MyFishFinder.com Just like iceshanty but warmer
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.
Gee I wonder how it got out?
This is why with out a doubt, a bag limit on panfish will need to be enacted with the next five year, or our kids won't have the interest to go fishing, because it will be so hard to get on a consistant bite. I was amazed at the number of guys on the ice this year with vexs, marcums, etc... more have them than not! If a fisherman says that they don't have an effect on today's fishing, they need to get their head out of the sand. The sonar is only have the battle. When I took my daughter out the other day, I first grabbed my 78sc (handled garmin) that can get me within 3 ft. of the structure I marked with my Humminbird SI from the summer, with a simple waypoint manager called GPS Babel. Got on the lake, drill 5 holes directly over said structure, dropped the vex in and walla, fish! If Grandpa had that technology, with no bag limits, I wonder how much more fishing were to decline! Explaining this process to my daughter was like explaining calculus, and I thought about my first ice adventures with my dad and it was drill a hole because I caught them here once wait for the bobber to move son... and don't forget to jig it. Now I know I have a bit more technology then most because I tournament fish, but if everybody has a vex, how much longer before everybody has SI and handhelds. What if I said to myself, well the DNR says it ain't illegal, so I'm going to take whats mine! It's like saying good luck to my daughter... or yeah better buy a time share in Canada!!
I was amazed at the number of guys on the ice this year with vexs, marcums, etc... more have them than not!
good point TKO! there are a couple waters i know that get absolutely hammered and just keep on producing good gills. would the fish stunt if the locals weren't pulling those 50-100+ fish days, 4 times a week? or would there be an unimaginable number of better than average gills? with the differences in lakes, it would have to be a lake by lake, never ending sampling, regulation thing. imo
I agree that the waters that produce the best sized bluegills are the ones fished the hardest. During the summer I prefer to fish the lakes that give up the big fish and would rather catch 15-20 of them than go somewhere that I can catch 65 to keep the same amount. None of this matters without being enforced though. Michigan DNR from what I have heard is almost broke and counties that used to have 2-3 CO per county now have 1 CO that takes care of 3 counties. I believe that the majority of people would follow the rules but there will always be people breaking the rules. Without having CO's on the lake and enforcing the rules there will be more people less likely to follow them. I've seen multiple times if CO does show up several guys that cant get their gear packed up fast enough and take off. Bass season in Michigan closes on January 1st and Ive seen countless times where guys catch a nice bass on accident through the ice and try to hide it in their shanty somewhere when they pack up so they can take it home. I guess none of this matters if Indiana never puts a bag limit on panfish, but if they do I think it should be heavily enforced to keep everyone on the same page. I know there isint enough CO's to be on all of the lakes but seeing them out a little more would be nice. If you are following the rules I believe you should welcome seeing them as well.
Sprkplug 50% over 10" would be a amazing. My question is could the fish in those waters continue to grow if the thousands of fish that were not harvested because of the slot were sharing the food source? Like if a said lake that produces10" regularly were to have an immediate 10 fish limit where the fish had to be 10" or larger what would happen?
look at michigan, wisconsin, and minnesota...folks report alot bigger gills up there than in our indiana waters. why is that? is it the 25 limit or perhaps more fertile waters with less pressure? i do know its not because of being fished heavily.
Still waiting on a pic of a natural gill over 12" from the upper Midwest. Even in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan with 25 fish limits no one has come up with a pic. IMO I dont see the upside of a 25 fish limit because2-3# panfish dont come from the icebelt to begin with nor can they be grown with special regulations with any regularity. I do know what our state records, but those are exceptions
Doug, I'm going stir crazy. Pick me up on the way.
Excellent discussion! I believe some or all those states have 25 per day limits on panfish. When it comes down to it, look at the lakes mentioned on this site in that last 10 years with above average gill population that average 8"+ size gills. Guys drive all over the state to fish said lakes, some traveling 3-4 hours, just to get a nice mess of keepers. Why? Because quite frankly, there aren't that many in the state! FW is a perfect example, how many guys target Round given the 100's of lakes that's in a 50 mile radius? Summit is even worse because Central Indiana is EVERY limited when it comes to good gill waters (and look how many guys struggled this year there to get a good mess). The Slough seems to reset every decade, and stocked gills genes, seem to be far superior to natural reproduction. My question is why? How come a lake that gets drained, and restocked 4 years later have HOGS? They clearly had enough forage to get monstrous! Is it because the numbers on gills were more exact in relation to forage? I still think we need to do something, you shouldn't have to drive 2 hours to catch good gills consistently! Wisconsin and Minnesota would be an even tougher sell for panfish limits, being that they have 1,000s of more acres to fish. I'm going soft water fishing... But I hope this remains a cordial discussion!
As interesting as this topic is, I feel that there are too many variables to be dealt with in order for there to be one streamline solution. It has been repeated ample times throughout this thread that every body of water is different and each must have its own, unique solution for a healthy fishery. It all comes down to manpower, as does most things in wildlife conservation. People need to get out and do the fieldwork necessary to make accurate assessments on these bodies of water, and then be provided with the tools necessary to implement these solutions. Then, of course, there is the aspect of enforcement which is a topic in itself.I personally am not much of a panfisherman, except in the winter, and on occasion in the summer. When I go panfishing, I typically KNOW I'm going to catch some, whether it be on the ice or in open water. Usually, I fish for bass, and part of the reason I love it so much is trying to figure them out on a lake-to-lake, day-to-day, season-to-season basis. Sure, I love catching them, and go fishing where I know I can land some fish, but figuring out a bass pattern is rewarding to me, and far moreso than a bluegill bite.So that being said, sprkplug had previously said lakes fostered for big bluegill typically suffer in the bass department. However, some lakes in Michigan that I've fished have solid bass populations and have ample 9" gills and bigger redear that have been caught by accident while bass fishing. This could be due to the fact that there is more of a smallmouth presence, which don't feed on bluegill as heavily as largemouth do, especially when there are perch in the lake. But all in all, I don't feel that a fishery should be 'geared' towards or 'favor' a specific species. I feel that the fishery as a whole should be on the forefront of any 'selective harvest' rules applied. That being said, the food chain and interconnectedness of species needs to be considered in assessing the fishery in its entirety.
Springbobber, I would like to comment on a few things you expressed in your post.....it's not my intent to upset you, or demean your ideas or fishing preferences. If you are in any way offended by my post, please know that was cetainly not what I set out to do....and if I misinterpret anything you wrote, then that error is mine also, and I apologize. I believe that we should all fish in the legal manner and style that we see fit, and should not be criticized for doing so.You mentioned not being much of a panfisherman, except during specific periods, as you know you will catch some whenever you go....... Vs. Bass fishing, to which you ascribe a greater level of difficulty, as well as the need to pattern the fish to improve the odds of catching a nice fish. I used to be a bass fisherman, and I know what you're saying. Figuring out the fish and being able to duplicate your success from day to day, and on a different BOW, is part of the enjoyment and satisfaction of fishing. BUT....trophy BG are the same way....I believe that there are good fish, personal best fish, and trophy fish. A single fish may occupy one of those positions, or it may occupy two, or even all three simultaneously.....but that would depend on the definition of "good", and "trophy"....they are not one and the same.You mentioned some lakes in Michigan that have solid Bass populations, yet still produce ample numbers of 9" gills. Well, taking into account that size is subjective, I'm going to put this out there for everybody to see and criticize, in order to give perspective to what I'm trying to say:I consider a single nine inch gill to be somewhere between average and good....dependent upon weight. If the BOW continually produces 9" gills with no noticeable decline in size, then I would consider that a good BG lake, but not anything remarkeable. Remember, catching a 2lb. BG is usually considered the equivalent of catching a 12 lb. Largemouth.... how many of us have one of those hanging on the wall, and of those who do, how many of those 12 lb. fish were taken in Indiana??The point I'm trying to make is this: true trophy BG are in a class by themselves, the same as a trophy Bass would be. Catching one from public water requires the same level of dedication, perserverance, and knowledge that a diehard trophy Bass angler displays. If one is satisfied with a 9" BG as being an acceptable high water mark for his/her tastes, then perhaps the notion that they are easy to catch might show merit. But while I don't believe that there are 16" BG swimming around a gravel pit in northern IN., they most certainly do get a LOT bigger than 9-10". And once you add a digital scale to your arsenal instead of just a tape measure, things really get interesting. Most anglers are flabbergasted at finding out that the 10" personal best BG they just caught weighs less than a pound. It takes a LOT to make a trophy Bluegill over 11" or 1.5 lbs....... and finding a BOW that can turn them out with any degree of regularity, without intervention or management, is every bit as difficult as locating a trophy LMB lake.Again, no disrespect intended.
Author
Topic: Selective Harvest? (Read 7427 times)
