Fish conservation?

[tracker x-2]

So heres the deal, theres this guy I know who fish's a lake nerby that has good numbers of muskie and pike and a fair ammount of large mouth. The sunfish are nice and healthy as for the crappies it looks like there has been a boom in the quantity of them. So what im getting at is there are so many small size crapps like 5-6" range he thinks its the right thing to do by taking out large ammounts of these fish allowing the reamaing ones to grow up. Now im not sure i agree with this. The smaller the fish will feed the larger ones im not sure. Let me know what you guys think about this.

[Esox_Magnum]

To control crappies to prevent stunting harvest is the best way.

[thedeadsea]

If the guy wants to catch fish within legal limits AND eat them I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. IMO fish of that size aren't keepers.

Do fish become stunted over time because of lack of forage/too much competition? Or do some lakes just have stunted fish and others don't?

[Sandmannd]

Too many fish means they will stunt. Same as aquariums at home. You can only have so many fish per gallon of water. No clue what that equates to in a lake, but yea, they can stunt.

As for this guy, I'm with deadsea, if he's in his legal limmits and is going to eat them, then have at it. He isn't going to kill the lake off.

[JimBuck]

I've always had a slight issue when people take this sort of thing into there own hands and do what they think is right. Like everyone else, as long as it's within the legal limits they can have at it. If they want to fillet/eat the 5-6"er's have fun....I just don't think it's right when someone takes this type of selective harvest upon themselves. Unless his name was Tony Dean.

[Bottle Fish]

As for this guy, I'm with deadsea, if he's in his legal limmits and is going to eat them, then have at it. He isn't going to kill the lake off.

[fisherman-andy]

Im not one for to make any decision about what should be done unless some extensive study was done on it that concluded doing so may result in some positive.

Anyhow nature has it own way of cleaning up things. Crappie booms come and go. The lake will return to what it can provide eventually.

[Traxxx]

If he keeps taking those small ones out, they will never have a chance to grow into bigger ones. Crappies that size won't take long to become keeper size. It may have been a good year class that needs a little more time to grow. If your'e fishing a heavily pressured spot, alot of the keeper sized fish may have been harvested already or moved out of the area.

[hunter101]

I dont know if i understand possession limits or not, but the way i read it is you can only have 10 croppies in your possesion, that means in the freezer as well. so unless hes going to eat lots of fish it shouldnt be an issue

[Big E]

As someone that works in the field, I can tell you there are no absolutes, and every situation is different. In most instances, keeping smaller panfish is better for the overall fish population, especially in turns of producing larger fish. It reduces competition and improves growth for the remaining fish. It's tough to fish out a population by keeping smaller fish.

This is ESPECIALLY important for bluegills, where science has shown this species is especially hit hard when anglers keep larger fish. Unfortunately, many anglers only want to keep the larger fish. Where it's within the regs it's perfectly legal (and darn tasty!). But it clearly impacts the population (stunted fish). That's why there are so few decent 'gills in the metro, and why the DNR is tinkering with these special regulations for size and bag limit. To try to manage a few lakes to provide an opportunity for bigger fish.

Long story short - I don't see a problem keeping small crappies or gills. In fact, I say go for it. I'd rather see people keeping gills under 8" and crappies under 10" than the larger fish. Better to keep the smaller fish and protect the larger, older adults.

[B-man715]

Well said Big E

[Tom7227]

I attended a meeting about water quality on Bald Eagle. Part of the presentation dealt with the issue of balance within the fish population, needing the proper mix of predator and prey. As I understood it there could be a problem if excessive numbers of panfish are in a lake. They eat some little buggers and those little buggers eat algae. If too many panfish eat too many of these little buggers (can't think of the real name) then the algae get out of whack. That results in murky water which cuts down on the native plant growth, which is where the little buggers hang out. So this spiral thing can start to take hold and the next thing you know you've got a stinky mess with bullheads and carp. Of course that's probably an oversimplification but that is how understood things.

That problem reportedly does not exist in Bald Eagle but it does point out that too many small panfish can be a bad thing.

[thedeadsea]

Big E, is it true that some bluegills don't have the genetics to grow to true "bull" size? Therefore you should throw back the bulls and keep the nice eaters?

[GrumpyOldCrappie]

Sounds like Big E knows what he is talking about.

Interesting info.

[Neighbor_guy]

IMO and it is only that...

Keeping 150 small, as the poster said 5-8" crappies, would be better for the lake and overall system than keeping 15 10"+ fish. Most of them 10"ers are females. That is the breeding stock.

[Big E]

thedeadsea:

I think the answer is yes. I've posted links to some cool scientific papers that discuss the issue of anlger harvest and impacts to bluegill size. You can't see the whole paper, but the abstract gives you the overview.

In short, systems that have NOT been impacted by anglers tend to favor male bluegills that sexually mature later, grow large and live old. However, not all male bluegills follow this strategy. And when larger, older males are harvested, it tends to favor smaller adult males. In other words, when larger male bluegills are harvested, the result is that remaining male bluegills will mature quicker and start spawning at a younger age. It also favors reproductive strategies of mimicry and cuckholdry (I won't go in to those, but they also result in smaller fish). When you are focusing energy on reproduction in stead of growth, you get smaller, slower-growing male fish that dominate the sytem -- the result is ultimately lakes with stunted bluegills. This is why for panfish, especially bluegills, it's so important to let the larger fish go, and keep the smaller fish.

Anyhow, the links may explain some of the science better. It's pretty interesting stuff if you're into fish!

Comparison of Bluegill Reproductive Growth among Lakes with Different Fishing Intensities

Effect of Population Size Structure on Reproductive Investment of Male Bluegill

Male Reproductive Competition and Sex-Specific Growth Patterns in Bluegill

[Big E]

One more thing I'll add.... not sure what to recommend for the size of bluegills that you should keep, and which to throw back. For me, I try throw back anything 8" and over. I keep 7" to 8" fish, maybe throw in a bigger fish if it's gut hooked and likely to die. I'll throw in a couple 6.5" if I need to get my 10-12 fish (which is plenty for a meal). A lot of people won't keep bluegills until they hit 8". I definitely would throw back anything 9" and over. A true 10" fish is a beast! Anything bigger than that, and you should savor the moment, cuz that is a rare fish (which hopefully you'll release).

I know this topic is a culture clash, especially for panfish which most people go after specifically to eat. And I don't offer this as a soap-box, preachy, whiney lecture to fisherman. I only offer these ideas as a suggestion to promote bigger bluegills (What? Keep a 7" fish? Come one, you can do it! Swallow your pride, and don't be ashamed).