Who's in favor of a reduced panfish limit.

lindyrig79 wrote:

how it offends others around them. And yes, in some cases of the extreme tolerance you preach, infringes on others rights.

Lol, isn’t this pretty much the definition of a “snowflake”?

And, we (liberals) often do know how obnoxious our views and rants are.

Part of me thinks if we separated harvest from the angling picture too much, the purely sport side could quickly wind up under assault. Sport fishing, getting on fish for pleasure and ripping lips might easily be viewed in a negative light. Why harrass fish with no intent on dinner? Paint-balling deer is frowned upon, so why is C&R fish OK?

I’m ok with more restrictions. Maybe a seasonal harvest limit moderated by a $$mil app and a DNR issued ruler with invasives information printed on the back. If the fish isn’t logged or released, it’s illegal. We could maybe expand the Obama phone program and get devices in the hands of all would-be geriatric bucket-fillers.

When I go crappie fishing, I’ll keep enough for a meal (usually about 6). The rest go back down the hole.

I couldn’t tell you how long it’s been since I’ve felt the need to keep a limit of panfish…..I’m sure there are countless others like me.

Fishing license sales are decreasing.

Old fart meat hogs die off every year.

The younger generations care less about limits and more about opportunity.

Changing the limits isn’t going to change crap.

I agree 100% that a maximum size limit would help though.

mplspug wrote:

There is a lot to break down there. It’s like you walked past a room and thought you heard people talking about you.

Pug – Most times you walk past a room and people are talking – The talk probably is about YOU

Bass Thumb wrote:

He told me the meeting turning into a very heated shouting match with red-faced old-timers pounding fists on tables over only being able to keep half-limits. He said it was absurd display of overreaction.

Those darn grumpy old men…

philtickelson wrote:

but there is a large contingent of older gentlemen that fill a bucket in the morning, and then show up in the evening, the next morning, the next evening, etc.

Those dirty old gentlemen…

But hey, look at the bright side…not too much longer and they’ll all be dead.

Once they’re out of the way…

In all seriousness, I think we can be more encouraged of the future. This past week IDO episode was a perfect example of C&R panfish, and that message continues to be proclaimed to the newer generations of anglers.

As I said before, the culture is shifting and it’s in the conservation minded direction.

I now release most all the fish (I might be lucky to catch)…and dammit I’m still a “grumpy old man”.

I only panfish a couple times a year, maybe, so I don’t really care if the limits are changed. But when I do I’ll try and fill the bucket with stunted metro pannies, am I helping or hurting?

Randy Wieland wrote:

So how does reducing the panfish bag limit on a lake that’s been raped of predator fish help?

mplspug wrote:

At this point I am cynical that even aggressive bluegill regs would bring back big gills. Decades of harvesting the biggest fish I think has decimated the gene stock and eco balance in the majority of lakes.

I sure as hell hope the DNR doesn’t ignore these comments like they have been ignored here.

It’s not a reason for maintaining the limits but it brings to light a scientific aspect to managing panfish that MUST steer the conversation with the DNR.

The DNR is and has been imposing special panfish (and pike) regulations for some time on select lakes to understand the effects of harvest on a body of water. I trust the DNR and their biologists know much more than anyone here preaching from atop their soapbox.

Personally, I would never take more than 10 panfish to feed my family. I’d even be happy with 5. It doesn’t necessarily address the issue completely but it is only impact I can personally have on conservation.

The meat hunters that are being described here do exist and in much greater numbers than you all realize and in much younger generations. The DNR should be conducting surveys on this so they can truly understand how the C&R and conservation campaigns are really affecting people.

I think by reducing limits it’s more of a cultural shift than a conservation move.

We’ve implemented a “boat limit” at our cabin. 5 bluegill per person, most over 9″ get thrown back. I tell my inlaws if they want more meat they can keep some bass.

lindyrig79 wrote:

Phil- ironically we are mostly on the same side of this topic. But I can’t endorse the rest of the liberal garbage in your post.

That’s the thing with liberals, they have no idea how their obnoxious views and rants are and how it offends others around them. And yes, in some cases of the extreme tolerance you preach, infringes on others rights.

Liberal garbage such as what exactly? Could you point out which tolerances are infringing on others rights or what in my post was offensive?

Otherwise we will just continue with the status quo…

That’s the thing with conservatives, they say liberals are sensitive snowflakes but they prove time and again they are the ones with the thin skin.

Most people don’t realize it but sunfish make outstanding bait. Everything eats them – bass, northerns, walleyes, even catfish. The Catfish Work Group submitted a proposal back in 2015 to allow the use of sunfish for bait. Here a copy of our proposal. What do you think?

Attachments:

1. 2015-Memorandum-to-allow-use-of-Sunfish-for-bait.docx_.pdf

That proposal to allow the use of sunfish for bait was submitted to the DNR back in 2015 and was reviewed through their internal review panels. It was thoroughly reviewed and was denied. We gave it a good shot but it did not pass their internal reviews. We thought that this could be one tool to help resolve the stunted sunfish populations but it did not pass muster.

There have been some very aggressive limits on a lake I fish as sort of a case study or beta test. It was a fairly popular lake. About 10 years ago you could catch all the tiny panfish and pike you wanted. They then implemented no size-no limit for two years. They then went to a 7-10” a lot for panfish with a limit of 10, and a 26-36” on pike with a limit of 5 with one being over 36”. It is now a great lake to go to for not only action but a shot at really big fish. The meat hunters don’t bother with the small limits so it’s a fairly quiet lake nowadays.

These type of restrictions wouldn’t work everywhere, but I believe that the DNRs of WI and MN should really identify lakes that have the right factors to produce big fish and set those types of limits. They would need to work diligently on enforcement in the beginning but after a while the meat hunters will go somewhere they can still take their 25 a day so they can have 500 in they’re freezer.

There are new Statewide Sunfish special regulations, soon to be announced. They will apply to over 100 lakes. Size, length etc, lakes will be some that need help and others that need protection.

Tommy Nuestrom at the Roundtable has been calling for reduced bags, beginning at the end of the Walleye season. Their is a DNR Fisheries Workgroup that has been making similar recommendations.

It’d be nice but I doubt it’ll happen

The 100 lake project was discussed at the Roundtable by Brad Parsons

I agree on the lower limits and slots would be great. People say it would be hard to enforce… we already have slots on walleye and northern. Regulations are to keep the honest people honest, that’s all. Great to see Nuestrom and others stepping up to the plate.

Sorry if this was already brought up but the technology on electronics is unreal right now. I’ve had this conversation with other guides and for the most part we all agree to not show anyone how to use the new electronics to find panfish. If the general public knew (and it will happen eventually by some NoName YouTuber trying to make a name for himself) the harvest rate of large gills would sky rocket.

I can confidently go on to any lake and find the biggest gills the lake has to offer in less than an hour or two. I took a good friend out to show him and in a brand new spot it took us 30 min to land his PB Gill at nearly 11″. Not to mention the 100’s of gills we located pushing 9″-10″. The electronics scare the heck out of me. I’d imagine the electronics are playing a huge part in this 100 lake regulation project.

I absolutely agree on reduced limits and/or slot limits.

Joe, I agree on the technology problem. What will be next? Underwater drones?

The goal of reducing the limit is growing larger fish. I think a slot is a better choice. But even without a reduced limit or a slot. Here is another thought. Go out to your favorite smaller lake, catch your limit of 4 to 6 inch pan fish and bring them home. Don’t go through the effort of cleaning them, use them to fertilize your garden.

60 years ago my uncle had a lake cabin, out in the country, on White Bear. When we would visit in the summer, I would sit on the dock with a cane pole and a can of worms dug from the garden. You could catch sun fish all day long. Those that found their way to the basket ended up feeding his prize winning Dahlias.

I don’t know the feed requirements of sunfish but my guess is for every limit of 4 to 6 inch fish you can support at least 1 – 9 1/2 inch fish.

Make it a fun … measure your success by how long it takes to reach the limit of 4 to 6 inch fish… on artificial bait.

I can usually fill out a limit in less than an hour and a half.

Quite a few people are already doing that djshannon. Take a look at the shores of Lake Minnetonka in the spring time. There’s all kinds of bucket toters keeping everything they catch, whether it be a 4 inch sunnie or a 9 pound carp. They all end up in a grinder anyways for fish meal.

ds

djshannon wrote:

The goal of reducing the limit is growing larger fish. I think a slot is a better choice. But even without a reduced limit or a slot. Here is another thought. Go out to your favorite smaller lake, catch your limit of 4 to 6 inch pan fish and bring them home. Don’t go through the effort of cleaning them, use them to fertilize your garden.

60 years ago my uncle had a lake cabin, out in the country, on White Bear. When we would visit in the summer, I would sit on the dock with a cane pole and a can of worms dug from the garden. You could catch sun fish all day long. Those that found their way to the basket ended up feeding his prize winning Dahlias.

I don’t know the feed requirements of sunfish but my guess is for every limit of 4 to 6 inch fish you can support at least 1 – 9 1/2 inch fish.

Make it a fun … measure your success by how long it takes to reach the limit of 4 to 6 inch fish… on artificial bait.

I can usually fill out a limit in less than an hour and a half.

I’m not saying the theory is bad, But you may want to be careful doing this – Or at least talking about doing this. I believe this practice could fall under the Wanton Waste laws in most states.

B-man wrote:

Old fart meat hogs die off every year.

The younger generations care less about limits and more about opportunity.

Best be careful with that old fart meat hog comment. I’m old and I want smaller limits. In fact there are quite a few us old boys in the SE that want the change.

And an observation of more than one or two fishing trips is the younger generation catching nice fish, tossing them on the ice and walking away leaving them there when they go home. Maybe some of the mid-of-the-road age group do some policing of the younger dinks.

Fish hogs don’t have an age bracket. They’re in the whole of the fishing community.

Tom Sawvell wrote:

And an observation of more than one or two fishing trips is the younger generation catching nice fish, tossing them on the ice and walking away leaving them there when they go home.

People do this? I can’t fathom the line of thinking here.

I think this has been shared on here before but maybe some haven’t seen it.