Our fragile panfish population

[CaptJohnWis]

It takes exactly one season to ruin a lake that has BIG bluegills. I found a lake one fall while bass fishing that had lots of bull blues. Pleanty of 9 inchers and a goodly number of 10s. We ice fished it early and had a ball. Nearly all the gills were loaded with tiny black parasites. I wanted to keep not a one of those but they fought just as good as a clean one. We had the lake to outselves.

Somehow the word got out (Dane Genz did a video but did not release name of lake). I went back in March and the lake looked like a Swiss cheese. I have never seen so many holes! There were a bunch of fishermen and somebody else was shooting a another video. Nobody was catching much. Why they wanted to keep all those big parasite loaded gills is beyond me. But now it is just another pretty lake loaded with dink bluegills. Once you cull out the big ones, it is very hard for the lake to recover. Pelican at Orr is a perfect example.

It used to be loaded with legit one pound (and even twos!) gills. I talked to guide who took out parties back in the heyday. He said once the word got out, every resort on the lake was full and some were renting out camping spots on their lawn! He took out one group of outdoor writers and filled a washtub with pound+ gills. This was decades ago, try catching a true "pounder" there now. A 10-incher is very rare now. But there are more dinks than anywhere I have fished.

Gills can grow fast even up north if there are not too many of them. My best gill lakes now are shallow ones that froze out three or four years ago. Those first two crops of gills (somebody always throws in a few after freeze out) can be awesome since they have no competition for food. Any lake can pump out 7-inchers but it sure is fun to tie into a 10-incher.

I am in favor of very liberal limits on gills under 8 inches but limited harvest of big ones.

[Gordie]

Great article Jim and It is a good to think about and to get more ideas for the future of Panfish. I Know back in the day the stocking up on fish in the freezer was the thing to do as that is how my grandparents were taught but they never knew if they where going to be stranded at home during the winter as the winter storms seemed so much more sever then than they do now. Even if we do have those sever storms today we are so better equipped than those days.

I really enjoy fishing and I know people that have the mentality that if they go fishing they have to keep fish and that's what needs to change. the mentality of Got to keep something no matter what it is. It like they won't get there moneys worth if they don't keep something.

I would like to see a size reg rather than a all out possession limit on panfish. I think it would still allow people to catch the fish they want and protect the bigger fish while they are doing it.

The problem with a possession limit in my opinion is that if dad goes out to catch fish for dinner then he is only allowed that limit and if it is five then he has a hard time feeding fish to the family of 4-5 people. I know he should take the family with but sometimes that is not a option. Size limits would still allow dad to keep enough to feed the family will preserving the size structure.

What I think is funny is that most will tell you that the bigger fish are not good to eat and yet they will harvest bunches of bigger panfish. just a thought.

Jim thanks for your words and opening the eyes of some people to throw out ideas for this.

Oh and I’m with Truth also include catfish

[delcecchi]

My only complaint is with the way it starts out....

"do humans like to pick on things smaller than we are..."

Every fish in Minnesota is smaller than me. A record Musky is smaller than me. What's the point?

We still spear northerns. Talk about picking on something.

I agree with your point about needing to change the "fill the freezer" ethos that is still way too prevalent. It is necessary if we want to have quality fishing in the future. And I am not sure the DNR has any idea of the extent of harvest on most of our lakes.

[Chad Peterson]

Great read Jim. I am with you on this point!

[Rick G]

Thank you taking this subject on Jim. We need to spread the word on catch and release on bigger panfish, it does work

[Igor Drackenwolf]

I guess I have a little different opinion re; Jim's article and those who agree with him.

I think there is an easy answer to the questions you pose at the outset of your article Jim.

The primary reason anglers are less concerned with panfish populations and tend to harvest beyond what a particular body of water's populations can maintain in the short-term is because panfish are proliferate and resilient species, and bounce back quickly and abundantly within a few short seasons of the fishing pressure being taken off. Long-term, the panfish populations are essentially self-sustaining.

The bite gets hot, anglers move in, word gets around, and a lake's population and average size of panfish is reduced by harvest. Then anglers move on to a different lake with a hot bite, allowing lake #1 some years to improve the size and number of fish.

All this happens with little input or interference from the DNR re; harvest limits. Lakes cycle through good years and less-good years, but the viability of a panfish population is rarely or never in question. They always come back.

There's never a season where anglers cannot learn about a hot panfish bite somewhere nearby.

So I'm not saying that we shouldn't be good stewards. I'm just noting the reason I think that drumming up concern is a tough sell. The reason anglers don't "baby" panfish like we do walleye, muskie, northern, or bass, is because the panfish populations don't need babying like the others do. They're resilient, and abundant. When we overfish them in a particular body of water, they almost always come back without help.

[Dylan33]

I guess I have a little different opinion re; Jim's article and those who agree with him.

I think there is an easy answer to the questions you pose at the outset of your article Jim.

The primary reason anglers are less concerned with panfish populations and tend to harvest beyond what a particular body of water's populations can maintain in the short-term is because panfish are proliferate and resilient species, and bounce back quickly and abundantly within a few short seasons of the fishing pressure being taken off. Long-term, the panfish populations are essentially self-sustaining.

The bite gets hot, anglers move in, word gets around, and a lake's population and average size of panfish is reduced by harvest. Then anglers move on to a different lake with a hot bite, allowing lake #1 some years to improve the size and number of fish.

All this happens with little input or interference from the DNR re; harvest limits. Lakes cycle through good years and less-good years, but the viability of a panfish population is rarely or never in question. They always come back.

There's never a season where anglers cannot learn about a hot panfish bite somewhere nearby.

So I'm not saying that we shouldn't be good stewards. I'm just noting the reason I think that drumming up concern is a tough sell. The reason anglers don't "baby" panfish like we do walleye, muskie, northern, or bass, is because the panfish populations don't need babying like the others do. They're resilient, and abundant. When we overfish them in a particular body of water, they almost always come back without help.

Igor- you are right- well, half right IMO. The population almost always come back. But what rarely does come back is the population of BIG panfish. It isn't tough for the lake to recover in terms of numbers, but it is difficult to recover for size.

[solbes]

I agree completely in protecting the bigger pannies (crappies and bluegills). I've been practicing this on our lake for years and encourage our guests to do the same. Usually throw back the 8.5"+ gills and 12"+ crappies. Pictures make better memories than a slab of meat. Still plenty of 7" gills and 10" crappies to go around in June if we're keeping a meal.

One other thing to keep in mind is how long it takes these fish to get to be this size. I got some age info from the DNR on the lake we fish. At 7 years a pike is already 32" and could hit true trophy size by age 10 if allowed to. Conversely a walleye is 20" at 7 and could hit 30" by age 12. A bluegill is 6.4" at age 7 and grows only about a 1/2" per year. It won't get to 10" until age 14. I'm sure species growth varies by lake and available forage, but this still opened my eyes to how long it takes to grow a trophy gill.

[Fish_Stalker]

Well said Jim. I live in the metro area and there are no holds barred down here when it comes to panfish. Catch them and keep them, that's the mentality. There are no special regulations on panfish lakes around here, and I wish there would be. I practice catch and release on all species( except for an occasional winter meal) but I don't think that is the norm. What do you end up with? Lakes full of stunted panfish. There are some jewels but they have to be under lock and key because of the "hotspot"fisherman who come in and clean out anything over nine inches. It is a real treat when I can head north and fish some of the lakes with special regs for Bluegill. The quality of fish is much more impressive.

What about catch and release lakes? Is that a crazy thought?

I have to be careful who I say things like that to because some people will just flip out and think i am a communist:) Wouldn't it be cool to have a lake or lakes that showcase what kind of fishery we could have if selective harvest was the norm in panfishing. Bluegill over ten would be the norm. In a perfect world......

[Fish_Stalker]

Yeah, funny how people forgot about that one and now they want even more of that ever effective government "management" adding more and more pages to the fishing regs book. I like trophies as much as anyone but this is getting out of hand. I'd rather take pictures of a fish fry than photograph one C&R monster after another. Catching trophies should be a rare event. That's what makes them special.

-1 How full is your freezer buddy?

[merkman]

We still spear northerns. Talk about picking on something.

There is nothing wrong with dakhouse spearing northerns... nothing anymore wrong than harvesting or releasing (catch and release OR look and release) them by any other method that is.

I don't think you will find many people out there that do not agree that we need to harvest more small northern pike. Release the big ones, harvest the small ones... pretty simple concept.

Harvest them by hook and line, harvest them by darkhouse spear, dead is dead. Put the small ones in the pickle jar and the lakes are better off because of it.

MN pretty much has a catch and release only esox, and a harvestable esox. If you want a catch and release only esox, stick to muskies, if you would like to take a meal of esox home every now and again stick to the northern pike. It seems like a pretty fair compromise to me?

.

[pushbutton]

MN pretty much has a catch and release only esox, and a harvestable esox. If you want a catch and release only esox, stick to muskies, if you would like to take a meal of esox home every now and again stick to the northern pike.

[candiru]

One of the main reasons I oppose a 2-line regulation is panfish. Because of fishing methods it has the potential to hurt something even more that is already overexploited.

[Cicada]

Not to seem argumentative, but this may be a much more complex issue. I remember from my high school enviromental studies class that a lake is an ecosystem and any ecosystem is capable of supporting "x" amount of biomass. Say, Lake Leechbait is capable of supporting 1000lbs of fish. You can have 1000 one pound fish or 100 ten pound fish. The overall population must be kept in check ot support larger fish.

We have a pretty good example in our area. Beers Lake in Maplewood State Park has an overpopulation of crappies and bluegills. Even the crappies that do live to 12 inches are only about an inch and a half accross the back, stunted. While a few miles away, a Lida crappie that is 12 inches long is about 2.5 inches accross the back. Panfish, as stated earlier, are prolific spawners and may be more apt to become stunted. So, in order to get larger fish, shouldn't we need to reduce the population?

I understand the idea behind protecting the larger fish. I am by no means a decent panfisherman. The few times I do target them, I am pumped when I get a larger fish. Being used to the fillets I get from a walleye or northern, I would like cleaning panfish to be "worth the effort." If you decrease the limits on these fish, wouldn't you be encouraging people to take the larger fish to make it "worth their efforts?"

Another factor are the lake homeowners. I sold a chest freezer to a guy that needed a larger freezer. He told me that he needed a larger one because his son was bringing over his "extra" venison and ducks and he, himself, was stockpiling bluegills and crappies for a big family fish fry this summer. Stockpiling, now there's a term I don't associate with a legal limit. It is too easy for homeowners to take illegal limits. The CO's rarely go into homes unless they've been tipped to illegal activities. However, you always run the risk of meeting one at the boatramp. Now, I'm not so naive to think that all homeowners do this and all boaters can be trusted, but a little door to door "survey" complete with freezer inspection could result in some interesting stats. Homeowners could be told that at this time it is just a survey and they will not be fined this time, but if they are found to be in violation of the legal limits, they will be on a list to be inspected every year.

Kind of tough to put slot limits on panfish. They aren't like the long fish that have those types of regulations where a wider length range can be impelmented. Can you imagine a bluegill slot that requires the fish to be at least 9 inches before you can keep them and allows only one over 10 inches?

Minimum size limtis can be somewhat effective. Lida has a regulation that crapies be 11 inches before you can keep them. It seems to have stabilized the population, but the bigger ones get cropped of the population base. You rarely get one over 13 inches.

You presented a great article and bring up some interesting points. I guess I just think maybe panfish become the sacrifical lambs of the underwater world, due to their ability to bounce back from population fluctuations.

[half-dutch]

Great article and I agree completely. Up here it can take a decade to grow a trophy bluegill or crappie. The more generous the limits the lower the life expectancy and they don't even get a chance to make it big. No question that we the people have to step in once in a while, since there are definitely those who don't know when to quit and they can ruin things for everybody else.

[Brad B]

There was a article in the 2011 In-Fisherman panfish guide that addresses this issue. here are some of the key points made in it.

1. reduced limits have shown promise on some waters but "it has not proven universely effective".(10 fish or less)

2. Minimum length limit were started in the south(longer and faster growing season then up here).

3. People over look fluctuations in year class strenght.(some years the numbers are better then others)

4. "Panfish anglers are,however, largely harvest oriented and size-selective removing relatively large fish from the population". "Biologist refer to this as Quality overfishing". (this is where the mind set needs to change in my opinion. it is all a matter of selective harvest (not all big one's and not all small one's but a mix of all sizes).

5. "Natural mortality rates often exceed 40% or more, making it difficult to "save" fish. Reducing harvest may only result in more fish being lost to natural causes and provide no net gain in the number of large fish available to anglers."( I would rather see people utilize the fish then let them be wasted.)

6. "More stringent regulation of angler harvest won't improve panfish populations in all situations."

theses were the key points of the article. it was written by Daniel Isermann

[Jim Uran]

there is no irony in that story. The only irony is that you happen to point out and blame an internet forum on the fact that a lake got fished out.

It's the mentality of most of the anglers that needs to change to protect these panfish populations!

** I see he deleted his post.

[pushbutton]

This might have been the case five years ago, but no more. Look at any geographical forum, and you will not see hardly any specific info for anything on a smaller lake, or even a bigger lake for that matter. Even five years ago, that pesky little thing called the cell phone was more of a culprit as well as bragging around the proverbial water cooler at work. By the time it hits the forums, if even by small chance it does, it is already game over for said lake. By far the biggest culprit is human nature, and its inability to throw big panfish back. Don't get me wrong, I used to be guilty as well, but for whatever reason ......it now gives me much more satisfaction to let the biggins go

[Rick G]

LOL...this darn interweb thing Been on many good little lakes over the years that did have populations of big panfish, notice I said "did have" that got pounded to death by the masses. HSO or the other sites had nothing to do with the people decending appon the lakes I speak of, it was simple word of mouth. People have been stumbling appon hot bites way before this internet thing was started.

Imo, if we give more info on all the hot lakes no one lake would get pounded so hard.

[goose89]

Like.

[merkman]

One problem I have with more and more regulation and restrictions is that without enforcement only the law abiding people follow the regulations and restrictions.

With the current state of enforcement (i.e. not enough game wardens to go around) adding more regulations and restrictions on top of current regulations and restrictions that can't be enforced; only results in one of two things.

1) The law abiding sportsmen need to "pay the price" for those who don't follow the current laws (either because they simply don't care, or they know the risk of getting caught simply isn't there).

2) The new regulations and restrictions become nothing more than "feel good" regulations that really result in hurting the sport by people within it by “over regulating for regulations sake”. We all know there is a "segment of society" that loves to see us needlessly restrict ourselves further and further since it leads us closer to their end goals.

I say let’s fix the enforcement problem, get rid of the rampant over limits, and those breaking the laws, and stop putting the further burden on those who do follow the laws.

Our current fishing laws (with the way they are enforced) are not much more effective than laws against speeding. Everyone knows speeding is illegal; but “everyone” does it because in the grand scheme of things not many get caught.

We as sportsmen need to focus on teaching and learning rather than more regulations and restrictions. Teach others why they should follow the current laws and regulations and what it means to the future of fishing if they don't. (And I think that is really at the heart of what the original poster intended to do here) Along with working with the DNR to increase the abliity for them to enforce the existing laws.

Thumbs Up Jim!!!

.

[Gordie]

The most ironic thing is this discussion is the fact that internet forums are probably the #1 ruiner outstanding panfish populations, particularly in small lakes.

Lakes were being over harvested long before internet was available.

I have sat and watched a lake near by me getting pounded since the spring and there has been no mention of it on any sites that I have visited.

Word of mouth will destroy a lake the internet is just another means of communication that people take advantage of. Its the people that destroy/ruin the lake not the internet.

[Igor Drackenwolf]

....It's the mentality of most of the anglers that needs to change to protect these panfish populations!

And I would respectfully argue that the panfish populations are managed just about right. Their level of "protection" is about what it needs to be - the occasional lake that suffers a population/size downturn notwithstanding.

And my "mentality" is just fine, thank you very much. I don't need it changed, and I don't believe that the panfish population requires my mentality to change. The panfish population is, on balance, just fine.

And just in case someone thinks based on my opposing opinion that I might be an irresponsible steward of resources, my two sons and I keep 30 crappies and 12 walleyes for my freezer - ANNUALLY, and the walleyes come from Canada. That is all my family of 5 needs for an occasional fish dinner.

So again, as I stated earlier, I don't argue that people should be careless about harvest - only that I believe limits and harvest practices are just about right to keep panfish populations in balance with the needs of anglers.

[Islandlaker]

Another factor are the lake homeowners. I sold a chest freezer to a guy that needed a larger freezer. He told me that he needed a larger one because his son was bringing over his "extra" venison and ducks and he, himself, was stockpiling bluegills and crappies for a big family fish fry this summer. Stockpiling, now there's a term I don't associate with a legal limit. It is too easy for homeowners to take illegal limits. The CO's rarely go into homes unless they've been tipped to illegal activities. However, you always run the risk of meeting one at the boatramp. Now, I'm not so naive to think that all homeowners do this and all boaters can be trusted, but a little door to door "survey" complete with freezer inspection could result in some interesting stats. Homeowners could be told that at this time it is just a survey and they will not be fined this time, but if they are found to be in violation of the legal limits, they will be on a list to be inspected every year.

First off how can anyone suggest sending the government into peoples homes? I would not allow an officer in my home/cabin without a warrent, even if it was for a survey. I don't care if that is something they are granted permission to do because of a law, I would fight that all the way.

I am all for letting the big pan fish go. I am blessed with a great lake that has a small population of crappies, but a very large size structure. I never see anyone fishing for crappies unless it is the spring. There are spots that we will catch 12-15inch crappies all day. I almost never keep crappies this time of the year, nor do I let the buddies I fish with keep them either. I enjoy catching them later in the year after the spawn. I may occasionally keep a couple for my grandparents too eat, and even then I always make sure they have no spawn in them. For about 1-2 weeks right before walleye opener the lake fills up with non lake homeonwers and I see them anchored over beds, and throwing every fish they catch into the bottom of their boats.

Maybe a good way help promote the panfish population is to close off all public accesses. In my experience most of the homeowners on the lake care more about the fish population then boaters using public access.

No do I actually want public access closed? No it is ridiculas, so is suggesting the DNR go into everyones house who lives on a lake. That sounds like a bad idea.

[slabz]

I'll be the first here to admit that I have taken bull gills and slab crappies home with me in the past, in fact in my short 21 year life, I don't believe that I have ever kept a gill under 8" or crappie under 10. Why you ask? My young ego perhaps, need show off, etc. I honestly get out about 50 times a year for big panfish and I have realized that it is time for a change. I fished a lake 2 winters ago where me and a few guys brought limits of 14" crappies home everytime we went out, next year we could barely buy a fish. There is really no need to keep these big fish, yet we feel compelled to do so anyways. So I am 100% with you Jim, lets change our train of thought and leave these bigger fish for the future. "Game fish are too valuable to only be caught once." -Lee Wulff-