Biggest gill

[captain54]

Taxi,I fish a 250 ac.lake,and none of the fish are stunted,they will and do grow up ,( the lakes packed with zoo planton) I throw 8 inch fish back all day.I've fished  Public lakes in Pa. that once had respectable 8 to 9 inchers that are gone,and now it's the land of the dinks, (stunted fish )Pa. anglers can quickly get on a certain lakes and pound them hard,As for the Eye grow I've known that for years but thanks anyway,small skinny fish with big bug eyes.When my lake freezes I'll post some pictures of what I'm talk en about.If you got guys pounding a 10 ac. bay on a 250 ac.lake,there going to get over fish,studies of gills shown that grow up in a 10 ac. area,to prove a point my son and I took about 350 bulls over 8 1/2 last winter,it got harder and harder to get the giants with everybody fishing the same area,we moved to the complet opposite end of the lake and fished alone,the rate of over 9 inch fish went out the roof,yes they can get over fished.The lake I fish like I said has a huge amount of zoo planton at dusk they go nuts so I'm doubting that the gills are 8 to 10 years old  as other lake in Pa. that are not as fertile,but big bulls should not be taken lightly,most guys are happy with 7 inch fish.Pa. Electra shock it lakes and posts numbers a size of fish taken panfish and gamefish,most lakes do not support a quality Gill fishing.There's only a couple of (public)places that have 8 inch gills and although 8 inch gill aren't bad that's not what I'm looking for,In no way I'm acting like a smart a-- just post what I know,and posting back to a good post of yours.

[taxi1]

You're right cap. Like I said it depends on the situation. Really large lakes like over 1000 acres they aren't as vunerable. And yes anglers can put a hurt on a large bluegilll population and reduce the overall size. Studies bear that out. Here in Indiana there is no limit and I'll bet some anglers are just as good at catching them if not better that PA anglers. Here the bluegill is king.   

I write for a pond management magazine and we tell pond owners if they want big gills throw back the biggest males and only keep females and the smaller males.

[Spin]

    For years we were taught and practiced tossing the smaller fish back to "let them grow" what we were doing was in effect the opposite of wise practice. Environment, forage, and last but foremost GENITICS are what determine size. Those monster bulls were selected by nature to futher propagate the species. Take a picture and let the big ones go. A fillet from a 7 1/2 or 8'' Gill tastes just as good and in over half a century of fishing I've seen way too many great fisheries destroyed because of ignorance or callus greed.

                                                                                                                      Spin

[taxi1]

    For years we were taught and practiced tossing the smaller fish back to "let them grow" what we were doing was in effect the opposite of wise practice. Environment, forage, and last but foremost GENITICS are what determine size. Those monster bulls were selected by nature to futher propagate the species. Take a picture and let the big ones go. A fillet from a 7 1/2 or 8'' Gill tastes just as good and in over half a century of fishing I've seen way too many great fisheries destroyed because of ignorance or callus greed.

                                                                                                                      Spin

So true. Have you seen some of the research that has come out of the Illinois Natural History projects? They pretty much bear out what you are saying and have made some astounding discoveries about bluegills. Things such as courtship behavior of the bluegill species is some of the most complicated of the animal kingdom. Some small male bluegills mimic female bluegills in appearance to quickly fertilize the eggs of a female when the larger males thinks he's only another female so he doesn't chase him away. Also cuckold fish, and bluegills make grunts in their courtship behavior. One thing they have learned that flies in the face of older preconceived notions is, as you remove the older larger males off the beds younger immature males take their place and mature sexually earlier. When this happens their growth slows significantly for various reasons. Then the overall average size of the fish population is reduced.

[Spin]

   Yes I have read such studies, and others regarding fishing pressure and harvest and it's impact on overall populations and size/growth. There are instances where balances are so affected that whole species populations were lost or detrimentally affected permanently.
    I bred tropical fish on a fair sized scale for quite a few years specializing in the various Killie fish species, these are relatively short lived fish so you many generations in a relatively short period of time. You get a compressed view of genetic impact on overall size of the various species and it's huge. There can be other factors but non as important. Maybe the best way to express it is the way I put it to folks around my cabin up in the U.P. a few decades ago - Size breeds size, it's an overriding rule of nature. Makes no difference if you're talking cows, horses, birds, people, or fish, size breeds size. An over simplification but still relevant.

                                                                                                                            Spin

[taxi1]

   Yes I have read such studies, and others regarding fishing pressure and harvest and it's impact on overall populations and size/growth. There are instances where balances are so affected that whole species populations were lost or detrimentally affected permanently.
    I bred tropical fish on a fair sized scale for quite a few years specializing in the various Killie fish species, these are relatively short lived fish so you many generations in a relatively short period of time. You get a compressed view of genetic impact on overall size of the various species and it's huge. There can be other factors but non as important. Maybe the best way to express it is the way I put it to folks around my cabin up in the U.P. a few decades ago - Size breeds size, it's an overriding rule of nature. Makes no difference if you're talking cows, horses, birds, people, or fish, size breeds size. An over simplification but still relevant.

                                                                                                                            Spin

And if you think about it there is an evoloutionary advantage to growing large and growing large fast as you evade predation that way and get the best bedding areas and females. Then we come along and put a wrench in the spokes.

I've read some accounts of the average size of lake trout and smallmouth bass in the Great lakes in a journal kept by early explorers like Champlain and they said the average size lake trout was about 3 feet to 4 feet and the smallmouth were in the 6 to 7 pound range. I guess the lakers were so plentiful you could see them milling about in the shallows everywhere when the water was cool enough.

[Jigging Nomad]

"and they said the average size lake trout was about 3 feet to 4 feet and the smallmouth were in the 6 to 7 pound range".

Funny how those smallmouth shrink to 3 to 4 pounds when they meet a scale.  It takes alot of smallmouth to go 4 pounds, let alone 5.  I've had guys tell me they had a 5 pound smallmouth in their livewell, and when weighed it fell a littlle short of 4 pounds.  You just have to take reports of huge fish with a grain of salt unless you know the source to be very credible. 

[taxi1]

"and they said the average size lake trout was about 3 feet to 4 feet and the smallmouth were in the 6 to 7 pound range".

Funny how those smallmouth shrink to 3 to 4 pounds when they meet a scale.  It takes alot of smallmouth to go 4 pounds, let alone 5.  I've had guys tell me they had a 5 pound smallmouth in their livewell, and when weighed it fell a Little short of 4 pounds.  You just have to take reports of huge fish with a grain of salt unless you know the source to be very credible. 

Excellent point HB but you're preaching to the choir on that one. As a fish taxidermist I've seen all the exaggerations and even been accused of making someones fish smaller than it was! (Not too often thank God!) You would be amazed at how much a fish grows while it's in the freezer or at the taxidermists.   I have a certified scale here and I no longer volunteer to weigh the fish as I've bursted too many bubbles! I had one guy call me that he was bringing in an 8 lb. bass, but when he brought it in to weigh it it was under 5 lbs.! I also had a guy tell me his rainbow was 24 inches when he was lucky if it would go 20 inches! 

That said, call me naive but we're talking a time period where fish were not exploited like they are now. No rod and reels, downriggers, motors, fish finders etc. Thousands of years of unexploited fish (I doubt the Indians even put a dent in the populations they were so vast). In retrospect it may not have been Champlain but it may have been Lewis and Clark I was talking about. Not being avid anglers and commissioned to survey what they found and record it in journals maybe they would be more reliable?

I remember reading in the In-fisherman magazine about a small lake in Massachusetts that hadn't been fished in years as it was off limits to fishing.  A survey was done on the fish population and it was astounding the amount and size if the fish. I do remember the largest bass were 25 inches which I rarely see around here. I've only taken in a 25 inch bass once in my 25 years of doing taxidermy.

I also seem to remember the Atlantic salmon and lobster were so abundant in colonial New England indentured servants had a clause that they couldn't be fed them more than so many times a week. The lobster were considered the poor man's food and were easy to catch off right off any pier. There were so many you could see them in the water. And the size was much greater than now too.

Another point I'd like to make, which may or may not be relevent is the average size of carp in our contemporary times. Granted they may grow a little faster than our gamefish, but they typically average a very large size. IMHO that size would come down if they were exploited like we fish for our gamefish. In my area they are considered trash fish and hardly anyone fishes for them. If they do they release them.

[Spin]

     Yep we have all the technologies, way greater ability to travel large distances to fish areas that in the past were lightly fished or in some cases not at all. Lets not forget the recent advance of information, the internet in particular. This may get me in trouble with the folks running this list but the web can be a death sentence for many small fisheries. Myself, I do file reports but never on any waters less than 350 acres and never on small streams. I've seen way too many nice places go under because of that. Why destroy that which you love best. ,Self defeating and stupid, in some cases malicious. A matter of "it's not my home waters so who cares?" or "I know this guy or that loves to fish this lake or pond so I think I'll wreck it for him. That's really sad.
      We now have a whole range of advantages that Dad and Grandad didn't and there's alot more of us out on the water too. The improvements make it easier and easier and they come faster and faster and it's a shame sometimes because people at times forget with these advantages increased responsibilities should also be applied. If you have to ere let it be on the conservative/conservation side of things and remember that there's hardly a place on this entire planet that God has made and Man gotten ahold of that he hasn't screwed up!

                                                                                           Spin

[taxi1]

Spin,

I agree with everything you said except "there are a lot more of us out on the water." I'm not so sure of that. My state is seeing a decline in the sale of fishing and hunting licenses. Additionally with single parent homes and computer literate couch potato children I think anglers and hunters are actually on the decline a little. That said, I see a lot more boaters and jet skiers than I have in the past. I'm thinking that's a generation that is used to instant gratification.

[Whitefish Whisperer]

bout 10.5 for my biggest

[SLED_NECK]

What i have been trying to do is catch alot of the big gills and put them in one of my old stock tanks and grow them bigger

[Van_Cleaver]

Here's mine; didn't do a great job with this photo, as I took it awhile after the fish was caught. Taped at 10.25 immediately after catching. Got credit for 10 and 1/16", but still a real good fish for my part of the world. Now I feel a little bad having kept her, but the lake was filled with fish 9 and better. I made a point of never taking more than a handful of big ones, and often released way more than I kept. In PA I have seen the size go down on pan fish enhancement lakes (limit 20 gills) because people take 20 every time they go. Though the number of license sale may be down, Ice Shanty and other info sites have vastly increased the amount of fisherman on certain lakes. What I have noticed is this: because the size limit is 7'', the average gill is still about 8, however there are way less 9'' fish, than there used to be. Once a year class hits the limit, it gets cropped severely, because most guys think if the limit is 20 it won't make a difference to kill 20 fish. BTW this lake is over 400 acres, but freezes early, and keeps ice late. A skilled angler can catch 20 nice gills most days, so it doesn't take long for a bunch of guys to dent the supply. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, it 's just sad to watch one of your favorite lakes go downhill. Her's the aforementioned gill that came from a private lake.