If you haven’t already and would like an opportunity to comment on improving quality bluegill fishing in MN, here’s the link…
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish/sunfish/index.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
The survey doesn’t give you any place to add extra comments. I’m all if favor of a lower limit on sunfish just as long as they allow more than a daily limit in possession.
The survey doesn’t give you any place to add extra comments. I’m all if favor of a lower limit on sunfish just as long as they allow more than a daily limit in possession.
Hmm…?
I did the survey probably at least a month ago possibly from a different link, but it did allow for comments as I did add comments at the conclusion of the survey questions.
I did the General one and not the lake specific one – Not sure if that makes a difference.
I went back into the survey and i do see they say this is daily bag limit only – The possession limit would still remain 20 – I’d be fine with that.
Well I took the survey. I’m surprised they didn’t say anything about length limits.
Sure would be fun to find big sunfish again.
SR
Regulations will only go so far. It will take a cultural shift of more anglers willing to practice catch and release not only for bluegills but other panfish as well, before there will be an abundance of bigger ones available again. Those panfish get absolutely hammered now in the winter. People park their wheel houses on the main lake basin for weeks at a time.
I really wish we would treat panfish more like game fish.
Lower the limit and come up with a size structure for slot limits.
I know there had been some experimental regs in place on pools 4 and 5 up until a couple years ago and we’ve been seeing many, many more large sunfish in both pools this fall and we’re fishing from shore. I can’t recall ever seeing so many nice sunfish. We’re putting them back though and keeping crappies. And we’re catching some real brute crappies too.
Well I took the survey. I’m surprised they didn’t say anything about length limits.
In the general you can add a comment about this like I did.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Steve Root wrote:</div>
Well I took the survey. I’m surprised they didn’t say anything about length limits.In the general you can add a comment about this like I did.
Oh I did exactly that. I suggested fish over 9 or 10 inches go back immediately. I used to fish a lake in St. Louis county that held some big Bluegills. We would keep a few decent fish, like 8 or 9 inchers. And we let the bigger ones go back. Like Grimruis said, it’s a different way to look at harvest. Eaters versus mature spawners and I think this is especially true with panfish. The biggest males dominate the best spawning sites. If the biggest males in the lake are 6 inches long, there’s no reason for any of the rest of them to get any bigger…..and you end up with pretty much every lake in the Metro area. If the biggest fish go back, the rest keep growing so they can compete.
SR
The other issue too, compared to some other types of fish that often get harvested, is that they are not stocked. So we’re totally reliant on natural reproduction only. Its sort of like the pike problem. The over harvest of large fish for so long has resulted in stunted populations of pike, and now they want people to take 10 small ones home. Would people be willing to take home 10 bluegills that are 5 inches long? I don’t know. Probably not.
Regulations will only go so far. It will take a cultural shift of more anglers willing to practice catch and release not only for bluegills but other panfish as well, before there will be an abundance of bigger ones available again
There also needs to be hard enforcement of freezer-filling anglers who don’t believe that possession limits apply to them. Lakeshore owners are freaking notorious for this behavior.
My neighbors own a cabin in the Brainerd area. They openly talk about limiting out every day for a week or more along with their cabin neighbors and then they hold big fish fry and group packing sessions to vac pack all the fillets. When being told about this, I casually mentioned that a guy should be mindful of the possession limit on panfish and I got the old, “Nobody pays any attention to that. Once the fish are in my freezer, they’re my business.”
Grouse
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Steve Root wrote:</div>
Well I took the survey. I’m surprised they didn’t say anything about length limits.In the general you can add a comment about this like I did.
This too was the comment I added when I took the survey, such as a limited slot of only one over 10″ along with a reduced overall bag limit.
All the while thinking what gimruis was referring to regarding the change in “keeping” culture.
Many already complain about too many rules and regulations and adding more will only invite more pushback for a fish many consider primarily for the table.
For many years walleye were considered primarily fish for dinner, not a gamefish. It took a long time and great effort to gradually change attitudes and acceptance for slot limits, reduced bag limits in order to preserve and promote quality walleye as a prized gamefish.
Panfish on the other hand I think will be even greater challenge to change the mindset from easy fish fry.
A lake I used to fish near Bemidji was notorious for producing quality bluegill. For a number of years it has been reduced to a 5 fish limit. It would be ideal if there was a slot limiting to only one over 10″ but I suppose the hope is that keeping only five 10+” bluegill is better than leaving the lake with twenty of them. 
Pool 4 and Pool 5 would be world class bluegill destinations with a 1 over 9″ regulation and even a 10 fish limit. There are dozens of miles of great spawning habitat, islands, sloughs, tributaries, current, backwaters, structure, etc. that are all there for the fish to use. Responsible harvest and enforcement of those regulations are the last piece of the puzzle.
I’ve been preaching for years that if the perch, crappies, and bluegills are protected better than they were in the past (25 fish limit of each with CO sightings being rare), things would become unbelievable. Some of the regulations have now just started to change and we will hopefully start to see the payoff.
If people would just stick to the possesion limit all would be fine.
If people would just stick to the possesion limit all would be fine.
Yes but they won’t. Never have, never will.
Only way to keep freezer fillers from trawling the lakes out is to dramatically reduce daily limits. The only chance of catching people is with too many fish in possession on the lake or road and people know this so they’ll obey a daily limit.
Keep it simple. Daily limit of 5 statewide. Would love to see huge fine increases for possession limit violations, but that will never happen.
Grouse
If people would just stick to the possesion limit all would be fine.
Not enough
Should be enough, should be you have a bunch of poor outings and then they are hot and you keep a bunch.Cannot do that w/a 5 limit.
I know a guy who found a hot lake and he would hit that little lake 3 or more times a week, limit every time-come on people! I would give more of a speech but people on this forum are not the problem.
Also heard of a guy who would get his limit, call a friend give away his limit and take out another limit. Uuuuugh.
Like I said a lower daily limit would be fine with myself and most fishermen I know, but a possession limit of more than the daily limit is needed. To me Breaking the law on the possession limit is no different than doing so on the daily limit. I don’t want to have to be one of those people who have to break the possession limit to just get enough fish on hand to have a few other people over for a fish fry. If I were to know of people who are always over the possession limit I would have to make a call to the TIP line. A few more people being caught and charged on the over possession limit would go along way in making others think a second time about doing so.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
