Thread: Rend Lake limit

Thought maybe we could take a poll and see how everybody felt on the limit at Rend and get input from people on other lakes that have different limits as to see if there fish are abundant or struggling due to the limit. Rend Lake limit is ten fish over ten inches and the rest have to be smaller than ten, equaling 25 total. My vote goes for a twenty to twenty five fish limit with no size limit. Maybe if we get enough people interested we can get it changed. Just a thought!!:D

I'm in 100% agreement with you Greg. No size limit, just a creel limit of 20 or 25.

CX.

I'm with you both. I think we need to all get together and see what we can do.

Anymore it is getting difficult to catch 15 fish less than 10 inches. Not a bad problem I might add. 6-7 years ago it seemed like the lake was full of 6-8 inch dinks. The limit has seemed to help in that department. Im all for changing to a no size limit as long as this does not bring the average size of fish caught down.

I agree that the regulations on rend lake really are stupid. I would prefer a 25 to 30 fish limit also with a 10 inch min size limit. Or as some have said a strictly quantity limit. I got used to the 10 inch limit on kentucky and barkley lakes and they produce like crazy. From lake weiss to toledo bend the crappie are large but then again we are talking huge lakes. Personally I no longer keep crappie less than 10". Just my thoughts.

i would say have a biologist look at the numbers and size there and come up with the best limit, but definately no split limit like they have now... a biologist might come up with say a 9 inch limit and 15 or maybe a 10 inch limit with 30, or no size and allow maybe 1 or 2 over say like 16 that way some bigguns grow... no telling whats best for that lake since i barely fish it, but we basically just cant say thi is limit we want and have no clue how it will affect the fishery itself

I was invited to the informal meeting last fall to discuss changing Lake Shelbyville's limit and Mike Mounce our fisheries bioligist had many ideas and five different plans and wanted our input on which one to implement. One thing that stuck out in my mind at the beginning of the meeting was that he had to put together a proposal and present it to Congress and that they had to pass legislation on it. He also said whatever we or rather he Mike Mounce decided we would be stuck with for five years as Congress doesn't want bothered with it. My input was take baby steps and nothing drastic as we didn't want to wipe out our fishery. Maybe Rend Lake is stuck in this five year time period.

Our only problem is that our Biologist took the words of two people instead of taking a poll with numerious people back when they did the limit. There was no meeting for everyone to attend.
I don't think we would have to worry about the 5 year plan. I think it can be changed if the Biologist wants it changed. He changed it back a few years ago from 5 over ten to the ten over.
I agree with Pistolpete about the 20 or 25 over ten. That would be fine also. At least you don't have to worry about ten over ten and then 15 under ten.
We need to get this changed. Like someone on here said look at the sizes of the fish at Egypt and Kinkade and those lakes only have creel limits.

CX.

well also the limits arent only thing that affects fish size, the forage and overall well being of those lakes might be better then rends, not sure just throwing stuff out there

Mark Twin Lake Is 15 Fish A Day No Size - Seam To Be Working There