Does it Make A Difference?

My home lake is a highly fertile and highly pressured lake in Southern MN. I have a personal rule with bluegills that anything 8 inches and over go back into the water to hopefully breed and spread the big gill genetics. I know full well with how pressured this lake is, that fish will be caught again and will probably end up in someone else’s bucket for their fish fry. Does anyone else feel like they are doing the right thing and it doesn’t really matter?

It does to me. Every time a tip a fish back down the hole it gives me a warm fuzzy feel.
If someone else catches and keeps it doesn’t even register to me.

I don’t fish highly pressured water, but they don’t all go home in buckets. They can’t or the fish population wouldn’t exist.

If you keep it that fish won’t spawn, guaranteed. If you release it there certainly is a chance that it will, maybe for many years to come.

I have this same mentality with passing small bucks on public land. Some get old and mature. If I shoot it young, no way it’s going to get old.

Is there evidence that a larger bluegill has better genetics or did it just live long enough with out ending up in some ones frying pan?

skfishing16 wrote:

Is there evidence that a larger bluegill has better genetics or did it just live long enough with out ending up in some ones frying pan?

Flip the coin and ask yourself that of a muskie. Genetics influence size in every fish, but all fish are different. Panfish family genetics are not the same as in walleye/perch family fish or in northern/pickerel/muskie families of fishes.

I love catching a pig of a sunfish but unless the fish is hurt beyond recovery I don’t keep many at all.

skfishing16 wrote:

Is there evidence that a larger bluegill has better genetics?

YES! Absolutely no question that male bluegill size is controlled by genetics.
Google “parental and cuckold bluegills” for some interesting reading.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/fisheries/investigational_reports/432.pdf

https://www.sdstate.edu/sites/default/files/nrm/outreach/pond/upload/The-Secret-Life-of-Bluegill-Jul-Aug-2005.pdf

http://the-earth-story.com/post/141028868531/sneakers-satellites-and-good-dads-the

I can’t seem to find the thread. But there was a great post on here about bluegills and spawning with relationship to size and growth. I will keep looking.

It does matter – keep up the good work. Think of it this way…. you are giving a “free” lesson to the fish so he hopefully won’t fall for someone else’s presentation anytime soon.

Tuma wrote:

I can’t seem to find the thread. But there was a great post on here about <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>bluegills and spawning with relationship to size and growth. I will keep looking.

I think there was another one too, but I found this one and is worth reading through…

http://www.in-depthoutdoors.com/community/forums/topic/pannies_1274639/

Good post! I’ve often wondered the same thing. Ill let the bigger fish go only to assume the next time they get caught they end up fried..

craig s wrote:

Good post! I’ve often wondered the same thing. Ill let the bigger fish go only to assume the next time they get caught they end up fried..

They might but how many eggs could they have laid by then. I always let the big ones go and more and more fisherman and women are doing this now days. Letting the big ones go will only help the future weather it is someone catching their personal best or spawning.

tswoboda, the second link you posted is a fantastic article on the different reproductive strategies bluegills take based on genetics.

https://www.sdstate.edu/sites/default/files/nrm/outreach/pond/upload/The-Secret-Life-of-Bluegill-Jul-Aug-2005.pdf

I didn’t know that not only do the “sneaker” and “mimic” males grow smaller, they also live much shorter lives due to their genetics. They will NEVER become larger to take on the bull bluegill role. I always thought (wrongly) that the smaller “sneaker” and “mimic” males will slowly grow larger and become the bull bluegill.

Even if everyone else is keeping them now, change has to start somewhere.

Great post. Keep spreading the word.

Here is the other thread I think you guys were thinking of.

http://www.in-depthoutdoors.com/community/forums/topic/fishing-with-a-drone-uncut-angling/

Yes, absolutely keep throwing them back. The fact that others may be keeping shouldn’t make a difference.

If everyone thinks that way, and nobody throws them back, they may end up being fished out of the lake, and there is evidence to show that once they’re gone, it’s very very very difficult to recover.

Its my opinion that the DNR should step in on some of these lakes, or all lakes across the state, and get some limits in place. 1 or 0 over 8″, or something like that.

The thing is, when you find spots with a big one, there is probably more big ones around. One good day from some guy who buckets every big gill he catches can damage a fishery. Think of the multiplier effect, one big gill spreads those genetics to thousands of eggs, possibly. A handful of those are male, survive, and do the same. Remove one, those eggs get fertilized by poor genetics, and instead of dozens or hundreds of fish with great genetics a few generations down the line, those fish have poor genetics.

Obviously, it’s not only that simple, other environmental factors come into play (cover, food sources, etc), but it certainly impacts the population.