Fisheries Roundtable Panfish Poll

[Scott M]

The DNR Fisheries Roundtable was held the weekend before last. A good deal of discussion centered around increasing the number of lakes managed with a 5 or 10 fish bag limit, and there was a proposal to include an only 1 over 9" in possession rule as well. Currently there are 34 lakes with a 5 or 10 fish bag limit. So what do you think about more bag limit changes? Feel free to add comments. One final plea (and please don't let this lead your answers): Carefully consider all of the consequences of the proposed limit changes...

[blackdog1101]

I cast my votes. I don't want to sway anyone's opinion, so I won't say how I voted. Thanks for posting this Da Chise.

[CJH]

Its only been a short time, but the results are pretty decisive so far!

[Cold_blood]

i think that this is an interesting topic and now that i voted and the more i think about it i would like to change my vote but o well whats done is done thanks for the topic

[Chode2235]

I am amazed how much the bluegill population has improved on the Mississippi river since the reduced bag limits went into effect.

These regulations probbaly will work to increase the fish size. The only downfall is the complexity of the laws, inconsistency across bodies of water, enforcement and education.

Rather than throwing laws onto the lakes the DNR should do more to educate anglers on why they should be practicing CPR.

[TurnUpTheFishing]

Voted. They should choose some metro area lakes to see if these types of regs could help the lakes rebound.

[Chode2235]

The biggest question I have is not whether this could/would work, but how the DNR plans on enforcing this.

It could make the COs job a lot more difficult.

[fishcast]

I just voted, and its interesting to see. One thing thats probably pretty obvious, but something to mention, is that the results are probably pretty biased considering its probably mostly just avid panfish anglers posting on here.

[bemidjibasser]

I am a an avid bass angler that will occasionally fish panfish, as well as other species. I don't really care what species of fish it is, I am interested in maintaining a quality fishery for generations to come. If that can be attained by tighter regulations than so be it. I also rarely keep very many fish to eat, and the ones I do keep are not the big girls. I think Chode hit the nail on the head when he said that there needs to be more education to the general public on CPR. On the other hand you have the folks who fish 1-2 times a year and want to keep a decent limit of fish to fry, and panfish are often the target. So it is a tough situation that we are faced with...

[shooter_mcgavin]

I voted against the maximum size restriction, but after considering the dismal condition of the panfishing in the metro, I say bring it on for these heavily-pressured metro lakes. Max size of 9" and limit of 10 would do wonders. As for outstate areas, I'm not sure its needed on most lakes, nor would it be well-received, in my opinion.

[SHAQ]

I just think it should be every lake, all crappies should be 11 inches and all gills should have to be 8 to be kept.

[rosspj59]

I'd like to see some lakes with a 8" maximum for sunfish and 10" maximum size for crappies. A lot of the lakes with stunted panfish in the metro aren't going to benefit from a minimum size. There needs to be a way to get rid of all the small fish first. Some of the lakes with nice sunfish in them would also benefit from 8" maximum to keep bigger sunfish in the lake. I would appreciate being able to drive 4 or 5 miles to catch and release 9-10" sunfish rather than drive 3 or 4 hours to lakes like Annie Battle and other protected lakes.

[lovebigbluegills]

I like that idea ross, having a maximum size and being able to keep any beneath it. I would like to see a "and 1 fish over X inches." Around 11 inches for bluegills/sunfish, and 15 for crappies. Kind of the way LOW is with walleyes

[FishinChad]

I would love to see more "only 1 over x"s" regualations to allow 1 trophy to still be kept but still prevent limits of trophy fish being take at once.

[fishcast]

I highly agree with the few posters directly above mine. I'd love to see what maximums could do on some bodies of water especially the high pressured ones like much of the metro area.

People could still harvest fish it would just be the smaller fish, and also after the reg has been in place for a while, it should increase the bigger size panfish for some good rod bending, a "plus, plus" in my opinion. I'd be for the one over "x" for a trophy as well.

[Fred_Bear]

I like the idea of slots on panfish. It definitely varies lake to lake but a general slot I would like to see is sunfish 7-8 and only 1 over 8 and crappie 9-11 only 1 over 11. Harvesting larger fish promotes stunting!!!

Personally I look for lakes with protected slots. Almost always catch better quality there.

[bustin lips]

This slot should happen soon on one lake imparticular before it is too late. Sad to say though, it might be too late.

If not an all season slot or reduced limit, maybe from late march to mid may when panfish are so vulnerable.

[Scott M]

The poll is finished. Good to see the input. As has been pointed out this poll is very biased since many that frequent this forum are people interested in protecting large fish. A wider sampling of the angling public would find most people want to find bluegills for the table, and often at the cost of cropping down large fish. In Minnesota, sunfish are the most targeted and most kept fish species. If we polled everyone that lurks on FM or lurks in this forum, we might get a better idea.

The other thing to mention is the consequences of more protection...If you really have a favorite lake with big fish, the best thing you can do is never tell a soul. Loose lips sink ships. As soon as a special regulation is in place, it is published for everyone to see so often times you can get more angling pressure in this way. In that way, more is not always better. We won't ever see more than a couple lakes added to the list with special regulations, so the 67% that want more than 10 to have special regs won't see the day. That's probably a good thing for those >500 acre hidden bull gill factories.

[goose89]

Thanks for the poll da chise31. I wish I had seen this earlier. I've just recently discovered this forum. I also wish this thread (poll and discussion) could be placed on all the different area forums. Many don't really know about this forum, I believe, but panfish are definately the heaviest pressured fish and get a lot of "pub" around the area forums, at least during hard water season.

[FishinChad]

As has been pointed out this poll is very biased since many that frequent this forum are people interested in protecting large fish. A wider sampling of the angling public would find most people want to find bluegills for the table, and often at the cost of cropping down large fish. In Minnesota, sunfish are the most targeted and most kept fish species. If we polled everyone that lurks on FM or lurks in this forum, we might get a better idea.

I agree it would be different if a wider range of anglers was polled, but I dont think it would be too far off. I think more and more people are understanding what is happening and what needs to be done. I still think even in a more open pole that the majority would want 10+ lakes managed within 10 years, really its only 1 lake a year to reach that mark. And in the yes or no pole, I think the percent would drop somewhat from 86% wanting to protect big fish but I still think it would be over 50% if not more like 70%.

How could we bring this pole to other anglers?

[metro fisherman]

I think that if theres only a few lakes that this works and grows monster gill populations the hook mortality and pollution would skyrocket because of the pressure.