sorting out for 25..

[Stinkybaits]

The pond at the Fort Wayne Zoo isn't state owned. That's the honey hole! Private ponds are exempt too. There's plenty of those to fish around the area with permision. They need harvested or definitely run I to issues.

[sprkplug]

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that proposes anglers sorting fish to ensure only the biggest specimens are within their limit, will hurt the quality of the fishery.  If it does in fact turn out to be the case, then I submit that it's not so much the fact that the biggest 25 fish are being kept, but rather the fact that the smaller fish that would also have been kept had the 25 limit NOT been in place, haven't been removed. In other words, had their been no limit, the angler might very well have kept those same 25 big bluegills, along with another 25 of the next smaller size. And removing those smaller fish is what I think helps the fishery, BG wise.

That's why I favor a slot.

I have a few ponds here, as this place was once a public campground. And it was fished heavy, bedding gills and all. It closed 7 years ago, so fishing pressure suddenly dropped to zero. Have I seen an explosion of stunted bluegills? Not even close. The size has actually increased. And while some of this growth is due to supplemental feeding on my part, an equally large reason can be found in having a high population of smaller bass, and an aggressive weed control program.....that's right, eliminating weeds can help grow bigger bluegills, by allowing an increase in predation of younger, smaller bluegills.

Protect the largest male bluegills, and hammer the population of smaller bluegills. It's not a guarantee of success by a long shot, but I would consider it fundamental to success in a great many cases.

[wax_worm]

And this is what is going to happen here...most will be sorting and keeping all the bigger fish. I think slot limits work the best. Also would not be opposed to a limit of 25-30 fish during the spawn. That is when any damage might be done. I see talks about Michigan having these "huge" gills compared to Indiana...we had this debate already, And I am not buying it. For every lake in Michigan that produces 10" gillz, there are 20 lakes that are a dink fest. Go and talk to the guys at the D&R sports show held every year and you will get a idea of how the 25 limit has not helped anything on most lakes there. Sure there are a few lakes that produce hog gillz, but I know a few lakes around my area that do the same.

I think the slot limits only work with coupled with a catch limit.  Otherwise people just keep endless numbers of fish right below the slot and very few get a chance to reach the size that is protected.

We will have to agree to disagree on the Michigan lakes.  I have yet to find one Michigan lake that is a dink fest.  I am sure there are some as they have tons of lakes, but I would venture they were dink fest all along and not as a result of the limit.  I can name 13 lakes in Michigan within an hour of my house that kick out plenty of 10" gills.  Not sure where those guys from D&R are fishing, but there are no dink fests down here along the IN MI line that I have found.  There are lakes in IN that kick out big fish too, but they are fewer and farther between than what I have seen in MI.  Maybe the dink lakes are near the populated areas of the state, like Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Cadillac, Houghten, Traverse city, Detroit, etc.  Maybe the dinks are from over fishing near the populated areas despite the limit.

[river_scum]

slot would be very interesting indeed! specifics? what about a "only 10 fish over 9in." deal with no limit on the rest?

[wallydiven]

It's easier to count to 25 than to sit there and measure hundreds of fish.

[Fishslayer81]

I think the slot limits only work with coupled with a catch limit.  Otherwise people just keep endless numbers of fish right below the slot and very few get a chance to reach the size that is protected.

We will have to agree to disagree on the Michigan lakes.  I have yet to find one Michigan lake that is a dink fest.  I am sure there are some as they have tons of lakes, but I would venture they were dink fest all along and not as a result of the limit.  I can name 13 lakes in Michigan within an hour of my house that kick out plenty of 10" gills.  Not sure where those guys from D&R are fishing, but there are no dink fests down here along the IN MI line that I have found.  There are lakes in IN that kick out big fish too, but they are fewer and farther between than what I have seen in MI.  Maybe the dink lakes are near the populated areas of the state, like Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Cadillac, Houghten, Traverse city, Detroit, etc.  Maybe the dinks are from over fishing near the populated areas despite the limit.

Do you ever frequent the Michigan section? not very often you see posts of gillz over 9". I am just saying the 25 limit has nothing to do with the few Michigan lakes you fish that produce big gillz.

a slot would work imo... lets say we made it 7.5-9" with only 10 fish allowed over 9 and nothing can be kept under 7.5. I see a lot of solid 7" fish that are kept and could of been a solid 8" fish next year. Not many catch tons of fish over 9" so the 10 limit there would be fine. what you will have is a lot more bluegills given the chance to mature before being harvested. The fact remains gillz need harvested...it's a win win.

[sprkplug]

It's easier to count to 25 than to sit there and measure hundreds of fish.

Absolutely. And cheaper too, especially for an underfunded and understaffed state agency.

Every BOW is different, and blanket rules aren't always a perfect fit. Having said that, I will go out on a limb with an opinion for a combined limit/slot.

Bluegills 9-10".......protected, no harvest.
Bluegills 7-9".......10 per day.
Bluegills 6-7""........15 per day.
One bluegill over 10" , per angler, per day, may be kept for "trophy" purposes if desired.

Just an idea, and this is geared more towards a BG specific BOW, not as much towards a balanced fishery.

As an afterthought, to nudge it even further towards turning out bigger bluegills, maybe institute a "no-limit" on bluegills less than 6".

[High Tide]

I'd argue that the run and gun (new mentality) in MN and technology has equated to smaller fish more than the limit.

[stag]

I would be ok with a 25 fish b-gill limit. But if people think it would lead to increase in size of b-gill in a particular body of water....in my opinion they will be mistaken. I think it has more to do with the limited bodies of water (except maybe NE Indiana) compared to states like Mi and Mn...those states have sooo many bodies of water to fish that it seems to spread the pressure out. And the other is size of waters...we have only a few big bodies of water. Just my 2 cents....

[northrn-duck-assassin]

I'd argue that the run and gun (new mentality) in MN and technology has equated to smaller fish more than the limit.

Idk where those individuals are fishing in mn, that have smaller fish.. but my family is from there and state just the opposite effect, i (we) have yet to come across a lake that has effects of limits or small fish for that matter.

We also arent fishing the metro areas. We are up away from all of that.

[wax_worm]

Do you ever frequent the Michigan section? not very often you see posts of gillz over 9". I am just saying the 25 limit has nothing to do with the few Michigan lakes you fish that produce big gillz.

a slot would work imo... lets say we made it 7.5-9" with only 10 fish allowed over 9 and nothing can be kept under 7.5. I see a lot of solid 7" fish that are kept and could of been a solid 8" fish next year. Not many catch tons of fish over 9" so the 10 limit there would be fine. what you will have is a lot more bluegills given the chance to mature before being harvested. The fact remains gillz need harvested...it's a win win.

I don't base the quality of fish in a lake  based on what a few (way less then 1% of anglers) post on an internet forum.  Some people are happy with smaller fish.  The MI board is dead compared to the IN board.  Many don't have the skill to catch the bigger fish.  They don't get big by being stupid.  Many claim smaller fish taste better.  Many that catch the big ones don't put it on the internet too.  Heck I have been on Michigan lakes that produce 10" gills with plenty being caught between 9-10" and see guys come out catch 25 6-7" fish and claim they have their limit and leave.  I have seen it on multiple occasions.  They are not interested in the bigger ones.  If they post their limit of 7" fish on the web that means nothing as to the quality of the fish in the lake.

If there is a slot with no catch limit, then the slot should be from 7.5 to 9 all must go back and then maybe you can have 10 over 9 and all the ones under 7.5 you want.  That is how you protect the biggest fish and the class right below it that is going to replace it. 

Wonder why it is that not many people catch tons over 9" in IN???  The one lake with a 25 fish limit in IN produces big gills year after year and likely has some of the highest fishing pressure for gills in the state.  I don't think that is a coincidence.

[stag]

The 25 fish limit in that lake is relatively new and lets not forget that that lake has been drained and restocked 100 times !....lol

[northrn-duck-assassin]

I don't base the quality of fish in a lake  based on what a few (way less then 1% of anglers) post on an internet forum.  Some people are happy with smaller fish.  The MI board is dead compared to the IN board.  Many don't have the skill to catch the bigger fish.  They don't get big by being stupid.  Many claim smaller fish taste better.  Many that catch the big ones don't put it on the internet too.  Heck I have been on Michigan lakes that produce 10" gills with plenty being caught between 9-10" and see guys come out catch 25 6-7" fish and claim they have their limit and leave.  I have seen it on multiple occasions.  They are not interested in the bigger ones.  If they post their limit of 7" fish on the web that means nothing as to the quality of the fish in the lake.

If there is a slot with no catch limit, then the slot should be from 7.5 to 9 all must go back and then maybe you can have 10 over 9 and all the ones under 7.5 you want.  That is how you protect the biggest fish and the class right below it that is going to replace it. 

Wonder why it is that not many people catch tons over 9" in IN???  The one lake with a 25 fish limit in IN produces big gills year after year and likely has some of the highest fishing pressure for gills in the state.  I don't think that is a coincidence.

The redear are going to explode in that lake in about another 3-4 years..

[northrn-duck-assassin]

The 25 fish limit in that lake is relatively new and lets not forget that that lake has been drained and restocked 100 times !....lol

I only know of one restock (b.gills) program in the last.. 10-12 years. It surely wasnt restocked because of the fishing pressure.. thats for sure. So im not sure ur point is valid.

[northrn-duck-assassin]

So.. some guys are strongly against the 25 b.gill limit.. how come your not apposed to other species limits?.. is it because thats how its been your entire fishing career and you dont welcome change very well?.. how come other species of fish dont have the same effects (stunting,over population) that have limits set on them?

[wax_worm]

The 25 fish limit in that lake is relatively new and lets not forget that that lake has been drained and restocked 100 times !....lol

It was drained and restocked 3  times in 64 years so your count is bit off.     ...once in 1989 and once in 2003.  Many of the fish in 2003 were captured and held in ponds on the property for restocking.  I believe the limit was put on in 2004 right after the restocking, so it has been there a while and continues to kick out big fish.  It was drained because carp and shad has taken over and winter kill had knocked back the gill population.

[stag]

Agree Wax...after I posted I started thinking how long its been since limit...time flies....seems like a few years not a decade or more. And I may have exaggerated on the times it was drained restocked...lol

[wax_worm]

Agree Wax...after I posted I started thinking how long its been since limit...time flies....seems like a few years not a decade or more. And I may have exaggerated on the times it was drained restocked...lol

LOL...when you said 100 times I knew that was too many but I too thought it would be more than 3 times.  WS's biggest issue would seem to be winter kills because of how shallow and weedy it is.  They say there were days in the 1980's when 10 to 15 thousand gills were documented to be taken out in a single day!!!!!  That is just incredible.

I don't think anyone is claiming lakes will become WS because of a limit, but it certainly has not hurt that fishery and caused any stunting to happen there.

[Fishslayer81]

I don't base the quality of fish in a lake  based on what a few (way less then 1% of anglers) post on an internet forum.  Some people are happy with smaller fish.  The MI board is dead compared to the IN board.  Many don't have the skill to catch the bigger fish.  They don't get big by being stupid.  Many claim smaller fish taste better.  Many that catch the big ones don't put it on the internet too.  Heck I have been on Michigan lakes that produce 10" gills with plenty being caught between 9-10" and see guys come out catch 25 6-7" fish and claim they have their limit and leave.  I have seen it on multiple occasions.  They are not interested in the bigger ones.  If they post their limit of 7" fish on the web that means nothing as to the quality of the fish in the lake.

If there is a slot with no catch limit, then the slot should be from 7.5 to 9 all must go back and then maybe you can have 10 over 9 and all the ones under 7.5 you want.  That is how you protect the biggest fish and the class right below it that is going to replace it. 

Wonder why it is that not many people catch tons over 9" in IN???  The one lake with a 25 fish limit in IN produces big gills year after year and likely has some of the highest fishing pressure for gills in the state.  I don't think that is a coincidence.

And the same can be said for Indiana...there are plenty of places that get pounded and produce consistent 9" + gillz. I believe you were invited to one of those spots late last year. That is just one...I have other spots I could target if I wanted just huge gills, but the Crappies are sparse and I like catching the specs.

I disagree on your slot theory... everything under 7.5" should go back and only 10 over 9" can be kept. that way you are allowing the smaller fish to mature and the bigger fish to keep spawning. 7.5-9" gills are the best eating anyway.

[Gills-only]

There is no way there will be a slot, as the state don't have the manpower, armed with rulers and tapes, it would take all day to do all the measuring, a group of say 5 guys,  to make sure they comply!!  Just my opinion!!

[wax_worm]

And the same can be said for Indiana...there are plenty of places that get pounded and produce consistent 9" + gillz. I believe you were invited to one of those spots late last year. That is just one...I have other spots I could target if I wanted just huge gills, but the Crappies are sparse and I like catching the specs.

I disagree on your slot theory... everything under 7.5" should go back and only 10 over 9" can be kept. that way you are allowing the smaller fish to mature and the bigger fish to keep spawning. 7.5-9" gills are the best eating anyway.

I have fished that lake before last year and the lake across the street from there produces big fish too, but is private.  We could argue until blue in the face it is not gong to change the limit that is coming.  I fish Michigan waters and have since I was a kid and the quality of gills that come from those lakes rival or beat nearly every lake in Indiana except Maxi, Wawa, the slough and handful of others.  That is slim pickings compared to 16 or more lakes in within 40 minutes of one another that ALL kick out quality fish on a regular basis.
 
Someone in the know will jump in here and correct me, but I don't think you want 7.5 inch gills spawning in a lake that has 9 and 10 inch fish.  If they are allowed to because the year class ahead of them has been decimated by a slot targeting those fish only I don't think you will get the desired results.  There are limited numbers of 9+" fish in our lakes.  When they spawn those fish would be/are quickly removed (10 at a time) and then you have an open slot for the next class down with no limit on numbers?  That is a continuation of what we have today, other than forcing people that keep smaller fish from keeping them.

Speaking of desired results, that is different to each person.  Is the limit going in to create bigger fish or is it going in to spread the wealth among all fisherman.  I catch all I want to clean and eat anyway, so I would like to see if the quality goes up, but that may not be why the dnr is doing it.

[Stinkybaits]

Absolutely. And cheaper too, especially for an underfunded and understaffed state agency.

Every BOW is different, and blanket rules aren't always a perfect fit. Having said that, I will go out on a limb with an opinion for a combined limit/slot.

Bluegills 9-10".......protected, no harvest.
Bluegills 7-9".......10 per day.
Bluegills 6-7""........15 per day.
One bluegill over 10" , per angler, per day, may be kept for "trophy" purposes if desired.

Just an idea, and this is geared more towards a BG specific BOW, not as much towards a balanced fishery.

As an afterthought, to nudge it even further towards turning out bigger bluegills, maybe institute a "no-limit" on bluegills less than 6".

6 to 7s? People keep fish that small? That's not worth my time lol!

[sprkplug]

There's seldom a problem with too few smaller bluegills. Many times it's the other way around. Releasing all the smaller bluegills so they can mature and grow into some size, sounds good in theory, but in practice nature has got that covered....it's much more important to release the largest bluegills, and restrict the harvest of the junior varsity fish. Keep the biggest fish in play as long as possible, to delay maturity of the JV class.

A dozen mature pairs of bluegills can produce all the fish needed to ensure recruitment, AND cover those fish taken by average harvest, for a 1 acre BOW. And then some.

[Stinkybaits]

OK two topics started close enough together and I'm not the common debater. I'm getting jelous!!!!!! 

[Fishslayer81]

I have fished that lake before last year and the lake across the street from there produces big fish too, but is private.  We could argue until blue in the face it is not gong to change the limit that is coming.  I fish Michigan waters and have since I was a kid and the quality of gills that come from those lakes rival or beat nearly every lake in Indiana except Maxi, Wawa, the slough and handful of others.  That is slim pickings compared to 16 or more lakes in within 40 minutes of one another that ALL kick out quality fish on a regular basis.
 
Someone in the know will jump in here and correct me, but I don't think you want 7.5 inch gills spawning in a lake that has 9 and 10 inch fish.  If they are allowed to because the year class ahead of them has been decimated by a slot targeting those fish only I don't think you will get the desired results.  There are limited numbers of 9+" fish in our lakes.  When they spawn those fish would be/are quickly removed (10 at a time) and then you have an open slot for the next class down with no limit on numbers?  That is a continuation of what we have today, other than forcing people that keep smaller fish from keeping them.

Speaking of desired results, that is different to each person.  Is the limit going in to create bigger fish or is it going in to spread the wealth among all fisherman.  I catch all I want to clean and eat anyway, so I would like to see if the quality goes up, but that may not be why the dnr is doing it.

Yea and that lake you have fished before last year pumps out 10's regularly...so my point is clear.

I did not say you want 7.5" fish spawning...that's why we limit fish larger then 9" and throw back fish smaller then 7.5"

I need Scott to dig up some emails he received from different Michigan guides stating that 8" is a good size gill for that state.

Again I am not opposed to a 25 limit, I just think a slot would be better. Not saying you are wrong...I do not think there is a one size fits all approach for every lake.

[kevs]

I shouldn't have taught you that trick! Just remember to tell them your just lighting fireworks. 

Yep. It accidentally fell from my hand and sunk to the bottom. Didn't know the rock I tied to it would cause that to happen 

[Stinkybaits]

Yep. It accidentally fell from my hand and sunk to the bottom. Didn't know the rock I tied to it would cause that to happen 

Perfect!

[marmooskapaul]

I think a slot would be very hard and a nightmare to enforce...if anything but a basic slot ..like..9" and under can be kept..over 9" goes back..I never hear, but does The Slough have CO's checking people to see if they are over the 25 fish limit??
Paul

[Stinkybaits]

Yea and that lake you have fished before last year pumps out 10's regularly...so my point is clear.

I did not say you want 7.5" fish spawning...that's why we limit fish larger then 9" and throw back fish smaller then 7.5"

I need Scott to dig up some emails he received from different Michigan guides stating that 8" is a good size gill for that state.

Again I am not opposed to a 25 limit, I just think a slot would be better. Not saying you are wrong...I do not think there is a one size fits all approach for every lake.

That was from the Cadillac area and after finding out the price of 150 per head we didn't waste our time. Up in that area they claim 8 is the norm. Not to say they don't have huge fish up there I'm sure they do. Not every fish is going to be 9.5 to 10 inch regardless of limits. Every lake is unique takes more than just limits to produce endless toads. Not every lake will prosper with having limits.

[Fishslayer81]

Not every lake will prosper with having limits.

Agree! I am fine with only keeping 25, I just do not want to see that effect the quality in a negative way. I guess we shall see...