I think we can all agree for bass, but what else? Is it bluegill or bluegills, crappie or crappies, walleye or walleyes? 

Would still be singular when talking about one species. I could see a case for pluralizing if you caught more than one species within one common name, a mixed bag of white crappie and black crappie as "crappies" for example (same usage as fishes vs fish), but it would be unusual. Personally I just stick with the singular form regardless.

However you want.

 

2 hours ago, RealtreeByGod said:

I think we can all agree for bass, but what else? Is it bluegill or bluegills, crappie or crappies, walleye or walleyes? 

Most fish species follow conventional grammar when dealing with more than one. I often see basses when referring to more than one species in academic works.

I catched lotto phishes yes turd they two.

 

ps: pluarlize is not a word, oh the irony...

1 hour ago, Aaron_H said:

Would still be singular when talking about one species. I could see a case for pluralizing if you caught more than one species within one common name, a mixed bag of white crappie and black crappie as "crappies" for example (same usage as fishes vs fish), but it would be unusual. Personally I just stick with the singular form regardless.

It is my understanding, that this is the correct use.   

 

However, I don't much care, as the point of language is communication.  And as long as what you mean is communicated through what you say, then it shouldn't be a problem for anyone outside of academia.  

The single bass was excellent.  Many of the bass were excellent.  All of the bass died.

Dont know about walleye or crappie but up my way if you catch five pumpkinseed and five bluegill you just tell people you caught ten 'kivahs'.?

Sounds like talkin’ deer in PA. “I saw 5 buck from the stand this morning!”

 

Fish? I’ll say bluegills, crappies, muskies and walleyes. But pike, not pikes, and basses only if referencing multiple species (the black basses). 
 

I’ve never heard shads lol. 

35 minutes ago, BrianMDTX said:

I’ve never heard shads lol. 

They make a subtle splish...

In Ichthyology, bass could refer to multiple bass of the same species. Basses would be used to describe multiple bass of different species. For example a school of white bass, you would say, 'look at all the bass'. However a shoal of white bass, largemouth, and smallmouth; it would be correct to say, 'there are many basses here.'   

Geez, I was once an English major in college and l use both.  I will fish for bluegill, walleye, crappie and bass, shad, bluefish, stripers.  If I caught a bunch of bluegill, walleye, crappie I'd add an "s".  I wouldn't do that for bass, shad or bluefish.  Stripers is weird.  You don't fish for striper. You fish for stripers.  I caught one striper while I was fishing for stripers.  What am I fishing for, bluegills, walleyes, crappies,  still just fishing for shad and bass.  I could be fishing for bluefish or blues.   

  I'm confused.  I need another drink.

Sorry to interrupt this thread,

Ya all know that to add an s or es, or not., means you have to catch more than one?  

Once I do that, I could care less how I express it, but I do know it'll be with a smile ☺️ on my face.

 

Last three trips out I’ve either taken 1 fish or zero fish.  This thread sadly is not applicable to me. 

Does it really matter, are we in a English lit class?  This isn’t worth wasting our time on!  If you can’t figure it out, then there is a problem!

"yeah, the stripper came over" or "yeah, the strippers came over" would likely yield very different results if overheard by my wife... Both don't end well, but at least one "might" allow me enough time to at least grab a few clothes before getting the boot!

 

With that in mind, the correct pluralization of "striper", is "stripers", and you can't tell me different. 

Just add ez to the end.

 

Allen