Iowa bag limit

Luke – keep in mind that not all anglers are superstars at catching fish. In fact – many of the ones you might have witnessed keeping some of those smaller fish struggle to catch the ones they do take home and are little more than ocassional anglers – not having an impact on the vast numbers of fish in a pond (which is where that scenario is applicable).

I would be interested to know what areas you feel have been fished out – as many of the areas anglers feel that way are just experiencing the maturation process – along with the normal changes in species compositions and populations – this is what I referred to earlier – many anglers will believe falsely that this is due to harvest rather than normal changes associated with the drop in fertility level after a new lake or pond is created or reestablished.

I do understand what you are saying about small fillets – we call them chips (as in potato) when people keep them – and of course don’t keep them ourselves. As always the targeted search for trophy gills and crappies is a task taken up by a relatively small portion of our angler base.

I have worked hard on an initiative in recent years to promote more people getting out and fishing – restrictions like you are referring to tend to reduce the interest of such occasional anglers and prevent them from buying licenses if the complexities of going fishing are beyond their interest in understanding – but we do need them to buy licenses to help keep the wheels of the Fisheries protion of the DNR rolling forward.

I understand your passion – the other side of the coin is that setting a limit often also creates a springboard effect where the anglers won’t leave until they have reached that number – whatever it may be. Rather than being happy with 18 gills on Bussey the angler may now stick it out until they hit the 25 point.

From top to bottom the Fisheries bureau resist a limit that has no bioloical base. And yes – removing those small panfish in certain situations IS in fact beneficial. Fish don’t stunt from over harvest – they stunt from over-populating their habitats ability to create food.

Weeds are not necessarily a sign of a fertile lake – do some research on the various stages of lake maturation and also on the differences between Oligotrophic, Mesotrophic and Eutrophic lakes for more information.

Again – I understand your thoughts – but that doesn’t make you right either… all I can suggest to you is an example – I have been fishing Guttenburg for 15 years plus – I have seen the gradual swing towards the voluntary releasing more of the bigger fish on the Miss – and it has changed drastically in recent years – and continues to improve in the conservation ethic of the anglers there – use the opportunity when you see people doing what you think is wrong to try and educate them to your way of thinking – they may see the light and the word does spread. And you will find it to be an enjoyable experience to have them think a bit more about the results of keeping whatever fish you want them to release. Good luck on your fishing endeavors… Chuckles

Chuckles,
Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t one of the biggest factors causing the stunted fish excessive weed growth? What, if anything, is being done to control that?
It seems to me if you just suggest increased harvest but do not look at the factors that caused the problem in the first place (increased weed growth which you have stated is caused by the farm runoff) then you are doing nothing good for your environment.

I am not trying to call you out but I feel a person of your knowledge might be able to help the rest of us see this more clearly.

Luke –
Paul Sleeper is as close to a fisheries genious as anyone else I know – look at McBride for a great sample of what his careful thought can do for a fishery – but keep in mind that the process of maturation will have its effect on that as well as Belva Deer – they are now relatively ‘new’ lakes and there will be rapid growth when the fertility spikes – but crappie populations will not be sustainable in such places… nor are the gill populations in Belva Deer. The fertility cannot be sustained on a lake level. I am sorry to pass that on but that is a cold hard fact – so while you may observe changes in the populations – that doesn’t necessarily make it correlated with angler pressure.

Again – try the education route – it does work over time and it is a delight to see anglers minds changing as they learn respect for the resources and at least think about the fact that their harvest can have some effect on the fisheries out there. Chuckles

Herb – the bottom line is that the employees of the state work for us – the citizens – and to a lesser degree to the out of state purchasers of fishing licenses. If enough people contacted them about changing a regulation – even if it isn’t biologically needed – then they would likely look at that. But they see no reason currently to do so – the populations you speak of are general – do you have specific examples of what you areas you have concerns for? Just remember that research costs money and time for a strapped staff – and that usually correlates with reducing spending elsewhere – so where would you like to see the cuts occur. Those are the realities fish and wildlife managers face today…

In terms of fish kills – if you are seeing such occurances they should be reported immediately – but I suspect that if you are seeing such kills after rainfalls in the summer then it is being casued by manure runoff – which adds ammonia to the waters – that is a deadly combo for fish already stressed by heat. Chuckles

My understanding is that overpopulation causes stunted growth – along with size of the body of water they are living in and availability of food…….

Is this a wrong assumtion ???

As far as the “chip” sized fish go..Every once in awhile I will keep a dozen or so for supper -IF the larger fish don’t appear – no filets….gut and scale’em – EXCELLENT table fair….is there any wrong in this??…

Hope not because food is one of the reasons (among many) I fish.

So what if they stick it out for a 25 fish limit?
I think that limit on Iowa’s Miss. River border was the best thing to happen in years. Here’s a story a lot of inlanders have never heard about in cluding a few fisheries people, but alot Miss. River anglers know for fact;
Many years ago when we had a baitshop in Lansing, ice season was our busiest time of the year. Had anglers from many states come to our doors as regular customers. Most came for the premo panfishing to be had in the Lansing backwaters. This was way back when the backwaters had deep areas and feed for wintering fish.
I remember one group in particular from Indiana. These guys were dedicated and danged good fishermen. But they had that hogs at the trough mentality. They would come in and catch and catch till they took home fish by the garbage cans full. These guys had the ability to decimate a small wintering area if given the chance. And they did.
I’m not a know it all, and I don’t have a degree behind my name. I consider myself a “river rat” with a good knowledge of what goes on around me.
And I learn a lot from the info guys like Chuckles and John Pitlo throw out to me. But you’ll have a hard time trying convince me that size and possesion limits on Iowa’s panfish on inland waters is not a good idea for the resource. I’ve been to too many others states that have them and make them work. Even the anglers and resorts who first fought those limits are now singing the praises of them.

Vikesfan – I understand your thoughts – but as a rule Minnesota lakes are not on a level playing field with Iowa – the angling pressure is higher up there in many cases and again – Minnesota biologists wish they had the fertility levels we have in Iowa – that is an indirect quote from Marion Conover – the Fisheries bureau chief. Again – do some research on lake types and you may just find your answers apparent.

The booklet of regulations is not something we should hope for in Iowa – their regs are a book. Simplicity is a good thing as long as the needs of the public and its resources are being met – you and I have had this arguement before on Iowa Outdoors. Again I state to you that put and take is the only choice for our Iowa interior river eyes because we lack the necessary backwater habitat to raise walleyes naturally. And since I grew up here fishing the waters of our state I think I can happily say that I am pleased to have the opportunity to keep a smaller eye that is hooked fatally – see our wildlife regulations on wanton waste… Either way – our growth rates are so rapid on these interior streams that the eyes are only in that marginal category for one summer before they would be your more standard 15-18 inch eating size. So keeping a 14.5 inch eye is not going to end your glory days on the water. Your results may vary, Chuckles

Rathbun would be a good start. Belva deer would also be a good one since it is a new lake so to speak. I’d like to see an experiment with size and or poss. limits for perhaps a 5 year period.
I was told the DNR did’t really think the limits were needed on the Miss. River, but there was enough outcry from anglers that they went ahead with it anyway.
The last big fish kill I noticed on a farm pond in my area was about 20 years ago. No manure runoff caused this as there was no manure applied to the field draining into this pond. Chemical had been applied to the crops just a few days before hand.
The last fish kill I saw was a few years ago about 6 miles from my home. Small numbers of fish, the water turned green, but there had been no manure applied here either.

Lenny – see mudsharks post for my call on stunting – at least in these parts of the countryside. And Mudshark – I am with you – I was a river rat before I ever went to college… now I am just an older and more educated rr.

The conversation here is all over the map though – the problems on the Mississippi river backwaters are many – not just over harvest – the habitats have been destroyed by the Corps programs and by the effects the big floods have wrecked on those areas. Now the Corps is seeing the light and doing some habitat improvements – but they are expensive and we – anglers, hunters, outdoorsmen in general – are not good lobbiests. If we ever united and went after our politicians to improve the damages done to the river then we could really see some action – until we become the squeeky wheels – we won’t get the grease. Chuckles

Quote:

---

Lenny – see mudsharks post for my call on stunting – at least in these parts of the countryside. And Mudshark – I am with you – I was a river rat before I ever went to college… now I am just an older and more educated rr.

---

OK, but is it not true though that most of the over population is because with the tremendous weed growth the predator fish cannot harvest these panfish as effectively as they could in more open water?
If this is not the case what causes a lake to become overpopulated?

Lenny – I don’t know if that would normally be the cause in a lake. Usually in a lake setting there are large expanses of open water – and the smaller fish are exposed to predators as weeds die off over the years growth and death cycles. That is assuming that predators that are effective in feeding on the panfish are present. My information could be incorrect in your area – I don’t know.

In ponds the most likely cause is removing too many pounds of predator biomass – every bass is very important in the pond and the suggested harvest rate to keep things in balance is to keep all the panfish that are caught – big small or otherwise – and to release very nearly all the bass or catfish (a usual species mix in our farm pond stockings here) – in fact they suggest only a few pounds per acre of predators to be removed annually here. Your areas there may be different – I can’t imagine populations being stunted with a good predator base – we had a lake in southern Iowa that was stunted due to the introduction of yellow bass and they overpopulated and simly ground the food chain to the point that predator removal only accelerated the process – they wound up killing the whole thing off and starting from scratch.

Bullheads are another problem in these pond scenarios since they are prolific and will do the same thing to the food chain once they are introduced. Some of these introductions are done by what we commonly call “bucket biologists” that mean well – but don’t know what those new fish will do in a pond setting. Notice that I didn’t mention crappies either – they are classic for over populating and stunting in ponds as well… again – a good predator base makes all the difference in the world – but in most cases the folks fishing cannot resist keeping LMB and that can quickly change the ability of the predators to control the panfish present.

Good questions by all – I know that some of you do not agree with what I am saying – I am just reiterating what I have learned on the fringes of fisheries management… but I do trust the wisdom of the many folks I have discussed this very topic with over the years. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t instances where management of these fish may not be beneficial – it is very hard to make management decisions on a statewide level – but unless we want a regulation book like MN then some blanket management has to apply.

Again – your results may vary – and you guys make some good points – just remember the old story about roads and good intentions… Chuckles

Thanks for the info Chuckles.

I am curious though how allowing unlimited harvest has helped this problem. It seems to me that it is just a band aid and will offer no long term help. Has there been any thought given to reintroduction of predator species and then extremely tight regulations about keeping them?

Forgive me if I seem a tad blunt but it seems as though the Iowa DNR has chosen to look the other way concerning this problem. It does not seem to be an issue that will fix itself.

Are their specific cases where large harvests of panfish have been beneficial to restoring the long term balance in any lake in Iowa?

Lenny – keep in mind that many of the thoughts I gave are based on the fertility levels we have here. And that farm ponds are different than lakes, rivers and reservoirs at a variety of levels. That said it is important to keep the numbers of gills thinned so that they don’t stunt in the limited area of ponds. This would be less of a problem for these other bodies of water since there are generally enough predators to keep the panfish in check – and there are nearly unlimited quantities of food available.

I know of only a few cases in recent history where a lake has been killed off and restocked – and these are not large lakes – probably best described as small reservoirs. But then those are the only cases I can think of where one might think of a lake stunting also. You have to remember that while you have regulations that don’t allow trolling for muskies in Wisconsin – that is just because that is the tradition in WI. In Iowa they can certainly be trolled for – is one way right or wrong?

The people in charge of such regulations here see no current need for excessive regulation – and I think their attitude is correct provided that the lack of such regulations do not cause quantifiable problems in the waters of Iowa. I’m not saying the reg’s here should be adapted by the other states I frequent to fish – but am saying that just because a regulation has a certain effect on a body of water outside of our state doesn’t mean we should adopt your way of regulating things if a quantifiable problem does not exist. Chuckles

Way to go Guys this has been some of the best debate on a subject that I have ever read.Now I better put my 2 cents in so I can get .If I thought for a minute that a bag limit would provide the quality panfishing we desire I,d go for it.Even though I do not agree with alot of issue,s with our DNR I do not think there totally sleeping here.To manage our small panfish waters it would take management like private ponds and I don,t think the DNR are capable of this.I got to agree with Chuckles it takes EDUCATION or embarrasing.A example if you had a 100 acre lake that was producing 11in crappie and the limit was 15 how much longer do you think it would take to fish it out.Uneducated people or in some cases slobs will keep returning day and night day after day till there gone.The more people thats educated means its more people that say to(Joe Blow) how many fish do you NEED

Joe, as for the people who would keep going back for a limit day in and day out seems to be more of a regulation enforcement problem of which the Iowa DNR is too shorthanded to tackle these days. But to me it’s still not a viable reason not to try limits.

And reading into the last two posts by Chuckles, it seems the DNR is more prone to manage the state’s fisheries with a farm pond mentality. Meaning they seem to be using farm pond management methods in trying to manage Iowa’s lakes.

One more thing–

I’ve always been against the DNR stocking and managing private fishing holes with public money when the public has no right to fish them. I know a lot of poeple who fish farm ponds and enjoy it and yes, it does take pressure away from the lakes to a certain extent, but I feel the landowners should be taking of this, not the DNR.

Sorry, I seem to be getting off track of the original poster with my last paragraph.

Ive fished a few farm ponds in the past and quit fishing these perticular ponds because they were all over populated with small bluegills by the hundreds if not thousands and had shallow water filled with weed growth. In these farm ponds it was important to take out as many as possible because i suppose the reasons are that thier so prolific in multiplying and have a place to hide from preditors. Also i’ve fished a couple farm ponds that didn’t have much for shallow water for spawning bluegills to repopulate and the bluegills i did catch were nice sized with a few being on the smaller side. The crappies that i did catch in this deeper pond were all over 12″ and its a very good pond to fish through the ice for those big crappies. The diffrence i can see in these couple deep water ponds and the shallow water ponds is that the shallow water ponds have more habitate for the bluegills to spawn on and over popoulate the pond and the shallow water ponds had more weed growth for the bluegills to hide from preditors in. The people i’ve talked to in the past have always said be careful on the bass and catfish you take out and keep what you can when it comes to bluegills. I know that in these ponds the diffrence in weed growth was noticeably diffrent and i caught bigger fish in the pond with less weed growth, it may seem that with the weed growth that this would hide these smaller fish so they could grow into a bigger size, this might be partially true but these weedy ponds were over run with small bluegills and hardly any crappies and no big crappies. I know that food sources are important and it would seem that these shallower water ponds would have more food available for bluegills, if this is true then why the overpopulation. I know of one southern Iowa lake that does have a decent population of nice sized bluegills and this lake is also deep and hasen’t much for shallow water eigther. Maybe the answer for a decent pond is to have the majority of the water deep with just a slight portion shallow so the bluegills can reproduce but not to the point where they over populate it, maybe the same is true in lakes, got any input Chuckles?

Lenny –
I am not sure of any specific cases where large harvests of panfish have been detrimental to the long term balance of any lakes – and that may be the more important side of your question… keep in mind that as a rule we have had unlimited take of panfish available for as long as I am aware… it has just been that way here… and by and large the fishing remains good because we simply don’t have the same pressure on our lakes as many other states do.

I am not sure what problem you are referring to – I assure you that we have excellent biologists and that they do a great job all in all of producing great fishing for us.

One of the points I am really trying to make is that people often make the mistake of assuming angler pressure is what is changing the populations on all our lakes and there are many more factors involved out there… esepcially the maturation of new lakes… plain and simple – the flush of fast new growth when a new lake is started or a lake is refurbished is not sustainable. The fertility always drops over time and many don’t realize the effect this has on our populations here.

Chuckles

Herb –

just a couple notes here – certainly Iowas lakes do have specific rules about managing their predator populations where those are appropriate so I think if I gave you the impression that all waters are approached with farm ponds in mind then I let us all down – that certainly isn’t the case. The DNR does a great job in my opinion, of watching over our gamefish and managing our resources with what they have available for funds. They are underfunded and certainly could do more if more funds were sent their direction… see my note above about the squeeky wheel getting greased.

Herb and Mossydan –

And stocking is only done initially when a pond is deep enough to over winter fish – the cost per stocking is small and I would assume that the funds spent for that annually are miniscule compared with many other expenditures in the DNR’s annual budget. I understand your going off on this tangent but really don’t see this as a big issue. They will stock largemouth, bluegills and channel cat once in an uninhabited pond… most landowners are fine with giving permission if one just asks. And some excellent angling spots result from this. Crappies upset the balance these three can creat in a properly managed farm pond – making it difficult for the predators to eat enough of the panfish to keep the populations under control – they really shouldn’t be stocked in farm ponds.

Chuckles

Chuckles, your comment about the squeaky wheel is the only reason I’ve even posted on this thread. But it looks like a dead issue-still.
No offense is meant to any of Iowa’s fisheries biologists in any of my posts. I just get discouraged when they refuse to even experiment with methods that have been proven in other states near us.
No more comments from me about it, until next year when it comes up again. And I know it will.
Thanks for taking the time.
herb

One more question Chuckels if you can help me out, does the dnr have any workable formulas that they use when stocking a pond or lake, it seems they would have, prey verses smaller fish for a better balance. When it comes to water depth in any givin pond or lake is there any formula that they use when its a deeper or shallower body of water, in other words does depth come into play here verses the area of surface water on a lake or pond. Do shallower lakes and ponds stock diffrently than deeper ones?

Reading all these posts I believe i site with ed. I see no limit for panfish on the inland waters. Most lakes are already over populated with gills and crappies anyway. So I guess maybe I am not the majority on here and might get ripped on but hey that is my 2 cents.

If I recall correctly the formula they use to determine numbers to stock is based on the surface area of the pond. They have a certain number of bass fry, channel cat fry and bluegill fry stocked per acre to have a good chance of attaining a balanced system. The pond must a minimum of 8 feet deep to ensure survival through the winter. Chuckles

Here is a link to some pretty good info on Iowa farm ponds. LINK

I thought that panfish populations were just cyclic, and that was the reason that it’s boom or bust on most of our lakes & rivers here in Iowa. Granted, MacBride is jammed right now with 7″ crappies, but next winter, those fish will be in that 10-11 inch range and the fishing will be stellar for a year or two.

The other story I’ve heard is that the conditions during the spawn dictate what fishing will be like. A warm & wet spring will bring hot panfishing to our resevoirs three or four years down the road, etc. The impact of the weather during the spawn would seem to dwarf all other factors when it comes to fish populations in the bigger lakes and impoundments.

Coralville makes an interesting case for both scenarios. Due to the powerboat traffic and irregular (at best) ice conditions, I’d be willing to bet that it receives less fishing pressure per acre than any body of water in the state, yet the panfishing – for those willing to brave the waters – remains consistently lousy. Delhi seems to fall into this same category, but I don’t fish it enough to declare it “officially lousy” – only enough to claim a few lousy days.

Macbride, due to the motor restrictions, receives relatively little pressure throughout the summer as well, but consistency is not one of it’s trademarks. Although people occasionally pull a 15+ inch crappie from the murky depths, it’s certainly not the norm.

I fished the Cedar a lot during the last two summers. On a normal day, in the 10 mile stretch above the 5-in-1 dam, I’d run into maybe 3 boats. There are some smallies. There are some green bass. There are some crappies. There are some pike. They are all unreasonably few and far between for a body of water three to five thousand acres that sees all of three boats/day of fishing pressure.

Palo, on the other hand, gets hammered. On a nice day in May you can grab a six-pack and pretty much walk across the lake jumping from boat to boat. Still, if I picked one place in the state to catch a dozen monster bluegills, PC is the place to be. (Also note: If I picked one place in the state to catch a 50+ musky, it would be PC).

I would love to see more consistency in our fishing here in Iowa, but it would seem that due to factors outside of my control, it’s just not meant to be. That said, I’ll happily bring a six-pack to the lake of your choice this spring and we can do a rain dance and pray for a good spawn.

And believe me, until you’ve seen Gianni’s patented “six-pack rain dance,” you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Gianni –
you certainly are right at some levels with weather affecting spawns. Keep in mind that McBride was really designed to have excellent fish habitat built in – and that can make a huge difference in the fish it could potentially produce. The bottom line is that we are making alot of blanket statements with this whole post and that if you wish to talk about specifics then the individual characteristics of a particular body of water can come more sharply into play.

Yes – proper weather is important to good spawns – as is having enough of the proper substrate and having enough adults to pull off the spawn. You fish Guttenburg some if I recall correctly. Witness what a good spawn can do versus a poor one for the eyes and sauger. The year class of fish there now that are between 11 and 13 inches for sauger and the eyes between 12 and 14.95 are very high in population currently – that was a particularly good year for that spawn – thinking it was 03 or 04 – but the two years prior to that were not – and so the usual eater categories of 15 to 20 for eyes and say 14 to 18 for sauger are really almost non-existant.

When weather conditions are right we need enough good spawning stock to take advantage of that opportunity – provided they have enough spawning habitat – and it will sustain the populations for a very long time since the bumper crop will be spawners in the future – and a large year class means many around to get er done on the good years.

Same thoughts can apply to almost any fish populations. You see the same thing on Lake Erie – a sudden water temperature drop combined with windy conditions at the wrong time can take a good spawning effort and up end it, producing a poor year class for recruitment (adding additional members to the populations.) So while we don’t think about the role weather can play – a week of cold temps with cold rain can do as much to upset a years class of young – so can perfect weather and timely flooding actually help to provide us with a bumper crop from certain years – and the neat thing is that since weather is often regional in its applications – then we can see that same year classes do well all up and down the ‘sippi basin through many pools. Give the current strong year class there on the ‘sippi some food this year and a bit of growth and all up and down the river – this years dinks will be the mamas and papas of potentially large crops of spawners and eaters for the future.

So yes – weather is most certainly a factor in what has been said here. So too can the high fertility in a new or refurbished lake provide lots of food for the fast growth and eventual reproduction of a strong year class of fish. Many factors involved as you can see here.

And yes, angling pressure can have an effect – but in most cases in Iowa, in general, our fertility levels are very high – due in part to where we are at with longer growing seasons and our latitude – and those are why comparing our rules and regs to MN or WI aren’t really very comparable. Not to mention that as a general rule again, our fishing pressure is greatly reduced when compared to these other states.

No one answer is 100 % correct – I just wanted to shed light on why the DNR here appears to use a hands-off policy. It is because we are comparing apples to oranges in many cases when trying to compare IA to MN or WI. It isn’t because they are ignoring our fish populations. In fact – our fisheries biologists here in Iowa are top notch – and they are some of the wisest resource people I know…
your thoughts may vary, Chuckles

PS – This has been an excellent thread and I do thank you all for remaining civil with me as I try to interpret what goes on out in the field here in Iowa. I am just trying to promote the bigger picture involved with fisheries management here in Iowa. I hope you will all continue to educate those around you with the thoughts presented here. Since I don’t have a coffee shop to meet with you all to discuss these things, I thank IDA for providing a platform for us to hold just such discussions such as this. Feel free to contact me for any further info I can provide.

Gianni’s Macbride vs Pleasant Creek comparison raises some other issues, namely the topic of water-specific regulations.

Mabride’s bluegill population is justifiably notorious for the small size of its fish. From what I have read the stunted bluegills on Macbride are the result of poor habitat and competition from shad, rather than fishing pressure. Macbride has little weedgrowth, which deprives bluegills of the invertebrates that make up much of their diet. The shad population makes thing worse, since shad eat the same invertebrates that bluegills do. Tighter bluegill limits on Macbride would accomplish nothing.

Pleasant Creek turns out some nice bluegills despite the heavy fishing pressure, but I suspect it could be better if more mature males were left in the lake to keep the population balanced. PC, unlike Macbride, has plenty of vegetation, which makes for good bluegill growth. The presence of yellow perch in Pleasant Creek may help as well, since yellow perch eat a lot of bluegill eggs, thereby leaving more food for the sunnies that do hatch. A study in Minnesota indicated that a healthy perch population does increase the average size of bluegills in this manner.

Macbride crappie seem to be in a mild down-turn after the ridiculously good fishing of 2003-2005. The boom was due to both “new lake syndrome” and the cycles that are a natural part of crappie populations. As is the case with Pleasant Creek bluegill, though, I cannot help but think removing huge amounts of fish has a detrimental effect on the average size of the fish, if not the overall numbers. I likewise suspect heavy angling pressure accentuates the down-side of the population cycles.

Pleasant Creek’s crappie fishing, since I am on the subject, is hit or miss for most people, myself included. Part of this due to lack of suitable habitat, since there isn’t a whole lot in the way of brush or timber in PC, and what there is gets pounded year-round. There are nice crappie to be had, but you have to work for them and know where the limited crappie-cover is, and get there before everyone else does. (The last part can be a problem.) I have heard unconfirmed reports that the IDNR is planning a Macbride-style renovation on Pleasant Creek, but I do not know if this is true.

Pleasant Creek boomed with crappies soon after it first opened – my father and brother participated in catching a pile of crappies when they were hot down there quite a few years back while I was gone. Again – as the fertility dropped over time the big first flush of growth slowed – very typical.

The gills having their numbers thinned by perch is no different than what I stated earlier about trying to keep much of what is caught for gills to reduce competition between panfish for food resources. Either way the result is a smaller number of panfish to reach ripe old age… but at an accelerated growth rate compared to what it would be without the thinning.

I wouldn’t argue about shad and gills on McBride – I don’t know enough about the species interaction there to make a statement at this point. Competition with other species certainly can upset the population of entire species of fish in a body of water as I have stated in many ways… just not sure that any regulation out there would change that. Keep in mind that to favor one species with a specific regulation will affect all others on a body of water as well – soe effect will be beneficial, some detrimental and some relatively neutral. Good luck in your fishing all, Chuckles

Crappie are very prolific and will overpopulate a small lake very quickly. They can crowd out other species like bass and cause both species to be stunted. Crappie don’t have a really long life cycle, so hundreds of thousand die out annually, the ice out in the north also kills thousands, We also have DNR that can produce annually millions of fries at the hatcheries, I have 6 ponds that I have done yearly reports, and this is a serious issue when the fish are not removed. Disease has rendered a prolific effect on one pond where none were removed. I also have one pond that only one crappie populated with 3 males, it with 2 years has been over populated. I have numerous other species that we have introduced to keep our records in check to see how we can keep the fish in from over populating and still keep the fish from being stunted. I can keep going on and on, but so far if you want to put a limit on fish, Do a length limit rather then a quantity. I am tell you one female can over populate a pond and if you allow it to go serious issues will evolve. Thanks and keep a wet line and better yet take as many kids fishing as you can.

Wow. No limit on panfish. I still think our MN limits are too liberal even after they were cut back.

Grouse

Wow, this was quite a read. I had no idea.