panfish populations.

[fshnbudy01]

I guess its time for me to put my 2 cents worth in.  I have seen a lot of posts about guys being vocal about the amount of panfish that others take home.   I appreciate the conservation attitude.  I also have an aqua-vu and am amazed at the sheer numbers of fish I see. 

I got to thinking....With all the predator fish in lakes....bass, walleye, Northern Pike, White Bass, Stripers, etc....

How much do these fish eat compared to how much we fishermen take off the ice each year?  I can tell you that what I found amazed me.    It's pretty hard to even scratch the surface of numbers of panfish that are eaten by other fish.

I found this at texasfishermen.com.  It applies to Largemouth Bass but you can assume its somewhat similar for other species as well.

"...we do know that for a bass to MAINTAIN every 1 lb of body weight it must consume 5-7lbs of forage per year, and if that same bass is going to GAIN 1 lb of body weight it will take an additional 10 lbs of forage. For example a 2 lb bass must eat 12lbs to maintain his current weight and an additional 10lbs if he is to reach the 3lb mark."

"ok, now lets assume that for the first 3 years our bass feeds on Bluegill that are 1-3" long, these fish will weight about 9lbs per 1,000 fish, so the 94lbs of fish consumed in those 3 years would number around 10,000 Bluegill..."

   Thats ONE 3 yr old BASS!!!     As a VERY general rule, 100 Lbs of bass per acre is in an average lake.    That's almost hard to fathom how many panfish are down there.     

Having said that, I still believe in conserving all of our resources and fishing lakes wisely and without waste.    I just wanted to throw out these facts that I found interesting.

[muskiesteve]

thanks
That was a good read!

[kyron4]

Good info. I read alot in the other post about panfish "needing " to be taken out of lakes to keep them from over running and so on , but how did the balance work 200-300 years ago ? The answer, predator fish NOT fisherman. Nature can balance the lakes and rivers without us , even if we think we need/have to. 

[abishop]

WOW, THAT STAT IS UNREAL.

[keepinsorlips]

 I just dont think people realize the amount of fish their r in most lakes, I recently bought an under water camera never seen so many fish in my life! Big ones little ones all sizes in between! Nice reading,good info Happy fishing, tight lines everyone!

[crappiehunter]

good read.

[swisscheez]

Great info.

[wallyspartan]

Good info. I read alot in the other post about panfish "needing " to be taken out of lakes to keep them from over running and so on , but how did the balance work 200-300 years ago ? The answer, predator fish NOT fisherman. Nature can balance the lakes and rivers without us , even if we think we need/have to. 

yes, but by the same token, this means that every big bass, northern, walleye, etc., that goes home with us will not take out those 1000's of gills.  i know that c & r is practiced pretty well in many places, but even bringing 1 home leaves a void that must be filled.  of course, nature can eventually take care of a system that is out of whack, but it takes a while, and the process is harsh.  many farmers in my area practice controlled burns in the spring to clear out dead brush from their woods and fields.  if left to her own devices, nature can take care of this also, but noone wants a forest fire that devastates the area for years to come. 

of course, life will survive after mankind until the earth is swallowed up by the sun.  but for now, we are part of the system and we affect it, whether by catching fish or flushing the toilet.

[river_scum]

great post man! very interesting study. 

[Flattop]

Interesting to say the least.

Joe

[hotdog]

great info

[marmooskapaul]

Very interesting. What I would like to know/understand. What is the pro/con of stocking walleye in a lake like Summit or Patoka or Prarie Creek. They don't reproduce so they only take from the sytem and don't give anything back to it.They definately change the fishery once they are established, for good or bad. The fishery is changed, unless they discontinue stocking.
Paul

[gillcommander]

nice post...so now what is everyones opinion on keeping panfish if there is so many of them down there that they are supporting those amounts of game fish?

how come guys are never complaining about keeping bass or northerns...seems to me those would be the populations that are out of control and way underharvested!!!

[wax_worm]

nice post...so now what is everyones opinion on keeping panfish if there is so many of them down there that they are supporting those amounts of game fish?

how come guys are never complaining about keeping bass or northerns...seems to me those would be the populations that are out of control and way underharvested!!!

The bigger fish that prey on the panfish have creel limits to protect them.  As the post states, there has to be ALOT more of the species at the bottom of the food chain to support fewer numbers of predator fish as you go up the chain.  There are not as many perch and crappie in most lakes as gills and minnows, and there are not as many bass, walleye, or pike in the lakes as there are perch and crappie.  Notice the limits on the fish as you go up the chain.  Around here in northern, Indiana, I don't think we have a problem with bass not being harvested.  I see it all the time in hardwater and soft, sometimes regardeless of size!!  Remember FISH FEAR THE BEARD!!

[renzettimaster85]

Thats amazing I really wonder what pike or muskie will do to them in lakes like webster and tippy

[wallydiven]

Thats amazing I really wonder what pike or muskie will do to them in lakes like webster and tippy

  Only make them bigger.

[IceBucky]

most people are armchair specialist when it comes to the amount of fish you can take from a lake.when it comes to pan fish you rarely can take enough. Educate your self on a topic before you post.Its good to  see some facts like this post to open eyes of those selfish anglers who like to say that all the fishing pressure has destroyed a lake. And just had not realized that the fish had moved. because of the ever changing lake.

[j-rod]

Finally an educated post on this topic!
Thanks for sharing!

[river_scum]

what about throwing shad into the equation?  then they have an alternative food source.(god i wish i could run live shad on my tip-ups. lol)  many of our lakes and almost all res. have shad populations.



about webster:

i have heard/read the gills didnt change much there.  i dont fish it so cant say from experience.  if they were to have an impact it would surly have been seen by now.  anyone here fish webster gills?

 

how come guys are never complaining about keeping bass or northerns...seems to me those would be the populations that are out of control and way underharvested!!!

believe me, if you post a pic of a doz 3+# bass on here, there would be some crying towels handed out. lol  the bass n pike are the ones that need protected.  IMO  the limits for them are way to high as it is!

[FWFeecherman]

Thanks for posting the info.  Very interesting.  Tight Lines and Screamin Drags to Ya!!!!!

[wallydiven]

what about throwing shad into the equation?  then they have an alternative food source.(god i wish i could run live shad on my tip-ups. lol)  many of our lakes and almost all res. have shad populations.



about webster:

i have heard/read the gills didnt change much there.  i dont fish it so cant say from experience.  if they were to have an impact it would surly have been seen by now.  anyone here fish webster gills?

 
believe me, if you post a pic of a doz 3+# bass on here, there would be some crying towels handed out. lol  the bass n pike are the ones that need protected.  IMO  the limits for them are way to high as it is!

  I have a buddy that lives on Webster. He only pan fishes the lake and says it just gets better every year with the quality of gills. He has lived there 20+ years.

[river_scum]

thanks for the input walleyedivin.  thats good to hear.  i mite have to try pans on a couple of my old musky waters.

[wallydiven]

thanks for the input walleyedivin.  thats good to hear.  i mite have to try pans on a couple of my old musky waters.

  Any time, but you better invite me to those musky waters of yours!!!

[sprkplug]

nice post...so now what is everyones opinion on keeping panfish if there is so many of them down there that they are supporting those amounts of game fish?

how come guys are never complaining about keeping bass or northerns...seems to me those would be the populations that are out of control and way underharvested!!!

Bluegill populations must be controlled by either an adequate predator base, angling pressure, or ideally, a combination of both. I believe the QUALITY, (or size), of the fish that are removed, rather than the QUANTITY, can have a much greater impact on the fishery. It's easy to get caught up in the numbers game, when you see bucket after bucket of fish removed from the water. But, you may not be seeing the whole picture. If that's a large lake, with a healthy, adequately large size class of male Bluegill, It may well be able to  support harvests' like this. Definitely better than a smaller pond or lake could.

           Remember, every lake is different, and an angler can choose to modify his or her harvest strategy accordingly, and fish in a manner that they feel is appropriate. If you're curious about the health of the Bluegill in your favorite body of water, try weighing them instead of measuring length. Granted, it's much simpler and easier to lay a tape across a fish, and the visual impact of "largeness" is instantly visible. However, that tells you very little about the health of that particular fish, and more importantly, the amount of food available in the water it came from. Sure this is winter, so the fish will be thinner now than summer, but if you travel to different lakes and weigh a sample group of the Gills' you catch each time, you will probably notice that some lakes tend to have slightly fatter fish. Don't worry if the heaviest fish aren't necessarily the longest ones,  that's not what you're after. A heavier class of fish indicates more food available in the water. Whether or not they're trophy size or not right now, the body of water they came from has the potential to grow some tremendous Bluegills.
           

[renzettimaster85]

The bigger fish that prey on the panfish have creel limits to protect them.  As the post states, there has to be ALOT more of the species at the bottom of the food chain to support fewer numbers of predator fish as you go up the chain.  There are not as many perch and crappie in most lakes as gills and minnows, and there are not as many bass, walleye, or pike in the lakes as there are perch and crappie.  Notice the limits on the fish as you go up the chain.  Around here in northern, Indiana, I don't think we have a problem with bass not being harvested.  I see it all the time in hardwater and soft, sometimes regardeless of size!!  Remember FISH FEAR THE BEARD!!

I was wondering what the opinions are on putting a slot limit on these fish because honestly I've eaten bass and pike both and the shorties are much better tablefair than the pigs may have been the cook but give me a 10 inch bass to eat over a 5lb er... but the 5lb er is  fun to catch. so they both have a place in my lake.

[fshnbudy01]

I agree sparkplug.  I catch so many Bass in the summer but I rarely ever keep any.  The few that I have kept, the smaller ones have been better on the table.   I guess if I keep one bass this year, Ill free up a few thousand baby fish.   Even though Im mostly harvesting adult panfish, it makes me feel like Im balancing the harvest a bit.

I have also noticed that some of my smaller panfish have a less gamey/fishey flavor.  I dont feel bad about keeping a smaller fish as long as its big enough to get a bite sized fillet off of and I feel the lakes I fish have plenty of harvestable fish.   

[angolajones]

Thats amazing I really wonder what pike or muskie will do to them in lakes like webster and tippy

Get big or get eaten.

Jonesy

[rico]

Very interesting. What I would like to know/understand. What is the pro/con of stocking walleye in a lake like Summit or Patoka or Prarie Creek. They don't reproduce so they only take from the sytem and don't give anything back to it.They definately change the fishery once they are established, for good or bad. The fishery is changed, unless they discontinue stocking.
Paul

Very good point Paul.......man is playing around with nature's balance.....we might not know the consequences until 20-30 years down the road.

[rico]

25 redear, 25 crappie.

[wax_worm]

Very interesting. What I would like to know/understand. What is the pro/con of stocking walleye in a lake like Summit or Patoka or Prarie Creek. They don't reproduce so they only take from the sytem and don't give anything back to it.They definately change the fishery once they are established, for good or bad. The fishery is changed, unless they discontinue stocking.
Paul

I sent an email a while back to the DNR bioligist in district Summit resides in, due to a discussion about the lack of perch in summit due to the walleye that were introduced.  Here is his full answer and it gives some insight as to why they introduced walleye into summit, what the results have been and what the ILLEGAL introduction of white bass into summit has done to the fishery:

Thanks for the email.  If it weren't for your message I probably wouldn't have seen that thread on ice shanty.  Amongst all the posts I read there this morning, there is some truth and some feasible possibilities for the change in the fishery but there are also some thoughts that I'd say are pretty farfetched and some statements that are not true.  Anyhow, here is my take on the situation and some background on the perch and walleye at Summit:

Walleye fry stockings were initiated in 1999.  This was based on data from a number of surveys that showed bluegill and redear growth was slowing which was likely contributing to the declining numbers of 8-8.5 inch and larger panfish.  The slower panfish growth was primarily attributed to the perch population which had been expanding and just exploded by 1999(they accounted for nearly 60% of the fish caught in the 1999 survey).  Growth rates of perch were also much slower than they had been in previous years.  Left to continue down that path, it was feared the yellow perch would stunt out and continue to cause additional problems with the bluegill and redear.  Therefore, walleye stockings were recommended so that they could aid largemouth bass in preying on the perch.  Survival of the walleye fry didn't appear to be successful that first year, so in 2000 we started stocking 1-2in fingerlings (the goal is 70,000 per year).  This has seemed to create a decent walleye fishery in the lake based on findings from angler and fisheries surveys.

Since walleye stockings began, there has been a drastic reduction in the perch population.  Along with this have come improvements to bluegill, redear, and perch growth and the size structure of these fish.  Are walleye the only reason for the reduction in the number of perch and other changes in the fishery?  No, but they have likely been one of the primary contributors to the lower number of perch.  There are also other changes to the fishery that have taken place over the same time which could also be playing a considerable role.  One of these is the introduction of and possibly growing number of white bass in the lake which could be applying additional predatory pressure on the perch.  White bass were not introduced by DNR but most likely were introduced by an angler.  Unlike the walleye which we can quit stocking and their numbers will most likely drop considerably due to a lack of consistent reproduction, the white bass can't be controlled that easily so we can only hope their numbers remain in check and they do not become overly abundant and create major issues. 

I hope this answers some of your questions.  I have attached one of the most recent reports on Summit which might provide some further insight into the management there.

-Rhett

Rhett Wisener
IDNR Fisheries Biologist, District 4
2650 SR 44
Martinsville, IN 46151