I think the positive we can take out of it is that probably 20 even 10 years ago, any mention of panfish conservation would probably resulted in belly laughs. I think we are slowly seeing people appreciating them more than just as an easy meal.
Eater walleye and bass catch and release started slowly too. Hopefully more studies will also be done, because personally I think that panfish might be the most difficult to manage and that there won’t be a one approach fits all for every body of water.
Quote:
The comment I hear the most from people is “If I don’t keep them someone else will.”
I could puke if I hear that one again.
I just want people to treat the bluegill like any other fish and release these mature fish and give the lake the best chance possible at growing more quality gills. To me a quality gill is 8 inches or better. The keepers for me are 6.75 inches to just under 8 inches.
Adam
Seriously? Keeping a 6.75″ bluegill? Do you keep 11″ walleye too?
“Treating bluegills like game fish”……problem is, there not game fish.
Big bluegills will behave like game fish but most bluegills are not big and they don’t act or behave like game fish so why manage them that way.
In small ponds, it easy to control the factors involved in growing big bluegills.
In natural lakes, it becomes a great deal more difficult if not downright impossible.
Bluegill populations & size will vary lake by lake and there are many, many factors involved. In-fisherman only touched on a few of the factors in specific as they relate to creating a pond with the desire to grow big bluegills.
As it pertains to natural lakes, things are quite a bit different.
For instance, lakes that are deep, clear and shield like will be completely different than a shallow, weed choked lake. One may have the ability to grow big gills and the other none what-so-ever regardless of what bag or size limits are.
In some lakes, and we’ve seen this happen right here in southern Wisconsin, putting a 5-fish bag limit on the lake is the worst possible thing you could do and the end result will be a lake full of stunted bluegills. This would usually be the case on a shallow, weed filled lake.
On many lakes of this type, it’s actually better to remove as many bluegills or panfish as possible.
We have a lake nearby that used to be a panfish factory. It put out literally millions of decent size bluegills and crappies year after year. Over the past 15 years, fishing pressure has declined greatly and now that lake puts out mostly stunted bluegills.
For big, deep lakes, 5-fish limits and even a size limit may work fine. But for hundreds of small, shallower lakes, it would simply turn them into just another stunted, bluegill factory which will never turn out a big gill until you remove most of those small fish.
Quote:
“Treating bluegills like game fish”……problem is, there not game fish.
Big bluegills will behave like game fish but most bluegills are not big and they don’t act or behave like game fish so why manage them that way.
Exactly what is your definition of gamefish? IMO, this is exactly one of the problems.
Quote:
Quote:
“Treating bluegills like game fish”……problem is, there not game fish.
Big bluegills will behave like game fish but most bluegills are not big and they don’t act or behave like game fish so why manage them that way.
Exactly what is your definition of gamefish? IMO, this is exactly one of the problems.
The official definition of a game fish tends to refer to the sport derived from fishing for and/or catching said fish or a fish valued for the sport it provides an angler.
Under that definition, I totally agree with you that big bluegills deserve to be classified as a sport fish.
The problem is, big bluegills don’t behave at all like small bluegills. In a way, there very much like pike. Big pike don’t behave at all like small pike. They don’t live in the same area’s and they don’t feed on the same prey species.
Complicating matters even more is all the different kinds of waters bluegills live in. Everything from swamps, rivers, streams, small shallow lakes, small deep lakes, big deep water clear lakes, big shallow lakes, farm ponds, ponds in abandoned quarry pits……they basically can & do live just about anywhere you find water.
One set of rules is simply not going to work for all these different bodies of water. Many of them, are never going to produce big bluegills no matter what the rules for catching or keeping them are. The ecosystem in many of these bodies of water are basically, incapable of growing big bluegills.
Some lakes are very capable of growing big bluegills and need little management in order to do so. Others are also capable of growing big bluegills but only if they are managed properly.
The vast number of different water bodies that bluegills live in would render a “one size fits all” regulation useless and could easily create as much harm as it does good.
Fishermen may not like it, but regulations would pretty much have to be tailored specifically for each water body type. We’ve already begun to see this type of regulation here in Wisconsin. Sometimes it works and other times, it needs more tweaking. The only way fisheries managers will know for sure is to enact the regulations, then do studies to see how well the regulations are working.
Unfortunately, that takes money and its usually up to some branch of government to dole out the money. Natural Resources quite often come out on the short end of that stick.
In the end, my point is simple. Thinking you can manage bluegills in all the different lakes, rivers & streams that they live based on how some guy manages them for people who want to create a private pond, full of big bluegills for there own private recreation, just isn’t realistic.
Ah I got it. You hit on a number of very good points.
It would be nice to go back in time before lakes were fished by man. I just assume that fish were always bigger and more plentiful 50+ years ago. But that line of thought by me may be flawed. Maybe bluegill sizes and numbers haven’t varied as much as I think.
But then again, most of the good bluegill lakes I know , ones that have truly exceptional sized bulls, just don’t see much fishing pressure of any kind.
I see where you are coming from Joel, but killing all big bluegills isn’t going to help the situation either. It is ok to release a few of these big Gills guys. Not sure why we cant show the Big Gill more respect.
Maybe I should start carving up all walleyes over 20 inches. Same principal here. Not every lake can produce trophy walleyes, but we still manage them to protect those mature fish.
As far as keeping smaller fish like 6.75 inchers to eat is just fine for me. At a fish fry, which fillets are the first ones to get gobbled up, you guessed it, the smaller ones. I have no problem keeping that size gill, or 8 inch crappies, or 13 inch walleyes.
I keep enough for a meal and don’t go back to the same lake 10 times in a row either. I like to eat fish and prefer smaller.
Adam
Quote:
I see where you are coming from Joel, but killing all big bluegills isn’t going to help the situation either. It is ok to release a few of these big Gills guys. Not sure why we cant show the Big Gill more respect.
Adam
My point certainly wasn’t to say:
Go ahead and kill all the big bluegills you want.
Personally, other than salmonids, I believe catching and releasing bigger fish is generally a pretty good way to pass on the best genetics, regardless of species.
Having a 5 fish bag limit on the other hand, that would have to fall under the “lake specific” category as it could very well do more damage than good in many lakes.
Thanks for clarifying.
MN DNR and certain Lake Associations are doing some regulation on lakes that historically produce Big Gills. I do beleive a statewide regulation for bluegills would not work.
My main point of this whole subject was about educating anglers on what a mature Bluegill looked like and why those should be released.
It is more about self regulation when an angler is on the water. I just want anglers to know more about this topic. The research behind this topic is sound and proven.
I am not asking for more special regulations. Just trying to educate and spread the word.
So if you guys beleive in this, please pass on the information to all fisherpersons that you know.
Thanks!
Adam
Quote:
Seriously? Keeping a 6.75″ bluegill? Do you keep 11″ walleye too?
6.75 to 7.5 are my favorite size….
But then again I don’t fillet Bluegills much…
I gut and scale and fry mine… 
And you would be suprised at the nice fish strips you get off a 12″ or 13″ sauger 
IMHO 
One of the best ideas I have heard(IMO) is a “volume limit” for panfish.
Take, for example, a 5 qt ice cream pail…… I say fill it with panfish. If you wanna clobber the 6″ gills……then take 20 of them. If you want some 13″ crappies, then 2 or 3 would fill it. Take as many as you want up to a bucketful, and if you chose big ones, you get very few…..choose smaller and you can hammer them. If a warden can lift that bucket without fish falling out, you are good to go….
T
Very intresting read 
Great info
Quote:
One of the best ideas I have heard(IMO) is a “volume limit” for panfish.
Take, for example, a 5 qt ice cream pail…… I say fill it with panfish. If you wanna clobber the 6″ gills……then take 20 of them. If you want some 13″ crappies, then 2 or 3 would fill it. Take as many as you want up to a bucketful, and if you chose big ones, you get very few…..choose smaller and you can hammer them. If a warden can lift that bucket without fish falling out, you are good to go….
T
For some who are able to police themselves this might work, but then there are those who have the perverted mindset that bigger is best. In the case of sunfish, that’s still too many large fish being harvested if the catcher repeats this a few times a week.
In some instances lakes get special limits or certain size limits applied to help the fishery remain viable for larger fish. That generally just moves the pressure to somewhere else. What we really need is a state-wide limit decrease to, say 8, with a size restriction allowing maybe two sunfish over 9″. Then apply “special” regulations to those waters where smaller fish run rampant and allow people fishing those waters to keep 15.
The other problem in getting anything done lies within the dnr and the legislature. The dnr has to do a balancing act with the angling population and then the legislature has to pass any changes to the limits and sizes the dnr proposes….and I don’t suppose that these people will be under any influence from bait shop owners and whiners, huh.
I’ve said it before, the people who are “ACTIVELY” involved in conservation related programs and on websites such as this are perhaps the best educated when it comes to understanding the dynamics involved in what and how much to keep with regard to the fish they catch. But if you take the total number of Minnesota residents from these sites and subtract them from the total of Minnesota licenses sold each year, that leaves an awful lot of people who can collect the current legal limits and who may not give a rip what others might think when it comes to being a bit more prudent about taking care of larger fish. They are more than likely concerned with “do I pan-fry or batter-fry”.
I have worked hard to get some special regs applied to a lake that seriously need something to happen and can tell you first hand that while you are sitting with the fisheries people in person they think you are a saint for bringing the concerns forward and they tell you that they’ll do everything under the sun to work up a proposal that can be submitted to yet another dnr entity. They’ll tell you of all the public hearings they’ll schedule and ask if you can attend those personally to help move “their” ideas and agenda forward. They’ll tell you that they’ll keep you in the loop. You’ll wait and wait, weeks turn to months, months to now two years and nothing. I have finally relented to the idea that the dnr’s “too little too late” philosophy is the only way they will change anything on a troubled water. People need to police themselves in what they are going to keep and then realize that their actions probably speak louder than any outcry here or with the dnr.
The good news is that people are waking up to the idea of bluegill conservation, as evident in this post.
Quote:
The good news is that people are waking up to the idea of bluegill conservation, as evident in this post.
Great posts folks. Adalinde, I commend your effort in trying to educate folks on the sex of bluegill.. IT truly can make a difference in some if not, most populations in MN.
To that note, we are having a public meeting in Long Prairie Jan 8th 7pm about more conservative regs on a few lakes that have the ability to produce larger bluegill, but we feel are limited by harvest. We need folks interested in bluegill conservation to tell those that think it’s all hogwash to show up. Information can be found on the Little Falls DNR Fisheries page here: Little Falls DNR Events Page
Please let me know if you have questions.
Quote:
I have worked hard to get some special regs applied to a lake that seriously need something to happen and can tell you first hand that while you are sitting with the fisheries people in person they think you are a saint for bringing the concerns forward and they tell you that they’ll do everything under the sun to work up a proposal that can be submitted to yet another dnr entity. They’ll tell you of all the public hearings they’ll schedule and ask if you can attend those personally to help move “their” ideas and agenda forward. They’ll tell you that they’ll keep you in the loop. You’ll wait and wait, weeks turn to months, months to now two years and nothing. I have finally relented to the idea that the dnr’s “too little too late” philosophy is the only way they will change anything on a troubled water. People need to police themselves in what they are going to keep and then realize that their actions probably speak louder than any outcry here or with the dnr.
Tom,
Just as an aside, in areas of the state where the potential has been documented, we have tried to get regs in place, but we often run into the “anti gov’t” “anti-Regs” crowds often… We did a postacard survey to find out what “average Joes” thought about regulations on panfish…1000 mailed, randomly selected within 35 miles of Grey Eagle. Surprisingly many respondents were very willing to consider special regs. Our options included a 10 fish bag limit, 20 fish limit with only 5 over 8″ and a combined bag limit of 15 with no more than 10 of either crappie or sunfish. Most preferred a 10 fish bag. Now, we have the meeting I mentioned earlier above to gather other input. We’ll see what comes out.
To your point on the online community, you are absolutely correct! We posted the same questions on the forums last winter as our postcard survey, an overwhelming majority favored special regs to help improve size structure in bluegill.
In many of the lakes in Central MN, up to 75% of the annual harvest can occur in the winter, by simply reducing the bag limit, we can have a positive impact on the population (especially smaller lakes). Don’t lose the faith man!!! 
Quote:
In many of the lakes in Central MN, up to 75% of the annual harvest can occur in the winter, by simply reducing the bag limit, we can have a positive impact on the population (especially smaller lakes). Don’t lose the faith man!!!
How true your statement is regarding winter harvest. Personally I think the seasons should end at the end of November. Then open January first for a month and then close until the inland opener. And still change bag limits but make it statewide.
I prefer a catch and release season.
Here’s a great example of how bad winter fishing can affect a lake. I’ve been on Medicine in a boat and there were not a ton of anglers. Sure there may have been busier days, but relative to what I saw Saturday, it would be nothing.
There must have been 5 Shanty Towns just on the south half ranging from a group of 25 vehicles to dang near 100.
Pug, it’s been that way since I was fishing there regularly in 1983.
By cleaning the crappies and gills whole, we got potato chips.
You mean the pressure, the size of the fish or both?
Yes, the pressure and the size of the panfish.
Changing the way panfish are managed is in my opinion akin to changing how whitetail deer are managed, if you polled the general public and asked everyone if they would be in favor of a 4 point to a side minimum (at least anywhere in Wisconsin (outside the miss river valley) people would freak, it would produce more large bucks for sure but most want the opportunity to take what they deem fit, change scares the hell out of folks, fishing or hunting if you want to do better improve, learn, cover spots others don’t, I move a lot and spend countless hours researching new lakes so for me and anyone motivated to find sucess its just easier to move on and find new water when lakes tank, I’m not counting on any spectacular management decisions happening in the land of cheese, ever, now in the defense of other “harvesters ” some folks eat fish 2-4 times a week myself included and I know plenty of people that love it when I drop off a couple bags of fillets, they too should be able to enjoy that resource, I don’t defend those who horde a freezer full of fish, personally I won’t exceed my possession limit at any point in time and of that most are waiting for people that I give fish to, just had to voice that archaic side of the coin
OK Folks tomorrow night Long Prairie City Hall, 7 PM. If you can make it, great, if not please take some time to fill out the electronic comment sheet we have put together. If you want changes in the area, this is your opportunity to help us decide which lakes might be good options.
I will close the sheet by Friday. Thanks in advance for your comments.
I don’t fish that area, but I’d be happy to fill out a survey for you in my name. 
Quote:
I prefer a catch and release season.
Here’s a great example of how bad winter fishing can affect a lake. I’ve been on Medicine in a boat and there were not a ton of anglers. Sure there may have been busier days, but relative to what I saw Saturday, it would be nothing.
There must have been 5 Shanty Towns just on the south half ranging from a group of 25 vehicles to dang near 100.
Ice fishing has always been the demise of fish. That and fishing concentrated spawners.
Quote:
Ice fishing has always been the demise of fish. That and fishing concentrated spawners.
I never thought about it until I went out that day.
Quote:
Changing the way panfish are managed is in my opinion akin to changing how whitetail deer are managed, if you polled the general public and asked everyone if they would be in favor of a 4 point to a side minimum (at least anywhere in Wisconsin (outside the miss river valley) people would freak, it would produce more large bucks for sure but most want the opportunity to take what they deem fit, change scares the hell out of folks, fishing or hunting if you want to do better improve, learn, cover spots others don’t, I move a lot and spend countless hours researching new lakes so for me and anyone motivated to find sucess its just easier to move on and find new water when lakes tank, I’m not counting on any spectacular management decisions happening in the land of cheese, ever, now in the defense of other “harvesters ” some folks eat fish 2-4 times a week myself included and I know plenty of people that love it when I drop off a couple bags of fillets, they too should be able to enjoy that resource, I don’t defend those who horde a freezer full of fish, personally I won’t exceed my possession limit at any point in time and of that most are waiting for people that I give fish to, just had to voice that archaic side of the coin
First you can’t compare fishing to hunting. When you hunt you do not catch and release. You kill. Second you can still catch daily bag limits of gills everyday if your heart desires but there is no need to keep a gill over ten inches. Third not everyone has hundreds of lakes within two hours of their house to just go drive and find more fish. Therefore good fishing management goes along ways on the lakes they have. You can burn a good lake out in one year and then it will take three or more with no fishing just to replenish what was there.
This is the time of year to follow this information. Bluegills are spawning. Please use good judgement.
Great article! The pictures are very helpful, too. We tend to use the 10 fish limit that is part of fishing below the Alma Dam. Even though we catch more, we try to go with 7″ to 8″ fish. A couple of pictures, plus the smaller, self-imposed limits above the dam haven’t hurt our table fare, either. And it is nice to keep catching fish that are bigger.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
