22 hours ago, gim said:

I've hunted over 30 years and consuming them has never been a priority. I'm certainly not against it, and I would never waste an animal or bird that was edible, but if that was the only or even primary reason I hunted, I'd probably never go again. There's so many other reasons I do it. But that's another topic for another thread.

And I don't keep many fish, and never the bigger ones. But when I do I feel more a part of nature. The cool thing about fishing is you don't have to kill the resource.

They are a delicacy in Chinese cooking. Go to your local Great Wall or similar grocery store and there is a good chance you will see live largemouth bass in their tanks. I’ve eaten plenty and think they are just as good as any of the other popular freshwater species like walleye or bluegill.

These days I harvest on certain small lakes to try and help grow bigger fish.

it warms my heart to see a legal stringer of 14-17" bass taken from ray roberts. i get annoyed when i see someone intentionally taking home a double digit (saw a guy take home a 12lb bass last year), solely because they tend to be better spawning stock. If the fish was gonna die after being caught no matter what, take it home if you want. nature doesn't waste. just don't target the breeding stock for dinner fare

@thediscochef , actually those 14-17” fish are the prime breeding stock. Mamaw and papaw don’t horizontal polka much anymore, humans or fish.

41 minutes ago, TnRiver46 said:

@thediscochef , actually those 14-17” fish are the prime breeding stock. Mamaw and papaw don’t horizontal polka much anymore, humans or fish.

Welllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll, whereas what you wrote is funny, reproduction for bass is more like this...

...and less like this...

The majority of bass in the 14-17 inch range here are males. Not mature breeding aged females. Our regs here are generally designed to protect larger females since there are far less of them and takes much longer to replace them. Harvest of the smaller, more populated, more easily replaceable males is what is encouraged.

Walleye and northern pike regs are also like this to protect the female spawning biomass.

2 hours ago, Swamp Girl said:

Welllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll, whereas what you wrote is funny, reproduction for bass is more like this...

...and less like this...

Hahah true but it’s still a bell curve and that dump truck load gets lighter when they are old

2 hours ago, gim said:

The majority of bass in the 14-17 inch range here are males. Not mature breeding aged females. Our regs here are generally designed to protect larger females since there are far less of them and takes much longer to replace them. Harvest of the smaller, more populated, more easily replaceable males is what is encouraged.

Walleye and northern pike regs are also like this to protect the female spawning biomass.

How do you know if they are male vs female if you don’t cut them open?

And so you’re telling me a female bass goes from an egg straight to an 18”er?

It could also be argued that the males are more important to reproduction as they guard the nest and females don’t

21 minutes ago, TnRiver46 said:

Hahah true but it’s still a bell curve and that dump truck load gets lighter when they are old

AI disagrees: "Larger, older female largemouth bass ("DD" or double-digit, 10+ lbs) produce significantly more eggs than smaller, younger ones. Larger females have higher fecundity, creating thousands more eggs per spawn. They also invest more energy per egg, resulting in larger larvae with better survival rates."

12 minutes ago, TnRiver46 said:

It could also be argued that the males are more important to reproduction as they guard the nest and females don’t

I'll concede this, but there's a reason females don't guard nests: Making all those eggs comes close to killing them...and some don't recover and do die.

. Obviously a larger fish has potential to carry more eggs, because they have a bigger belly. Bass don’t actually spawn every year, frequency is lower the older they get (past a certain age). Also, smaller eggs can exist in a female in higher volume, which could potentially lead to a “better” spawn. That is unless, of course, they eat their young, which happens 😂

Every single body of water is a case study. Small lakes it helps to thin small fish because there become too many mouth to feed. In TN, there are no small lakes. Just 300+ million year old rivers. I can’t think of a single place locally that there are too many small bass. The best thing they ever did for SMB here was put an 18” minimum length limit to keep them. Nowadays you can catch 20” smallmouth regularly, that was not the case 40 years ago

Thanks for shining a light, Russ. So, you think there's no overarching way to manage all bodies of water for the biggest bass?

All bodies? They are not all the same so I wouldn’t think so. Pond managers in the south have found that killing small ones helps create larger bass. This might also ring true on small lakes in the north, I’m not sure. But all peer reviewed studies I read in college (not AI collection of fishing magazine articles that have been proven wrong over and over) recommend letting fish reach sexual maturity for a few years before harvesting. How can a big female “spread its genetics” if you eat it when it has only spawned once or twice ? Also, males can spread genetics too so why only kill them? They might have been born from a long line of big girls. What you run into with regulations sometimes is they are driven more by fisherman opinions and politicians and lobbyists as opposed to science. When somebody kills a large bass, it stings us fishermen because now we can’t catch it. A large female bass has laid eggs for a decade, her genetics have already been successfully distributed for 10 seasons. If you kill her as a 1.5 lber, because you assume she is a male, she only got to spread the genetics maybe 2-3 times.

I haven’t read many peer reviewed studies from natural lakes up north but I’m sure they are out there.

Another thing the head biologists told us when I was working with native brook trout in the Smokies was the concept of consumptive mortality. As fishermen we can go down the slippery slope of flattering ourselves, thinking we are catching most of the fish. 70ish percent of these fish die every single year, regardless of what anyone does with a rod and reel. And that’s referring to a tiny population of fish, not something that is in almost every body of water like a bass. Unless you involve a net, a fisherman with a rod and reel isn’t going to affect fish populations nearly as much as Mother Nature (floods, habitat loss, predation, etc). In my opinion, as long as you aren’t keeping more fish than you can eat, you probably aren’t affecting much at all. The exception is always small ponds, humans (and otters) can actually clean those out

Aldo Leopold was onto it many many years ago when he wrote “Sand county Almanac.” Wise use is the way, preservation does not equal conservation. That’s about as close as a blanket strategy I can think of for fisheries management, don’t take more than you need and the rest will work itself out

Population studies have shown that there’s just more mature males in a system than females. It takes them less time to reach maturity, therefore it’s more likely they will survive to that point. Simple math.

Fisheries are managed differently too based on size, forage, pressure, treaties, quotas, spawning style, and geographic location.

What works in one state or region may not work in another.

Being most people practice catch and release I would think that getting rid of minimum length limits would improve most fisheries. Not only that but you have to close there mouths, squeeze their tails, wiggle the fish around and if a game warden can get it to touch thats a hundred dollar fine. Just get rid of minimum length limits.

Also, consuming smaller fish is generally healthier than consuming larger ones. Large fish have more bioaccumulation of chemicals and contaminants built up in their flesh than smaller ones.

Habitat is more important than everything else combined but we’re way off the original topic. Lmb are basically bluegill with way better PR and advertising, and taste deliciously similar.

1 hour ago, VolFan said:

Habitat is more important than everything else combined but we’re way off the original topic. Lmb are basically bluegill with way better PR and advertising, and taste deliciously similar.

True, However, go out on any dock and if the water is clear you can count numerous bluegill and if you are lucky you might see one bass.

21 hours ago, TnRiver46 said:

. Obviously a larger fish has potential to carry more eggs, because they have a bigger belly. Bass don’t actually spawn every year, frequency is lower the older they get (past a certain age). Also, smaller eggs can exist in a female in higher volume, which could potentially lead to a “better” spawn. That is unless, of course, they eat their young, which happens 😂

Every single body of water is a case study. Small lakes it helps to thin small fish because there become too many mouth to feed. In TN, there are no small lakes. Just 300+ million year old rivers. I can’t think of a single place locally that there are too many small bass. The best thing they ever did for SMB here was put an 18” minimum length limit to keep them. Nowadays you can catch 20” smallmouth regularly, that was not the case 40 years ago

sir melton hill is full of dinks that smother out the big ones. I think the size of fish in that lake is due more to TVA constantly running 50 degree water out of norris, but some harvesting would do that place a lot of good

I always forget about melton hill, I wonder if people are scared to eat the oak ridge fish 😂

2 lbs and under make good fillets, just batter and fry. I prefer crappie and bluegill

This has been a good thread. Fascinitaing to read thoughtful posts on both sides of the issue.

I don't eat bass often, but I enjoy an occasional bass...especially with hushpuppies, and cole slaw. I have a friend who told me that bass tasted gross. We had her family over for a fish fry. When she left she sheepishly admitted that the bass was pretty good. Her husband, and son liked the bass better than the catfish.

The only fish that I've tried that I won't eat again are fish that do not taste like fish. Things like shark, swordfish, mahi, etc. If I want something that tastes like steak, or chicken then I'll order steak, or chicken.

Bass caught in summer/warm water will not taste as good as cooler water bass, but that maybe all freshwater fish

On 1/29/2026 at 1:32 PM, scaleface said:

I havent had a beer in a year and Busch is my choice. Soon as the Dr gives me the go ahead I'm having a couple.

To me, deep fried fish and onion rings spell heart attack in waiting. I do enjoy a cold beer though, and I'm sure the main dish tastes great.

That’s our favorite meal in the family and nobody has ever had a heart attack. We call it brown plate! Haha

I figure if something is going to kill me, having fun fishing then eating the delicious fish I caught would be at top of the list . Sounds way more fun than not doing it and still dying of something