Stunted fish

[Reservoir Dawg]

This subject came up on the Sunfish/Crappie forum, but I'd like to post it here where we'll get more feedback. It seems to me that a lot of lakes have stunted Sunfish populations for various reasons one being too many large breeder fish are caught and kept for a meal. What would happen if there was a statewide law that all 9"+ Sunnies be released except 1 for mounting purposes. This would help improve the genetics and you could still have some nice eaters up to 9".

I feel its way to easy to catch those big fish when they are on the spawning beds.

Your Thoughts?

[goblueM]

that reg would help some lakes and hurt others

stunted fish generally means there is slow growth. Some lakes just don't support good populations of panfish, for various reasons. No amount of regulation would help those lakes

other lakes stunted fish comes from overharvest (which is what you'd be addressing)

still other lakes have stunted panfish pops that come from not ENOUGH harvest of smaller fish, and these lakes would be hurt by this regulation

not to mention that panfish are by and large an eater fish and people would riot if you couldn't keep fish under 9 inches

[TooTallTom]

goblueM, the OP would like to limit "keepable" fish to those UNDER 9" (except one for mounting purposes).

I guess in theory that would increase the population of bigger fish. But I'm generally against statewide slots because of the unique nature of individual lakes. Generally speaking, I'd be much more open to something that's a little more tailored, maybe based on lake class?

[TruthWalleyes]

Many lakes are in the situation they are because of state wide regulations. I do believe many lakes would benifit from those limits, but i want to see more regulations put towards specific lakes for their specific needs...No more GLOVE FITS ALL stuff.

[Slabasaurus]

My favorite panfish lakes all have special regs for panfish.

They are all numbers limits, eg statewide limit of 25 panfish, slot limit states only x can be species y.

I agree though, there is no one way to regulate all lakes, as they are each different.

Would it make sense to set regs by lake classification? Or would that be too simple and we'd need to include region as well?

[bobbymalone]

No more GLOVE FITS ALL stuff.

I agree with that sentiment. The problem though is that the average fisherman apparently can't walk and chew gum at the same time, much less keep track of differing regs for differing water bodies.

Many people complain about being overwhelmed by the trout regs, although I'm not so sure they are that complicated, just requires a bit of homework before hitting the stream.

[goblueM]

ah yes i missed the "under" part, thanks for correcting me.

i am in favor of maximum size limits in many cases for panfish , but like TruthWalleyes said its mighty tough to approach things on a statewide basis

[looneyducer]

I'm not so sure the problem isn't that we are paying the state to try to turn every little bream and crappie hole into a walleye fishery. I mean, that's what management in Minnesota means, isn't it? Walleye stocking?

[wahoo]

Interesting topic. I don't have the answer, but some lakes already have restrictions. Gilbert Lake by Brainerd went to a 5 fish Sunny limit several years ago. It was, when I was kid loaded with very small sunnies and always seemed populated by small sunnies--not that some nice ones didn't exist there.

I wonder if the DNR has some sort of data concerning the effects of going to a 5 fish limit on Gilbert.

I am not arguing, but rarely see results on various specific regulations on specific lakes. Or, I just don't know where to look for the results.

wahoo

[goblueM]

I'm not so sure the problem isn't that we are paying the state to try to turn every little bream and crappie hole into a walleye fishery. I mean, that's what management in Minnesota means, isn't it? Walleye stocking?

no, thats your OPINION of what management in Minnesota means.

Walleye stocking is a miniscule part of fisheries management in minnesota.

[looneyducer]

[goblueM]

It doesn't really cost that much money to stock walleyes (particularly when compared to the overall budget of the DNR) - 3 million bucks total, to stock about 1000 lakes (that's about 3 thousand bucks per lake)

but back to panfish regs, the original intent of this thread.

it'd be hard to apply these regs on a statewide basis, but I think you could institute maximum length limits in quite a few lakes to help improve the size structure

[Reservoir Dawg]

I agree it's best to tailor regulations for each lake, but it is sometimes confusing if you don't happen to have the regulations with you. This would be a great start and can only help preserve those bigger breeders. There are probably a lot of lakes where you can't find fish over 9" but at the least it will get people thinking that they're better off thinning out the sometimes over populated smaller fish. You can still get plenty of meat off a 7-8 1/2 inch Bluegill

[TruthWalleyes]

All other state laws besides hunting and fishing aren't available in a small handbook on gas stations....There are many MANY new laws that i haven't even heard of, nor do i feel there is a good program for letting people know a law change was made. Texting while driving - I didn't know that was actually illegal until 6mo after it was in effect .

That said, reading a handbook is pretty simple.

There are TONS of people who don't even read the handbook - and it is quite obvious on this HSOforum with all these questions being asked about regs.

I'm all for special regulations to help individual lakes in need. Not sure if I care that some people will get busted fishing a lake with special regulations who didn't read the special regs...Their own fault.

These books are out to protect the individual from being punished for doing something illegal - people need to read them or assume the consequenses.

So yeah, special regs will make the book thicker, I'll sure read em - Just to make sure I don't do anything illegl too lose my hunting/fishing priviledges.

[TooTallTom]

I agree with you TruthWalleyes. People need to step up and put a little effort into edjumacating themselves about what they're doing. Asking questions is one good way to do that. (Which is why I like forums like this one.) Another is reading the hardcopy or searching the ONLINE, SEARCHABLE pdf of fishing regs that the State puts out for the lakes you're likely to fish/ on your way to fish/ already fishing (for us procrastinators ).

Something else that could work, but would require us to pay a lot more for it, is lake- or region- specific pamphlets available at the launches of lakes with special regulations. Obviously there is more production cost, and the additional labor needed to ensure that the pamphlets are actually at the lakes where they're needed.

[TruthWalleyes]

Mille Lacs relies on signs at their landings. I don't see why that can't work on smaller lakes. We can't let those who choose not to read the regs prevent new regulations from helping out our lakes.

Reading the regulations is the responsibility of the license holder. I wouldn't stop more regulations from being created just because many choose not to read the regs...

Signs at the landings will help those who don't read know the different regs for that specific lake, but they probably don't even know the state regs!

[looneyducer]

Since when did $3,000,000 become miniscule?

More to the point though, what kind of money are we throwing at Crappie Management? or Bluegill?

Perhaps I should make my post more plain: if you manage waters for walleyes, don't expect great panfish fishing.

[Zelmsdawg]

Well for starters, I'm more of a C&R so I would love to see more max size limits. I love the new musky law. And I would love to see more tailored regulations for individual lakes, however I can understand how it is easier for average anglers to understand and officers to enforce with more standardized limits.

And while I don't understand it, I know walleyes are always the most popular fish in the DNR polls so it makes sense that they receive more funding and stocking efforts, especially when most of southern MN doesn't have great spawning habitat.

But I would like to see more lakes with the 5 fish limit or even an occasional lake thats all C&R or just cycles C&R one year, open the next, etc...

Goblue, hows the DNR down where you are? Sometimes I think we're just too close that all we see are the flaws and not how lucky we are relative to other states

Zelmsdawg

[goblueM]

yeah the Minnesota DNR is widely recognized as one of the top 10 in the country. Some of the people on HSO don't realize how good they have it in Minnesota and Wisconsin

down here in Virginia there is VERY little management compared to Minnesota. Less funding, less research, generous bag limits, very generic regulations statewide. its starting to change though I think, from conversations with fisheries managers

As for spending money on panfish, there's no need to stock them. Centrarchids aren't really something that you stock, usually the only management you can do (or would want to) is to implement regulations curtailing harvest.

[Reservoir Dawg]

Yes, once you have a population of sunfish started they will definitely reproduce. It's during spawning season that I'm most concerned with. Anybody thats fished over spawning beds knows that the big males guarding the nest are very vulnerable.If you catch a big gill off the nest it's immediatly replaced with a smaller male and the genetics start to suffer.

Here is a link to the Mn DNR's view on stunted blugill problems.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish/sunfish/management.html

[Swimmer]

Given that it would be many years before, if ever, there would be a voluntary release ethic for panfish, I think regs are a neccessary evil. It just irks me thinking about the breeding populations of bull gills that I have seen absolutely wiped out in one season. We used to catch and mostly release big bull gills as kids at the cabin in N Wisconsin. One couple from Illinois discovered the last undiscovered stretch of spawning sand fairly close to our cabin. We watched as they filled their basket day after day (I'm sure they were way over limit) for one week. They came the next year and stayed at that spot about an hour...I wonder if they had any clue what happened to the big bluegills? Thirty years later and we haven't seen a bull in that lake again.

[Lunker]

I would like to see a statewide reg, but I think the support for such a regulation(especially for panfish) would be tough to come by and I don't see it happening. However, I would like to see more lakes get panfish and crappie regulations designed for those lakes.

As for fisherman being able to interpret the rules(or as a post above put it "walk and chew gun at the same time"), posting the lakes regulations at the public access in my mind eliminated any questions or excuses, or at least it should.

[atguucauuucucau]

It wouldn't be hard to tailor regs for specific lakes with the amount of survey and water quality data available. The issue is cheaply communicating the regs to the angling public. The best would be through the lake finder tool on the DNR HSOforum, but not everyone has access to the net.

A formula could take into account population size, size distribution, primary and secondary production, predators, water quality, and angling pressure and get at least an idea of where the lake is at and which regs would likely maintain the strengths of the lake and which would improve upon the weaknesses.

I am mostly a CpR guy so I would like the DNR tighten up some regs now so we can catch better quality fish in the future

[Reservoir Dawg]

I agree in the long run regs tailored for each lake would be the best but, remember the DNR is a government entity and it would take a long, long time to study each body of water and decide what's best.In the mean time I can't think of any reason why realeasing the larger fish would hurt. A 9"er is a pretty big Bluegill.

[frazwood]

Here is my serious idea:

How about we encourage people to keep smaller fish?

I have read numerous threads on here in which people list off their minimum size for keeping bluegill and/or crappie and most of them are over my self-imposed maximum size. If a bluegill is over 7 inches, back it goes. I don't catch as many crappie, but it's over 9 inches or so... back it goes too.

I fish a number of lakes, one of which (sadly, only one) has really nice bluegill and crappie in it. It's difficult sometimes to catch enough small fish to have a meal because there are so few below my maximum size, but when I keep fish... I know that I am not taking the bigger fish out of the lake.

On the lakes that I fish with stunted bluegill and crappie, there is little harm to take out a bunch of fish because they're all small.

Here is my crazy idea:

Work with a cat or dog food company and come up with a way to aggressively harvest a couple of lakes for small bluegill/crappie and use them to make cat/dog food. It would be interesting to learn if larger fish take over once most of the stunted fish (you'll never get all of them) are removed.