IceShanty.com's Ice Fishing Community
Indiana => Ice Fishing Indiana => Topic started by: High Tide on Jan 10, 2013, 07:12 PM
-
After reading the “Nyona Lake near Fulton…” thread I thought it would be interesting to talk “selective harvest” which I know may get out of hand… especially since everybody on this site gets extra cranky when the ice melts… but what the heck:
To start, I heard that the DNR are entertaining a size limit on crappies on a few public waters (Hardy Lake) in Indiana soon. I’m all for it, just to see if it makes a difference or not. I’d be all for a size and bag limit on gills too, at least to test out the idea and have some analytical data to make better assumptions moving forward. Maybe pick a lake like Mud or Nyona that have seen declines. I see a lot of faults with electro shocking for surveys, as well as, DNR surveying fisherman face to face. Example, if they electro shock for perch, how effective is that when they could be inhabiting 40 f.o.w? So why not throw alittle caution to the wind on a lake like Mud and put a bag and size limit on gills for a year or two… what do they/we have to lose? One thing I have no confidence in is leaving it up to fisherman to be “good self-managers” and control the urge of taking an appropriate amount of fish home for a date with a knife. Fishermen are no different than any other man, always trying to prove their abilities, because it’s in our scientific nature. When one man takes it to another level and becomes an avid angler via time, effort, trial and error, the sense of entitlement also grows and since he did the homework and spent the time he can take whatever the DNR says is lawful. Really, because it’s not against the law, then it’s okay? Maybe I guess? One statement I do find correct is that 90% of the fisherman catch 10% of the fish and vice versa. That 10% usually couldn’t eat the amount of fish he is capable of catching, so he starts giving them away, etc., etc., and those are the most dangerous fisherman to our resources. However, most of the 10% I know, understand the damage they can inflict and our normally “good self-managers”. The 90% couldn’t hurt a fishery, because they’re not educated to follow fish patterns, and the fish will adjust to what I call is “spot destruction”. Heck, I’ve seen the fish adjust to over pressure just last week… and the big breeder’s won’t tolerate the pressure, move to another location and the 90% are toast until the next season. In short, fish balance themselves. What we ALL lack is education from the biologists, and it’s not the biologists fault, it’s the lack of funds supporting their efforts to educate us. Each lake, stream, river, reservoir is different, and would require different regulations for each lake, stream, etc., to maximize it’s potential, so I don’t think statewide blanket regulations are the answer. However, if we knew more about fish genetics, and how they are transfer to over a period of time that would make an impact. If we knew that a stock walleye over 24” would ever have a chance of spawning successfully. Bottom-line, I eat, sleep and breathe fishing… and I wish I knew more about how I could be a better self-manager, but quite frankly, my assumptions are really just guesses and I can only hope I’m doing the right thing. I’m for more biologist, more studies, and if that equates to more regulations… so be it!
What are your opinions?
-
That you dont have ice!!!!!!!!!!! ;)
-
I can tell from experience that selective harvest, slots, seasons and things of that sort do work. When my grandfather was young you could catch stripers (which we called rockfish) in the Chesapeake and its tributaries practically with a bare hook(I have seen the pics). Overharvest ensued for years and by the time I was a little kid they were few and far between and became endangered. Then they had a limited season and a slot limit and the population came back bigtime.
-
Hmmmmm.....no reply to that one???????
In all seriousness, I do see what you are saying and to some degrees I agree with it. But my life experiences have taught me never to trust "scientists". What do they know anyway? When I was in school I learned about a planet called Pluto and a dinosaur named a brontosauraus. Now that I am on the down hill slide of life, I learn that Pluto is no longer a planet and "Dino" from the "Flintsones" never existed. Science changes as much as our economy in my opinion. I dont always buy what the bioligist says, I listen, but dont always agree. Examples are river otters, groundhogs, asian beattles.......etc. But I am all for limits on bluegill and perch. I also wouldnt be opposed to a size limit on crappie. Just my thoughts.......
-
Lets leave the rules and regulations and bag limits to the experts who know what they are doing. I have been fishing for gills and crappie my whole life and I am catching just as many if not more now as I was 25 years ago on the same lakes. The Indiana DNR does a great job for us and if they ever see fit to implement some of the things you mentioned I would support them, but until then I'm going to keep slaying slabs and delivering fish to my Dad, who taught me to fish and can no longer get out himself.
-
I m all for a 9-10 " crappie limit which is the case in OH. As for the gills I would like to see a slot limit from say, may15- thru June just my 2 cents
-
There is not enough beer in my fridge to tackle this..lol..Although I would love to see the IDNR manage a couple lakes for trophy gills. Take a couple lakes 300 acres or less and require all gills over 9" let go or whatever would be the smartest way to manage that particular lake for trophy gills? I' ve seen multiple lakes with bass slot limits, but can't say if they made a difference? patoka is a very nice bass fishery now, don't know if the slot limit is the reason? I do agree that I don't trust fishermen to do the right thing. I don't mean all fishermen dont care, they do. The bass catch and release movement proves they do. Sometimes fishermen need to remove more bass and DNR' s have found it hard to get fisherman to keep bass, for better management on certain lakes. I do believe bluegill limits (15 or 20) could be beneficial on some lakes. Some lakes need as much removed as possible. Each lake is different. On most lakes it is easier to add fish than take away. Meaning once a lake is stunted it' s hard to reverse that trend.
In general, I do not think fish are as smart as HT! Although his results are hard to argue with... OK I' m getting low on beer...
Paul
-
If we release some of the larger fish and keep the mid size this would help....
-
Hmmmmm.....no reply to that one???????
I wasn't following... could read that many ways... LOL
-
Oh as for limits I have witnesse first hand in Wisconsin guys limiting out on Walleye going to there cabin, cleaning them then back at it....unreal!
-
Hmmmmm.....no reply to that one???????
Back from when we took pictures with a camera snd got the film developed st the drug store. ;)
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa117/al46033/AlanStriper-1.jpg)
But on topic...can bluegills and crappies be fished out? I don't know. I would think if they couldn't the DNR wouldn't have put a bag limit on Willow Slough gills.
-
I wasn't following... could read that many ways... LOL
I meant it only one way... ;D
-
Lets leave the rules and regulations and bag limits to the experts who know what they are doing. I have been fishing for gills and crappie my whole life and I am catching just as many if not more now as I was 25 years ago on the same lakes. The Indiana DNR does a great job for us and if they ever see fit to implement some of the things you mentioned I would support them, but until then I'm going to keep slaying slabs and delivering fish to my Dad, who taught me to fish and can no longer get out himself.
Rcjim, just to clarify, I'm not taking aim to those that support Pops with all he can eat. ;D Thanks for the reply...
-
I agree with pretty much everything you said, the main thing being enforcement becuase limits only work if someone makes sure they are followed. I have seen enough people in my day that don't and won't follow the 25 crappie limit. I know one guy that has been busted 3 times and thinks it's a game between him and the DNR. I also know that some lakes could be harmed by a limit on gills but I tihnk the limit on gills should be enforced durning the spawning months for sure and would not have an issue with a 25 fish limit year round on them. The state also has to deal with the differences in temps and growth rates between N Indiana and S Indiana when setting limits. You said to try it on a lake or two and see the results, but the problem is every lake is different in its ecosystem as you said and fishing pressure on one lake may differ widely from others. I fish alot of Michigan waters and they limit panfish (perch, crappie and gills) to 25 total per day. Their lakes blow most indiana lakes away in the quality of panfish they kick out, and the pressure on them is no less than Indiana lakes. I also see michigan CO's about 5 times to every 1 time I see an IN CO. If people that want to break the law fear they may be caught because the CO makes himself visible, the less those people overharvest.
-
I wasn't following... could read that many ways... LOL
Sorry if that wasn't clear. I was saying that I believe selective harvest helps keep robust fish populations.
-
@ Allen, I have no idea what you are talking about??????
@Doug, great topic.
-
If we release some of the larger fish and keep the mid size this would help....
I agree but do you know how hard it is to throw a 9" gill back to keep a 7" gill...lol
paul
-
On most lakes it is easier to add fish than take away. Meaning once a lake is stunted it' s hard to reverse that trend.
Paul
That is an excellent point Paul... Like golf beer even makes you a better thinker!! ;D
-
That is an excellent point Paul... Like golf beer even makes you a better thinker!! ;D
Try convincing my wife of that...lmao
paul
-
I agree with pretty much everything you said, the main thing being enforcement becuase limits only work if someone makes sure they are followed. I have seen enough people in my day that don't and won't follow the 25 crappie limit. I know one guy that has been busted 3 times and thinks it's a game between him and the DNR. I also know that some lakes could be harmed by a limit on gills but I tihnk the limit on gills should be enforced durning the spawning months for sure and would not have an issue with a 25 fish limit year round on them. The state also has to deal with the differences in temps and growth rates between N Indiana and S Indiana when setting limits. You said to try it on a lake or two and see the results, but the problem is every lake is different in its ecosystem as you said and fishing pressure on one lake may differ widely from others. I fish alot of Michigan waters and they limit panfish (perch, crappie and gills) to 25 total per day. Their lakes blow most indiana lakes away in the quality of panfish they kick out, and the pressure on them is no less than Indiana lakes. I also see michigan CO's about 5 times to every 1 time I see an IN CO. If people that want to break the law fear they may be caught because the CO makes himself visible, the less those people overharvest.
Good post! I would like to add that Kentucky Lake biologists are looking into closing spawning area (bays) as oppose to making seasons, which I think is a great idea!
-
Good post! I would like to add that Kentucky Lake biologists are looking into closing spawning area (bays) as oppose to making seasons, which I think is a great idea!
Has Kentucky lake's crappies declined over recent years? That is such a huge body of water I would think it wouldn't be an issue there, but it probably gets huge amounts of pressure too.
-
I could get behind a bag limit on gills and crappie but no slot,cuz cleaning 7"ers is depressing.
-
Good post! I would like to add that Kentucky Lake biologists are looking into closing spawning area (bays) as oppose to making seasons, which I think is a great idea!
That's great for you crappie guys that fish out of state in tournaments. My tax dollars reside here.
-
Can I just cut and paste my replies from a couple years ago? ;D Seriously though, it's a sensitive subject but I enjoy hearing from all sides. And I usually learn something new each time also...... always a worthwhile endeavour.
http://www.iceshanty.com/ice_fishing/index.php?topic=180008.msg1748406#msg1748406 (http://www.iceshanty.com/ice_fishing/index.php?topic=180008.msg1748406#msg1748406)
-
I am bowing out of this one before I say something I shouldnt. Have fun fellas.
-
That's great for you crappie guys that fish out of state in tournaments. My tax dollars reside here.
it could be applied here? michigan has all kinds of seasons on fishing, that could be applied to indiana. if it improves the fishing. let them test it on their lakes and if it works use it on ours.
-
I go to Michigan to do all of my crappie fishing and usually do 75% of my bass fishing in Michigan after the season opens too ;D. Michigan has much better average sizes of everything I have ever fished for, I fish about 15 different lakes in Michigan pretty regularly.
-
Can I just cut and paste my replies from a couple years ago? ;D Seriously though, it's a sensitive subject but I enjoy hearing from all sides. And I usually learn something new each time also...... always a worthwhile endeavour.
http://www.iceshanty.com/ice_fishing/index.php?topic=180008.msg1748406#msg1748406 (http://www.iceshanty.com/ice_fishing/index.php?topic=180008.msg1748406#msg1748406)
Yikes!! :o JT, lock this before it turns into this link above... Ah heck, leave it... at least we'll have a place to blow off some steam!! ;D
-
That's great for you crappie guys that fish out of state in tournaments. My tax dollars reside here.
Classic....
-
I am bowing out of this one before I say something I shouldnt. Have fun fellas.
Easy Rico... easy does it... Life is short and this is just a gentlemen's discussion!
-
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 would like to see a min. size on crappie.(like 11") not sure it would impact gills as much though.
-
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!
-
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.
-
Great thread HT! IMO Summit lake would be great place to start!
-
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!
-
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
-
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! ;D
-
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.
-
.....and there is no other species, the rest are rogues!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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......
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Absolutely legal, its called culling, in response to fish TKO now you have to release one on every catch
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
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!!
-
Gee I wonder how it got out?
Silence is more than golden. I rarely discuss where I catch fish, especially in an open forum like this. I have a hard time with wether I want more government intrusion into my life and the interests I have than there already is. A broad, all encompassing regulation is never the answer when when a situation develops in a certain location. Only specific to the body of water, river or stream that is having issues should the extent of laws/regulations be. As several DNR officers have told me that 'it is to hard to be everywhere at all times'. Tips (snitchin) is the best way to stop those who are poaching, taking more than they should or out of size limits. It took several complaints along a local waterway to get law enforcement to come down, make thier presence known and bring an end to the peops that were fillin buckets w walleye to sell, or the peops that were takin 8"-10" bass or over limit on crappies. Laws don't stop people from doing wrong, only punish them for doin so. Case in point was on Simpson pond in Huntington. Someone shouted DNR on the ice and 8 guys grabbbed thier gear, fish and split. Maybe the problem is we need to start culling the evil, stupid, and lawless people from society. Then these irreverent individuals wouldn't throw dinks on the ice, keep more than they should, keep fish outside the size limit, leave cig butts, cups, food wrappers and human waste in places it doesn't belong.
-
We could go the other route also and outlaw fishfinders - problem solved
-
GREAT POST HIGH TIDE. I'VE ENJOYED READING THE DISCUSSION YOU HAVE PROMPTED. SEEING HOW IT IS 56 DEGREES OUT I HAVE HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO READ THE REPLIES. FISH ON!
-
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!!
Heck--I got this for my droid for $10!
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/marine-lakes-usa/id377908737?mt=8
-
I was amazed at the number of guys on the ice this year with vexs, marcums, etc... more have them than not!
I have only been out once this year. Over the course of that day I saw about 8 other guys fishing, and all of them had electronics. Five years ago it seemed like under half had them.
-
electronics only help you find fish, You have to catch them. ive seen guys with electronics not catch a fish, while I sit and catch without electronics. Just sayen....
Oh yea and to comment on the post that is for trophy bluegill switch to bass or pike. We love to eat our bluegills............. .
-
I agree High Tides, i do selective fishing, sort thru the females, And of those monster fish i keep half. Another thing i do is keep between 6-12 fish. another thing i do I'm tight lipped about those honey holes, we've all seen it happen....Now days my circle of ice men are down to the 3 of us.
-
Interestingly enough the trophy gill waters that I know of or should I say the ones I consider to have upper end gills in them are heavily pressured bodies of water. How can we be sure that if the harvest on these lakes was reduced by an unknown factor, say 50% or more couldn't possibly have a negative effect? I would think the waxing and waning of good/bad spawning years could have more effect on numbers of age class fish than harvesting from fisherman. I am speaking of lakes300 acres and up. The reality is we just dont know how many fish are take annually from any given public body of water or what the ideal number is for any given lake. I personally am one of the guys who only keeps gills in the winter and maybe 5-6 times in the summer because of chasing walleye, deer property management , golfing and of course family activities...so I dont see any problem with keeping a full bucket of gills when they are biting through the in my situation. I know I will likely no t keep more than 600-700 gills in a year.that is way less fish than a guy whose only hobby is gill fishing and that would keep a 25 or 35 fish 50+ times a year
-
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
-
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
Bingo!!!!!!!!!! That is my opinion as well.
-
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.
-
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.
Great points. It comes down to we must police ourselves. As my Dad would say a lock on a door only keeps the honest man out.
-
Another factor....size is absolutely relative. What do you guys consider a "good", or trophy Gill? 10" is a commonly thrown out number, so what percentage of your catch on that good BG lake consists of fish that meet that standard? In a normal year I see lots of pics with big numbers of gills here on Iceshanty, but seldom are all of the fish in the photo of that 10" class. In my opinion, a lake that consistently produces catch ratios where 50% or more of an angler's fish are 10" or over, is a good BOW. But I still don't believe that any lake will support continual harvests of those fish without the effects being felt....length alone is not an accurate assessment of a fish's health, and a good BOW will produce fish that are heavy...there's enough forage in the water to support those fish, and grow them to a pound or more, which is what a 10", well fed BG should weigh.
I would just like to see one or two lakes managed for bigger fish. Not a statewide limit, or slot, as all BOW are different. Just an experiment to see if it could be done, and what the public's reaction and support would be.
-
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 isaid lake that produces10" regularly were to have an immediate 10 fish limit where the fish had to be 10" or larger what would happen?
on another note isn't the reason that new ponds, reservoirs have such high growth rates of the fish in the initial few years because of the abundance of forage ? So lakes that have an excellent forage base naturally, can high harvest of fish in those waters cause that super fast growth rate to perpetuate vs. Slow as the increasing fish numbers reduce the forage available per fish?
-
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.
-
That's a good question ;D Personally, I think that some type of harvest would be required for our Indiana lakes. I do believe that some BOW could get by without harvests, if other factors were manipulated to offset the lack of harvests....supplement al feeding of the fish is a big one, along with maintaining a high density of predators to reduce young fish, and keeping a fanatical control over aquatic vegetation. But all of those things mean money spent, and time on the water implementing the policies...neither of which do I see happening in the near future.
That's why I said what I did in an earlier post about my belief that selective harvesting and slot limits are the down and dirty quick way to try and manage a fish population....it's relatively cheap, with enforcement of the regs being the main reason for time spent on the water....(no feeders to fill, or weed chemicals to spray,) and...it can produce results.
My take....a fish's growth is indeterminate. It will grow as long as the environment it lives in allows for that growth. Restrict some aspect of it's environment, and growth will suffer. I think some type of harvest would be necessary, but again, that's just my opinion. There are many elements that go into producing trophy fish, some of which may not be easily recognized at first. Every BOW is unique, and the management plan should be tweaked to suit it.....not the other way around.
-
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
-
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
i agree but i want to know why these places tend to grow bigger gills...it is more common to catch 10" gills up in those areas.
-
I would guess low numbers of panfish with less competition for specific forage coupled with more predator fish per acre?
-
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!
-
Doug, I'm going stir crazy. Pick me up on the way.
-
Doug, I'm going stir crazy. Pick me up on the way.
Come on down, you know your always welcome! Hopefully, I'll be picking you up in two weeks on my way to SB!!
-
:bow:
-
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.
The majority of Michigan waters that I fish for gills and bass are not fertile. They are very clear bodies of water. I think the 25 fish limit has alot to do with it in Michigan. Not sure about Wisc or Minn as I have never fished there. I do know 2 lakes in northern Michigan that would kick out many 1lb gills 20 or so years ago. I used to fish them with my Grandfather every fall and you could not even grab the gills with your hand they were so 'tall'. You had to pin them down on the boat seat to get the hook out. It has been forever since I fished either, but I would bet they still churn out big gills.
-
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.
-
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!
You touched on something there that always comes into play in my area. Where I live at, which is lake heavy, a handful of lakes get most of the pressure......Wawasee, Winona, and the Barbee area. Just within the last week I know a guy that caught his personal best perch and redear a couple of days apart on one of the above mentioned "hot spots". Those lakes get pressured in both open and hard water but yet always yield hawgs on a regular basis. Why? I dunno. But I do know guys continually target those bodies of water. The whole while a majority of the lakes in my county go under the radar and little is known about the quality of fish coming out of them.
-
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.
-
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.
That wire within you that says, this fish is my favorite fish to target, and is at the forefront of your mind every time your on the water deserves respect in every facet! I love fishing with a guy who's true passion is a specific fish, regardless of my preference. There is so much you can learn from that guy, if he's perfecting his craft often! Those guys are the same ones who lead efforts for getting legislation pass at the state level, but not without support from fellow voters/fisherman he's got nothing. However, it doesn't sound like their is overwhelming support for bluegill limits... Probably the most pursued fish in our public waters, which comes as a surprise. I didn't want to make this comment because I'm bias, but I think it's a lot easier to find 10"+, crappie in our state than 8-1/2" gills and there is a 25 fish limit on those in Indiana.
-
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.
No offense taken here, sprkplug. I guess my post did seem a little distasteful towards panfishing and I apologize. I was simply stating that 9-10" gills are "solid" for me personally, and that they can coincide well in a fishery with "solid" 3-5lb bass. ANYONE who targets a specific species for the sole purpose of catching trophy fish has my respect regardless of species. For example in the bassfishing world, there is a well documented story of these 3 guys who went out every day to lake Dixon (CA) for months in search of a world record bass. ANY time they had off of work, they were at this lake looking for this 23lb behemoth. I can post a youtube video or you can just search "dottie lake dixon" and watch it. Anyone who displays that kind of dedication and effort deserves to be admired in the fishing world, as most outsiders just consider them crazy ;D.
That being said, I think it is well documented where (and sometimes when) trophy fish of each species can be caught. For example, when I want to try and catch a 6+ smallmouth, I go up to Michigan. As I said, I am not well versed in bluegill fishing nationally, but I am sure there are locations known to hold big gills. With gills however, it becomes an issue of what 'strain' of bluegill you are after. With bass, there are really only a few distinct species and 3 strains of Largemouth, one of which is the Florida strain which are clearly biggest, yet most finicky. That being said, unless something is done in IN to enhance bluegill sizes, catching a trophy gill in IN seems to be more of a 'stumble upon' method, where you catch maybe one out of hundreds that is 10+ inches of PURE bluegill, which I'm assuming is what most bluegill trophy fisherman are after in the Upper Midwest.
Also sprkplug, you said you place more emphasis on weight than length when determining a bluegill's 'rank' or healthiness and I think more people should do this. I fish for heavy bass, not necessarily long ones. For example river fish tend to be long and skinny and an 18" smallie is lucky to go 2lb at times. For some reason, and I'm sure most people who fish Mich/Ind waters could attest to this, but Michigan gills seem to be much heavier and have bigger 'shoulders' than most I catch in Indiana. I don't know if they're doing it 'right' per say in Michigan, but they are doing something better than us down here in Indiana in creating a good balance between population and forage so these gills can grow to be thick, heavy, solid gills.
*If anything I say offends ANYONE in any way, please inform me of such, as that is not my intent
-
I don't really have anything important to say other than I must be older than most here, since I remember when Indiana did have a 25 limit on bluegill. As far as I can remember we've always had a 25 on redear. So if such a good idea, why did dnr remove the limit? How did that limit work out for the redear? I can only tell you that down south here it is all about the shad population. We are at odds with the bass and white crappie fishermen who like shad. Many of the premier gill lakes have been killed by the shad explosion. That is why you have a place like Starve Hollow fish hatchery rotenoning the lake there multiple times in the past few years...and starting over completely. Same thing for Boggs. Can't ever go back and do that for the large reservoirs like Monroe or Patoka. In the beginning of both of these reservoirs, feeder creeks / rivers were rotenoned to kill all fish. Please don't bring any live shad bait into my premier gill lakes.
HHD
-
Just because the limit is what ever doesn't mean people should limit out every time or try to. I only take what I'm going to eat and a lot of times throw them all back so others and I can have fun catching them another day. If you don't leave some for seed you won't grow anymore.
-
No apology needed in my eyes springbobber, and there's certainly no offense taken here either. There's been some good info put forth on this thread, and getting input from as many sources as possible just makes it easier to formulate a hypothesis.
Interesting on the Michigan gills...they're the same strain as ours, (Lepomis Macrochirus Macrochirus, or northern strain), so if they grow larger or heavier up there, some aspect of their environment, or management practice, is working in their favor. I'll see if I can research that and make a comparison. Thanks for the tip!
-
Michigan used to have a 25 fish limit yrs ago that only 15 could be bluegills. They also had to be at least 6" long.
-
I don't really have anything important to say other than I must be older than most here, since I remember when Indiana did have a 25 limit on bluegill. As far as I can remember we've always had a 25 on redear. So if such a good idea, why did dnr remove the limit? How did that limit work out for the redear? I can only tell you that down south here it is all about the shad population. We are at odds with the bass and white crappie fishermen who like shad. Many of the premier gill lakes have been killed by the shad explosion. That is why you have a place like Starve Hollow fish hatchery rotenoning the lake there multiple times in the past few years...and starting over completely. Same thing for Boggs. Can't ever go back and do that for the large reservoirs like Monroe or Patoka. In the beginning of both of these reservoirs, feeder creeks / rivers were rotenoned to kill all fish. Please don't bring any live shad bait into my premier gill lakes.
HHD
I too remember that. I would presume it was lifted due to their abundance in our waters??????
-
No apology needed in my eyes springbobber, and there's certainly no offense taken here either. There's been some good info put forth on this thread, and getting input from as many sources as possible just makes it easier to formulate a hypothesis.
Interesting on the Michigan gills...they're the same strain as ours, (Lepomis Macrochirus Macrochirus, or northern strain), so if they grow larger or heavier up there, some aspect of their environment, or management practice, is working in their favor. I'll see if I can research that and make a comparison. Thanks for the tip!
Just for reference Sprkplug, some of the lakes Springbobber is talking about are not very far at all over the state line, so it is not like we are traveling hours into Michigan to find a very noticable difference in the girth and width of the gills you can catch.
-
Just for reference Sprkplug, some of the lakes Springbobber is talking about are not very far at all over the state line, so it is not like we are traveling hours into Michigan to find a very noticable difference in the girth and width of the gills you can catch.
If I missed somewhere waxie I apologize, but what do you attribute the differences to?
-
Just for reference Sprkplug, some of the lakes Springbobber is talking about are not very far at all over the state line, so it is not like we are traveling hours into Michigan to find a very noticable difference in the girth and width of the gills you can catch.
I appreciate the info Wax, as I've never fished Michigan. I'm researching survey data to see what kind of numbers come up...Is there a particular BOW(s) that seems to turn out bigger gills up there? If in fact the BG do display a larger size (on the average) once you cross the state line, then the issue of rules and regs having a positive impact does become a possibility, although not a certainty. Interesting.
-
I don't really have anything important to say other than I must be older than most here, since I remember when Indiana did have a 25 limit on bluegill. As far as I can remember we've always had a 25 on redear. So if such a good idea, why did dnr remove the limit? How did that limit work out for the redear? I can only tell you that down south here it is all about the shad population. We are at odds with the bass and white crappie fishermen who like shad. Many of the premier gill lakes have been killed by the shad explosion. That is why you have a place like Starve Hollow fish hatchery rotenoning the lake there multiple times in the past few years...and starting over completely. Same thing for Boggs. Can't ever go back and do that for the large reservoirs like Monroe or Patoka. In the beginning of both of these reservoirs, feeder creeks / rivers were rotenoned to kill all fish. Please don't bring any live shad bait into my premier gill lakes.
HHD
I believe this! Most lakes/reservoirs that have large shad populations, seem to be mediocre at best for BG fishing. Shad are not the answere to great fishing that everybody thinks they are. Once ya got them ya can,t get rid of them...Unless you kill the lake off like HD said. There might be instances where they help giil fishing ,but I haven't seen it?
Paul
-
I agree, I've seen the bluegill pop. and quality decline from exploding populations of shad, on my local impoundment of course! But, I've seen the species that I fish for most take off in a big way due to the shad. I've also witnessed an incredible smallmouth fishery come along and I have to conclude that again, its the shad that is boosting the quality. All the mega walleye waters that I fish (except 2 ) have shad as the primary forage. The other thing this does is take emphasis off of perch as forage. This can be good for mediocre sized perch populations as well. They get food, grow up big and strong and don't have to look over their shoulder as much.
I've seen the introduction of shad on my local reservoir completely change the fishery. At first I complained constantly about the shad. Now, I couldn't be happier. Its all about adjustments and just because fish that used to migrate a sunken bridge, road or foundation now suspend over the main basin, it doesnt make the fishery bad......in my case it made it go from good to awesome!
now back to your regular programming!
-
It is pretty much a given that you will not find any decent gills in the larger reservoirs in Indiana unless they are in the early years. I experienced some unbelievable fishing at Patoka for both red ear and gills in the early years, and then in 1995 it was like a light switch turned off and size dropped. You can go to the fish surveys and clearly see that was when the percentage of shad ballooned . It was the same for Monroe. Now you catch stunted gills there that are all head. The result is that very few people fish for gills there anymore. One thing that puzzles me though is that I know that the large bodies of water... Ky and Barkley lakes can produce some large gills and redears, and I know there are large amounts of shad there. The only thing I can think of is the balance of fish species must be different.
Jigmup...I agree... since the gills have been screwed ..... I find myself going after different species now...mostly crappie, and darn if I'm not getting duped into walleye fever.
HHD
-
Shad influence can certainly affect the BG population in some cases, as shad compete for some of the same food sources that Bluegill do....... so there's less forage for the BG. Redears are able to utilize some items as forage that Bluegill cannot, so the shad presence probably wouldn't affect them as much, and typically there are fewer Redear than BG in a given BOW.
-
If I missed somewhere waxie I apologize, but what do you attribute the differences to?
Rico....no expert here, but these bodies of water are very similar to many of our indiana waters. I think alot of it has to do with the 25 panfish limit in Michigan. Add to that, alot of people up there fish for other species that are more readily available statewide like trout and salmon and I don't think they get as much pressure.
-
Rico....no expert here, but these bodies of water are very similar to many of our indiana waters. I think alot of it has to do with the 25 panfish limit in Michigan. Add to that, alot of people up there fish for other species that are more readily available statewide like trout and salmon and I don't think they get as much pressure.
Waxy,
Are the keepers just heavier or are there is there a notable difference throughout the age classes of dish as well. I can see the advantage of fishing in Michigan for gills if everyone else on the lake isn't panfishing
-
I got burned out on bass fishing and began pike fishing really hard many years back. Still like to bass fish once in a while but nothing like I used to. This past year I began panfishing pretty much 100% of the time I was out in open water. I fish for panfish much more during open water season than Wax does. I have an idea about some of the lakes that Waxworm is talking about but I also fish a few that he doesn't that flat out give up big gills almost every time out. IMO I think there is a major difference in the size of bluegills in some of the lakes. I live about 2-3 miles from the stateline and if I'm looking for good gills I'm always headed north. Majority of lakes that I visit during the summer months are great for several species of fish. However, all of the lakes I'm talking about still get hammered with pressure but still continue to crank out hog gills year after year.
-
cant see one regulation being good across the state. some bodies of water are way more fertile than others. reservoirs like sylvan and natural lakes with rivers running through them seem to give up the numbers of good gills. other deep clear lakes just dont seem to produce as good. although they can hold some toads! crappie need all the thinning we can give them. imo
-
Rico....no expert here, but these bodies of water are very similar to many of our indiana waters. I think alot of it has to do with the 25 panfish limit in Michigan. Add to that, alot of people up there fish for other species that are more readily available statewide like trout and salmon and I don't think they get as much pressure.
I can buy that.
-
Waxy,
Are the keepers just heavier or are there is there a notable difference throughout the age classes of dish as well. I can see the advantage of fishing in Michigan for gills if everyone else on the lake isn't panfishing
You can notice the differecne in the mich gills vs indiana gills even in the ones that are to short to keep. They are just thicker and 'taller' than the same length fish from Indiana and you seem to catch alot more good ones in a 25 fish limit there than here. I would rather clean and eat a bunch of 8 inch fish than 10" ers, but 10" are alot more fun to catch.
-
You can notice the differecne in the mich gills vs indiana gills even in the ones that are to short to keep. They are just thicker and 'taller' than the same length fish from Indiana and you seem to catch alot more good ones in a 25 fish limit there than here. I would rather clean and eat a bunch of 8 inch fish than 10" ers, but 10" are alot more fun to catch.
I agree, Michigan gills are beautiful specimens... and they have a 25 fish limit, and it doesn't seem to be stunting their lakes. Definitely food for thought!
-
i'll be real honest i would rather eat 6.5" fish....8" gills are pushing it on being too big, but i agree i would rather catch the hogs. Now perch on the other hand a nice mess of 12"ers would work this weekend.