5 sunfish is utterly ridiculous

Post specifics on “your lake” so we all can get our limit of the “monsters”.

These new regs are going to change the family/friends get together for a fish fry forever. It might still happen except it will be fish sticks on the menu instead of sunfish and crappies.

fishthumper wrote:

instead of keeping 10 or 20 smaller fish some people ( like the original poster ) will now decide to keep the biggest fish

This is exactly what is happening in WI lakes with similar special regs. “Gotta get a meal” so the biggest are kept to make up for quantity.

I don’t know what is published for fyke netting or other population studies. But I would compare your favorite lake’s information to some general numbers. A healthy panfish population is 60-80 mature (capable of reproduction) per acre

Red Eye wrote:

These new regs are going to change the family/friends get together for a fish fry forever. It might still happen except it will be fish sticks on the menu instead of sunfish and crappies.

If you need pounds of fish to feed all of your friends and distant relatives, fine… take them out fishing with you. If you don’t want to do that, Morey’s has thousands of fish to choose from and NO LIMIT.

I love to fish but do not keep many. I like to eat fish but my family does not. The 1 fish I can get them to eat is sunfish. I would have much rather had a 10 limit statewide. I fish by myself alot. 10 would be enough for my family as I can only get my kids to eat 1 a piece. That leaves 2 or 3 for my wife and 5 or 6 for me

You can still have 20 in possession so go out two days and you have your meal.

welliou wrote:

You can still have 20 in possession so go out two days and you have your meal.

Minnesota doesn’t allow for double you daily for possession.

One problem is that some people think their limit should feed their whole family. Its an individual limit. If you want your family to have fish, teach them to fish.

I fished a Northern MN lake for the very first time this year, it has a 5 limit for Sunfish. Before getting there I thought it was dumb. When we fished, we still targeted Walleye and Pike, our favorite, but had trouble catch quality fish or any at all, so in the first evening I pinpointed a spot to try Sunfish. It was myself, my wife and daughter, my dad and mom. And we came up short of our 5 person limit, but had maybe 20 Sunfish. But they were quality Sunfish, better than any average size I have ever caught. 20 Sunfish was more than enough for our family meal, under the limit. After that, as someone else stated, with electronics, and want to, I targeted the Sunfish more, because it was fun to catch that quality of fish. We still let go the BIG ones, and never did keep a full limit, because we knew it was more than we could eat.

I have ZERO problem with that, and ZERO problem with reg’s trying to maintain a healthy population of fish. Have to try something.

My inlaws have a cabin in NW Wisconsin, 300 acre lake. For a couple of years the Sunfish and Crappie fishing was amazing, good size and good numbers, limit was 50 per. Word got out, within 2 years the lake was decimated. It has been 10 years since then, and the quality and quantity of the fish is still suffering, population of dinks. These reg’s would have helped that lake.

timschmitz wrote:

Minnesota doesn’t allow for double you daily for possession.

From the MN DNR website:

The new regulations only modify daily limits on the affected waterbodies. Anglers can only keep the prescribed number of fish per day from the water but can return the next day for another limit as long as they don’t exceed the statewide inland water possession limit of 20 sunfish per angler.

https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/news/2021/03/02/new-sunfish-regulations-effect-nearly-100-waters

toddrun wrote:

One problem is that some people think their limit should feed their whole family. Its an individual limit. If you want your family to have fish, teach them to fish.

^^^This right here^^^^

5 sunfish is utterly perfect. Lets go state-wide with it.

I live on a lake that has a 5 crappie limit as they are easy to catch on this lake. All it did was cause people to bring 4 kids in the boat when they come crappie fishing. Also, we see the DNR maybe twice a year. Last summer it was once on the 4th of July and all they did was write tickets for life jacket violation during the pontoon parade. Not the DNR officers fault, but enforcement is pretty much zero.

WSAF wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>timschmitz wrote:</div>
Minnesota doesn’t allow for double you daily for possession.

From the MN DNR website:

The new regulations only modify daily limits on the affected waterbodies. Anglers can only keep the prescribed number of fish per day from the water but can return the next day for another limit as long as they don’t exceed the statewide inland water possession limit of 20 sunfish per angler.

https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/news/2021/03/02/new-sunfish-regulations-effect-nearly-100-waters

Wow I’m absolutely wrong! Thanks for the clarification!

I am generally in favor of lower limits, but I do worry about the “I need to keep the biggest fish possible now” mentality becoming more prominent.

As others have mentioned, I have seen the effects of excessive fishing pressure decimate panfish populations in a few of my favorite lakes up north. The DNR isn’t prefect, but at least they are doing something to try to address the issues many of us have seen first hand.

That’s why you need 5 sunfish with 1 over 9″ or 10″ allowed. Some lakes you cant just lower the limit.

And for those who say they will keep big ones now, how much extra meat do you really think you are going to get by keeping the 5 biggest on dish approaching 1# before being fileted? 5oz?

mplspug wrote:

That’s why you need 5 sunfish with 1 over 9″ or 10″ allowed. Some lakes you cant just lower the limit.

And for those who say they will keep big ones now, how much extra meat do you really think you are going to get by keeping the 5 biggest on dish approaching 1# before being fileted? 5oz?

I think most people would do it just out of spite much like the OP comments. Considering they possession limit is remaining in tact, I hope that would keep people from stockpiling the biggest fish they can get, but I have lost most hope in common sense in recent years.

Guys, the solution to this is simple and legal. Ten 21-inch northern pike provides a lot more filet than 5 sunfish. Plus they’re abundant and need to be thinned anyways so its a win-win.

mn-z wrote:

I live on a lake that has a 5 <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>crappie limit as they are easy to catch on this lake. All it did was cause people to bring 4 kids in the boat when they come <em class=”ido-tag-em”>crappie fishing.

If it gets more kids exposed to fishing that’s a good thing IMHO. We keep hearing about not enough young people fishing, so I’m all for getting them out on the water and hopefully a few of them continue fishing.

gimruis wrote:

Guys, the solution to this is simple and legal. Ten 21-inch northern pike provides a lot more filet than 5 sunfish. Plus they’re abundant and need to be thinned anyways so its a win-win.

so how many of the 21 inchers have you kept to help out???????

i do…….for pickling and a 10 fish limit of pike nets me maybe 5 qts of pickled fish.

ya cant y-bone and have anything work while to fry. i’ve never had issue with picking out bones while eating fish but on those its not even a real option. my brother occasionally grinds them up to make fish patties.

glenn57 wrote:

so how many of the 21 inchers have you kept to help out???????

i do…….for pickling and a 10 fish limit of <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>pike nets me maybe 5 qts of pickled fish.

ya cant y-bone and have anything work while to fry. i’ve never had issue with picking out bones while eating fish but on those its not even a real option. my brother occasionally grinds them up to make fish patties.

I’ve never pickled, but someone told me that if you pickle the bones dissolve. Not true?

I like the 5 fish gill limit. Wouldn’t mind a size restriction also. Anything 10″ or over goes back maybe even 9.5″

I think most of the responses here are reacting to the tone of the first post as opposed to the issue presented.

I’m in the camp that believes people will keep the five biggest, which is why I feel like a maximum size limit would be best even with a larger limit. Protecting the biggest fish protects the best genetics, too, which I’m not sure we know much about but seems like a good idea.

Protecting them while spawning is so emotional. When you kill them has no impact on the big picture – think! Plus, you’d have to close the season through July.

I feel like explicitly preserving the larger gills would have a better effect but what do I know. Maybe the DNR did a good job of selecting lakes that don’t have or can’t get a ton of stunted panfish in them. I’m no fishery biologist, but I agree that it’s a step in the right direction either way on highly pressured lakes.

CaptainMusky wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>glenn57 wrote:</div>
so how many of the 21 inchers have you kept to help out???????

i do…….for pickling and a 10 fish limit of <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>pike nets me maybe 5 qts of pickled fish.

ya cant y-bone and have anything work while to fry. i’ve never had issue with picking out bones while eating fish but on those its not even a real option. my brother occasionally grinds them up to make fish patties.

I’ve never pickled, but someone told me that if you pickle the bones dissolve. Not true?

thats a big YES. when i take the y-bones out of bigger pike.i save that for pickling……no meat goes to waste and you cant tell bones are still in there.

john23 wrote:

Protecting them while spawning is so emotional. When you kill them has no impact on the big picture – think! Plus, you’d have to close the season through July.

Maybe you should think a little more instead of being so emotional all the time! Of course fishing them during spawn when the largest fish are concentrated has an accelerated effect on the fishery. Sure a 5 fish limit means less are harvested. That’s simple math.

john23 wrote:

I’m in the camp that believes people will keep the five biggest, which is why I feel like a maximum size limit would be best even with a larger limit. Protecting the biggest fish protects the best genetics, too, which I’m not sure we know much about but seems like a good idea.

I dont think protecting the larger panfish is about protecting the genetics as much as it is those fish who guard the nests.

suzuki wrote:

Of course fishing them during spawn when the largest fish are concentrated has an accelerated effect on the fishery

Maybe they will consider a catch and release season in the spring during their spawning season. That way you could still at least fish for them and target a trophy but would have minimal impact on reproduction.

I think part of the issue here with panfish harvest is that they are the only species of fish that has a continuously open and harvestable season. They receive pressure all year long.

What kind of boat do you have? I don’t have a problem with these reg’s but really wish the DNR would work to simplify them across the board, find some middle ground and make it a 5 or 10 fish limit everywhere.

thousands of lakes to fish sunfish, and for those that think they will always keep 5 big ones? the same people would keep 20 big ones. I love the idea. Now enforcement? that will be a issue.

So, reading through these comments, and the previous thread, I think the split in opinion really just breaks down to what folks value in, and how they approach the sport. It seems to me, the die-hards, folks who are out a lot, don’t mind the switch, they’re invested in the chase, the experience. Folks who aren’t, for whatever reason, have more issues. As I think about it, it strikes me, as someone who mainly ice fishes as I don’t own a boat, that these regs are targeting ice fishing overwhelmingly more so than open water, specifically the wheelhouse cities sitting over community holes for days on end. I haven’t an issue with that, it needs to change. Folks like me, lucky to get out 5 times a year, are just collateral damage. It would be nice to find a way to accomplish the goals in mind that don’t punish the folks who just want to get a meal every now and again (yeah I’d love my kids to come fishing, but they don’t have interest, and I’m not a fan of forcing them to indulge me in mine).

Again they can not appease everyone. But I will ask how are you collateral damage. This is in no way stopping you from fishing any lake. This in no way is stopping you from keeping fish to eat. This may deter you from fishing a particular lake that the DNR thinks is worthy to preserve the fishery for the future it is not as if the fishery is closed. I fail to see the collateral damage or anyone one person or group being punished.

Fish a few days and get your 20. No big deal. Many lakes near me have been killed because guys keeping every big fish they catch