Our fragile panfish population

[CANOPY SAM]

I was kind of wondering the same thing? How do you make bigger government by making "statewide" regs, rather than creating individual regs for so many different lakes?

Does making less and easier, make it bigger and more expensive???

I'm behind you, Jim. I also really like DTros ideas about "total" inch harvest. That's one I'm going to have to ponder for a bit.

[Dylan33]

Your post made me think of a story from this summer.

I was out fishing a lake near alexandria with my dad and some of his friends. His buddy has had a cabin on this lake for 20+ years and the panfishing is wonderful.

This guy went out every day and kept his limit of 10'' sunfish and 13-14'' crappies. I'm talking baskets of fish everyday! (he ignored me when I asked him about keeping over his limit, he laughed me off as a dumb kid) Anyway, what I found hilarious is he and his fishing buddies complained everyday that the amount of big fish has declined so much over the past 10 years.

People just don't think that their own actions have any impact- especially, as someone said earlier, the older crowd. If you personally keep several hundred big fish every year from one lake, its no big deal. It's only a couple hundred fish. What most fail to understand, however, is that when a thousand other fisherman are doing the same thing on the same lake, we are talking pretty substantial numbers of big fish being taken out of a lake every year. The population of large fish is bound to decline eventually.

[Scott M]

Ah yes, the bloated government that knows nothing about fish management (read: MN DNR) and sucks up your taxes (DNR Fisheries isn't costing the general taxpayers anything appreciable, the only general fund expenditures are environmental review and a few other tiny activities that amount to around 2% of the annual operating budget...thank god anglers pay the freight through Dingell Johnson excise taxes and license fees...how would you like the nonfishing public to have a voice in how fisheries are managed?) license dollars. If fishing regulations cost taxpayers more money, we would have had a Boston tea party level revolt at all the large walleye lakes and everywhere else a protective slot limit was enacted. LOL

There's a pretty nice little summary on the DNR's HSOforum about what is needed to have panfish toolbox regs on lakes (Bluegill here and crappie here ) . It's not all willy nilly. There are some conditions that need to be met biologically before a lake can even be considered for a minimum length limit or reduced bag. And that's saying nothing of passing the required public meetings where they can go over like a lead balloon. Additional monitoring is pretty minimal. Some additional sampling work, ideally a creel survey if harvest is an important part of monitoring. There is no money available for creel, so it'd be hard to justify adding regulations where a component or assumption of the regulation working is keeping a close watch on harvest.

When it comes to fishing, the state is in a position to manage opportunities. It's called fisheries management for a reason. "Fisheries" incorporates people and fish, not just one or the other. Some, most I would argue, want their fried panfish. But a few, like Jim, want a few lakes to catch slabs on, like could be done in the "good old days" before Minnesota's population skyrocketed and fishing was done with NASA quality technology.

Jim, thanks for taking the time to write about what many have complained about for years. Three fish species come to mind in this state when people talk about "the fishing ain't like it used to be," in particular with respect to fish size: Black crappie, bluegill, and northern pike. Incidentally they are three fish that don't get a lot of catch and release and require a certain suite of habitat characteristics to get to large sizes. They need a nearly ideal fish community predator prey balance, a formidable task in nearly any lake. They need time, and it's often the angler that cuts them out. The way I see it, if the state is providing opportunities to many, a few more lakes with special regulations to improve size structure is just fine. 10,000 lakes and only a handful of special panfish regs. You can find friers on nearly every fishing lake outside of the arrowhead, so it's not like anyone's getting pinched that much if they need to eat.

But I also want to play devil's advocate...publishing the names of some of the lakes you and I like to go to means more eyes reading them and then more people. I've specifically targetted new water because of panfish regulations and I know others have too. And not everyone is CPR'ing fish, many are taking their reduced bag home. Sometimes the best thing to do is let sleeping dogs lie. And I know people like Jim and a handful of other get more satisfaction out of finding the hidden gems and working over the big water where slabs and bulls live, so whether or not we get more special regulation waters or a diminished statewide bag, they are still going to do their thing.

Speaking of a statewide bag reduction, good luck. It's pie in the sky friend. Big bluegill anglers, guys that chase slabs and bulls around to obscure points in this state, are a tiny niche. We are WWWAAAAAYYYY outnumbered. There have been a number of mods on this site, in this forum, that have all written the same thing about protecting big fish and preaching CPR...Crappie Tom, Matt Johnson, Corey Bechtold, Matt Breuer, and so on and so forth. It will continue. That's all it amounts to. You can only control yourself and pass along the information. It has to be a social change. But it can happen. Once upon a time, a 2 pound bass was dinner. Today, it's usually going back in the lake. Once upon a time, a 40 inch muskie was a wall hanger. Today, people want a 50. Attitudes change, and speaking for conservation and selective harvest helps. Keep preaching brother!

[Jim Uran]

Great post as always Da_Chise!!! Can't wait to hit the ice with you this winter buddy!

[bbfenatic]

Da-Chise:

I appreciate your input and knowledge and I have a question I am hoping you can "shed some light" on.

Are Crappies different when it comes to reproduction? The reason I ask is because several of the lakes I fish crappies on have instituted a slot which is "You can only keep 11" or bigger" and another one that has a "decreased limit to 5 and all must be 10.5" or bigger". This goes against everyone saying "only keep the smaller fish". Since these changes on these lakes both put out good numbers of bigger crappies so it seems to be working but I am very curious to the Science behind this and hoping you can help me understand this.

One more thing - I have the utmost respect for Jim Uran and fished with him many times and not one of those times did he keep a fish, everything he caught went back in...but I always kept some I caught for the table so IMO he is as fine a steward for C&R that I have ever fished with and truly is concerned about the "Future of Fishing" in our state.

[Riverratpete]

Heres the reality I believe..and this is only my belief..Trophy's are in the eyes of the beholder..a trophy to a 5 year old is alot diffrent then to someone who chases trophies all the time. Not eveyone is out to catch pie plate sized Sunnies and Crappies the size of 5 gallon pail bottoms..80% of the people paying taxes just want "Something" tugging on the line. I think we as a culture or society have gotten into this "Everything has to be over the top" mentality..take Hunting videos, they are ALWAYS wacking monster bucks on the King Ranch or private property, of course they don't say that so Joe Average thinks heh, I should be able to go in my stand for an hour and get me one..now you know why people are baiting. Same thing for fishing shows..they are ALWAYS catching big Bass, Walleyes, Northerns, etc with what appears to be little or no effort of course they are not showing all the time spent hunting for fish, pre fishing, scoutting etc etc. Making coverall restrictions are not a good way to go, like the fisheries guys say..it takes all things coming together right to get consistent big fish. I'd say a fellas better off keeping their honey holes to themselves then trying to tell everyone else what they should and should not do when it comes to keeping legally caught fish.

[Jim Uran]

that mentality is why most of our lakes in Minnesota produce potato chip sized sunnies, with an occasional 7 incher lol...

I'm saying spread the love to the panfish, don't focus primarily on walleyes, muskies, and bass, and also do your own part in selectively harvesting fish you are going to take home and eat

They deserve their share of respect, of course it wouldn't be fun if every lake produced trophy class fish, but it would sure be nice if more lakes produced close to trophy sized fish without getting fished out the minute word about a hotbite hits their ears.

And thanks BB, I'm not against anyone keeping some fish for a fry, heck you know me! I'm just doing my own thing, hopefully it catches on to the folks I fish with.

[Scott M]

Are Crappies different when it comes to reproduction? The reason I ask is because several of the lakes I fish crappies on have instituted a slot which is "You can only keep 11" or bigger" and another one that has a "decreased limit to 5 and all must be 10.5" or bigger". This goes against everyone saying "only keep the smaller fish". Since these changes on these lakes both put out good numbers of bigger crappies so it seems to be working but I am very curious to the Science behind this and hoping you can help me understand this.

Annie Battle, Lida, and Venstrom are the only lakes I know of with an 11 inch minimum. The science and reasoning behind minimums length limits are explained fairly well at this page. Annie Battle, Lida, and Venstrom are all part of an experimental regulation that expands the minimum from ten inches to eleven. If you have questions about the regulations, call the Detroit Lakes DNR Fisheries office and ask for Jim Wolters. In a nutshell, the regulations are effective because the fish grow quickly to 11 inches and don't get cropped off because of high fishing pressure and harvest. The regulation should push the size and age structure up, and as long as the fish aren't stacking up (stockpiling) at 11 inches and causing a bottleneck that slows growth of the population, things should be rosy. But again, that's a local issue and your best bet is to talk directly to the DNR Fisheries office that manages those lakes.

I couldn't find any 10.5" minimums with a 5 fish bag. Can you name the lake? I didn't see this regulation in the 2012 reg book. The link above has some information and criteria for a diminished bag AND minimum length.

****************************

I agree with riverratpete that trophies are in the eye of the beholder. But for folks that want to get the truly big fish and enjoy that aspect of fishing, it can quite easily be ruined. I could probably post a dozen different scientific journal articles that document the decline of panfish size as a result of angling. It really doesn't take much. Of all the limiting factors for producing large panfish, time is the critical component and most fish don't get it. They reach a size above which an angler prefers and they go home in a pail. I remember going to a talk by a Wisconsin biologist on bluegills. He queried WI DNR's historic and contemporary catch records, and even setting aside the gear biases, he had a really hard time finding 10 inch bluegills. His quote sticks with me: "You have a better chance of getting a royal flush in poker than of setting down on a random lake in Wisconsin and catching a ten inch bluegill." Keep in mind, I know as well as he does, that there are lakes and secret honey holes where it can be done. But the average guy doesn't have access to some of those places (which is why they get big!). So as a metaphor, for 999/1000 lakes, that average guy is not getting that bull bluegill.

I did an interview with a fishing guide that hailed from my hometown. We got into a long discussion, too much to put into print as it turned out, and one thing he told me sticks with me. He used to fish with his dad all the time, and they filled their freezers with bluegills all spring and summer through most of the old man's life. The father truly believed you could never fish down panfish. About a year before his death, when he was in his 80's, he sat there fishing with his son the guide, and said "you know son, I was wrong. You can fish down panfish. We just don't catch the big ones like we used to." It took that man his whole life to come around and see what can happen (and by and large has happened). It's not that the fish can't keep up reproduction-wise, it's the declining average size.

Again, opportunities for all is what I'm preaching here, and so it's not taken out of context, I mean opportunities for the small group that want trophies and opportunities for the majority that want to harvest. I'm not promising a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage here; I don't think everyone needs a trophy fish through restriction. I just think a handful of lakes around the state with special regulations to improve size structure is not a bad thing. I don't have a problem with folks wanting to harvest. That's most folks and there are lots of lakes for that. I do like that we have a few lakes that are managed for large panfish and there are some good candidate lakes out there that could have additional regulations to offer those opportunities.

I agree the best option is to cover lots of water, find your own honey holes, and most importantly, keep your mouth shut. I have a little black book of lakes, and I only share names if I know I'm getting something in return and there is a mutual agreement of no harvest, no talking to others.

[EBass]

Thanks Jim - agreed and we (buddies and I) have a personal slot and let the bigguns go. 99% of the time we let everything go. It's been a while since I've caught crappies over 11".

[Riverratpete]

I would agree that a few good fisherman can put the hurt on a fish population in a quick hurry if given the chance..but the lakes and fish populations are not static and linear in their fish populations or development but are rather cyclical..they all develop at diffrent paces, take lakes that freeze out periodically, they generally after a fashion produce some of the biggest panfish..for a short while, then they get "fished out" or have another freeze that kills many of them off..thats one of the reasons I advocate keeping the lips sealed or misguiding during a hot bite..to keep the pressure off. For the same reason that lakes and fish populations are constantly changing I do not advocate a "one size fits all" when it comes to "trophies"..just too many variables. Good conversation, and the epic debate between hunter gatherer and farmer continues!

[theharvester]

pressure is what affects the population! keep your lips shut is the best thing you can do for big fish. one guy tel 3 and 3 tells 9 and so on

[WasteManagement]

There is a give and take with it though. Best way to grow big sunfish, put in several small starving largemouth to eat all the potato chips. Then you have a stunted bass population. You have to decide what species you want to manage for trophies and what species for harvest. I do not think it is as simple as letting big ones go.

[OnAFly]

I disagree. I know of a few very good panfish lakes that also have very large bass in them.

Maybe someone has better data than my personal experiences.

[Jim Uran]

OnaFly, you are right, the lakes I catch big panfish on, also have bucketmouths out there too! I think they take care of the small fish though, it's a biomass thing....

[WasteManagement]

This is from the MN DNR

Largemouth bass appear to be a different story. They feed heavily on bluegill and seem adept at ambushing sunfish in heavy weeds. Largemouth will feed on bluegill up to one-quarter their own length. Consequently, a promising way of controlling bluegill numbers is by maintaining great numbers of medium-sized bass. Bass appear to have two effects on bluegill. First, bass simply eat a lot of sunfish helps control their numbers. Second, bass force small, vulnerable sunfish into thick weeds; but the big sunfish -- too large to be eaten by the bass -- are free to forage wherever food is most plentiful. So the presence of bass reduces the competition between small sunfish and large, thus allowing the large sunfish to grow even larger and faster.

Researchers and managers have found that a minimum-size limit of about 16 inches on bass will direct fishing pressure toward the larger bass, leaving the more numerous 12 - to 16-inch bass in the lake to prey on small bluegill. A great number of small and medium-sized bass seems more effective in controlling bluegill than does a lesser number of large bass.

So, a possible way to produce large bluegill is to engineer an abundant population of small to medium- sized bass. Conversely, fishing regulations that produce large bass (such as catch-and-release requirements), are successful at producing large bass, but are not nearly as effective in controlling bluegill numbers.

Thus, anglers and managers may have to choose either big bluegill of big bass in a lake. This is yet another argument for diversity in fish management. Some lakes can be devoted to stunted bluegill and large bass; others can be managed for big bluegill and many small bass.

I fish on a private lake in WI. Produces 1-2 pound bass non stop with little effort. Right day you will have up to 3 bass chasing your lure. The sunnies i get are all almost over 10. My biggest measured was 12 3/4. Rare to catch anything under 7. Only two species in the lake. No minnows. C&R only.

[Jim Uran]

Another great Private Pond Story...

[JPmunson]

Id nt know where youg uys catch your panfish, but I just got back from my week and caught what was by far the best year in bluegills in over 7 years! many MANY fish over 10 inches and very few fish under 8. I had an absolute blast this last week and to come home and see this article kinda puzzled me because where I am, they are in mass quantities.

[Jim Uran]

Great to hear Munson!!!

[bbfenatic]

Da_Chise "I couldn't find any 10.5" minimums with a 5 fish bag. Can you name the lake?"

Answer: Franklin Lake in Otter Tail County, just up the road from Lida.

[Scott M]

Thanks bbf.

You guys see signs at the access for 10.5" and 5 fish?

This is what I see in the 2012 regulations:

I'll take your word for it as you are the guys fishing it.

[TomWehler]

Enjoyed your writing ..thanks for sharing.

Keep on rocken!

Tommy

[Fisherman For a Lifetime]

Tough subject everyone.

We don't want to over-fish a lake so the population is sparse, but don't want to under-fish so we have stunted, hungry fish either!

A limit of where we're at + every angler managing their own take should work.

I believe we should leave both the heavy harvest free-for-all & heavy-handed government out of it.

[popriveter]

I would support a size-based regulation. Something like 5 sunfish over a minimum size (7"?) with no bag limit below the set size.

My main impression is based on a lake that I've seen benefit greatly from a fish removal program. In recent years, panfish have been trapped and removed in large numbers. The average size sunfish I catch has increased from about 4.5" to about 8" in the past 5-6 years. Removing the smaller fish at an equal or greater rate than the larger ones works.

I agree with those encouraging that fisherman's culture and attitude will need to adjust to really effect change. Most fisherman I know wouldn't keep a 6" sunfish but will gladly keep twenty 8" sunfish. That is exactly the opposite of what will encourage and sustain a larger, faster-growing population.

[pathogen]

I agree wholeheartedly that panfish are somewhat ignored by fisheries management and more could be done to protect and enhance this precious resource. I do believe, however, that only lowering limits would fall short in providing the desired results. Panfish have proved many times over their ability to overpopulate a lake with stunted individuals. Their spawning success generally is excellent and I'm not sure if closing the season during the spawn would really have much effect. And it's hard to define their spawning 'window' because it can be extended over a relatively long period of time. What I think would be another layer of protection besides number limits is a size limit. Protect those big bulls that we all like to catch (and hopefully release). Another idea would be to protect the panfish predators that weed out the small fish and help a lake from being overrun by stunted individuals. Large pike need to be protected as they are the top-of-the-line predator for small panfish, and larger perch feed heavily on panfish fry. (I remember cleaning perch and being shocked by the number of fingernail sized sunfish in the stomach). I guess what I'm trying to say is that it goes a ways beyond simple numbers limits, there are additional ways to protect and enhance our trophy panfih populations. I support any efforts to achieve this goal.

[goblueM]

Their spawning success generally is excellent and I'm not sure if closing the season during the spawn would really have much effect.