Selective Harvest?

[Piggyn]

My friend and I fish 30-40 different lakes a year between the ice and softwater season... mostly smaller lakes.  We'll whack the panfish when we can, but we don't keep doing it to the same lake over and over... that would get boring and probably wouldn't be a great thing for the fishery.  If we have an awesome day then we usually won't go back to that body of water for the rest of the year... even though it's awfully tempting at times!  We do keep a lot of panfish during the year, BUT they are spread out over many different bodies of water so that our impact on any one lake is minimal.

[river_scum]

i would like to see a min. size on crappie.(like 11") not sure it would impact gills as much though.

[High Tide]

i would like to see a min. size on crappie.(like 11") not sure it would impact gills as much though.

11"... you're not messing around! LOL But seriously, I think 10" is good, because I don't like eating em over 12"... so they all go back in the drink unless they swallow it!

[wax_worm]

I don't see a problem with Crappies because there is already a limit on them and other than the winter and spring spawn the number of people that fish for them around here seems to be about 1/10th of those that target gills where there is no limit.   11" may be OK in some lakes, but I know a few by me that you would have to throw 50 back for every 11" fish you get.  Some lakes churn out lots of fish in the 9"-10" range with very few bigger than that.  Other bodies of water you wouldn't consider keeping a 9" fish becuase 11" is the avg. size.

[Scottio43]

Great thread HT! IMO Summit lake would be great place to start!

[Jigmup]

Standard operating procedure for surveying lakes will never reveal accurate yellow perch figures. It would be hard for me to infer any regulation as good or bad based on electro shocking or fike netting. creel surveys are about the only way of determining wether a fishery is normal, above or below regarding yellow perch. Networking, rumors and eaves dropping have their place as well. Outside of perch, I cannot interject so please continue on while overlooking my rambling!

[High Tide]

Standard operating procedure for surveying lakes will never reveal accurate yellow perch figures. It would be hard for me to infer any regulation as good or bad based on electro shocking or fike netting. creel surveys are about the only way of determining wether a fishery is normal, above or below regarding yellow perch. Networking, rumors and eaves dropping have their place as well. Outside of perch, I cannot interject so please continue on while overlooking my rambling!

After all the Junior Seau head trauma talk on TV, you may have an equal case when you slipped and fell on the ice a couple years back giving you that mean concussion, and the bucket of perch and walleye landed on your head thus staining your memory and you forgot that there our other fish in the sea! LOL

[High Tide]

Great thread HT! IMO Summit lake would be great place to start!

Yeah, let's start with netting sprkplg's pond and stocking them into Summit! 

[Jigmup]

while this may be true, it does not deter from the point at hand about establishing regulations regarding species and their size structure on a given body of water. While my cerebral reverberation may have impacted the the outcome of my own personal harvest data, it should have no bearing on the aquatic ecosystem as a whole.

[Jigmup]

.....and there is no other species, the rest are rogues!

[kevs]

 2 lakes that come to mind that have been overfished (both hard and soft water) are Eagle and Diamond lakes in Noble Co. I've been fishin those lakes for about 35 yrs, and have seen a drastic decrease in the amount of crappie, large gills, and in the instance of Diamond a decrease in pike and smallmouths of decent size. It was not uncommon on Eagle to catch gills in the 8" to 12" range continously, the past few years they have been harder to come by and there are a lot more peop's out fishing than there used to be. 2 yrs ago I counted 17 peops out on the ice in an area approx 100' by 40'. Yrs past would not see half that amount on the whole lake. There were a lot of small gills left on the ice around several holes. Small fish eventually grow to be big fish . 5 yrs past I fished Diamond and caught 32 lg mouths a lb to 3lbs, and a dozen smallies to 4 lbs. Last yr I went to Diamond and could not find a place to park for all the rigs in the lot, 13. An individual that was at his truck told me that word got out they were bustin big smallies there and that is what they came for. Sat and watched to see if anyone was catching fish. I left after a half hour of seein peops beatin the water with no results. Went a few wks later and caught a few small bass. Others I know that have fished those lakes for many yrs have expressed the same discovery that they just aren't catching fish there that they used to. Overfishing, pollutants, natural causes.... I don't know. I like so many others have my opinion as to what has caused the decline in these lakes as well as some others.

[pgaschulz]

2 lakes that come to mind that have been overfished (both hard and soft water) are Eagle and Diamond lakes in Noble Co. I've been fishin those lakes for about 35 yrs, and have seen a drastic decrease in the amount of crappie, large gills, and in the instance of Diamond a decrease in pike and smallmouths of decent size. It was not uncommon on Eagle to catch gills in the 8" to 12" range continously, the past few years they have been harder to come by and there are a lot more peop's out fishing than there used to be. 2 yrs ago I counted 17 peops out on the ice in an area approx 100' by 40'. Yrs past would not see half that amount on the whole lake. There were a lot of small gills left on the ice around several holes. Small fish eventually grow to be big fish . 5 yrs past I fished Diamond and caught 32 lg mouths a lb to 3lbs, and a dozen smallies to 4 lbs. Last yr I went to Diamond and could not find a place to park for all the rigs in the lot, 13. An individual that was at his truck told me that word got out they were bustin big smallies there and that is what they came for. Sat and watched to see if anyone was catching fish. I left after a half hour of seein peops beatin the water with no results. Went a few wks later and caught a few small bass. Others I know that have fished those lakes for many yrs have expressed the same discovery that they just aren't catching fish there that they used to. Overfishing, pollutants, natural causes.... I don't know. I like so many others have my opinion as to what has caused the decline in these lakes as well as some others.

Gee I wonder how it got out?

[pgaschulz]

My friend and I fish 30-40 different lakes a year between the ice and softwater season... mostly smaller lakes.  We'll whack the panfish when we can, but we don't keep doing it to the same lake over and over... that would get boring and probably wouldn't be a great thing for the fishery.  If we have an awesome day then we usually won't go back to that body of water for the rest of the year... even though it's awfully tempting at times!  We do keep a lot of panfish during the year, BUT they are spread out over many different bodies of water so that our impact on any one lake is minimal.

I'm not going to even touch this one......

[iceman10]

I believe they have been doing this type of study on Lake La su Ann in Ohio for quite awhile now. Go there and fish it and you be the judge if it works or not, remember you can t use live bait and can't go back for a few weeks to fish again. I only like to clean 25 bluegill at a time which make a perfect dinner for two in the freezer!

[rico]

Easy Rico... easy does it... Life is short and this is just a gentlemen's discussion!

LOL........I know!!!!!!!!!!!!

I cant say it enough that it is a great topic.

[walkerd]

Ive fished Willow Slough a couple of times to far to drive for me but the times I did go there I can see why they have a bag limit the lake really isn't that big and the times I was there I think half of Chicago was on the lake, if they didn't have a bag limit there wouldn't be a fish left in that lake. I sometimes agree with a bag limit on lakes just because of some of the catches Ive seen taken off of a lake 5 gallon bucket full not once but a few times by a few anglers and then whine and cry the next year why you cant catch fish of hardly any size, this happened to be a smaller lake that couldn't handle that kind of harvesting. I would say if they did make a bag limit on lakes around here for bluegill I see no reason it couldn't be 35, it could only help. I love fish as much as the next guy maybe more than most but as it might be fun to catch a bucket full I wouldn't want to clean that many now I could eat that much but lol. Oh yes and I also witnessed a few gentlemen catch their limit in bass on a lake leave and come back the same day catch limit leave and yes I did see them come back again I couldn't believe my eyes. And yes I did contact the Dnr Game Warden, they were never caught tho. These same guys i saw the next year and heard them complaining why they couldn't catch as many bass. So like stated in some of the above limits don't seem to affect some people that fish.

[sprkplug]

What about an example of selective harvest in the extreme...as in no harvest allowed, period? Many will tell you that you must harvest Bluegill in order to keep their numbers under control, as they are quite prolific. And I think that strategy has merit here in our local waters. But is there room to think outside of the box? Is there another factor in play here that would lend itself to manipulation, and encourage the growth of larger BG??

I moderate on another forum dedicated to big Bluegill, and I see quality fish from all across the nation. But I keep seeing outstanding specimens from one lake in California that has got me thinking. Lake Barrett in San Diego, is that lake. The number of 12", near 2lb. Bluegill it produces is amazing. And while it's a public BOW, the restrictions imposed on it's anglers are unique, to say the least.

* Fishing is by reservation only, with tickets sold at Ticketmaster.....acces s is tightly controlled.
* No live bait allowed, artificial lures only, barbless hooks only.
* No kill zone.....no fish removed at all.....catch, photograph, release only.

Now a lot of us would probably say that the Bluegill population would stunt under those conditions...after all, being a much warmer climate than Indiana, the gills may well spawn year-round, or close to it. And by not ever removing any of those fish, their numbers will explode, right? Well, it hasn't happened. Matter-of-fact, they have needed to stock supplemental forage to put weight on the bass. So what's going on? What makes this scenario work at Lake Barrett?

Deeper water? A lack of suitable spawning sites for the BG?, A lack of aquatic vegetation that encourages predation of young fish? A combination of factors, or something else entirely?

I'm not suggesting that we do this in Indiana at all. I'm merely wondering about the possibility of looking outside of the state, to see how other places do it, and maybe borrowing an idea from here or there to try back at home. I believe that it can be done, the question is......are anglers ready to accept and abide by whatever restrictions and measures are put into place?

[popnfish]

someone correct me if I'm not remembering correctly but when Dad got me started some 40+ years ago I seem to remember not being able to fish certain areas of a lake in the spring because it was staked out as a bedding area. Don't remember if we had limits back then.

[high_flags]

Interesting topic:   In my lifetime of fishing I would say  I have noticed a decline in numbers of fish in the lakes I fish at.  I think selective harvest beyond our current laws would help.  You have to believe all the modern gear available to fisherman and the popularity of our sport has had to impact the amount of fish we now catch compared to 30 years ago.
 
 I would love to see better re stocking from our DNR ,I'm comparing it to other states. I think this would also help replenish our lakes.

I wonder how much thought is put into this topic by our states brass.

[Fish_Tko]

so with limits on panfish will it be legal to continue fishing for gills if you have your 25 in your bucket. What happens when you gut hook 5 others as you are practicing c&r?

[WalleyeHunter84]

so with limits on panfish will it be legal to continue fishing for gills if you have your 25 in your bucket. What happens when you gut hook 5 others as you are practicing c&r?

I would assume the same thing that happens when you shot a doe and walk up to it and it has 3 1/2" spikes and no buck tag.

[wax_worm]

someone correct me if I'm not remembering correctly but when Dad got me started some 40+ years ago I seem to remember not being able to fish certain areas of a lake in the spring because it was staked out as a bedding area. Don't remember if we had limits back then.

This is true and I have evidence on a lake we own property on.  The wood stakes that were used to fence off the area above water are still there but cut off a could feet below the water level.  I don't know if it was a DNR experiment or what, but per my grandfather and dad, a couple years after they did it, the size of the bluegill began to decline rapidly and they were very skinny.  Fortunately the fence was removed after a few years and the gills did recover so you can catch 8-10 inch fish there.  There has to be a happy medium between no bed fishing and limited take from the beds.  It is just too easy to hammer them that time of year.  25 per person sounds fair to allow a meal or two without decimating the spawning males.

[walleyepac]

Absolutely legal, its called culling, in response to fish TKO now you have to release one on every catch

[wax_worm]

What about an example of selective harvest in the extreme...as in no harvest allowed, period? Many will tell you that you must harvest Bluegill in order to keep their numbers under control, as they are quite prolific. And I think that strategy has merit here in our local waters. But is there room to think outside of the box? Is there another factor in play here that would lend itself to manipulation, and encourage the growth of larger BG??

I moderate on another forum dedicated to big Bluegill, and I see quality fish from all across the nation. But I keep seeing outstanding specimens from one lake in California that has got me thinking. Lake Barrett in San Diego, is that lake. The number of 12", near 2lb. Bluegill it produces is amazing. And while it's a public BOW, the restrictions imposed on it's anglers are unique, to say the least.

* Fishing is by reservation only, with tickets sold at Ticketmaster.....acces s is tightly controlled.
* No live bait allowed, artificial lures only, barbless hooks only.
* No kill zone.....no fish removed at all.....catch, photograph, release only.

Now a lot of us would probably say that the Bluegill population would stunt under those conditions...after all, being a much warmer climate than Indiana, the gills may well spawn year-round, or close to it. And by not ever removing any of those fish, their numbers will explode, right? Well, it hasn't happened. Matter-of-fact, they have needed to stock supplemental forage to put weight on the bass. So what's going on? What makes this scenario work at Lake Barrett?

Deeper water? A lack of suitable spawning sites for the BG?, A lack of aquatic vegetation that encourages predation of young fish? A combination of factors, or something else entirely?

I'm not suggesting that we do this in Indiana at all. I'm merely wondering about the possibility of looking outside of the state, to see how other places do it, and maybe borrowing an idea from here or there to try back at home. I believe that it can be done, the question is......are anglers ready to accept and abide by whatever restrictions and measures are put into place?

Interesting, but as you said we don't know the reason that is successful out there.  It could be many of the things you said like lack of spawning areas, no weeds for YOY fish to hide in, fish like carp ruining the beds or eating the eggs, massive predation on young gills by bass and trout (most of the pay lakes in Cali, also are managed for lunker bass and they stock 12+" trout in them to feed the bass.)., and other factors we don't know of.  This is where we can get into trouble by looking a what others are doing and thinking it can be applied here.  All the facts must be known first, and then you have things you can't control, like climate condiions in Cali we can't mimick here.  Water clarity and fertility is another thing that is very hard to manage when dealing with larger bodies of water.  It would be interesting to find out how they are doing it, but I would imagine it is at a cost and that is why they charge to fish there.

I don't think the DNR has any interest in managing panfish for quality.  Instead they try to manage for quantity as most people fish for a meal when targeting gills and crappie.  Those that want a trophy gill or crappie know the lake where that is still possible even if it is very few in IN for gills, but there some lakes that kick out big crappies.  To the DNR it is too expensive even for a couple of lakes to try to get everything right to produce huge gills.  I think it could be done, but at what cost?

[Fishking83]

I wouldn't have a problem at all with the bag limit of 25 fish but dont want to see a slot limit.  I like getting a fish into the boat or on the ice, looking at it to decide if it's a keeper by my standards and throwing it into the livewell or my creel if I wish or back into the water or back down the hole and get back to fishing right away.  I'd hate to have to stop and measure a fish after every catch.  If the limit is 25 per person/50 fillets, pretty sure anyone having a limit day on the water should be satisfied with 50 fillets.  I understand giving fish away to others who can't or dont fish, I do it all the time.  During the ice fishing season I usually eat what I keep 95% of the time within a few days.  I very rarely freeze fish during the winter.  I would be interested to see if the 25 fish limit would really make a difference or not.  Now, for the hard part, which lakes are we going to test it out on.  Every lake fishes differently and some lakes may make a noticable difference and some may be no difference at all.   

[Fishslayer81]

Interesting, but as you said we don't know the reason that is successful out there.  It could be many of the things you said like lack of spawning areas, no weeds for YOY fish to hide in, fish like carp ruining the beds or eating the eggs, massive predation on young gills by bass and trout (most of the pay lakes in Cali, also are managed for lunker bass and they stock 12+" trout in them to feed the bass.)., and other factors we don't know of.  This is where we can get into trouble by looking a what others are doing and thinking it can be applied here.  All the facts must be known first, and then you have things you can't control, like climate condiions in Cali we can't mimick here.  Water clarity and fertility is another thing that is very hard to manage when dealing with larger bodies of water.  It would be interesting to find out how they are doing it, but I would imagine it is at a cost and that is why they charge to fish there.

I don't think the DNR has any interest in managing panfish for quality.  Instead they try to manage for quantity as most people fish for a meal when targeting gills and crappie.  Those that want a trophy gill or crappie know the lake where that is still possible even if it is very few in IN for gills, but there some lakes that kick out big crappies.  To the DNR it is too expensive even for a couple of lakes to try to get everything right to produce huge gills.  I think it could be done, but at what cost?

I completely agree with this! Panfish are a source of food for most...I don't care if I go out and catch tropy panfish through the ice. Nice quality eaters is all Im looking for. If I catch some dandies then its just a bonus!!! I do not keep fish after ice out and Im not a fan of plucking fish off of their beds. A simple way to control over harvest without overthinking the situation is to not allow keeping any fish during the spawn. The folks that target bedding fish are the ones that do the most damage, not folks who keep 100+ fish thru the ice.

[wax_worm]

so with limits on panfish will it be legal to continue fishing for gills if you have your 25 in your bucket. What happens when you gut hook 5 others as you are practicing c&r?

You can't cull fish that are not kept alive and in good condition.  So if you have 25 in a cooler or bucket and are still fishing for them, the 25 you are culling from should be in a livewell and in good condition to be released.  I would guess if they put a limit on gills it will be with a no cull rule to go with it.  Too many people fish with a cooler, bucket, or fishbasket, none of which keep fish in good condition in the summer months so they can be released healthy.  If I were in that situation you describe, I would have 24 in my bucket, cooler, basket or livewell if I wanted to keep fishing.  That way the CO would not have anything to say I was over the limit if he arrived when I caught my 26 th fish.  As soon as it comes over the side you are 'possessing' it, and if he wants to be a turd, he could be.

Bass fishermen cull all the time even though it is not specified as allowed in the DNR guide.  There are 3 reasons this is allowed.  One, alot of bass tournaments have 2 people per boat but a 5 fish limit, so catching that 6th fish to cull with is still 4 under the 2 man limit.  Two, in order to compete in a tournament you must have a working livewell system in the boat.  So if you are fishing alone and have 5 bass in the livewell and catch a 6th to cull with, the fish from the livewell is in good shape and can be released.  Most tournaments also have a rule that if you have a dead fish you can not cull with it once it is in your livewell.  Third, over the years most people that target bass, release them anyway, while gills and crappie are just the opposite.

[sprkplug]

Absolutely........Blue gills are a meat fish for most, rather than trophy potential. Fill the freezer, right? I understand that, and I would never berate someone's harvest practices as long as they are within the law. I think that's how it should be.

But I do believe that Bluegill can be fished down in quality....maybe not so much in sheer numbers. Not allowing any harvest during the spawn would be problematic in Indiana's waters, In my opinion. To use the example that Wax gave about his Father and Grandfather noticing a decline in the health and size of BG after such a plan was implemented....I don't know, just a guess on my part, but I would think that it became a case of too many mouths to feed for the food sources available. There has to be a balance, and the down and dirty quick way most state agencies attempt to strike that balance is through a limited harvest, or slots. My take is to at least look outside the box, at other states and see if anything they are doing would be applicable to our waters.

There's not going to be a one size fits all plan or program that will ensure trophy panfish, or at least I don't believe there is. It's easy to jump on the "limits" solution, but many times limits are imposed after the problem is already evident....I would prefer to plan for, rather than react to, the problem.

As in years past, I still advocate "quality vs. quantity" when it comes to releasing fish. Letting the big males swim free is one way to accomplish this. And, some will say that you cannot take what works in a pond and apply it to a larger BOW. Perhaps not in a literal sense, but the ideas or principles remain the same, it's the implementation that has to change to suit the water.

[Fishslayer81]

sparkplug,
could you elaborate why you do not think not allowing spawing fish to be harvested is a bad idea? i would think that by not taking all the bull gills off the beds would leave good breeding stock and keep a standard size the fish must mature to before being able to spawn. you provide great info, looking forward to your response!

[sprkplug]

Bluegill are prolific spawners, usually pairing up multiple times during a typical Indiana spring and summer. Those big males that we all love to catch spend much of their time guarding their nests, and the fry therein, from hungry predators....including other males nearby who are guarding their own fry. There are studies that seem to indicate that male BG can differentiate their own offspring from those in a neighboring nest. They will protect their own young ferociously, but gladly devour those from an adjoining nest.... built in population control, while providing a good source of protein for a very hungry fish. BG are very cannabilistic.

Not allowing any spawning BG  to be taken would, in my opinion, greatly increase the chances of more recruitment by young bluegill....less predation equals more young fish. More fish equals more hungry mouths for that particular lake to feed. If the existing food supply has not increased, then growth of those new fish will not be optimum, and it will show up as skinny, elongated fish, rather than plump, round fish. The general consensus suggest that the big males pass on the genetic traits necessary for growing more big Bluegill, while the females role is not as defined in this regard. That's why many privately owned fisheries that manage for big BG will advocate removing only female BG....you eliminate a mouth to feed instantly, AND prevent that fish from reproducing and adding future mouths to feed, all while keeping the big male genes in the water, and better fed.

This assumes management for bigger bluegills, at the probable expense of those fish that utilize BG as forage...particularly LMB. Bass tend to suffer in a BOW managed for big BG.