer anymore.”

Sorry but not sorry, the same can be said for the lower river.
Catch rates of smallmouth have increased on the upper river while larger fish are increasing.
The lower competition attributing to larger fish in this case is hogwash.

Edit:
Mike has since revised his post that I have responded to.
I don't know why....

 

[krayfish2]

Mike,

If I understand you correctly, you aren't protecting or conserving the resource of smallmouth bass but condoning / challenging anglers to find beds in flowing water and fish to them? Resource first just like the saying on the stocking trucks. Effing amazing.

As for the challenge....most guides know where the fish winter, spawn and move to during the summer months. They will have no problem meeting your challenge.

 

[Susquehanna]

There will be guides accepting that challenge for sure.

Parents beware, fishing forums have a real potential danger today.
MikeMike challenge is not a hoax!

The reality is, you had it right to begin with. No one should be fishing over spawning bass.

 

[moon1284]

I think catching smb off of their spawning beds is even easier than lining steelhead or brown trout off of their redds.

 

[Mike]

In the link to the article above Mr Wnuk was referring to the stretch of the Susquehanna commonly known as the North Branch, which is the stretch that he covers.

 

[Susquehanna]

Sorry but not sorry, the same can be said for the lower river.
Catch rates of smallmouth have increased on the upper river while larger fish are increasing.
The lower competition attributing to larger fish in this case is hogwash.

I'm well aware the stretch of river being an avid susquehanna angler for years.

You can convince me that seperate rivers are not comparable to eachother, you can even convince me in some cases that separate stretches of the same river are not comparable but this is not what you indicated in the post you edited.

You tried to say lower competition lead to increase size of fish.

Yet the upper river has great numbers and more larger fish. The lower river numbers are climbing and so is the size.

For your statement to be true the lower river would need to be at it near carrying capacity and stunting the fish in the past.
You and I both know that is simpily not true

 

[Mike]

Individuals have probably heard the phrase; " Nature abhors a vacuum." Fish do not have to be stunted in growth in order to respond favorably to reduced competition and resulting increased food supply. Fish growing at average Pa rates (quite acceptable rates) can accelerate their growth under such conditions just as fish in new environments often grow rapidly at first and then slow to average growth rates later on. They are not stunted; their growth just slows to normal rates as food supply diminishes or intraspecific or intertspecific competition increases.

 

[Dave_W]

Mike wrote:
Individuals have probably heard the phrase; " Nature abhors a vacuum." Fish do not have to be stunted in growth in order to respond favorably to reduced competition and resulting increased food supply. Fish growing at average Pa rates (quite acceptable rates) can accelerate their growth under such conditions just as fish in new environments often grow rapidly at first and then slow to average growth rates later on. They are not stunted; their growth just slows to normal rates as food supply diminishes or intraspecific or intertspecific competition increases.

In addition to this well documented phenonema, I wonder how forage base may (or may not) be part of the equation in the lower Susky bass size and population structure. Rusty crayfish are well established there, but I don't know how long this has been the case.
Anyone who wade fishes this section of river on summer evenings knows that the biomass of crayfish that appears in slack water areas is tremendous - sometimes it seems as if you're literally kicking up herds of the critters with every step.

Mike: Do we know when rustys, or other invasive crayfish, appeared in this section of river? I have read and heard - perhaps on this board - that a theory exists that the large numbers of crayfish are influencing bass numbers and growth by providing so much food. I have also heard that juvenile flatheads also eat a lot of crayfish. Do you have any data, links, or a personal opinion on this you'd care to share?