Harvesting Bluegill.

[Aquaman]

Here's a copy of a discussion I started on Bluegill - Big Bluegill

Any opinions are appreciated. I respect any feeling that you may have that are contradictory to what I wrote. I understand that sometimes these discussion seem to gravitate towards a "catch and release vs. harvest" argument, and I'd like to avoid that if possible. Let's just assume for a moment that there's room in this world for both types of fisherman. I'd mostly just like you to comment on whether you think there is anything "unsound" about this reasoning.

Thanks.

Harvesting Bluegill

Biologists are often torn between a public that wants unlimited panfish harvest, and folks who value the larger specimens. Different anglers often have different goals.

Who's right and who's wrong?

Really, nobody is wrong. If anglers can be educated, then they can achieve both objectives--satisfying both the desire to put filets in the freezer, and the dream to catch a trophy fish.

It's becoming more and more common to place daily and possession limits on bluegill, redear sunfish and other popular panfish. In Nebraska, anglers are restricted to thirty fish in any given day, combining crappie, bluegill, redears and other panfish.

It's extremely rare for me to hear a complaint about this regulation.

It used to be that if I was really nailing the bluegill, and there was no daily bag limit, I would continue until the stringer was ready to break from the sheer weight. The time it took to filet these fish was ridiculous, and I ended up regretting my gluttony.

Now, stopping at thirty fish is easy and convenient. Less cleaning time, and more time for a good night's sleep afterward.

I've also found that once I've captured and cleaned that many panfish, that it's still a while before these fish have been completely consumed. Once they've been eaten (and they're usually fresher now), I simply start planning my next trip.

No more freezer burn, and no more guilt.

Now I understand that many of you have no such restrictions, and it is completely legal, ethical and respectable to keep more fish.

But what can you do to preserve the fishery and improve the chances for fish to grow to a large size?

One possibility is to limit the number of large male bluegill that you harvest off of nesting grounds. These bluegill serve a two-fold purpose.

First of all, they have good genetics, and a good start to achieving trophy size, but that's not all.

They actually create a situation where smaller males are unable to occupy prime spawning grounds, so this forces those smaller bluegill to commit more energy to growing, and less to reproduction. End result--big fish get bigger, and smaller fish get bigger. Seemingly a "win-win".


During the spawn, you can fish for females that are just off the nesting ground, usually in slightly deeper water. It is typically more difficult to overharvest females.

You can also fish during other times of year when these dominant males are more spread out, and you will end up diversifying your capture to include more females and more immature males.

Another thing you can do is have a self-imposed harvest slot.

I often fish for bluegill in small private waters and make the conscious decision to only keep bluegill between 7 and 9 inches. This way I get plenty to eat, but also protect some of the larger fish.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating entire catch and release of big bluegill.

You have every right to keep large bluegill for the table, and for the purposes of getting a mounted fish. There are plenty of big bluegill out there and people have been keeping big ones for decades. Bluegill taste great and should be featured on the dinner table often.

But in general, especially in smaller water bodies, there are ways to temper your harvest to allow for plenty more big fish to survive.

Just something to think about.

[OldBaldGuy]

Okay. Just for the sake of argument, I'll grant you all your conclusions. That still leaves me wondering about one thing, though: What's so special about a 30-fish bag limit? Why isn't it 33, or 27, or 40, or 20? If the argument is that I need 30 fish to feed my big family, I have to wonder if some of those hungry kids couldn't catch a few themselves if they're biting that fast. And if 30 is the magic number, why do several lakes in the metro area have "10-panfish limits?" Fewer hungry kids to feed?

I remember when the limit on panfish was 50 per species, and I remember standing out at the back alley burn barrel long after sundown with my friend, Mickey, while we each struggled to clean 50 crappie in the dark.

Originally Posted by Aquaman

...Who's right and who's wrong? Really, nobody is wrong...

It's that kind of relativist thinking that keeps some people from acquiescing to my obviously correct point of view.

[GenericAngler]

Originally Posted by OldBaldGuy

It's that kind of relativist thinking that keeps some people from acquiescing to my obviously correct point of view.

That is my new word of the day.

"
ac·qui·esce Audio Help /ˌækwiˈɛs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ak-wee-es] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used without object), -esced, -esc·ing. to assent tacitly; submit or comply silently or without protest; agree; consent: to acquiesce halfheartedly in a business plan.
"

However -- since I am not the proficient speller that my education would lean towards.....I went to the thesaurus to fins a word the means the same thing that would be easier to spell. Submit wins out.

BTW -- Great read Aquaman.

[Aquaman]

Originally Posted by OldBaldGuy

... why do several lakes in the metro area have "10-panfish limits?" Fewer hungry kids to feed?

That's a great question.

This may be a cynical answer, but I've found myself entirely avoiding lakes with the 10 fish limit if I feel like eating bluegill. At least indirectly this has significantly reduced the harvest of these lakes. It has forced me to concentrate my harvest efforts on water bodies more able to support such harvest. I use the 10-fish lakes for my recreational panfishing--which is considerable.

[Fish Recycler]

Great line of reasoning, Aquaman.

This is a conversation which will be had across many bait shop counters, boats and especially ice shacks this winter over here in Iowa. The DNR is considering putting harvest limits on bluegill in this state, there currently aren't any.

Harvest of panfish and introduction of predators are two known ways to increase size of panfish, but there's also good research (particularly in the north, where we live) that shows that C&R leads to larger panfish, too.

A perfect example of the coexistence of C&R and harvest mentalities, married beautifully in a "selective harvest" approach.

Exactly where "selective" falls varies by water body and the desired population dynamic for that water body, and the opinions on the matter of how lakes should be managed are as varied as the people who fish them.

As for limiting harvest, I agree, but as for panfish harvest along the lines you've outlined, I give my thumbs up there, too.

[Aquaman]

Originally Posted by Fish Recycler

Great line of reasoning, Aquaman.

This is a conversation which will be had across many bait shop counters, boats and especially ice shacks this winter over here in Iowa. The DNR is considering putting harvest limits on bluegill in this state, there currently aren't any.

Harvest of panfish and introduction of predators are two known ways to increase size of panfish, but there's also good research (particularly in the north, where we live) that shows that C&R leads to larger panfish, too.

A perfect example of the coexistence of C&R and harvest mentalities, married beautifully in a "selective harvest" approach.

Exactly where "selective" falls varies by water body and the desired population dynamic for that water body, and the opinions on the matter of how lakes should be managed are as varied as the people who fish them.

As for limiting harvest, I agree, but as for panfish harvest along the lines you've outlined, I give my thumbs up there, too.

I'm extremely interested in your opinion on the following matter.

What advice would you give the people making the decisions in Iowa in regards to restrictions on harvest number and harvest size? Maybe your advice could be incorporated onto the Bluegill - Big Bluegill website, then this "thread" could be directed towards those involved. Maybe a chance to gently influence laws which may have long term implications on how the marriage of C&R and harvest can benefit all those involved.

[south of 41]

ac·qui·esce Audio Help /ˌækwiˈɛs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ak-wee-es] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object), -esced, -esc·ing. to assent tacitly; submit or comply silently or without protest; agree; consent: to acquiesce halfheartedly in a business

[Nebraskacoontrapper]

I too am an admirer of big bluegill. Love to catch them and eat them as well. Most days its just catch and release but its because I have plenty of fish put up in the freezer ie... carp, cats, crappie and even some drum along with a bit of bluegill. If I may pose a question. Why is it that we are always concerned about returning the big fish back to be caught another day and to allow it to pass along its genetics but for those that hunt it is always in pursuit of the biggest baddest and taking those genetics out of the gene pool. Why not harvest the smaller bucks and allow those with great genetics to continue to pass it along until they die of old age? I digress.

[fishon]

great artical aquaman. I love the taste of bluegill and would rank them in top 5 for taste. I like the idea of keeping fish between 7 and 9 inches.

[laughingwatr]

I have a pond I built a couple years ago and put 100 small bluegill in that I caught at my neighbors. This year they are 1-1/2 to 2 lbs. but they should be 4 years old now. It is my understanding that 4 years is the average life span on a bluegill. I have only kept one big fish for my friends son to get mounted but I assume harvest of these fish wouldn't make much difference now. Also, all of these fish are over a pound now so I would wonder how important genetics are when 100 fish have a 3/4 acre pond all to themselves.

[huskerfan46]

Why not harvest does and leave the small bucks to get big? What are peoples obsession with shooting small bucks? If you want a trophy buck hunt for one if you want meat shoot does (it's not less "manly")! We should just move the rifle season out of the rut if we want trophy bucks........I know I know that's not popular with people b/c we have so many rifle hunters but it cannot be denied that it has worked in every instance.......I digress! I agree with the bluegill statements....proper management should be used with any species. If you don't harvest any they will become stunted (eventually). I suggest keeping a slot limit. For example harvesting 8 1/2 to 9 1/2 inch fish. My two cents.

[AnglerX]

Smith Lake , Crescent Lake NWR is one of the top MA producing public bluegill waters most of the limited harvest is 10-11" year after year. But it always produces large bluegill.

[huskerfan46]

Interesting! Other factors I am sure come into play. For example Pelican Refuge Lake is the best Bluegill lake in the state and one of the best in the country, the average bluegill is a pound. However, ice fishing is the primary way to harvest them b/c it covers in moss early in the year. Therefore they get to grow all year.

[LiquidSteel]

Quoted from this article:
"One possibility is to limit the number of large male bluegill that you harvest off of nesting grounds."

How am I supposed to know the difference between males and females in bluegills or any other fish?

I agree with regulations, but alot of catfisherman use gills as bait, dead and/or alive. Its conceivable that this would create more issues for those who prefer to fish for flatties using said gills.

[Hookem]

Originally Posted by Fish Recycler

Great line of reasoning, Aquaman

Exactly where "selective" falls varies by water body and the desired population dynamic for that water body, and the opinions on the matter of how lakes should be managed are as varied as the people who fish them.

As for limiting harvest, I agree, but as for panfish harvest along the lines you've outlined, I give my thumbs up there, too.

Selective harvest, whether dictated by the (1) INDIVIDUAL himself or by (2) VARIED stATUTE, IMO makes for the most logical direction. I have never understood why anyone would harvest untold buckets of fish regardless of the species. Buckets meaning uncounted numbers of fish! By varied statute I refer to specific bodies of water having different length and number limits.

We live in an age of instant gratification and the same principle applies to fishing. I see little wrong with specific statute limits for number and length on metro lakes. Each metro lake is unique in itself and thus to maintain quality should have specific limitations set for that particular lake. With the high populations fishing metro lakes, such statutes help maintain a "decent " fishery for that lake and thus satisfy more urban fishermen, whether adults or kids. Such philosophy is the way of life today and I definitely don't see that changing nor think it should. Metro lakes should be more specific and selective.

"Untold numbers" is abstract to each and everyone of us. Because of that limits need to be set to help maintain a fishery. For panfish (or any specicies) the NG&P has sufficient info to help make that determination whether it be based on metro lakes with high populations fishing that specific lake or larger bodies of water anywhere in the state. We as individuals may not like it when we fish a specific lake with very specific limits on length and numbers such as Elwood, or BO or any decent wiper fishery, yet one criteria for such strict limitations on larger bodies of water may be to produce a trophy fishery. In such situations, to achieve that strict limitations have to be established. Otherwise because of the "abstractivenss" within each of us as individuals, a trophy fishery would not happen nor would metro lakes mainian a decent fishery for the multitudes who fish those lakes.

So who determines the "abstract" numbers for any species in NE? The agency that handles the State's fisheries of course. Yes I know politics play a major role in the depatment, yet there are dedicated individuals who work their fullest to make the most logical deicsions based on research. And yes, NE has different type fisheries then even our neighboring states. How may actual reservoirs does NE have that actually are fed by rivers compared to neighboring states? How does irrigation impact the many lakes in NE which are goverened by an entirely different philosophical base? What happens in Oklahoma, for example, may not have a direct impact on what happens in NE or KS or any neighboring state. Each lake just as each state has different determining factors on how that lake can serve the populace.

The other issue is what we each consider to be abstract for limits. The statute limit may be 30 panfish in a particular lake, yet why would we want to harvest that many? When I was younger, I differed on this philosphy compared what I believe today. I have seen NE fisheries overall so much improved from years ago that there is little comparison. Keep in mind that in the old days, for example, the Missouri River wasn't channelized thus resulting in more habitat for fishing BUT at the same time we didn't have all the outstate reservoirs either. If that was the case today I owuldn't be able to fish nearly as much as I do now. Those many reservoirs simply wouldn't be there. And thankfully they are so its up to each of us to help maintain what we now have! So do we need to take buckets of fish, panfish or whatever? No IMO I don't think so.

So for the agency who oversees our fisheries, let's give them credit for what they have accomplished.

[Slack Jaw]

My buddy fishes a private ten acre pond and usually keeps 20-40 gills a year.He has never caught a gill under 9 inches in the past five years.This harvest rate has not negatively affected the gill population at all.The pond also has some very large bass which are always released.

[Aquaman]

I just got home from work and haven't had a chance to read the replies, but I will later this evening.

Here's a response from Daryl Bauer taken from Bluegill - Big Bluegill

RIGHT ON! I have seen far more panfish populations that suffer from over-harvest than I have seen largemouth bass or even walleye populations suffering from over-harvest. Now understand by "overharvest" I do not mean that those populations are in danger of going extinct, but that those populations are overharvested to the point where the fish are NOT able to reach their growth potential.

Bag limits are ineffective in reducing harvest unless bag limits are very low. In fact bag limits of only 5 panfish may be necessary to actually reduce harvest. In most cases bag limits that low are not acceptable to anglers. So, the best chance one has to produce some big bluegills while still allowing some harvest is to practice "selective harvest". Selectively choose the most abundant species and sizes of fish that can withstand the harvest. Panfish species like bluegills are prolific and can withstand some harvest, but even among panfish the big fish are rare! Big bluegills are the best candidates for release! A self-imposed harvest slot limit like that already suggested is a great idea to take a few tasty bluegills home for a meal of fresh fish while maintaining those "pound-rounders" to be caught again and again!

Daryl Bauer
Lakes and Reservoirs Program Manager
Nebraska Game & Parks Commission
daryl.bauer@nebraska.gov

[OldBaldGuy]

Okay. Just for the sake of argument, I'll grant you all your conclusions. That still leaves me wondering about one thing, though: What's so special about a 30-fish bag limit? Why isn't it 33, or 27, or 40, or 20? If the argument is that I need 30 fish to feed my big family, I have to wonder if some of those hungry kids couldn't catch a few themselves if they're biting that fast. And if 30 is the magic number, why do several lakes in the metro area have "10-panfish limits?" Fewer hungry kids to feed?

Nothing is special about 30 or 33 or 27 or 40 or 20. To be honest with you those bag limits are entirely arbitrary. The only reasoning behind them would be that 30 or 27 or 40 panfish is enough fish for one person. Bag limits DO NOT reduce harvest unless those bag limits are set very low. For example, you would be talking about bag limits of 5 or even less panfish before those bag limits would have any reduction in the overall harvest of that panfish population. Bag limits serve to distribute harvest over time (i.e. make the hot bite last for a month instead of 2 weeks) or to distribute harvest among anglers (i.e. so nobody gets more than their "fair share"). Since anglers would not support bag limits low enough to have an actual impact on harvest, bag limits seldom serve any biological purpose; that is why I say those numbers are somewhat arbitrary and they are chosen for reasons other than protection of the resource.

If harvest needs to be reduced or if management objectives require harvest reductions of some sort, length limits are much more effective for accomplishing that.

However, I will tell you this, bag limits become a goal in some instances. You know how anglers like to brag about catching their limit, or how we were able to catch our limit in only an hour or whatever. So would anglers be as satisfied if the bag limit was lowered? Wouldn't that make it easier to reach the "goal" of catching a limit?

And bag limits confer some value on the fish. If a certain species has a bag limit of 30, then the angler attitude is often "catch all you can and can all you catch". On the other hand if the bag limit is only 1 fish, then that places a value on that fish, "that is an important resource that needs to be taken care of."

Daryl B.

[Aquaman]

Originally Posted by LiquidSteel

Quoted from this article:
"One possibility is to limit the number of large male bluegill that you harvest off of nesting grounds."

How am I supposed to know the difference between males and females in bluegills or any other fish?

I agree with regulations, but alot of catfisherman use gills as bait, dead and/or alive. Its conceivable that this would create more issues for those who prefer to fish for flatties using said gills.

Here's a start for you.

Differentiating between male and female bluegill - Pond Boss Forum

[Aquaman]

Originally Posted by Hookem

...When I was younger, I differed on this philosphy compared what I believe today. I have seen NE fisheries overall so much improved from years ago that there is little comparison....And thankfully they are so its up to each of us to help maintain what we now have! So do we need to take buckets of fish, panfish or whatever? No IMO I don't think so. So for the agency who oversees our fisheries, let's give them credit for what they have accomplished.

Thanks for making such a thoughtful post. I know that we don't all agree on every issue on this forum, but the fact that people take the time to express their thoughts sure makes this a great forum to be on.