Surprise!

It’s my understanding that in the absence of larger fish, they won’t grow larger anyway. What I don’t know is if the limit reduction is enough to offset the higher percentage of larger fish targeted for harvest. With a 10 fish, or certainly the old limit, one might be content to take a few smaller ones and quit before more large fish were taken. Now the ONLY fish coming out will be big. Will that mean more big fish come out of system in the long run? If so, wouldn’t that just exacerbate the stunting problem?

How quickly? If it’s a simple matter of harvest reduction, I’m of the mind that a defined period of closure, say five years, with a return to more reasonable limits afterwards would be preferable to indefinite, exceedingly punitive limits. If it takes 10 years under the 5 and 5 to get an inch average increase (not that I have the numbers), on a lake full of 6 inch bluegills, what’s really being achieved?

I’m not sure that ONLY the big fish will be kept, but limiting it to just 5 fish rather than the statewide limit of 20, shouldn’t hurt the size structure any more than the current regulations do.

As someone who keeps bluegills on occasion, I can tell you that with a 5 fish limit, I wouldn’t keep anything under 9, it’s just not worth the effort to clean it. Happened to catch 5 over the weekend, 8 inchers (along with a limit of crappies). The grand total of filets from those 5 fish was maybe 5 oz. I can do better with a filet-o-fish at McDonalds. In my case, as I wouldn’t be comfortable keeping that size, it simply means I treat that lake as if its closed. I’m not expending time and money to catch and release 7 inch bluegills. Problem is, others won’t, and will do the same math as I did above. It doesn’t matter in the end, the regs are what they are, I just think there could have been a better way.

So if you no longer will fish a panfish lake with regs and say many others won’t as well that right there will help the overall population of said lake.

Wildlifeguy wrote:

As someone who keeps bluegills on occasion, I can tell you that with a 5 fish limit, I wouldn’t keep anything under 9, it’s just not worth the effort to clean it. Happened to catch 5 over the weekend, 8 inchers (along with a limit of crappies). The grand total of filets from those 5 fish was maybe 5 oz. I can do better with a filet-o-fish at McDonalds. In my case, as I wouldn’t be comfortable keeping that size, it simply means I treat that lake as if its closed. I’m not expending time and money to catch and release 7 inch bluegills. Problem is, others won’t, and will do the same math as I did above. It doesn’t matter in the end, the regs are what they are, I just think there could have been a better way.

As someone else who keeps gills I wouldnt bother fishing under those rules so I would definitely be one less fisherman on that lake.

I won’t, yes. But I question if that will apply to enough others to offset the greater targeting of larger fish, that’s all. Mainly I just think a slot was a better approach, especially if you’re gonna make it a 5 fish limit. I don’t think the reduction to 10 on some of the other lakes is as big a problem, since it’s still possible to get useful harvest of smaller fish, but with 5 it’s just not there unless you only take larger ones. Just shut it down and shorten the timeframe to recovery at that point. It just seems like a pointless compromise.

Wildlifeguy wrote:

It’s my understanding that in the absence of larger fish, they won’t grow larger anyway. What I don’t know is if the limit reduction is enough to offset the higher percentage of larger fish targeted for harvest. With a 10 fish, or certainly the old limit, one might be content to take a few smaller ones and quit before more large fish were taken. Now the ONLY fish coming out will be big. Will that mean more big fish come out of system in the long run? If so, wouldn’t that just exacerbate the stunting problem?

The experimental 5 sunfish limit is not new and has been implemented on select lakes around the state of Minnesota over the last 10+ years. The information you are questioning is published and attainable through a simple google search. I’ll save you the trouble of a google search and post the findings right here:

The lakes with a 5 sunfish limit have larger bluegills now than they did before the 5 sunfish limit was implemented.

So my question to you is, do you actually question the science? Or are you just using this “logical” approach as a means to undermine new regulations that you do not favor?

Honestly I understand the “5 sunfish is not enough for a meal” argument and do fear new regulations will push people away from fishing these lakes short term. Less utilization is never a goal of the DNR, but I believe they are taking the approach that any short term impact will be negated by the long term investment of consistently growing larger bluegills.

Personally looking at the lakes close to home that will implement these regulations… they are absolutely needed. I fish multiple of them and I’ve experienced the average bluegill size drop what feels like a 1/2″ per year on the most pressured lakes. These are lakes where I’ve consistently caught 10″+ fish and after a few years of constant pressure it can be a struggle to catch 8″ bluegills.

tswoboda wrote:

Honestly I understand the “5 sunfish is not enough for a meal” argument and do fear new regulations will push people away from fishing these lakes short term.

That is sad. So because someone can’t keep enough “for a meal” then they simply stop targeting said species? Maybe the specific body of water will recover, but at the expense of another because they’ve simply gone to another lake to harvest. And so the cycle continues…

I would think there’s a rather large difference in catching and releasing walleyes, with the opportunity for very large fish, vs. grinding through 50 6 inch gills.

So my question to you is, do you actually question the science? Or are you just using this “logical” approach as a means to undermine new regulations that you do not favor?

Not at all, just wondering if there isn’t an even more beneficial approach. As I’m working, I don’t have the time to search, but how many of those experimental regs lakes have later been reverted to normal regs? Is there a plan to? I would like bigger fish, just like anyone, but not if it requires lakes to be managed as “trophy” bodies of water and at the expense of those anglers who don’t care about such things, and to the detriment of maintaining the popularity and interest in the sport.

gimruis wrote:

Maybe the specific of body of water will recover, but at the expense of another because they’ve simply gone to another lake to harvest. And so the cycle continues…

Yes and no. I know the DNR specifically selected lakes with history of or the right conditions (genetics, food source, etc.) to produce large bluegills. There’s plenty of lakes in the state with bluegill populations that simply won’t ever produce fish over 9″ – my take is those aren’t the lakes getting these tighter regulations.

Wildlifeguy wrote:

”So my question to you is, do you actually question the science? Or are you just using this “logical” approach as a means to undermine new regulations that you do not favor?”

Not at all, just wondering if there isn’t an even more beneficial approach. As I’m working, I don’t have the time to search, but how many of those experimental regs lakes have later been reverted to normal regs? Is there a plan to? I would like bigger fish, just like anyone, but not if it requires lakes to be managed as “trophy” bodies of water and at the expense of those anglers who don’t care about such things, and to the detriment of maintaining the popularity and interest in the sport.

Fair enough. I can’t say for sure on how many lakes reverted back to standard regulations, but the original intent of the experimental lakes was to revert standard regulation if the sunfish populations did not show positive impact. In general that didn’t happen, but maybe some lakes didn’t show a benefit and I’m not sure if those lakes reverted back or not.

I think what the DNR is doing is trying to strike a balance. The specific lakes capable of consistently producing trophies are managed as such, and the rest of the lakes managed otherwise. The vast majority of Minnesota lakes still have a 20 sunfish limit, correct? I’d argue offering more lakes with trophy quality will actually grow popularity and interest in the sport.

mxskeeter wrote:

So is that 5 total or 5 sunfish and 5 crappie for a limit of 10 total.

If it was 5 fish total, the sign would say “combined” limit.

The vast majority of Minnesota lakes still have a 20 sunfish limit, correct? I’d argue offering more lakes with trophy quality will actually grow popularity and interest in the sport.

That would depend I suppose on whether the effect noted by gimruis takes hold. If all it does is drive pressure to the lakes favored by harvest anglers, wiping them out, all that’s left is the trophies. It also depends on location, perusing the list I see an awful lot of prominent names, it’s one thing to say there’s lots of other lakes available, but if they’re located far away from where one say, has property, or is willing to travel, it doesn’t really matter. We’ll see how it goes, but if my informal survey of my co-workers is any indication, there’s gonna be a lot of unhappy people.

Wildlifeguy wrote:

It also depends on location, perusing the list I see an awful lot of prominent names, it’s one thing to say there’s lots of other lakes available, but if they’re located far away from where one say, has property, or is willing to travel, it doesn’t really matter.

I’ve only taken time to look over lakes in my two county area (25 of the 150 lakes) and 23 of those 25 have at least one lake within 5 miles that I’ve fished for panfish (the other two were at 7 miles). So I can only speak to the area where I live, but “lack of other lakes” is not a valid argument. And it’s still a matter of personal choice if anglers want to avoid these reduced limit lakes. It’s not like they are closed to fishing.

Wildlifeguy wrote:

We’ll see how it goes, but if my informal survey of my co-workers is any indication, there’s gonna be a lot of unhappy people.

It’s funny because I can say the exact opposite about an informal survey of my co-workers. I attribute that mostly to a generational difference, because I see the same disparity there.

It’s funny because I can say the exact opposite about an informal survey of my co-workers. I attribute that mostly to a generational difference, because I see the same disparity there.
[/quote]

Not sure, I’m 42 and was brought up to only take the resources you plan to utilize, then use them completely. Trophies aren’t my bag, don’t see the use. If that makes me old fashioned, I guess that’s what I am. Perhaps those with more free time view fishing as a more esoteric pursuit, but I block out my days at the lake down to the minute, shoehorned in between work obligations and family responsibilities, a day spent catching fish I can’t keep is wasted time that could be devoted elsewhere, it’s hard enough getting “the boss” to let me go at all, coming back with nothing to show for my efforts is a quick way to lose more lake time

If I had to bring fish home every time I went fishing it would of been over long ago.

The struggle is real

Any kind of reg the DNR puts into place is going to leave some people unhappy no matter what.

It would be easier if god would have put penis’s and vaginas on fish so we know which ones to release.

Anyhow, why not give it a try? It’s just a trial. Worse case, we have 116 lakes with better pan fishing.

I get the sense it’s a trial with the express purpose of moving the whole of the state in this direction. Honestly, I think if some had their way there would be no harvest of game fish, period. Not a mindset I can get on board with, but what’ll be will be. I’ll just have to find something else to do.

Wildlifeguy wrote:

I get the sense it’s a trial with the express purpose of moving the whole of the state in this direction. Honestly, I think if some had their way there would be no harvest of game fish, period. Not a mindset I can get on board with, but what’ll be will be. I’ll just have to find something else to do.

I really hope that’s not the case.

Killing and eating fish is a big part of fishing – I agree it seems many people are losing sight of that.