Who's in favor of a reduced panfish limit.

After spending the last few weeks fishing several different lakes and seeing the amount of pressure they are getting ( On lakes without snow and slush problems anyway ) I started to think if it was time to have a reduced panfish limit. I don’t have a problem with reducing the Daily limit but I think they need to allow the possession limit to be at least twice the daily limit. I just don’t like the fact that if the daily and possession limit were say 10 sunfish and 5 crappies that a fishermen could not even hardly have enough fish on hand to have a nice fish fry for friends or family ( for those who don’t have other license holders in the household ) 30 Panfish fillets are not going to feed many people. At least not the way people I know eat fish. The other thing is that once a limit is in the freezer at home, you technically are not even allowed to go fishing and keep any more fish at all. I’d also like to see more lakes managed by slot limits for panfish. I hate to see when people target and keep the largest fish they catch. I truly enjoy catching Bull sunfish and big slab crappies. I’m talking sunfish over 10″ and Crappies over 14″. I think some lakes managed by slot size would aid in a lot more of those fish being caught. What are all of your thoughts on this?

Slot limits would definitly be a good idea.

I think it’s a great idea. The problem is will enough people actually follow it to make a difference.

Great idea that should have been implemented like 15 years ago.

I still know/have seen way too many people that for some reason feel like it’s their right to keep every single decent sized crappie/sunfish they ever catch, regardless of how many are in their freezer or bucket.

It’s all about them, no thought towards preserving fisheries for their kids or grandkids, just NEED THAT MEAT.

Also the same group of people that complain about “I used to come to this spot every day as a kid and we’d catch 50 crappies over 12 inches, but it’s just not like it used to be.”

The problem will continue to be enforcement of these things. I know someone who got caught without a license this year while fishing and they got a $50 citation?!?! Well worth it…

mahtofire14 wrote:

I think it’s a great idea. The problem is will enough people actually follow it to make a difference.

The people who will not follow it probably are not following the regulations now. There are always going to be those kinds of people. I wish there were more law enforcement to enforce the current regulations and tougher penalties for those caught breaking the law.

Ahren Wagner wrote:

Slot limits would definitly be a good idea.

We have crappie slots along with limit reductions on some lakes in my area and that has really helped keep the population up over the years. I am all for doing whatever to manage the resource as electronics have made it so much easier to find crappies and that Garmin Panoptix is incredible; makes it almost too easy. I was out over the weekend with a group and one guy working the Panoptix was able to point out where to drill and keep everyone busy catching crappies in every direction as we moved along.

I would like to see a slot on sunfish. Too many lakes are stunted because all the big ones have been removed.

I’m with Phil – too little, too late. The quantity of lakes with an over population of stunted panfish may be too late to bring back already. Same problem with pike…too many lakes with a stunted population of pike because people took the big ones for too long. A slot size AND a reduced bag limit would be fine with me. I’d also be in favor of reducing the state bag limit on walleyes from 6 to 4.

I’ve never even caught a 14 inch crappie and I’ve been fishing here for almost 20 years. I see enormous slabs at the Crappie Contest on Tonka every spring (16+ inchers), but the biggest one I’ve personally caught is about 13.5 inches.

I was just thinking it’s so sad that so many good lakes get fished-out. I do think we need to lower limits in general. I would also be in favor of slots, but we all know that can get complicated and so I’d be in favor of just starting with lowering limits.

I personally have released way more fish than I have kept. Pan fish and other game fish. Most people I know are always on a meat hunt. Keep everything without regards to what they already have in the freezer at home. I also know people who keep all the walleye they catch at Red or LOTW. These are not friends but acquantices. They feel they are entitled because of native netting.

And they know chances of getting checked are pretty slim. Enforcement is the problem there is not enough of it.

gim wrote:

I’m with Phil – too little, too late.

When’s the best time to plant a tree? Either 20 years ago or today.

You’ve got to start somewhere.

Slot is for sure needed for Crappie, anything bigger than 12 should get thrown back. Know a lot of “meatheads” who will whine, but who cares.

fishthumper wrote:

After spending the last few weeks fishing several different lakes and seeing the amount of pressure they are getting ( On lakes without snow and slush problems anyway ) I started to think if it was time to have a reduced panfish limit. I don’t have a problem with reducing the Daily limit but I think they need to allow the possession limit to be at least twice the daily limit. I just don’t like the fact that if the daily and possession limit were say 10 sunfish and 5 crappies that a fishermen could not even hardly have enough fish on hand to have a nice fish fry for friends or family ( for those who don’t have other license holders in the household ) 30 Panfish fillets are not going to feed many people. At least not the way people I know eat fish. The other thing is that once a limit is in the freezer at home, you technically are not even allowed to go fishing and keep any more fish at all. I’d also like to see more lakes managed by slot limits for panfish. I hate to see when people target and keep the largest fish they catch. I truly enjoy catching Bull sunfish and big slab crappies. I’m talking sunfish over 10″ and Crappies over 14″. I think some lakes managed by slot size would aid in a lot more of those fish being caught. What are all of your thoughts on this?[/quote So you want smaller bag limit so guys who can only fish once a week or so can have less fish than you casue you can keep a limit everyday since 30 filets wont feed your friends?

Absolutely Fishthumper. Absolutely.

Drizzy Musky wrote:

Slot is for sure needed for Crappie, anything bigger than 12 should get thrown back. Know a lot of “meatheads” who will whine, but who cares.

I love the over 12″ goes back idea but it won’t fly with the DNR. And you’re right on who’d be upset with one or the other or both ideas….those that abuse the resource the most.

I’ve got no problem with reduced limits as long as it would statewide. Im sick of the dnr trying to micro manage every lake with its own special regs. The regulation booklet is getting pretty thick already.

I think there are lakes that could benefit from slots, but enforcement would be a nightmare. Say 1 bluegill over 10″, catch and release for 7.5″-10″, limit of 30 unders. Get some stunted fish out and save the breaders.

C & R for 5 years.

Leave the limits alone..find something else to gripe about..resources are already overmanaged in this state with little or no return for the tax money that’s spent.

philtickelson wrote:

Great idea that should have been implemented like 15 years ago.

I still know/have seen way too many people that for some reason feel like it’s their right to keep every single decent sized crappie/sunfish they ever catch, regardless of how many are in their freezer or bucket.

It’s all about them, no thought towards preserving fisheries for their kids or grandkids, just NEED THAT MEAT.

Also the same group of people that complain about “I used to come to this spot every day as a kid and we’d catch 50 <em class=”ido-tag-em”>crappies over 12 inches, but it’s just not like it used to be.”

The problem will continue to be enforcement of these things. I know someone who got caught without a license this year while fishing and they got a $50 citation?!?! Well worth it…

I do recall reading a fishing thread once upon a time of a guy complaining about not being able to catch decent fish anymore while fishing cribs. Naturally the blame was placed on all the guys fishing cribs.

I think a lot of people follow the anti Kennedy message: “Ask not what I can do for the fishery but what the fishery can do for me”. I think the trick is to get more people to buy into the idea of planning so you can minimize or be more prepared for the down turns. Uphill battle trying to convince people that a little less now may be better for the future… There’s a lot of people out there that will milk a well until it’s dry.

In the next decade, those in-charge of regulating and anglers using resources are going to have some tough decisions to make. Technology with mapping, sonar, cold weather gear, fish houses, boat positioning etc. isn’t going away. The wheelhouse cities bombarding fish 24-7 are not going to end. Social media sharing fishing reports isn’t going to diminish.

Quality sized panfish populations are not on the increase whatsoever. Sure, one could easily argue that resources are “over-taxed”, “over-regulated” and that people should be entitled to “take home meals”. If that decision is made, that’s fine. However, the day is coming when the higher quantity limits aren’t going to matter if a day’s fishing amounts to a half dozen quality fish.

Drop the limits to 10 panfish statewide per day (of each species). Fines for fishing without a license, being over a possession limit, non-registration of boats or wheelhouses need to all be increased. Any revenue from fines should only be applied to increased enforcement efforts or stocking. Nothing else.

In the next decade many of the folks at the DNR will be retiring as well. That means (possibly) different thoughts then we’ve had in the past.

It’s going to be an interested time.

buckybadger wrote:

Drop the limits to 10 panfish statewide per day (of each species). Fines for fishing without a license, being over a possession limit, non-registration of boats or wheelhouses need to all be increased. Any revenue from fines should only be applied to increased enforcement efforts or stocking. Nothing else.

Now were talking. use fine money to increase more law enforcement – I could get on board with that !!! That would encourage current enforcement to issue more ticket and help them get more help. The #1 answer I get from Wardens when I ask how they like their job is ” I wish we had more help and that the fines were bigger !!!! Its like trying to catch that 12″ sunfish or 16″ crappie – You know they are out there but its tough to catch them.

I think it’s a great idea.

I can’t speak for everyone, but don’t you think, if a change were made, it would affect people so little that nothing about their fishing habits/lifestyle would change? I guess what I’m saying is, unless limits are changed too drastically, it’s really having no impact on people at all. We’re still feeding our families, we’re still having fun fishing. I say without hesitation, reduce that limit.

I’m all for any regulation that helps get a good size class back to any fish, especially panfish. I like the C&R for 5 years actually. Maintain a modest harvest on species that are established and doing well, then catch the other species up with all C&R. Maybe even allow a harvest on sunfish 5″ or less for use as bait.

I agree limits should be lowered.
I think a combined panfish limit of 10 would be great. 5 sunfish 5 crappies or 10 of either. I watched 3 guys keep 60 8-9″ bluegills on Saturday on a lake packed with people all doing the same. Over fishing/ harvesting is a major problem these days. The fish populations are surprisingly resilient but it’s only a matter of time before all the quality panfish are gone on many of the lakes I fish.

Good ideas on here. Regulations may not be the answer. It may take more of a cultural shift when specifically targeting a species. For example, bass anglers probably release virtually all of their catch, no? Muskie anglers too. People targeting panfish may have to start changing the way they operate too and just release most of them voluntarily.

closed season during the spawn, most fisherman can’t find/catch big gills/crappies the rest of the year. my 2 cents

That is a very very good point. That would eliminate a good portion of the open water harvest. I think they take a pretty good beating in the winter though.

gim wrote:

Good ideas on here. Regulations may not be the answer. It may take more of a cultural shift when specifically targeting a species. For example, bass anglers probably release virtually of their catch, no? Muskie anglers too. People targeting panfish may have to start changing the way they operate too and just release most of them voluntarily.

Exactly. There’s a huge conservation effort in preaching C&R in the bass world and it is showing in bass numbers and size quality in a lot of bodies of water. Unfortunately that won’t work with panfish and walleye, because most people grew up fishing those for their meat and (as this forum has shown) they won’t be willing to give up that right. The younger generations of fishermen have already shown to be much more willing to adapt the C&R mindset and I hope they will make up for the overharvesting that has been going on for too long in this state.

Dan wrote:

I think it’s a great idea.

I can’t speak for everyone, but don’t you think, if a change were made, it would affect people so little that nothing about their fishing habits/lifestyle would change? I guess what I’m saying is, unless limits are changed too drastically, it’s really having no impact on people at all. We’re still feeding our families, we’re still having fun fishing. I say without hesitation, reduce that limit.

You are absolutely right about that, a change like this would have a measurable negative impact of zilch on 99.99999% of the MN population, while it may have a positive impact on the future generations ability to enjoy our resources in the future.

Unfortunately, there will be a contingent of people, who will be quite loud, who complain about how they aren’t able to provide a meal of fresh fish for their family. If only people thought or cared about what impact these changes would have to them or others, but they don’t. Bonus points when those people are fishing out of $15,000 ice castles or $70,000 boats being pulled by $50,000 trucks.

I don’t want to start a derail, but this mindset mimics many ‘hot-button’ political issues that people base their entire voting stances on.

Abortion, immigration, LGBT rights, for example are things that will have little to NO impact on most people’s quality of life. Will non-gay people have a negative impact to their life if we allow gay marriage in our state or others? Of course not, it has zero impact on them at all.

But you can be dang sure they will scream and holler and base their entire vote on how one politician stands(or pretends to stand) on those types of issues. Ignoring things like healthcare or issues that actually could impact their quality of life, or the quality of life for the masses. Too many people would rather vote to spite people who are different than them(religious beliefs, race, sexual orientation), than to help themselves or others.

Same thing here:
“We are proposing a rule change to panfish limits that should help increase size structure of panfish across the state and ensure that future generations continue to have the opportunity and thrill of catching and harvesting panfish”

“Oh no you don’t! I’ve been keeping buckets of panfish my whole life to feed my family. That’s my right. I’ve been buying fishing licenses my whole life and it’s my right to keep a limit of panfish every single day because the only efficient way to feed my family is not to work and buy groceries but to spend all day on a frozen lake keeping 7″ sunfish. It takes 80 sunnies to feed my family of 15 every day, and there’s definitely no other way to feed them and I and I and I and I and I. I. I. I. I. I. <insert another excuse that tries to rationalize their long history of over-harvesting as them doing it for someone else(ie: their familY), even though everyone knows it’s very thinly veiled, and we can all see it’s really just about them being able to catch and keep as many fish as they want>”

/rant