Not too many years back, only a few anglers were bass fishermen. Today, that number has reached staggering proportions and is steadily increasing. No doubt, the publicity and ‘glamor’ surrounding professional tournament fishing has been a major contributing factor to that build-up of pressure on the bass family. However, tournament anglers really constitute only a very small percentage of the total bass fishing population. Like apples on a tree, we can ‘pick’ only so many bass before they are all gone. Possibly the one thing that has allowed bass populations to sustain themselves so far is that they are an unseen target and not as easy to find as the apples. Yet, anglers are rapidly becoming more and more knowledgeable in the detailed aspects of the sport.

Even with the hoard of anglers, the bass faces what may be an even greater danger – that of declining habitat. In many areas, water quality has degenerated until it will barely support fish life. Some bodies of water (Florida’s huge Lake Apopka is an example) are actually considered ‘dead’, due to pollution. With others, the fluctuation of water levels for power generation and navigation locks often precludes productive spawns. One must ask, can the bass survive?

While all this sounds like a bass angler’s horror story, the fact is that there are actions underway to attempt to control the situations and preserve the bass. Many States have active study programs ongoing to evaluate fishery management techniques, which include habitat restoration, water control, pollution countermeasures, and bass population manipulation and protection.

So, the eventual outcome is up to the angler and his/her voluntary compliance with the programs.

All fishery management officials are convinced anglers would cooperate, if they were informed and made fully aware of the facts, as well as misconceptions, regarding the programs and alternatives.

Pollution and loss of habitat are actually somewhat synonymous. Pollution, of varying types, is basically what destroys the habitat. And, every agency questioned indicated that this was possibly THE prime reason for the present decline of many bass fisheries. The decrease in water quality leads to an increase in the growth of undesirable vegetation forms and decreases the ability of the lake or river to sustain fish life. The waters become algae-laden and covered with dense aquatic growth. The sunlight is unable to penetrate the surface vegetation mat and no sub-surface photosynthesis (i.e., oxygen production) takes place. Sub-surface vegetation, necessary for food chain support and oxygen generation, dies out. At the same time, the algae is consuming more oxygen than it produces. The result – a dead body of water.

While this topic would appear relatively easy to define and identify corrective actions for, it has a very difficult roadblock before it – dollars.

No one really wants to destroy the environment and the life within it. But, new sewage treatment plants cost big bucks, and they don’t come about overnight. Manufacturing industries and their waste products are a part of our capitalistic economy system and they just don’t halt on command while a problem is fixed. To do so could put thousands of people out of work, not only at the plant site, but at other business locations dependent on that plant’s product. Agriculture and cattle farms also contribute to a type of pollution, in the form of fertilizer run-offs. Fertilizer phosphates, in excessive quantities, can be extremely damaging to the life-sustaining balance of a body of water. Yet, we are dependent upon the cattle for milk and food and the factories for jobs and consumer goods The problem is hard. Currently, there are studies and trial projects taking place to find acceptable ways to eliminate many of these pollution sources. The farmers and corporations are generally cooperative, but it will take time – and dollars.

Water level fluctuation is likewise a hard nut to crack. California, and other States with large cities near mountainous areas have this problem, as does any area with hydroelectric power generation.

A bass must have reasonably stable conditions for a period of time in order to effectively spawn. The water levels in many reservoirs, however, fluctuate randomly based on the needs of the human population and/or flood control. Many provide water supplies to large urban areas. Others are primarily hydroelectric power sources. Still others are catch basins for the run-off of melting snows and prevent lower level flooding. If the dry season of a specific location happens to coincide with the spawning period of the bass, the fish is bound to lose. The continually dropping water levels destroy the beds and the bass finally abort the eggs, or leave recently laid eggs to die.

A body of water wherein the levels fall and rise rapidly, such as hydroelectric stations responding to random periods of demand, may have similar effects. An increase in depth over a bass nest may cause a temperature drop and preclude the passage of sufficient sunlight to hatch the eggs. Falling levels, as noted before, may cause the bass to simply abandon the bed. Many fisherman groups have voiced their concerns with the apparent lack of control over water level management.

Size (slot limit) controls are extremely promising areas and many positive results have already been obtained. And, it is an area controlled by the game and fish activities. Its potential lies in the results of study data collected from various programs and the cooperation of the anglers. Any manipulation or protection program will, obviously, require the establishment of certain regulatory guidelines and laws.

First, let’s look at some of the protection techniques for which studies DO NOT necessarily indicate a requirement. Some may surprise you.

In the protection of the bass, one of the first controls that springs forward in most anglers’ minds is ‘let’s reduce the limit‘. Now, that would appear to be a decent idea. But, let’s be honest; how often do we actually take a limit of bass during an outing? Sure, some fishermen do and they do it with regularity. However, the majority do not. In fact the average angler catches only .2 to .25 bass per angling hour. It doesn’t take a mental giant to see that that equates to about two bass per eight-hour fishing day.

Now, before instituting yet another law onto the books, can we really expect to gain anything by reducing the creel limit? Well, we will take some of the steam out of that ten-percent of the fishermen who catch that 90 percent of the bass. But, does it have an appreciable result? That is highly doubtful. Besides, fishermen who are so good at catching bass on a regular basis appear to release the majority of them anyway.

There are, of course, exceptions, which may be valid. For example, small, heavily fished lakes, or those which have a bountiful supply of predominately small bass, might benefit from low creel limits. Small fish are so easy to exploit that controls could be appropriate to prevent overfishing, especially if there are few larger bass for the angler to take.

Another potential control is to set minimum size limits for ‘keeper’ bass. The intent would be to make sure all those small fish are returned to the water. While some States are higher and other have no restrictions at all, the majority tend to use 12-14 inches as a guide. That same seven years of study data, however, indicates that better than 80 percent of bass, 12 inches and under, are voluntarily released anyway. A 12-inch fish isn’t much value, expect for a tournament weigh-in. And, those are normally released, as well. Again, the question arises as to whether it is appropriate to place yet another restriction on the angling community if there is no valid reason. The study data says ‘no’ and so do the majority of the fishery biologists.

There is one exception where the setting of minimum size restrictions may truly be appropriate and that is a new body of water, or one wherein the bass population is experiencing a sudden ‘boom’ of small bass. Lakes that have undergone draw-downs and re-fertilization normally experience tremendous small bass populations during the following three to four years. In these cases, to prevent exploitation of the predominate size fish available, restrictions may be appropriate.

Again, though, a restrictive regulation should be based on a valid need. The ‘catch and release’ technique, obviously, offers the maximum benefit in protection of numbers of bass. However, it is very restrictive on the angler and is not, for that reason, generally considered an acceptable approach except in special applications. For example, a small lake near an urban area usually experiences a significant amount of pressure and ‘catch and release’ rules might well be the only means to sustain its bass population. This would be especially true if the lake had little deep water or cover to give the bass reasonable sanctuary. New lakes, in their formative years, are also candidates for an initial period of total release.

If a body of water were found to have a significantly high bass population, ‘catch and release‘ could actually be detrimental. The high level of competition for the available food supply could easily result in markedly reduced growth rates and few bass ever reaching any significant size. A stunted population is often an indication of over-population.

The most promising of all fishery protection techniques appears to be the use of selected ‘slot’ size restrictions. This allows the ‘recycling’ of specific groups of bass back into the population and provides very positive program control. The words ‘selected’ and ‘specific’, as used in regard to slot applications, have very significant meanings. In any management environment, fishery or not, certain goals are set, and temporary controls are instituted until those objectives are met. Then, with a new set of goals and circumstances, different management methods may be appropriate.

This same philosophy holds true regarding the use of the slot size. Initial population sampling must be done and the data studied. From that effort, the biologist will be able to determine the size densities of the given body of water and the protection range most appropriate.

Usually, slot restrictions are not applied in conjunction with a separate minimum size rule below the slot zone. Accordingly, while the angler must release those fish in the slot, he is prone to keep those above and below it (with the latter being the most likely victims). The result is that fish densities within the slot range will normally increase, while those above and below it may actually decrease.

What this implies is that very specific goals must be set regarding the intended effect of the slot application. Once the population of a certain size-group of bass reaches a pre-determined level, new goals should be set and new management methods employed. Or, if no positive results were obtained, a re-evaluation of the overall goals and management techniques would be in order. It might result in an expansion of the slot range, or simply a shift of it, up or down. It could be that an entirely different approach, such a total release, would be more appropriate.

It would make this piece incomplete if we did not say a word about the one true Fountain of Youth that exists today. Yes, there really is one and it is spelled ‘draw-down‘. It is a subject a significant depth which we will save for another time. But, suffice to say, controlled drawn-downs have proven to be a highly effective method for rejuvenating a body of water and re-starting its fishery. Fantastic results have been achieved. One number to note – one year after a draw-down is completed and the water levels returned to normal, the bass spawn may be increased as much as 700%! That actually happened on Florida’s West Lake Toho.

Possibly the most important point to carry away from this is that the anglers are the key to fishery management success. They must make their voices and concerns heard. And, they must be supportive of the rules and restriction that are employed.