|
Fish Chris | Thu Nov-04-04 08:47 AM |
Member since Jul 07th 2002
700 posts
| |
|
#5291, "Are you interested in San Pablo Dam's future ?"
|
I know Rob, Nico, and I are, and I'm hoping there will be at least a few more of you who join us on this as well...
When I was at the lake on Monday, I had asked a few questions about the possible draining and such. The lake workers told me they were not allowed to comment, but instead, they gave me a contact number for a Mr. Charles Hardy. (510-287-0141 in case you want to speak with him directly). I called and taked to him for about 30 minutes yesterday. Very nice guy, who did not try to rush me off the phone.
In a nutshell, Mr. Hardy told me that there was going to be an initial meeting at Olinda School (somewhere near Kennedy Park, at the base of San Pablo Dam Res.) on Nov. the 17th (Weds), at 7PM, to discuss the future of the lake. He said that they were looking for people of all different interests to discuss there ideas and opinions. I know I sure have a few of my own ! (and talking about them has never been a problem for me :-) He said there would be people there from EBMD (who of course care about water sales), people respresenting the Ca DFG, and hopefully, a number of very interested, and informed fishermen.
Mr. Hardy also said that by being at this preliminary meeting, you would be able to have your name added to a list, so that you would then be kept informed about future meetings, and any progress on the dam rebuilding project.
This is pretty much all I know right now. So if you have any more questions, again Mr. Hardy's # is: 510-287-0141
Thanks for your attention to this matter, Fish Chris
PS, Just remember..... If you don't go, and if the whole thing ends up going to crap, with Pablo never being opened for fishing again (a distinct possibility) you won't be able to say very much......
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you interested in San Pablo Dam's future ?,
swimbait,
Nov 04th 2004, #1
RE: Are you interested in San Pablo Dam's future ?,
Wade,
Nov 04th 2004, #2
RE: Are you interested in San Pablo Dam's future ?,
swimbait,
Nov 04th 2004, #3
RE: Are you interested in San Pablo Dam's future ?,
Wade,
Nov 04th 2004, #4
RE: Are you interested in San Pablo Dam's future ?,
swimbaitking805,
Nov 04th 2004, #5
RE: Are you interested in San Pablo Dam's future ?,
Wade,
Nov 05th 2004, #6
RE: Are you interested in San Pablo Dam's future ?,
swimbaitking805,
Nov 05th 2004, #7
Well ya' know swimbaitking805 ......,
Fish Chris,
Nov 05th 2004, #8
RE: Well ya' know swimbaitking805 ......,
Chingas,
Nov 06th 2004, #9
Hey Chingas....,
Fish Chris,
Nov 06th 2004, #10
RE: Hey Chingas....,
fishinnorcal,
Nov 08th 2004, #11
RE: Hey Chingas....,
swimbait,
Nov 08th 2004, #12
RE: Agreed.... and....,
Fish Chris,
Nov 09th 2004, #13
San Pablo's Lunkers,
Notch,
Nov 11th 2004, #14
RE: San Pablo's Lunkers,
Carrot Top,
Nov 11th 2004, #15
RE: San Pablo's Lunkers,
swimbait,
Nov 12th 2004, #16
RE: San Pablo's Lunkers,
BobH,
Nov 12th 2004, #18
RE: San Pablo's Lunkers,
fishinnorcal,
Nov 12th 2004, #19
RE: San Pablo's Lunkers,
swimbait,
Nov 12th 2004, #20
RE: San Pablo's Lunkers,
swimbait,
Nov 12th 2004, #21
RE: Are you interested in San Pablo Dam's future ?,
Wade,
Nov 12th 2004, #17
RE: Are you interested in San Pablo Dam's future ?,
asaump4u,
Nov 14th 2004, #22
| |
      |
swimbaitking805 | Thu Nov-04-04 05:45 PM |
Charter member
posts
| |
|
#5300, "RE: Are you interested in San Pablo Dam's future ?"
In response to Reply # 4
|
were are you leaving from? Catch Alot,Photograph a few,Release them all...
|
|
|
|
          |
swimbaitking805 | Fri Nov-05-04 04:48 PM |
Charter member
posts
| |
|
#5304, "RE: Are you interested in San Pablo Dam's future ?"
In response to Reply # 6
|
I'm in santa barbara area,a little far but i do care about our lakes even if its one i've never fished.with our water or lack there of problem you'd think they would find a better solution than draining it all the way.
|
|
|
|
            | |
              | |
                | |
                  | |
                    | |
                      |
Fish Chris | Tue Nov-09-04 08:08 AM |
Member since Jul 07th 2002
700 posts
| |
|
#5320, "RE: Agreed.... and...."
In response to Reply # 12
|
If Florida strain bass were introduced >on purpose< while the Carp had to sneak there way back in, it would give the bass a big head start, allowing them a strong foothold.
As far as Spotted bass re-appearing..... hmmm. Maybe. But then maybe not. Understand that it took 15 years for Spots to make there way into Pablo, and many (most) Bay Area trout ponds still do not have Spots.
Finally, any time a lake is completely drained for a period of time, it allows a layer of new growth, which binds most of the old bottom sediment (does wonders for water quality), and adds tons of the >proper< nutrients (not golf course fertilizer runoff) to kick the new lake (after it is refilled) into overdrive ! Typically, no lake is better for numbers than a 3 to 5 year old one, and no lake is better for trophy bass, than a 10 to 13 year old one.... then, they usually start to drop off. That is the normal cycle. Pablo did go through this same cycle. The only amazing thing was, it came back with even more, and slightly larger giants, on its second peak, aproximately 20 years after being drained and refilled. In any case, I am thouroughly convinced that Pablo would not ever come back that way again, with an overpopulation of Spotted Bass, and poor water quality.
Starting to ramble now... Fish
|
|
|
|
                        | |
                          |
Carrot Top | Thu Nov-11-04 11:15 PM |
Member since Dec 23rd 2001
292 posts
| |
|
#5333, "RE: San Pablo's Lunkers"
In response to Reply # 14
Thu Nov-11-04 11:23 PM by Carrot Top
|
Well here's my take on Pablo for the last 5 years or so...
People have been catching big bass at Pablo for years, however after the 2 stroke ban on the lake bass fisherman stayed away because most bass boats dont have 4 strokes. People during this time were catching big bass but being quiet about it. Then Rob and Fish Chris among others, including me, starting posting their reports about catching and seeing these big bass, which caused others to join in the hunt. So with increased pressure these fish were being caught and released more than once and could have become educated to lures. Add to the fact that fertilizer is being used upstream on the golf course, and is getting washed into the lake causing water quality problems. There is also the problem with a large amount of carp that are prevalent in the lake. Some people believe they may eat bass eggs, but we know that during spring they roam the shallows kicking up silk and helping mess up the water quality. Last but not least is the fact over the last few years spotted bass in one way or another have populated the lake in a big way which just adds to the competition that the double digits have to deal with.
As an afterthought, San Pablo has very limited shore cover, something more fisherman key on, and the increased pressure could have moved fish off of these more recognizable spots and to places that most bass fisherman do not normally fish..
This is just my opinion... any others?? Erik P.
|
|
|
|
                          |
swimbait | Fri Nov-12-04 12:19 AM |
Charter member
9890 posts
| |
|
#5334, "RE: San Pablo's Lunkers"
In response to Reply # 14
|
I definitely think the bass got smarter. No question there. I caught a couple real nice ones in 2003 on some pretty weird areas, areas where I think the fish just moved to to avoid pressure. This year though, it's indescribeable how much it seems like the big bass have just disappeared completely. I never saw a fish over 3lbs on a bed this year or even near a bed. I've seen maybe 4 or 5 fish over 10 period all year. I fished the lake for 10 full day trips and caught one 10lber. I probably would have gone more but just got discouraged really. Fish Chris fished it the same or more than I did and caught one 11lber. BobH can chime in if he wants on how many he got since I have a feeling he fished it more than me or Chris, but basically the fishing just sucked all year in all conditions. Maybe some guys got them this year and they're fishing weekdays and not saying a word. But it would suprise me.
Another thing to consider, in the years from 2000-2003 I think I caught something like 2 spotted bass. This year I caught at least 15. They're everywhere. It just sucks. This year I also saw the most unreal numbers of carp and goldfish I've ever seen. They were so thick in one spot last month I was hitting them with my bait and you could feel the twang on your line as you reeled through shallow water knocking the carp this way and that. That many carp just can't be a good thing. And I doubt the goldfish are helping either. I saw people hauling in goldfish left and right all summer this year fishing from the shore. There must be a goldfish every 10 feet for how many people were catching.
I guess my attitude is just like you know what, the lake is going downhill, everything seems jacked up, now they're going to drain it anyway so let's just say screw it - kill it off and start fresh. Believe me, if they had announced this 2 or 3 years ago, I would have been devastated!
As an aside, I worked with Western Outdoor News last week to get a piece in about San Pablo for this weeks edition. The Northern Edition editor was very helpful and he put the article on the top of the first page. Hopefully this can get some more people to the meeting.
|
|
|
|
                            |
BobH | Fri Nov-12-04 09:56 AM |
Member since Oct 11th 2004
32 posts
| |
|
#5338, "RE: San Pablo's Lunkers"
In response to Reply # 16
Fri Nov-12-04 10:01 AM by BobH
|
I can't talk about how many I landed over ten this year as it was basically none. Hooked three over ten including one for sure 15 but they all came unbuttoned. Suckola! I heard of a 16 caught by a trout fisher in May. As for what's going on with the bass I have a pet theory but it's just a theory. First of all I don't think the total number has gone down that much. I base this on the fact that all the bass I have caught and seen caught this year look as enormously fat and healthy as SP bass always did. So if their size distribution curve was screwed up you would expect to see some malnutrition or other physical evidence. Also at over 800 acres SP has a lot of carrying capacity for its bass population. Some bass have "gone up the bank" so there is some reduction, but not that much on a percentile basis. Second, I still chart huge balls of bait everywhere just like always so that coupled with trout plants mean plenty of food. Third, while the Spots will probably compete with juvenile bass they have no impact on the big girls short term. Long term they may destroy the fishery, but short term they just don't compete with the trophy fish. Fourth, I know another guy who fishes there regularly for the non-trophy bass and his catch ratio is way down too. All the bass wouldn't disappear simultaneously. People just don't kill that many bass out of SP. Fifth, for swimbaits you need enough visibility for the bass to see the bait from any distance and SP has been a mudhole so reduced swimbait catches are probably a function of water clarity. I tend to fish the cover myself and they just really haven't been on it thick as in years past. So where are they? Here's my theory - Bass love cover. I have seen a study where a dozen bass were put in a large circular tank. They distributed evenly all over the tank. Then they put a plank hanging over the edge and ALL the bass got under it. Then they painted a vertical stripe on the side and all the bass went over and hovered around it. Keep in mind that this was gin clear water. Now imagine what happens when the water is totally murky. It changes the visual parameters entirely. I think in really murky water bass just don't have the same need for cover whether for security, ambush or just plain instinct. I grew up fishing mudholes in the south and I know bass thrive in the mud. So where are they? All over the lake (in open water probably following the bait and/or trout) and not concentrated where we can fish them with any regularity. As any one knows who fishes SP much you probably have to put your bait in front of twenty bass to get one to bite so when they're not concentrated in spots it just gets majorly tough. The other intangible thing is that SP was tough enough as it was, having to fish hard all day for several bites, but when it gets this tough it's just about impossible to stay focussed for a whole day. Whether this theory is right or not SP is still in deep trouble as all the things going on (carp, spots, fertilizer) will wreck it long term. Bob
|
|
|
|
                              | |
                                |
swimbait | Fri Nov-12-04 02:25 PM |
Charter member
9890 posts
| |
|
#5342, "RE: San Pablo's Lunkers"
In response to Reply # 19
Fri Nov-12-04 02:26 PM by swimbait
|
I really believe that bass do just eat power bait straight up because of the scent. I mean why would trout eat it like it's the best thing ever and bass not eat it at all? They're both predators at some level. It makes total sense to me that a bass would eat powerbait because Berkeley has something in powerbait that gives off a very fish attracting smell. Sometimes it might be a case of a trout eating the powerbait and then a bass eating that trout, but I think the odds of people landing those fish is actually pretty small. Powerbait hooks are typically size #12 or #14 trebles.
I think the reason you see so much of it at Pablo is because it's murky and the bass don't get a good look at it, and more importantly, San Pablo has more trout fisherman than just about anywhere I've ever seen. I mean anyone who has fished there in the spring knows that there will be 300+ people fishing for trout on many weekends. It's just an odds game at that point since inevitably many bass will swim in front of gobs of powerbait. A lot of bass get caught on nightcrawlers and dough balls there for the same reason.
It's a shame, but a whole lot of those fish wind up getting killed because people are fishing for food or just don't know or care about bass. The lake record and the other 18.0lb fish caught out of there were both caught by trout fisherman and killed. I think both were on nightcrawler/powerbait combos.
Things like this are why I wrote the DFG Commission months ago to propose that no bass over 22" be allowed to be kept. What I've heard since is that the Commission is very reluctant to use slot limits or maximum size limits on bass becuase they think it's too confusing, but at least I'm trying. I'll be bringing this up again during the discussions about draining the dam to try to again highlight the issue.
So far all I hear is no you won't get anywhere, and no the DFG, the Commission, and the EBMUD will do nothing. But I'm still going to try, and I ask for everyone's support in whatever way they can. We can throw up our hands and give up or we can try to do something. We can look at lousy situations and complain or we can try to do something. I'll feel a lot better in the end for having tried, irregardless of the outcome.
|
|
|
|
                              | |
          | |
            | |
|
|
© Copyright Robert Belloni 1997-2012. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without express written consent.
|