What do you guys and gals think about putting a limit on panfish in the state of Iowa? I know for a fact that we really need to get something done. Not really sure how to get the ball rolling any help would be great. Iam thinking that a limit of 25 fish would be a start, tthat is what the Mississippi river limit is here in Iowa but nothing on inland waters any thoughts would be great.
Thanks Kory
Kory…GOOD LUCK!! 
I have been nicely discussing this subject with area fishing biologists for years…no luck yet… 
I can only hope that, the more of us that are concerned keep raising our voices, will eventually get a limit established…
One problem i could see is possession limits I work road construction and I’m usually gone all week and have maintenance on the home on weekends, so I don’t fish near as much as I do in the winter, when I freeze fish for eating in the summer. With a 25 fish limit that would mean a 50 fish limit on possession, and with my kids home that’s 2 meals.
Ed
Is there no bag limit on panfish now????
You can ask them all the way up to the chief himself, they will all tell you that our waters don’t have the carrying capacity for limits to help. Thus the put and take attitude on everything.
No, no bag limit on inland waters….
Ed, I am sorry, I guess I don’t know what to say about that…But even, still…there needs to be a possesion and bag limit to protect our fish here in Iowa. There are too many people outfishing bodies of waters, and we are left with NO genetics…
Quote:
So a guy could keep 100 crappies if he wanted to?
Yep..see it happen all the time…
JEEEZ thats sick!
What the &$*$ is the IOWA (DNR)? thinking……………..
And the best part is, the guy keeping 100 crappies doesnt have a single one over 9″ in his bucket. See everyone out filling buckets in the spring, it makes me mad just seeing it. They are not braking any laws, so nothing can be done.
I think I would give them a Alpha Charlie!!!!!!!!! 
Could you even ponder what that would do to a little lake
WOW not impressed with the IOWA DNR at all!
Is this just for panfish?
Quote:
Could you even ponder what that would do to a little lake
That is why they are all nine inches right nick?? 
I would agree with a daily and possession limit on panfish thou. It would give me an excuse to put off things on the weekend to go fishing!! 
I fish Volga lake alot and we have an Amish comm. about 20 miles away, the last 2 years they have been coming there by van loads and keeping every panfish they catch regardless of size.
So all in all I would like to see a limit, besides I don’t like to clean a bunch of fish at once anyway. 
Ed
If you non-residents to Iowa want to see pigs at the trough, you need to come down to Rathbun during the crappie spawn. Fisher people from just about every state that borders us that has possesion limits on panfish-especially crappie,will be camped at the parks or in the motels to ‘fill their freezers’ so to speak. Don’t get me wrong guys, I’m not picking on the non residents here because most of the people fishing Rathbun will be Iowans. But you really have to take notice at all the out of state vehicles here during the spawn. In my and other’s opinion, it’s only because Iowa has no limits and you really can fill your freezer.
No matter how loud we ask for limits, the DNR keeps telling us the lakes in Iowa are just so fretile that we don’t need limits. Personally, I think it’s because of all the out of state licenses sold.
During my crappie tournament days, I fished a lot of southern lakes that were just as fertile as Iowa’s lakes and rivers and they all had limits, both size and possesion, and they had some of the best fishing you could ever imagine.
Like I said, I don’t want this to read like I’m bashing out of staters, because our DNR really does need that license money. But wouldn’t you rather travel here to have quality vs quantity?
Very sad indeed. I wonder what the reasoning behind this is? Not only is it bad for fisherman but I would think it is bad for the ecosystem too. Bad deal
Any of you Iowa guys ever fish Hawthorn by Barnes City The lake used to be full of big crappies, now they’re all about eight inches, but you always see guys taking buckets full of eight inchers, pissing and moaning about how the crappies are stunted. I always get blank looks when I tell them why the panfish are stunted. 
You bring up a good point Sean. How many of you ever read the Iowa fishing forecast in Iowa game and fish magazine?
Not sure why this sticks in my mind, but it just seems like they brag and almost pat themselves on the back when talking about all the 7inch gills and 8inch crappies to be caught in Iowa lakes.
hey, guys thanks for all the feed back. You are hitting the nail on the head we have some real fish whores out there and they dont and they dont understsnd what it means when we see all these lakes with little gills and crappies. my best thought is that we can do our part by putting the bigger fish back. If the bass fisherman can do it then why the hell cant the people that pan fish do it! I guess that it is going to be a hard ladder to climb but if we can just get someone to listen then maybe we got a shot!! Once agian thanks IDA for letting us post thing out here to get everyones opinion.
Although not related to the panfish non-limit, the IDNR did recently impose a slot limit for walleyes on the Iowa Great Lakes in the northwest part of the state. Limit of 3 and all ‘eyes 17-22 must be released immediately. 1 of the 3 can be over 22. Having seen the results of similar, but more restrictive slots on MN lakes, I think at least they’re headed in the right direction on the walleyes. Maybe panfish will follow soon.
NWBuck
Quote:
Although not related to the panfish non-limit, the IDNR did recently impose a slot limit for walleyes on the Iowa Great Lakes in the northwest part of the state. Limit of 3 and all ‘eyes 17-22 must be released immediately. 1 of the 3 can be over 22. Having seen the results of similar, but more restrictive slots on MN lakes, I think at least they’re headed in the right direction on the walleyes. Maybe panfish will follow soon.
NWBuck
I think it will be a good move by the DNR. If I understand the regulation correctly, the 14-inch minimum is no longer required. I’m thinking it won’t take long to weed out some of the smaller eyes. I just hope they don’t get over-harvested.
Personaly I wish they would have kept the 14″ minimum. As far as panfish some lakes wouldnt work with a bag limit. Gills and crappies on bigger waters do well but on smaller waters that are fished hard I could see it helping.
I don’t know the numbers of gills taken from just West Okoboji in a Ice seaon but guessing close to 10,000 probley more. Still not to hard to catch a pounder or 3 when their on.
Quote:
my best thought is that we can do our part by putting the bigger fish back. If the bass fisherman can do it then why the hell cant the people that pan fish do it!
I’ve always found this funny. Now days most people will release a big walleye or bass but a big crappie or gill is almost always kept.
I am a Minnesota native who has lived in southern Iowa for six years (and counting); don’t get me started on the IDNR…
Alright, in for a penny, in for a pound… the IDNR insists it is impossible to over-harvest sunfish and crappie. Therefore, there are no limits of any sort for sunfish and crappie on in-land waters in Iowa (with a few exceptions). I have seen five gallon buckets filled with 5″ crappie taken by two or three anglers in one day on Lake Macbride here in Johnson County–that is not an exaggeration.
I sent an e-mail to the IDNR Fisheries HQ in Des Moines inquiring about their view on this issue: I was told that since panfish reproduce so rapidly, it is necessary to take as many as possible from lakes and impoundments to prevent over-population.
How this finding jibes with the Lake Winona bluegill study, the Minnesota DNR’s experimental regulations on Pools 5, 5a, and 8 of the Mississippi, the 7″ minimum on bluegills in Chester Woods in Olmsted County, and Illinois and Nebraska’s moves towards tighter bag limits on panfish was not made clear, since the IDNR did not address it.
I have been told that in small (under 100 acres) reservoirs and ponds, there is no harm in taking unlimited numbers of bluegill and crappie. What matters is that one does not harm the predator population, especially largemouth, who keep panfish numbers in check. (There are no natural lakes in southern Iowa, save for backwaters.)
What no one in the IDNR can tell me is why it is OK to take un-limited numbers of panfish from larger reservoirs like Macbride or Pleasant Creek. When I hear of and see positive ( consistently large crappie or bluegill) results in small reservoirs like Minnesota’s Chester Woods, or backwaters like Lawrence Lake, I can’t help but think of the complaints about stunted panfish and boom-to-bust fisheries one hears in southern Iowa, where there are no limits of any sort on crappie or bluegill.
Iowa does not have the water quality or quantity of states like Minnesota; I accept that, and the corollary that it is unrealistic to expect Iowa waters to have the same quality of fishing as Minnesota or Wisconsin. What I want an explanation on is why with less public water per angler, and with greater pressure on that public water, Iowa has some of the most liberal panfish regulations in the Midwest. (The same question applies to walleye regulations in in-land waters in Iowa, which rely almost entirely on stocking, yet for the most part have no closed season or size restrictions of any sort.) I’ve been asking for six years, and have yet to get an answer that did not rely on circular reasoning, ad hominem attacks, or straw man arguments.
I hear you Lenny! I think it is important to release the majority of the bigger fish….genetics wise, in my opinion.
I love to walleye fish, but I am a “pan ice-fisherman” by heart…and I love to catch, photo, and release BIG slab crappies….a picture is better to me than a fresh fillet.
Several items I would like to touch on here.
We do have extremely fertile fishing waters in Iowa – where do you suppose all the run-off fertilizer winds up. It produces strong weed growth which fuels a food chain they cannot reproduce in the states north of us.
The next item is that the professors in icthyology and fish management always stated that the best thing to do in a farm pond situation is to harvest the gills at a high level and only very selectively remove any predator base in the pond (usually bass and catfish). This helps to prevent stunting.
In new lakes or ponds there is a spike in the fertility of the waters when first constructed that cannot be sustained – so the extreme fish growth that starts out in a new lake (picture Brushy Creek or Belva Deer) cannot be sustained, and the populations do eventually change – often crappies will be quite large relatively quickly and will gradually show us a lower average in the length of the fish after a few years. With our high fertility it is beneficial to remove many of those smaller crappies and gills to free up food for the remaining fish to consume enough to get larger. This process is often misunderstood and believed to be caused by angler pressure – but that isn’t the case.
Keep in mind that a 9 inch gill in central Minnesota is probably two – three years older or more than a 9 inch gill in a southern Iowa farm pond. The growth rates are much greater here in Iowa – the population is much more sustainable here without limits on panfish than in say central MN. Just because a limit is called for in MN or WI does not mean it is needed here in Iowa. The bottom line is if you are concerned about some of those folks out there taking out too many fish (in your humble opinion) then perhaps you should invest a bit of time and educate them a bit… but the bottom line is – the DNR is doing the right thing for Iowa.
The biologists are perfectly well aware that some of our ranks believe there should be a limit – but the ecology of our lakes does not show a need for it. In fact – the Iowa DNR has studied the walleye anglers on our interior rivers and the anglers have a strong tendency to self regulate by length – and with our eyes in the interior rivers being not self sustaining – there again is no real biological reason to limit the take by issueing a length limit. How many times are we forced to release a severly hooked fish that we believe is going to die, only to feed the eagles. If your 5 year old catches a 14.5 inch eye on the ‘sippi that has the hook buried in its gullet – you have no choice but to feed the turtles and eagles – on the interior streams that fish can follow you home to the delight of the child that can then consume the fish they caught. Again – the window of opportunity where those eyes are small is very short on Iowa’s interior streams because they too are very fertile – again – states north of us wish there growth rates were even close to our waters here in Iowa.
I don’t want to pull rank on anyone but my degree is in Fisheries and Wildlife Biology – and these are the facts I understand to be true – but it always seems easier to use your heart to try and drum up new regulations – but do some research and speak to a biologist or two with an open mind and perhaps your thoughts will come around as well. And as far as fish seasons go the bottom line is that there is no biological reason for them either – they are basically marketing ploys since it really doesn’t matter if a fish is removed the day after it spawned last spring and kept or if it is removed the day before it spawns this year – either way it will not reproduce. In situations where there are not enough fish to sustain the population (sterile lakes) versus places where the eyes sustain their own populations (Mississippi River) I could see that a few months off for the fishing would reduce the annual take to some degree – however it also spikes the fishing done at the begining and ends to those seasons at a level that may come close to leveling the annual pressure.
Not picking on anyone here – just want to present an educated viewpoint to the alternative. And any of you that know me also understand that I do a good job of releasing the big girls and the wee ones – but it is my choice – and I also like to spread the word on the fun involved in releasing the big girls – but again it is my choice – the way I feel it should remain.
Chuckles
Quote:
With our high fertility it is beneficial to remove many of those smaller crappies and gills to free up food for the remaining fish to consume enough to get larger. This process is often misunderstood and believed to be caused by angler pressure – but that isn’t the case.
So..we keep the six inch gills, and eight inch crappies? And get what off of them for a fillet? A snack?
I am saying this as respectfully as I can, but I completely disagree with your/ and other fisheries biologists opinions on this one.
If anybody fishes much outside of Iowa, they will understand that we don’t have much for weeds. Minnesota’s lakes have MUCH more weeds than we do.
And if angler pressure isn’t an issue..then why are SO MANY small bodies of water getting fished out!!!!????
I am sorry, I am not trying to come off as rude…but this is a very sore subject with me…
Quote:
We do have extremely fertile fishing waters in Iowa – where do you suppose all the run-off fertilizer winds up.
Wisconsin, Illinois…they don’t have run off?
Why are there Big Gills in Belva Deer? Because it USED to not have fishing pressure, and the fish were able to grow…
I can go to many lakes in MN….and catch bigger and more quantities of fish than in Iowa..why is that? Because they have limits, and protect their fisheries?
Again- I am not being rude…just asking..
Chuckles…I am not picking on you…I go round and round with sleeper on this as well….
Chuckles, you speak of the fertility in the runoff that goes into the ponds in this state. That is one of the main reasons I won’t fish farm ponds. I call them ‘farm chemical collection pits’. No, I don’t have a fisheries degree. But in my lifetime I’ve seen plenty of reddish orange water and thousands of dead fish after a heavy rain with much runoff to not have that opinion of ponds. But that’s just me and one of the many reasons I won’t fish them.
Why won’t the state of iowa just do some experimenting with size and possesion limits on a few lakes for a limited number of years and see what they find and publish it?
I said “lakes” I hope.
Illinois and Nebraska, two states in the same latitude as Iowa, have moved towards tighter limits on panfish. Besides the Missouri and Mississippi rivers in Nebraska and Illinois, respectively, neither state has much in the way of natural lakes. I am curious as to how Iowa’s reservoirs are different from those of Illinois and Nebraska, and how those differences dictate having no limits on reservoirs in southern Iowa with more than one hundred acres of surface water.
I would also like to know if water fertility increases dramatically when one crosses the border from Minnesota to Iowa. Chester Woods, an artificial flood reservoir in Olmsted County, Minnesota, is less than one hundred miles from the Iowa border, and is located a stone’s throw from Rochester, Minnesota, one of Minnesota’s largest population centers. Yet, a strict limit on bluegill harvest in this small reservoir has produced great results, from all accounts. The biologists of the Minnesota DNR have been 100% behind tighter limits in the southmost part of the state, which is very little different from Iowa.
And what of the Lake Winona study? The Minnesota DNR found that in fertile waters like Lake Winona, Winona County, Minnesota, the excessive harvest of large male bluegill had an adverse affect on bluegill population size structures. Lake Winona in Winona County is (a) a fertile body of water, and (b) less than forty miles from the Iowa border.
If one checks the Minnesota DNR site, one will learn that Minnesota’a lakes are not pristine and crystal-clear. Instead, they suffer from agricultural run-off, with much of the same problems, as do Iowa waters. So, I don’t understand how Iowa water quality problems set it apart from Minnesota, which has imposed tighter panfish regulations in the southern part of the state adjacent to Iowa.
I would also like to see some hard quantitative data showing that panfish sizes on Iowa waters are fine as compared to impoundments in Illinois, Nebraska, and southern Minnesota, where water conditions are the same, but actual limits are in place.
And, if I were fishing for walleye with my very young nephews, and they deep-hooked a sub-legal walleye, I would use the experience to teach them how the world works. Eagles and otters need to eat, too, and if letting the scavengers have a small walleye helps kids learn that lesson I happily let that deep-hooked fish go. I would not use their tears to answer a question about whether Iowa’s stock-and-kill walleye fishery is the best way to manage things. Tearful four-year olds are a pitiful sight, but not something that replaces a rational answer about the nature of Iowa’s in-land walleye fishery.
Not saying I have the answers…but my experience in earning an MA and working on a PhD from the University of Iowa has taught me not take the word of experts as gospel, either.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
