Limits on panfish good or bad?

[rpallen]

In my mind I believe that there shouldn't be a limit on panfish.  I know many lakes an ponds that have stunted panfish.  I assist in managing a couple private ponds were almost every bluegill we catch we take out.  That pound's gill average is about 8 inches and I have caught MANY 10+ inch gills.  I would like to hear from the rest of you guys, and what your personal opinion is.

[esox_magnum]

Law doesn't apply to private waters. Where I live I think its a good thing but for reasons other than bigger fish. We have a problem with groups coming and harvesting 5000-7000 fish in a weeks time to take back home and sell. This is kinda where this law came about.

[Kevin23]

Good. I've seen many places get fished out. People keeping 200-300 crappie a day and now they cant figure out why the crappie are gone.

[captain54]

Yes their should be limits,I've seen great panfish lakes ruined in 2 -3 years from over harvest,you can't pound public waters,I've also seen lakes put a 10 fish limit on crappie,and have the lake get over populated,because people didn't want fish for only 10 fish. Most of Pa. water has a 50 fish limit (combined,gills,crappie,perch),and I think that generous,quite frankly 20-25 quality fish should satisfy anybody,but there are greedy people that can't get enough. Iowa does have some great gill fishing and may support more harvest,here in Pa.it takes a BULL 9 or 10 years to reach 9-10 inches.

[herb]

Like the others said, manage your private ponds like you wish.

[J. Rosonke]

I think there are as many or more public waters that the panfish limits will hurt as there are that will be helped but it's really too soon to know for sure how it's all going to shake out. As Esox said the push for the reg basically started in the IGL's area and for good reason there but IMO it's not a great idea in many other parts of the state.   When this was being discussed by the natural resources commission (who has the final yea or nay vote) the best thing I heard from one of the DNR Bios was that he thought it probably wouldn't make any difference in most places. Not that I don't love big panfish, I do, I just feel that many Iowa waters need heavy panfish harvest to maintain populations low enough to avoid stunted fish. Sure there are some where a limit could be a good thing but a statewide regulation, even if it's only public waters is (IMO) like using a chainsaw where a scalpel is needed.

[c.r.rick]

i agree with rosonke on this one anyone whos ever fished rock creek or mariposa here in jasper county can testify that the pan fish are not as big as they use to be due to people throwing back the dinks and lack of anglers there.  the lake is just so full of little fish now the big ones are far and few between.  with limits being set the numbers will only increase but i will agree that there should be some sort of regulation stopping the over harvest cuz 200 to 300 is un called for.  what ever happened to honest fishermen only taking what they will eat and leaving a few for the next guy who comes along?? 

[esox_magnum]

200-300 was a day per man here for some groups. I'm sure it hurt when they showed up with a truckload of coolers and found they could only keep 25 a day. From my understanding these guys were making some good money off our resource.

[ejensen]

The limits have helped the small lake by my place, for several years all you could catch were 5 to 6 inch bluegills, and 6 to 7 inch crappie. This year I've caught several bluegills 7 to 9 inches and crappies 10 to 12 inches. There used to be people that would go out there and keep any size just so they could say they filled a bucket. I've even caught perch 7 to 9 inches this year and could never get one over 6 inches before. 

Ed

[TRCrappie]

I think they should set the limits more like the Dakota's or Minnesota.  More by a lake to lake method.  Can only keep 10 perch on most of their lakes and seem to have bigger fish than us.  May work on bluegills or crappie's if their is enough predatory fish in our lakes.  Slot limits on walleye's would not be bad either.  Can always manage enough fish to eat if u get out and go.

[kauffman_matt]

I agree with TRCrappie.  Regs. by lake is the way to go.  Each lake get has its own set of charasticis and that calls for different limits.  If you want a case of what no limits do to a lake look at what happend to upper red and lower red lakes in Minnesota.  For years certain people were allowed to net the fish for commercial purposes and the walleye population was destroyed because of it.  Finally they didn't allow any one to keep walleye for a number of years and in the past few they are allowing a very limited catch.  The result is some good fishing.  Now I know that walleye and panfish are different but the same principals apply and besides, fish are always way better when they are fresh and not frozen.

[herb]

We tried to get the DNR to go with limits on a lake by lake experimental basis, but it was like 'to heck with the cry babies, we'll show them and just make it state wide'.
That's the impression I got anyway.

[esox_magnum]

I see no problem with a 25 a day limit, plenty to make a couple meals and more than enough to clean at one time. Funny though even on the big lakes up here the bites way off and size seems to be down.

[pipelayer75]

I have to agree with limits, but think it should go lake by lake also.  As is some fisheries will benefit some will get worse.  I would love to see slot limits, especially on walleye and crappie which should boost recruitment of both species.  Length limits on inland river walleye would also be a big plus in my book.  Seems like to much to ask for though considering we're in Iowa.  I saw they were considering applying the limit by size of lake, like smaller than 800 surface acres no limits was proposed in the house or senate last year.  Hasn't passed yet obviously.  In my exp the limits on the Mississippi haven't helped any in the areas I fish, alotta dinks and to many bass if you can get a bite this year.  Irregardless any decision will make some happy and start a never ending B session for others. 

[TRCrappie]

The sad part is our yearly fees are only 15 dollars less than south dakota with not even half as good of fishing.  Sure the same way for minnesota residents.  Would like to see them do more to our lakes rather than making the ground around them look better. 

[rpallen]

I agree with different limits on different lakes.  As for the making the ground look better around the lake.  I support it if it's helping the water quality and the lake health.  It's suprising what can't be seen in the water sometimes such as ecoli and high nutrient levels which can hurt the lakes ecosystem.

[cubby]

Big Creek is another lake that benefits from the limit, receives a ton of pressure.

Also, Rock Creek's water quality I believe is an issue and other unwanted fish in the lake, I think is a problem.  Water quality, shad problems, etc. are usually the culprit of poor fish genetics not under-harvesting. 

[pipelayer75]

Agreed TRCrappie, but that probably won't happen, not as fast as we would like to see anyway.  I wonder why we haven't closed the season on walleye during the breeding period like the states around us.  I can't believe that the fish in the majority of the waters stocked wouldn't spawn.  If so that would free up a lot of cash for structural and renovation projects.  In the end there are a lot of ways to improve upon the system we've got now.  The question is how can we motivate the govt to listen to us, instead of always trying to tell us the best way.  Vote one guy out his replacement seems to just fall in line and go with the flow.  I think the main reason they don't go lake by lake is that it would mean more work for them, in some way.  How to prove whether someone went over the limit when stopped transporting would be harder.  

[toothfish]

After reading some DNR posts/thoughts on this pan fish limits I come to some conclusions.

The 25 pan fish limit is a social law. (Made some citizens feel good.)
The law is somewhat unenforceable. (Only the most blatant offender will be caught)
Iowa lakes with the most pressure produce the largest size pan fish (Especially gills ..example : Both BC's )

I'm personally OK with the 25 limit on public waters. I don't want to clean anymore than that ...

[flyfishr]

After reading some DNR posts/thoughts on this pan fish limits I come to some conclusions.

The 25 pan fish limit is a social law. (Made some citizens feel good.)
The law is somewhat unenforceable. (Only the most blatant offender will be caught)
Iowa lakes with the most pressure produce the largest size pan fish (Especially gills ..example : Both BC's )

I'm personally OK with the 25 limit on public waters. I don't want to clean anymore than that ...

Thats why we have the TIP # and I have my Co # on my cell phone and have called her on more than one occasion and made some law breaking people unhappy.

I'm the same way the fish have to be pretty good size for me to even keep and then I keep no more than 5 to 10 fish myself as I have to clean them.

[snapozz]

i would like to see a slot limit in my area but it will never happen just a thought something like 8-15 inches on crappie and perch even gill i get tried of seein some of these a**holes keep fish that are 3 or 4 inches just so they can have 50 what a bunch of sh** total bs you know who needs 50 small panfish noone thats who if i wasnt a nice guy i think i would put a hole in there boat.... just pisses me off you know

[geode]

lake by lake regs are ok as long as they are kept to a minimal.  a few lake here and there with different, perhaps experimental regs are fine.  but you need to be careful what you wish for as well.  there is a state to the north and east of here  with incredibly complex (compared to iowa) fishing laws on multitudes of lakes with all kinds of varying regulations, many of which are experimental.  and they tend to change from year to year.  believe it or not, i can become a daunting task to keep up with it from year to year for even an avid fisherman, not to mention the casual family they may only fish once every two or three years.  to avoid public backlash of turning "ignorant" casual fishermen into poachers, signs will be made and placed eventually on nearly every public body of water in the state.  material + manpower = more license money needed to hang signs, etc.  just something to think about.

[toothfish]

you need to be careful what you wish for as well. 

So true... South Dakota Perch:
 I have often wondered if you were on a 25 possession lake and then drove out on one of the 10 only (I think there are some 5 limit as well) lakes and was checked ... Would one be in violation even though the perch in your truck was caught from a 25 possession lake   Way too complicated ..... KISS

[Arctic Warrior]

I think the limit is a good idea.  Most creel surveys show that most anglers don't keep more than 25 panfish in a given trip anyway, so most people are not affected.  The regulation really just prevents "gamehogs" from keeping a huge amount of fish on a given trip.   Some lakes that don't have enough predator fish(bass, walleye, etc.) to keep the panfish thinned out would probably be better off with no limit though.  However, managing on a lake by lake basis is very expensive in terms of manpower and law enforcement for the DNR.  Lake by lake limits would be difficult to enforce as well and some individuals would probably not follow the rules anyway because they know they could just lie about where they caught their fish if checked.  Lake by lake limits also lead to very complicated regulations.  I have lived in another state where there are many special regulations  on the different lakes and rivers and it is hard to keep up with all of them.

[Kevin23]

So true... South Dakota Perch:
 I have often wondered if you were on a 25 possession lake and then drove out on one of the 10 only (I think there are some 5 limit as well) lakes and was checked ... Would one be in violation even though the perch in your truck was caught from a 25 possession lake   Way too complicated ..... KISS

No, not if the officer saw you drive there. If not, you will probably be getting a ticket or a warning.

[brittlab]

nothing has changed for me from our discussion on this subject last year. I think the limits are good even though a friend of mine who's a wildlife biologist says the limit won't do any good on the IGL's  

[Mr.Seaguar]

Brittlab what does your friend say a limit will do to the IGLs? They never really needed any help, they`ve always been awesome. Just curious what he did say.

[brittlab]

Brittlab what does your friend say a limit will do to the IGLs? They never really needed any help, they`ve always been awesome. Just curious what he did say.

he works up there and says the data suggests it will little if any good.

[CrappieBuster]

Ive seen people take buckets of bull gills and crappies out of small pits.  Thats around 75 fish per bucket.  Ya come back next year and they arent there.  Hmm wonder why?
Alot of people take them home with the "intention" of cleaning them but it never happens.  Take what you and your immediate family can eat and leave the rest for spawning and fellow anglers.  And let nature sort out the rest.   

[whitetail1001]

i think its deffinately necessary to have limits on all game fish.  Someone mentioned having limits based on a lake to lake basis like mn does.  I have a question about our slot limit on walleye in Iowa.  Ive fished clear lake most of my life.  They have a 14"min for walleye.  A few years ago the walleye fishing was amazing.  Now (ive moved away) from what i hear its nearly impossible to catch one.  Why has there never been a slot on walleye like mn has?   Like the 18-28 or something that would suite clear lake?  That lake gets fished as hard as any lake in iowa and if you have a 14" min on the lake thats what people are gonna keep.  Our min is 14"  and  minnesotas max is 18"  complete opposite and their fisheries are much better.....i dont understand