Please release 10" + bluegills caught this year

[TroutFishingBear]

Please release all 10" + bluegills you catch this year. They are a resource that can almost never be replaced due to the nature of the bluegill spawn and society in a lake.

Bluegills grow extremely fast before their first spawn, after which they grow very slowly. Bluegills spawn in honeycomb shape nests as groups, with the biggest fish being in the middle and the fish getting smaller as you near the outside. A bluegill can become sexually mature enough to spawn at 3-4". A bluegill's instinct however, will tell them if they are big enough to compete for at least a decent protected spot nearer the center of the honeycomb. If they are not (say the fish is 5") that fish may be up to 9" or so by next year. If the fish however, is big enough to spawn at 5", it would spawn, and it would take the fish several years to grow to 9".
As you can see, keeping big bluegills really screws up a fishery, and even through overharvest of small bluegills it is hard for big bluegilsl to return without being stocked.

Keep bluegill under 10" only, and preferably under 8" if you want your fishery to sustain. Tell others to do so.

thanks in advance!

[rgfixit]

I'd like to know what your research is based on
RG

[walleyeslayer]

youre right.  im no fish scientist, but ive read that also.  ill take a mess of 8 inchers anyday, im trying to clean my favorite gill lake by throwing back the biguns.  i only caught 3 10 inchers last winter.  threw them back. 

[iceintheveins]

I have caught 4 ten inch gills in my life in lakes other than Jerry Creek Reservoir. A ten inch gill in Jerry Creek is the norm and 12 inchers, honest ones are common. Thankfully that lake is catch and release. I have read this also in scientific studies done by independent fisheries researchers and other states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska. I know how tempting it is to keep those bulls. But man, it's so important to release them for the very reasons IFB spoke of.

Tyler

[Iceshanty]

Release 10" + bluegills, I just do this anyway, because the ten inchers are more fun to catch than they are to eat  I am not so sure if it is the right thing to do, because the best spawners are not always the older fish but it may be the ones that are in the 6-8" class in the prime of their life that spawn the best. When I keep fish for eating I like to take from a well populated year class so has not to put a dent in a bad year and I do prefer eating the somewhat smaller size of 6"-8"ers.


-Scott

[reubenpa]

we are talking what here??   as if the gills are dying???  Why then can I get 30-90 fish on any spring day here in NY?    hhmmmmm my c/R on gills are 5-6 and under   SORRY!!!

[fisher35]

i agree with you scott 6-8" are the best eatin. I have fished on many lakes that have been way over fished. The gills there arent even worth fishing anymore. On sunday I realeased a couple of 10 inchers but still came home with 13 nice eaters.

[rgfixit]

Good point Scott,
I would see the year class as more important in my decisions to C&R. If 10" perch are the norm, that 15"er will probably go back...if 15"er's are the norm...I'll eat some for sure.

On certain lakes in our area 10" sunfish are very common (if you know where to look) and the 2 or 3 meals I keep are not going to damage the population at all. Of course I'm talking about relatively large bodies of water.

It's understandable to form your own opinions regarding C&R based feelings.

TFB,do you have  any scientific studies to support your theory? I'd like to read more about it.
RG

[richstick]

The largest gills in a system are the ones who rank first on the spawning hierarchy.  If the larger gill population is decimated by fishing, only smaller gills are available to spawn.  The genetics start to go to heck, and you basically begin to encourage genetically inferior fish.  It's true.  The problem is that panfish populations are much more fragile than people want to think.  Even a large body of water can be fished down incredibly fast - preserving the genetically superior fish is probably the best way to ensure strong populations in the future.  It' always a good idea to release the larger fish, and take a meal (not a limit - a meal) of medium size fish.  If you truly care about your fishery, take care of it - don't exploit it just because the bite is on. 

[flaggggg]

l too pondered this thought but couldn't find any "sceintific research" spoke to a local fish biologist and he said basically the same thing that without the big bulls the smaller runts mature too fast and growth is slowed drastically due to all effort put in the spawn "they no longer needed to grow to compete for food,spawning rights,etc"

flaggggg    

[rgfixit]

Bear, don't get me wrong, but....you say it's a fact...I always say prove it! I'm old enough to reason my way through problems and life's lessons have taught me a couple of things.

1.Scientific studies when properly conducted are believable and generally accepted by me as fact.

2. Opinions are like elbows( in place of the usual anotomical reference)...everybody's got one.

So don't just tell me it's FACT, show me the studies...tell me where you got the information so I can read it and become a better educated fisher.

RG

[reubenpa]

u r a wise man RG!!!!  honestly not jokingly!!!

[walleyeslayer]

overharvesting of predator fish leads to stunted bluegill populations.  i always release the big pike, walleye, etc.. that i catch as well.  ive heard so many times, on in fisherman "critical concepts- panfish" video,  fred trosts practical outdoorsman, bill dance outdoors, and read many magazine articles about putting back large bull bluegills.  the only difinitive reasoning that i could detect was that the large bulls, when they spawn, pass their genes on to future generations in that lake.  i looked around for a bit, and couldnt find any factual info about this particular argument, only that overharvesting predators causes stunted populations of panfish.  if the lindners say it is so, thats fact enough for me.  im confused    i just want the lakes to freeze

[kerosenecounty17]

I believe I read the same article that TFB did.  If I'm not mistaken, it's in the IF Ice guide.  Basically it says that once a gill spawns, it's growth slows.  So, if there are no 10" gills to chase the 5"ers off the spawning areas, the 5"ers will spawn and there growth will slow and result in a population of smaller fish.  I'm no biologist, but this just doesn't sound right to me.  Why would growth be slowed, given a consistent food base and good habitat?  I guess it's the case, if scientific studies have been done, but I really can't see any evolutionary advantage to a fish slowing it's growth once it has spawned.  And, I can't believe several weeks of spawning can consume so much energy that it takes the other 50 weeks of the year to recover, thereby reducing growth.  For salmon maybe, but not bluegill.  Doesn't make any sense to this old fool, but I've been wrong plenty of times before.

As far as keeping 10" gills, I'm with Scott.  6-8 inchers are good eating, and the 10"ers just fight too hard and are too dang pretty to eat.  But, anybody who decides to keep them is just fine in my book.  It's a personal choice, and I don't believe ice fisherman could make a big impact on the number of 10" plus bluegill in a given water.  Now, open water fishing for bluegill while they are on the beds and will hit a spark plug if you cast it into the bed, that's a whole different story.

kc17

[walleyeslayer]

i just found an article from the ice fishing journal 2003-2004 a  fish biologist claims that the most effective predator of bluegill fry are the larger gills, which would help keep gill populations in check, especially when alot of predator fish are harvested. i guess that could be interpreted as speculation.

[rgfixit]

Tell you what I'll do Bear,
I'll contact our DEC and put the question to one of our fisheries experts then let you know what they say.
RG

[TroutFishingBear]

Tell you what I'll do Bear,
I'll contact our DEC and put the question to one of our fisheries experts then let you know what they say.
RG

Alright RG, sounds good. Thanks for the help because I've already did a few too many out of state calls this month on my cell about fishing and other matters. Hope they can clear everything up.

[hali-man]

Any word, RG? 

[rgfixit]

Hali,
 NADA as yet. I put the word in with an ECO friend of mine. I should hear something fairly soon.
RG

[TroutFishingBear]

Have you tried infisherman rg? I know a fair amount of what I said is in one of their articles.

[TroutFishingBear]

Very quality, informative posts cider. I do tend to agree with you if environment is perfect, then the bluegill could regain normal growth. Possibly they don't grow as fast after a certain size? In-Fisherman does have statements from biologists, pyzer to name one. Can't remember which one said a lot of the stuff I posted, but it's in there.

I also agree that blanket statements are not very good for fisheries, hence why I don't like CDOW. (manages everything blanket ie all lakes with panfish are 20 of each species, 5 largemouth over 15" in nearly all bass lakes, no limit on pike, no limit on catfish because they hate them, etc.) But in most cases "please release all 10"+ bluegills" is a good, quality statement because most waters do not have sufficient numbers of them to maintain that population if people keep them. (there are a few exceptions though, as always) Thanks for the extra info cider!

[Sandbilly]

Cider,

Are you familiar with research done by Paukert/Willis SDSU along with Nebraska G&P? Huge amount of info on gill growth, among other things, on NE Sandhill lakes. I believe some of their work is in the 12th year on Pelican Lake, Valentine NWR and others.   

[hali-man]

You shouldn't take articles in In-Fisherman magazine as biological gospel.

Dammit, Cider. Now I have to change my religion.  8)

[cnyiceguy]

basically, I could grow a 5 lb bluegill if I never let it spawn, and feed it good. Should I stock all females or males in my pond??? We don't want any "hanky panky" by stocking both. I agree with Cider, other factors weigh much more than the spawning ritual. I've also witnessed big bluegills spawning own in much deeper water well away from the "honeycomb" dinks. I also know of ponds where there are numerous 8-11 inch gills, and have been catching them for years.

[kerosenecounty17]

The article I was remembering was not in In-Fisherman as I had thought.  I finally got my copies back from the old-man and the magazine is Ice Fishing, 2004/2005 published by F&W Publications.  It's an interesting article and the entire magazine is well written and worth the 5 bucks.  I got it at Gander Mountain.  The article that I was remembering is title "Panfish Experiment" and begins on page 63 of the publication.  The article details a study currently being done by Dan Dieterman of the Minnesota DNR on pools 5, 5A, and 8 on the Minnesota side of the Mississippi river system.  They've established a 10 fish bag limit in these pools for a 10 year period to evaluate the effect. 

From the article, Dan Dieterman:  "Once a fish is sexually mature, growth rates tend to slow.  They're putting energy into reproduction instead of growth.  Consequently, if a fish can delay sexual maturity, it can grow incredibly quickly.  If you compare a 3 year old, sexually mature bluegill to the same age fish that hasn't matured, the immature fish will often be 1 1/2" to 2" longer."

I tried to find the article on-line, but couldn't.  Maybe one of the more net-savy members might have more luck.

kc17

[walleyeslayer]

The article I was remembering was not in In-Fisherman as I had thought.  I finally got my copies back from the old-man and the magazine is Ice Fishing, 2004/2005 published by F&W Publications.  It's an interesting article and the entire magazine is well written and worth the 5 bucks.  I got it at Gander Mountain.  The article that I was remembering is title "Panfish Experiment" and begins on page 63 of the publication.  The article details a study currently being done by Dan Dieterman of the Minnesota DNR on pools 5, 5A, and 8 on the Minnesota side of the Mississippi river system.  They've established a 10 fish bag limit in these pools for a 10 year period to evaluate the effect. 

From the article, Dan Dieterman:  "Once a fish is sexually mature, growth rates tend to slow.  They're putting energy into reproduction instead of growth.  Consequently, if a fish can delay sexual maturity, it can grow incredibly quickly.  If you compare a 3 year old, sexually mature bluegill to the same age fish that hasn't matured, the immature fish will often be 1 1/2" to 2" longer."

I tried to find the article on-line, but couldn't.  Maybe one of the more net-savy members might have more luck.

kc17
thats the same one i read