5 Crappie/5 Sunfish Limit

[gregg52]

i personally dont fish either much

but i do know i can eat 5 sunfish pretty easy and thats just me

and i was thinking yesterday at the grocery store that i will be fishing harder and keeper alot more fish this summer

the price of hamburger..pork..steak.....yikes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

going on a fish diet this summer

i'm old so fish is good for me to

but i think those limits are alittle short

just my opinion

[Recon]

Whether you call it pre-spawn or spawn thats when the fish are most vulnerable. You are still taking the crappies and sunfish when they are full of eggs or protecting their nest and have not had a chance to spawn. Spawning equals more fish and gives the diversity of year classes. Just because they actually spawn after the opener does not lower the impact on the species in my opinion. How can you preach lower limits and not be in favor of protecting the species at spawning. Your point might be valid if everyone only fished walleyes or northerns after opener but that is totally unrealistic and not the case. Do I believe crappie and sunfish will ever be protected during their spawn, NO. WHY, because fishing, last 25yrs, has turned into big business and is about money.

[reinhard1]

for me, i dont keep limits most of the time anyway, but its not about me, it's for everyone. i would not mind the 5/5 limit but like with other species, some lakes would need different management. like the metro area for example. i would also not mind a one over 12in crappie and one over 9 in sunnie state wide.

the idea of protecting spawning panfish sounds good but how would you set those date's. i'm not a expert on exactly when they spawn but it has to do a lot with water temps i believe. cold spring, early spring ect. i have fished one lake for many years and i have always seen spawning activity right around memorial day. well there were years it was not the case. sometimes earlier and most of the time later. so it would be hard to say [expecialy statewide] for example the first two weeks of june fishing is prohibited for panfish [sunnies and crappies].

if you fish alone, the 5/5 should not be a problem. if you have kids take them with you in this case if you need more along with your wife. but state wide i dont believe you can manage every lake the same. good luck.

[LightningBG]

Once again, the solution to this problem would be bring one of them (daughter or wife) fishing with you so you can keep a limit for them as well. I don't think a limit is meant to feed an entire family (were not talking big game here) and it shouldn't be that way either.

It's still the same # of fish out of the lake, so what difference does it make if my dad goes out to catch a meal for him and my mom, or he forces her out in the boat so she can eat dinner too? He's still going to catch all the fish while she uncomfortably sits up front, reading a book, with a pole sitting across her lap and an unbaited hook in the water.

He, she and I can all easily eat 4-5 fish in a meal. It all depends on the lake. If a lake only has 6.5 inch fish, it's pointless when you can only keep 5. Especially when a 4 year old can eat that many (as stated earlier).

My dad is partially retired and him and my mom will spend a whole week up at the cabin quite often. He might fish everyday twice a day for pannies and never keep a thing. But then on Sunday, my wife and I might drive up for the afternoon (only an hour away) and want a meal of fish. So on that 1 day out of 7 he might keep a limit to feed the 4 of us. To me, a situation like this doesn't seem unreasonable. And a possession limit doesn't allow for hoarding anyways.

Truthfully, I think it should be lake by lake, even if it is tough to enforce.

[jwmiller33]

Lightning, the biggest difference in that case is there are two people purchasing a license and keeping fish, opposed to one. Which means there is twice as much money coming from that family going to the DNR to support the resources and stocking of those same fish they are taking out of the lake, as well as money going to paying COs to be out on the water enforcing limits. I think we can all realize there isn't a perfect solution to this problem. The key is finding the best solution that works for anglers as well as the fisheries. Sure we can keep taking out 10 crappies and 20 sunfish everytime we fish. The main thing is how long will the resource/fisheries be able to last at this rate? I think the point Traxx was trying to make is that the limits haven't been changed in a long time. We as fishermen have progressively and exponentially been increasing our means and ability to take fish from the fisheries, and we are wondering at what point will technology completely take away the ability for fish to remain abundant? If you keep taking cookies out of the cookie jar faster then they are being made in the oven, what are we going to do when we run out of cookies?

[dan z]

I am up for a regular fishing season for them. I know guys that pound them things all year long, and to top it off the major pounding is right after ice out to the walleye openner.

If that wouldnt pan out give a size regulation per lake if there is a population problem.

I read on a earlier post the use of small sunfish as bait too. I would have to put a plus 1 on that idea. becuase some lakes are so over populated with these hybrids that they dont grow.

[Traxxx]

I agree that is when the fish are most vulnerable and need to be protected. Whether those fish are harvested in January or April, they are still going to have eggs. I'm in favor of the lower limits as a way to protect more breeders and achieve a more balanced age structure. Like you said, closing the season would never go over and I don't feel that is needed at this time given the current populations. In a perfect world, I would like to see the limits lowered and a Catch and Release period during the actual spawning period.

[Getanet]

I think the point Traxx was trying to make is that the limits haven't been changed in a long time.

I guess we need to define "long time." They were dropped in 2003, so 8 years ago(crappie from 15-10, sunnies from 30-20). It seemed like it had been 15 crappies for a much longer time.

Let's be honest, 5 small-to-average sized crappies isn't much for a meal, and 5 sunnies is even less.

For most lakes quality is the problem, not quantity. Reducing the possession limit on many lakes means you'll only have more and more stunted fish.

A state-wide possession restriction isn't going to help that situation.To answer the original question, I'd prefer any changes in regulations be on a lake-by-lake basis where results can be measured.

[SkitterPopper]

Quote:

for me, i dont keep limits most of the time anyway, but its not about me, it's for everyone.

Reinhard, this has to be the best quote I have seen on here in a long time.

I really wish more people would have this line of thinking when dealing with natural resource issues. I so often hear, "I would like to use two lines so I have two poles while carp fishing the xxx river, ect.... Most could care less about the other species that would be affected in a negative manner. To many "I's" if you ask me. We should be thinking "WE" and not I. This is just one example and there are many more examples thoughout all the fishing and hunting posts.

Sorry to highjack this post but I wanted to make sure everyone see's this good quote.

And, not to ignore the OP, I would be all for a 5/5 limit. I am sure not all lakes are pounded but a good majoity are once a good bite has been detected. All it takes is one good report and the lake is flooded. I would like to take it one step further and suggest they start it in one area and see if it helps. The area I would like to see is the 7 county metro. This area gets the most pressure besides a few large well known lakes up north. Put a plan in place and survey it often and see what happens. It sure can't hurt the fisheries.

[pathogen]

What would happen if a slot limit were put in place for panfish....? Would that be better or worse than 5/5? I suppose it would open up a whole different can of worms. I don't think the issue with panfish is fishing the numbers down, the issue is fishing down the larger individuals? Just stirring the pot a bit.....

[mainbutter]

Good question pathogen. Yeah now that you mention it, I do think a slot limit or a 1 over X'' limit would do a TON of good, perhaps even more than just statewide reduction of limits.

[mainbutter]

the price of hamburger..pork..steak.....yikes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/quote]

Not directing this question at you in particular, but to everyone out there:

Ever consider simply cutting your portions, or replacing them with non-meat alternatives?

I'm no vegetarian, but I've certainly cut out a lot of meat from my diet (primarily due to cost) and both my gut and my wallet are thanking me for it.

[shadow5y7]

my 2 cents by shadow

If you want to have larger pan fish you can't see size growth if there is non to be had. Some lakes just have stunted panfish, Has to do with 1. fishing pressure, 2. weeds/habitat, 3. Northerner and predatory fish. 4. food

ex. (1) lakes that have fishing pressure creates over harvest, also can cause spawning habitat destructing (motor kicking up mud, dragging weeds) (also pleasure boats don't help in this area)

ex (2) weeds and habitat create areas to hide so you don't have to grow strong and big like an open water fish. Lakes that have very few weeds hold some of the biggest panfish (some lakes, not all)

ex (3) northern pike and predatory fish can cause fish to grow larger, Most lakes with muskies in them have large panfish in them, most lakes with northern pike regulations have large panfish in them, All lakes that don't allow spearing have BIG pan fish in them.

ex (4) food, One of the biggest factor into fish growth is what are they eating, crappies eating on micro-bugs don't get as big as crappies eating sunfish fry and shiners. Fresh water shrimp pack lots of protein and so do large hatches of invertebrates.

The dnr will not create better spawning habitat because it more lucrative to stock fish. Also I don't think your going to get to-many out-of state people coming over for just a few fish, I notice that out-of state people are generally here to keep fish and they like to fill there freezers, but also like to spend money in local economy.

I could go on and on, talking political stand point on this, also sportsman's side, as well as ecological impact, and economical impact, But I have to make the MAN money so I can get out and fish!

Thanks.

[mt1017]

this would be fine on some lakes so I can avoid them I get to fish 1 day a week and 5 crappies or sunnies is nothing unless they are big ones 13+ and i dont like keeping them that big but with a 5 fish limit I would every time out and I know that isnt good for a lake either keep it the way it is either way it doesnt stop the real problem and that is people going out every day and sometimes multiple times a day this is where the real problem is need more enforcement IMO

[TravP]

my 2 cents by shadow

If you want to have larger pan fish you can't see size growth if there is non to be had. Some lakes just have stunted panfish, Has to do with 1. fishing pressure, 2. weeds/habitat, 3. Northerner and predatory fish. 4. food

ex. (1) lakes that have fishing pressure creates over harvest, also can cause spawning habitat destructing (motor kicking up mud, dragging weeds) (also pleasure boats don't help in this area)

ex (2) weeds and habitat create areas to hide so you don't have to grow strong and big like an open water fish. Lakes that have very few weeds hold some of the biggest panfish (some lakes, not all)

ex (3) northern pike and predatory fish can cause fish to grow larger, Most lakes with muskies in them have large panfish in them, most lakes with northern pike regulations have large panfish in them, All lakes that don't allow spearing have BIG pan fish in them.

ex (4) food, One of the biggest factor into fish growth is what are they eating, crappies eating on micro-bugs don't get as big as crappies eating sunfish fry and shiners. Fresh water shrimp pack lots of protein and so do large hatches of invertebrates.

The dnr will not create better spawning habitat because it more lucrative to stock fish. Also I don't think your going to get to-many out-of state people coming over for just a few fish, I notice that out-of state people are generally here to keep fish and they like to fill there freezers, but also like to spend money in local economy.

I could go on and on, talking political stand point on this, also sportsman's side, as well as ecological impact, and economical impact, But I have to make the MAN money so I can get out and fish!

Thanks.

+1. This is the best reply I've seen.

[LightningBG]

Lightning, the biggest difference in that case is there are two people purchasing a license and keeping fish, opposed to one. Which means there is twice as much money coming from that family going to the DNR to support the resources and stocking of those same fish they are taking out of the lake, as well as money going to paying COs to be out on the water enforcing limits.

They have a couples license anyways, every year. Double possession limit (They are in WI)

[LightningBG]

Lightning, the biggest difference in that case is there are two people purchasing a license and keeping fish, opposed to one. Which means there is twice as much money coming from that family going to the DNR to support the resources and stocking of those same fish they are taking out of the lake, as well as money going to paying COs to be out on the water enforcing limits.

So if the # of licenses sold is proportional to the amount of fish stocked and therefore the # of fish in the lake. Shouldn't there be no need for lower limits, since there is already more money and more fish?

Overall, 5 fish is just too low, unless they are on their way to extinction. Lots of places you don't have an opportunity to go after sunnies and crappies on the same body of water, so you have one or the other. And with a possession limit equal to the daily limit, you cant even save up a couple says worth of fish to feed a family.

[LightningBG]

Ever consider simply cutting your portions, or replacing them with non-meat alternatives?

NO. I don't even like vegetables. I only eat them because my wife makes me.

I don't really buy any meat at the store, so I guess I haven't noticed the prices. 95% of the year we are eating venison, pheasants, duck, goose, fish. And recently I convinced my buddy to raise some chickens for me, so that should be interesting (eggs and meat).

[jwmiller33]

I never said the number of licenses sold has a direct corelation to the number fish that are stocked. Without licenses being sold, the DNR wouldn't have money to stock the lakes. Plain and simple.

What do you have against bringing your wife and/or child with you fishing?

How many people do you think one person's limit should feed?

[LightningBG]

What do you have against bringing your wife and/or child with you fishing?

How many people do you think one person's limit should feed?

It's not that I have anything against bringing the wife, it's that she has no desire to go, but she enjoys a meal every once in a while.

It's nice to be able to head out on the lake with my father in law for a morning and come back and eat lunch with the ladies.

[jwmiller33]

I completely understand and that is what I kind of figured. I was just trying to make a point. But the question remains: How many people do you think one person's limit should feed?

[LightningBG]

I completely understand and that is what I kind of figured. I was just trying to make a point. But the question remains: How many people do you think one person's limit should feed?

4?

or have daily limit that would feed 2, but a possession that would feed 4?

Anything more than feeding 1 would be an improvement.

And why not do it a little more gradually, drop it from 15 to 10 and see how that works, if it doesn't, lower it or raise it back up accordingly.

But I also wouldn't have a problem if a lake is struggling, to have a lower limit on that particular lake.

[ANYFISH2]

I am not sure what a limit should feed. As different people have different appitites. I know I will only keep a meals worth of fish nowadays because I have wasted too many in the past by leaving in the freezer too long, I will not do that any longer. That being said 5 sunfish is probably not enough for me on some days. 5 and 5 just is too low to be statewide IMO. That reg has been used to protect quality fish.

Also with the exception of a very small number of lakes minnesota dosen't typically stock panfish, so money for stocking really has little merit in this discussion IMO.

I will also add that god gave us our resources to to use wisely. I fear we are continuing to go more and more to preservation of fish rather than conservation! We can continue to responsibly use our resouces with out stopping the consumption of fish!

[jwmiller33]

You kind of confirmed exactly what I was getting at. You stated you have wasted a lot of fish in the past because they just sat in your freezer too long. If people only kept what they could eat (ie reduced limits), there would be a lot less of freezer burned fish getting tossed in the garbage, which is just a waste of the resource.

Not sure what your getting at with the "we are continuing to go to more and more to preservation of fish rather than conservation". Preservation and conservation mean the same thing

[popriveter]

Believe me, they are invited every time I fish. My daughter joined me 3 times this winter. She lasted 20 minutes, 30 minutes and 1 hour. It'll get better as she gets older.

What would people think about a size-based reduced limit? For instance keep the current 20 sunfish limit, but add "no more than 5 over 8 inches."

This sort of limit is currently in use for many other game species. It protects the population of larger, quality spawners while allowing a greater harvest of smaller fish which benefits anglers who use fish for food all the while freeing up forage for larger panfish.

The fact is, sunfish populations will never be hurt number-wise by harvest. It is the size structure that we damage. Limiting the number of larger panfish and allowing/encouraging the harvest of smaller ones should help on both ends.

[Spike76]

Haven't none of you, invited friends over for a fish dinner? An old limit of thirty sunnies and fifteen crappies, would just about go, and you would hope to have a few for your lunch the next day. Before my father died, I supplied him and my mother with fish always. It gets hard for older folks to get out fishing, sometimes. Anyone who won't eat their fish, is more then welcome to leave them in the lakes, for those who will eat them. Lent is here and that is a great reason to eat your fish on fridays. Clean out your freezer, and invite some neighbors over to enjoy some fried fish. 30 and 15.

[MinnetonkaMan]

I would have to say let mother nature handle the situation. I know that there are shallow and deep spawning fish so they will never be depleted to zero. Also I see that these fish seem to have a switch in their body that puts them into the big fish role when others are taken from the lake the next year. Also because it is lent people enjoy fish. Also try just eating fish with no other sides like potatoes. My family can eat 40 fillets of fish easily if you are truly eating fish not all the other sides! I would say just follow the laws and decided for your self if you want to keep 5, 10, 15 or your limit. Again mother nature has her hidden areas where fisherman dont know fish spawn and or stay during the season.

[ANYFISH2]

Your right JW, I did and I have changed my ways and so can everyone with out over regulation. I am not against say a 10/10 limit but to me a 5/5 is just to low for us whom like to eat a lot of fish during a meal.

Preservation is a complete protection of some thing, conservation is the wise use of something. Example PETA is for preservation, sportsmen are(should be) for conservation. There is a stark difference.

I also agree we need to help the size structure of panfish by limiting the harvest large panfish. A one over rule, I would be in great favor of for both crappies and sunfish. I seen it this past week on a small lake (35 acres) one group of three angler would throw back 8" fish but would keep every 9-10.5" fish caught. That kind of harvest will destroy the size stucture. They kept 40+ sunfish.

[Bigsmitty]

Not allowing fishing when these 2 species are spawning would be a better answer to the problem of over fishing, just my opinion. During spawning all the high tech equipment really does not come into play it;s just timing and heading for shallow water. Lowering the limit but yet allowing fishing during spawning to me is just plain stupid. We protect walleyes during spawning so why not sunnies and crappies!

+11

Any dummy can pull into a warm bay in the spring and wipe out a big portion of the population.

5 fish isnt worth hooking up the boat and trailer. In my opinion.

[jwmiller33]

I would be in favor of a size restriction added to the panfish regulations. A lot of people selfishly only take the big fish home. I think a lot of those people don't realize how that negatively impacts the fishery. The fish you take out of lake can obviously no longer reproduce. If you take all of the big fish out of the lake, that means the only ones reproducing are the smaller ones. That is exactly how panfish populations get stunted.

5 fish isnt worth hooking up the boat and trailer. In my opinion.

Question for you, do you only fish for the table/freezer? I get a lot more out of fishing than just food, as do others (example; most bass/muskie/sturgeon/catfish fishermen rarely harvest a fish)

Anyfish,

Glad to hear you have changed your ways. Kudos to your for that.