15 / 5 wisconsin panfish regulation

Found out yesterday that Nokomis had a new w 15 / 5 total panfish regulation. That is you can only keep 5 gils or crappie, perch and have a total of 15 panfish. In my opinion this is a stupid move by the Dnr. Panfish are called such for a reason. And while over fishing can reduce the size of the population, 5 is just plain dumb. A working stiff with a family of four can’t even get away for a couple hours and come home with enough fish to feed his family a meal. How many people are going to come to a lake in vacation country for a 5 panfish limit. My lake – Solberg, had its limit changed to a 10 fish limit max and I whole heartily agree with that, but that is as low as I would ever want to see a lake go. It will be interesting to see how this limit effects resorts on lakes with the 5 / 15 limit. I mean they cant rely on deer hunting for revenue because there are none left. Now this. What are people supposed to do up here, look at the trees?

There are 47 lakes out of how many thousand statewide that have the new 15/5 rule. Chances are you can find one that still allows you to stack your freezer with potato chip sized panfish.

The limit is 15 fish still, so above your 10 fish personal low, you just have to catch 3 species to get there. Remember those spring hearings, where you fill out a big voting packet with all sorts of questions? Those are where the DNR gets lots of feedback, and the question of panfish size in many lakes was publicly brought up by sportsman.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/documents/outreach/PanfishFactSheetMay15.pdf

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/documents/regulations/FishRegs1617Web.pdf#page=4

All the info you need to know about the new panfish regulations is right in the 2016-2017 regulations. Right in the front as well under, WHATS NEW!!

Well bigpike, I don’t quite think it’s really that bad all in all…Remember this is a study,not permanent.
For 1 thing, the fulltime 5/15 limit is only on 20 lakes,there is also a 5/15 seasonal(May and June) on 25 lakes,add the other 49 lakes in the study(94 in total)are 10/25,out of 100’s of lakes so it’s not a widespread reg.
If someone wanted to they could go to a lake with regular limits.
These lakes were chosen because they are underperforming so they are trying to increase the size of the fish in these lakes.
This is from the Panfish fact sheet the DNR put out…http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/documents/outreach/PanfishFactSheetMay15.pdf
“Even though anglers would take home fewer fish from some lakes, the expected increase in average size should result in the same amount of, or more, meat for the frying pan.”
I think this could be a good way to study how changes in limits affect the overall health of panfish populations….I remember the 50 limit days…
Personally, I think the Walleye spearing has affected the resorts and such more than this will.
I think we should a least give this a shot and see what happens….

Personally it does not effect me, I dont need to ever stack my freezer with fish. I am sure the resort owners might have a different opinion on affected lakes that rely on familys coming up. Since its a 10 year study I dont think we have much of a choice. The thing with Nokomis is I have found the average size to be above average anyways. Maybe if the state didnt dump all the water out of the lake to keep the mills happy every time it gets dry they would have a better fishery. But hey what do I know.

bigpike wrote:

Personally it does not effect me, I dont need to ever stack my freezer with fish. I am sure the resort owners might have a different opinion on affected lakes that rely on familys coming up. Since its a 10 year study I dont think we have much of a choice. The thing with Nokomis is I have found the average size to be above average anyways. Maybe if the state didnt dump all the water out of the lake to keep the mills happy every time it gets dry they would have a better fishery. But hey what do I know.

I see no issue at all. If you go to a resort with your family, hopefully you actually go fishing with…your family. Say you have 4 people total in your family and all go fishing, that is 20 sunfish, 20 perch, and 20 crappies. Even just 20 total of a mixed bag is plenty to feed a family of four. And most of the general public isn’t looking at what the regs on sunfish are, they want walleye because that is what everyone brags about at work. They settle for sunfish because they can’t find the walleye.

And except for pushing the shoreline bucket brigades to other lakes, I see nothing but good coming from this. And these lakes sound like they are further from large cities so doubtful there are many affected by the bucket brigade anyway.

Sure seems like we are trending towards catch and release only and inevitably no fishing lakes in the name of protecting the fishery. Be careful what you wish for. I wouldnt be surprised to see it in my lifetime.

bigpike wrote:

Sure seems like we are trending towards catch and release only and inevitably no fishing lakes in the name of protecting the fishery. Be careful what you wish for. I wouldnt be surprised to see it in my lifetime.

I’ll just disagree with this bud

I just think study’s like this are needed……Change is needed as time passes to give our kids the chance to catch fish in the future.

Wife and kids went out and about last night leaving dad alone for dinner, so of course I went fishing first, then after cooked up 8 crappie fillets, all in the 9-11″ range, so 4 fish total and I was full. No sides, no bread just fish.

We want healthier fish populations but when the DNR tries to do anything we bitch and moan about it. I think that limit is exactly where we need to go, I hope they stick to their guns on this.

nhamm wrote:

We want healthier fish populations but when the DNR tries to do anything we bitch and moan about it. I think that limit is exactly where we need to go, I hope they stick to their guns on this.

Amen

So a lake like Nokomis or the Willow should have a 5 fish gil or crappie limit but they do nothing about dropping the water levels 7′ or more over the course of the summer. Yup they are in it for our best interest. The nice thing about my opinion is I do have a right to it. Right, wrong or indifferent. And once again I have no problem with a 10 fish species limit, 5 is going too far for pannies. Maybe you guys should start pushing for this on the lakes you fish.

bigpike wrote:

Sure seems like we are trending towards catch and release only and inevitably no fishing lakes in the name of protecting the fishery. Be careful what you wish for. I wouldnt be surprised to see it in my lifetime.

I don’t think we’re heading towards straight catch and release but we are moving away from the outdated (imo)idea that people fish to provide needed sustenance in their homes. Fishing is becoming a leisure hobby/activity that is not a cost effective method of obtaining food.

5 does seem low I’d say 7 is more reasonable.

You are certainly right about your opinion bud…we are just expressing ours also..
I for 1 would support this on my waters 100% if it improves the health,and size of the panfish we catch…You should have heard the same concerns when they dropped the limit from 50…..
Besides…Willow and Nokomis are not part of this study…..And the whole dropping water level issue has very little to do with 99% of the lakes involved here…..

My sister’s lake has a 5 panfish limit to protect the great sunfish fishery. I love it. 8-9″ panfish are the average. 10″+ fish not uncommon.

mplspug wrote:

My sister’s lake has a 5 panfish limit to protect the great sunfish fishery. I love it. 8-9″ panfish are the average. 10″+ fish not uncommon.

There’s a couple gill lakes in MN that I fish that have a similar 5 fish limit in place that have benefited from the more strict regulations with a noteworthy increase in average size. Many of the anglers that were vocal opponents have fallen silent now that 10″ gills have become an every day reality. My advice would be to give the regs a chance to work, you might be pleasantly surprised.

James Holst wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>mplspug wrote:</div>
My sister’s lake has a 5 panfish limit to protect the great sunfish fishery. I love it. 8-9″ panfish are the average. 10″+ fish not uncommon.

There’s a couple gill lakes in MN that I fish that have a similar 5 fish limit in place that have benefited from the more strict regulations with a noteworthy increase in average size. Many of the anglers that were vocal opponents have fallen silent now that 10″ gills have become an every day reality. My advice would be to give the regs a chance to work, you might be pleasantly surprised.

+1. I wish MN had many, many more lakes with the 5 fish limit.

I don’t think people understand how quickly a lake can be trawled out of larger 6+ inch panfish. I laugh every time I hear someone in the metro area say it’s the 3 inchers that are eating all the food and keeping the population down. Yeah, they are, because they’re the only ones left after every fish over 6 inches got trawled out.

Minnesota’s #1 problem with fishing is the limits are WAY to generous. Not too hard to think of a great example of what happens when you keep people from trawling out all the best fish.

Grouse

I would love to see a 5 fish limit here on pool 10. The size of gills down here have dropped drastically over the last 10 years. The only problem with changing the regs here is dealing with border water with Iowa. I don’t see any reason to be keeping 25 gills ever. I usually fish with my wife and 2 boys and never keep more than 15 which is plenty For a meal for all of us. I’ve witnessed guys catch a limit leave then come back later for another round.

I would definitely support a 10 or 15 fish limit on the lake I fish.

I like the trend on the limits…. and hope in some manner it expands further to more waters, even if to a happy middle ground.

As far as Nokomis dropping 7′, pretty sure that is an all different argument more based on water levels in general on the flow ages. Unlike Alice, they do not have the controls for water levels…. when there is a draught, water levels drop.

The only time water levels will affect fish populations is if it is low during the spawn and the decent spawning habitat is inaccessible. Water levels in general have nothing to do with fish populations unless water temps get too high and oxygen levels deplete low enough to cause a fishkill. That can happen if the water level is normal or high as well, and it will be HIGHLY noticeable with hundreds if not thousands of fish floating.

Look at the mighty Miss? Does anyone not think that the quality of panfiah has not gone down hill from 5-20 years ago? Pools 5-7? If there is word out that there is a panfish bite, or for that fact any bite,it will get fished and fished hard. I’m all for limiting all panfish on the river. I know its not your lake but I think here it might be good?

munchy wrote:

The only time water levels will affect fish populations is if it is low during the spawn and the decent spawning habitat is inaccessible. Water levels in general have nothing to do with fish populations unless water temps get too high and oxygen levels deplete low enough to cause a fishkill. That can happen if the water level is normal or high as well, and it will be HIGHLY noticeable with hundreds if not thousands of fish floating. [/quote

Think about your favorite lake. Now empty 7′ of water out of it peak growth season. All the cabbage beds and reed beds and lilly pads dry up and die. If the water level stays down long enough they dont come back easily. The small fish that need cover from weeds to survive have nothing but sand and whatever they can find to hide. Now this happens for ten years. How does your favorite lake recruit fish, not to mention the fun of fishing 60% less lake. Seriously consider this and tell me it does not affect panfish mortality and size?

You are taking your own thread off topic…

Do some research on the water levels for those bodies of water, the levels are not intentional, or should I say desired by anyone. The levels are recovering as of the last two years, mother nature doing her part.

The only connection in the water levels… and your thread is that if you think of it… if there has to be waters that make sense for new and strict limit management plans, what better waters, but those that have been suffering from low levels over the years. How else can fish populations recover, if not from additional protections.

It sort of answers why these waters may have been added to the plan. If it works there, then it is great proof for other waters in need of adjustments.

The issue goes hand in hand on these particular bodys. The government has a deal with the mills that allows them to lower the flowages if needed to help run the mills. The Dnr also a government entity has taken the same body of water(s) and greatly reduced panfish limits, in my opinion draining the lake for years has caused the problem with size or amount of fish. The government gets there cake and is eating it too all at tax payers who live on those lakes expense and sportsman who enjoy those lakes alike. If they want such restrictive limits then also limit the amount the lake can be lowered to a reasonable amount- say 2′. They did this on Wissota 10 years ago they certainly can do it on the lakes that dump into the Wisconsin river. I am done ranting. Thank you all for your opinions and input. Its a interesting topic that wont be going away anytime soon.

Mills, and power companies…. keeping them chugging along is pretty important to a lot of people. Draught conditions come, and yes, the water is going to drop. It sucks – but having the lower limits has to be a good thing for those waters.

Blaming the government and the dnr is just an easy way out vs really understanding the bigger problem. Again, this is off topic.

I think that this is a sound idea. Had they played a slot with the limit, then maybe things would take on a different flavor but really nobody needs more than 5 crappies or five nice sunfish for a meal. If more are needed, take the kids or the wife and let them help earn the meal and still stay legal. They should be going along anyway. I can keep ten crappies but seldom take home more than four or five since we don’t freeze them for our use.

The resorts? Hey, being able to stay open because people can keep fish period is better than trying to stay alive when catch and release is the only option and if the lower limits don’t improve the waters in question maybe that c/r will be employed. People need to think of a bigger picture when they see limit tightening. As mentioned, nobody needs a pile of fish to stay alive in this day and age [except for some Indians who don’t understand the concept of work to buy food and want to use nets]. Fish should be looked at as a treat meal, not a needed meal.

I’ve always maintained that those who scream the loudest when limits get chucked are those who abuse what’s here now the most. The OP here says he isn’t affected by this change so why whine? This is being implemented to better the resource, to help preserve it. Why not embrace it?

What’s funny is those lakes probably would not be there had the mills never been built.

James Holst wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>mplspug wrote:</div>
My sister’s lake has a 5 panfish limit to protect the great sunfish fishery. I love it. 8-9″ panfish are the average. 10″+ fish not uncommon.

There’s a couple gill lakes in MN that I fish that have a similar 5 fish limit in place that have benefited from the more strict regulations with a noteworthy increase in average size. Many of the anglers that were vocal opponents have fallen silent now that 10″ gills have become an every day reality. My advice would be to give the regs a chance to work, you might be pleasantly surprised.

@jamesholst I’d like to do some follow up research on the positive impacts of these 5 fish regulations. Please name the lakes so I may provide first hand feedback, in the name of science of course.

I’ve got a few lakes in my area that have the new 5/15 panfish regs and am completely in favor of them and look forward to reaping the rewards of good management in the future.

Here on Lake Wisconsin, I would absolutely love to see new regulations limiting the total number of panfish a person can keep.
L. Wis can & does grow huge crappies. It’s not at all unusual to catch a 13, 14, 15″ or bigger crappie although it does not happen nearly as often as it did 5, 6 or 7 years ago. We don’t catch anywhere near as many crappies these days as we used to.

Our daily bag limits are still at 25 per day and people come from all over to take advantage of it. To me, that is a ridicules number.

I’ve been cleaning fish for years for my clients and I know for a fact, that seven 12″ crappies will stuff a quart size freezer bag so full that you will hardly be able to close the bag.
Why in the world does one person need more than 3 quart size freezer bags of crappie fillets from one days outing? How many do you really need?

Please, please change the Lake Wisconsin regs to something similar to the 5 fish limits. The sooner the better!

My 2 cents worth.