5 Crappie/5 Sunfish Limit

[jwmiller33]

here is a excerpt from a great article explaining how panfish populations can easily get stunted

Quote:

In any given body of water you have a certain amount of fish it can support, this is commonly referred to as biomass in the lake. The total biomass should setup in the shape of a pyramid, where every level is just large enough to support the next level up the pyramid (this is mass not numbers of fish). At the bottom of the pyramid you have baseline food sources, such as Benthos. Benthos encompasses your micro organisms, mussels, aquatic insects, etc. On the next level we have food fish, which are minnows and young of the year. On the next level you have low-level predators these will feed on everything in the lower two levels the benthos and small fishes. Above that you have mid level predators which feed on the two levels below it

Reproduction is next in line. In a given body of water there is a very limited amount of spawning habitat. That habitat can only support so many spawning fish. Now, that number is solely dependent on the size of fish that is within a given system. Those larger spawning fish will command more spawning room and spread out further in the prime spawning grounds. This is nature’s way of controlling how many fish can successfully breed in a given system. This in turn will keep year classes in check and level most years. There will be some years where a body of water will have a bummer year class, it happens.

So what happens when you remove one of those breeders out of the system? If you remember above I mentioned something called biomass. If you take, say a 10 inch blue gill, out of a lake, something is going to take its place. That will generally be a few smaller fish equal to that fishes biomass. Within each fish species in a body of water you have a range of sizes. The best way to think of the different sizes is like a diamond [see image below]. In a healthy system, at either end of the diamond, you will have both extremes of size related to one an other.. Now, if you were to remove the fish that are in the top of that diamond you begin to see the diamond widen. You will start to see more and more fish in the mid size classed breeding successfully. These mid size class fish require less room to spawn cause of their size. Which in turn gives you more successful breeding every year.

When this happens too many years in a row you have an over abundance of smaller fish in the system and they begin to over browse food sources. This begins to directly affect the fish during their early key growth stages. Which results in smaller fish. Now, if that body of water can not reproduce and recover at a high enough level every year, you could begin to see the biomass capacity begin to decline. Which means it will support less fish.

[Jbass]

[Please Read Forum Policy Before Posting Again,Thank You]

[bobbymalone]

I'm wondering what the "guide" fee would be to go catch 5 six inch sunnies in below zero temps? Or drive 4 hours to try and catch a 5 fish limit of 9 inch crappies?

If you are paying a guide to put you on 20 six inch sunnies you are doing it wrong.

If you are driving 4 hours to catch a 10 fish limit of 9 inch crappies you are doing it wrong.

[Jbass]

[Please Read Forum Policy Before Posting Again,Thank You]

[BoxMN]

Earn a crappie for every crappie over 11" you need to have a crappie under 8" first...

[shadow5y7]

I did not really want to get into this debate again, but

my 2 cents again,

SPAWNING habitat Is more important then all the stocking, Regulation and everything else. If you where to create better habitat (like they do for trout) you would have better fish return and less need for stocking, at a cheaper rate (because you don't have to pay for it over and over) But the dnr and state wants your money over and over (they love rents)

There is more to this story, but I don't feel like getting into it today, DNR is government, Government in corrupt. Thats all I have for now.

[frazwood]

I'll not get into all of the various aspects of the thread above, but I don't think that a 5/5 limit statewide would be a great idea.

Most of the lakes in the Metro region have huge numbers of small crappie and bluegill, so I am more than happy to keep my limit of small fish from these lakes because I am reasonably certain that I am doing no harm.

On many other lakes, though, where the quality of crappie and bluegill is much better, I tend to keep only smaller fish and throw back the bigger ones. On these lakes, I could see a 5/5 limit being effective and welcomed by many people (also effective would be a size maximum, a slot limit, or only xxx over yy inches).

Simply put, we can't manage all lakes for all species all of the time. We should selectively manage certain lakes for certain fish (we manage most lakes in Minnesota for walleye).

I love to fish and I would do it if I was forced to fish catch-and-release all of the time. That said: (1) I learned to get better with a fillet knife, so a few 6" bluegills are a nice meal for me, (2) I don't feel comfortable telling someone else that they can't keep a fish to eat because it'll ruin sportfishing for me (within reason of course... I'm not proposing limitless fishing)

[Bowfin]

I would not lower the daily limit and actually raise the possesion limit especially for panfish. There are families out there who get 1 vacation a year to stock the freezer with fish. A one week vacation at a lake cabin but you can only have one limit of fish in possession? That don't make sense. Rubs me the wrong way when I hear other people or the government, deciding how many fish my family can eat a year. Many current laws are bias against those who like to eat fish.

Another bad law - if you keep a northern on a slot lake you must keep the head and tail intact when transporting so it can be measured at any time. So again, when staying at the cabin you are allowed to only gut your northerns, freeze them, then clean the slime buckets at home after you thaw them. You ever do this? I have many times. Not very effective if you are trying maximize the utilization of the fish people take home.

Again many laws are becoming bias against those who like to eat fish. People need to be responsible and only take what they can utilize. Fish are a renewable resource but we are being regulated into a "look but don't touch" mentality.

[Steak]

I could handle a Bluegill limit of 10-15 and a crappie limit of 5 with 1 fish over 11"...

5 & 5 limits? Boy some of you people are a little on the slooowwww side.

The DNR just need to close off certain bays during spawning and search more freezers for people that take too many fish. Not decrease the limit by 75%. If you make a 5 sunfish and 5 crappie limit, that just means that the R-TARDS in my area will be going to catch a limit 4 times a day rather than once...or twice.

5 & 5 is not a good idea...for now. Start going down in increments of 5 for sunfish and start with "slots" for crappies. Yes we need to regulate, but not so fast!

Steak.

[fishroger]

Bowfin, are you totally serious? The reason you go on vacation is too stock your freezer. Why do you think they have bag limits? How many do you need? Wouldnt it be cheaper to stay at home and go to the fish market and load up? This mentality is amazing.

[Bowfin]

Bowfin, are you totally serious? The reason you go on vacation is too stock your freezer. Why do you think they have bag limits? How many do you need? Wouldn't it be cheaper to stay at home and go to the fish market and load up? This mentality is amazing.

Totally serious dude! How many do I need? - well more than 1 days limit which is all we can have in possession now. At least go back to the possession limit of 3 daily limits.

Page 9 of the regs:

Possessing Fish

• Daily and possession limits are the same unless otherwise noted. Fish are in an angler’s possession whether on hand, in cold storage, in transport, or elsewhere.

Think about it - you go to the store and buy a 5 lbs bag of potatoes not just one. Then someone says "hey you can't buy 5 lbs of potatoes - how many can you eat anyways". Ridiculous! Same concept. Do you go to the store and buy just 1 meal at a time?

Yes, I go on vacation to bring home some fish. What is mentally amazing is that people who do this are demonized by some for wanting to keep some fish to eat. What is also disappointing is that by saying this, some put me in the category of those "slob" fisherman who take way more than they can use. I never have any fish in my freezer go unutilized and freezer burn. In fact, the folks are visiting this weekend and I asked them to bring up a meal for a fish fry cause I'm all out. If I could keep more than 1 days limit in possession maybe I would have some fish to supply myself.

Again - fish are a renewable resource. There's nothing wrong with wanting to eat them. I didn't shoot from the hip in my comment as I keep up on the latest regs and try to abide by them more than most. I even keep a tally sheet when on vacation to keep track of how many the family can legally take. But dude, some of these laws are getting biased against those who want to keep fish - and that's too bad.

[SpitnArgueDuckClub*]

Wow you guys are light eaters, a days limit of 50 perch for the wife and I makes 4 good meals... not your avg ordinary little 7-8" one we only keep fat 9's and over 10's. Same goes for gills, takes 10-12 8-9" gills to make a decent meal for us, plus with fries or cheezy hashbrowns. Other than ice season I don't keep any panfish, just lucky to live on world class panfish waters. We jus implimented limits in part to keep the out of staters from coming down and taking 2000-3000 gills a week back home, and yes there were groups from WI and MI coming here 2-3 times a year taking numbers like that.

Groups (meaning several) 2000-3000 a week? 2-3 timers a year? That you know of, shame on you for not turning these "groups" in. If in fact this is even true, a bit beyond reality if you ask me.

[monstermoose78]

Well they changed the perch limits and I have yet to see more perch on mille lacs or bigger perch. I caught as many perch before the limit changed and the same sized ones. If some people want to try a lake with low limits we have them. I dont keep many sunnies and crappies but come on people its personal choice if you want to keep a limit or not. I have called tip and the local Dnr officer many times each spring on fish hogs. You may see me fishing every day but 9 times out of 10 in the spring I go home with out a fish. I have even been told to leave by over limit anglers because I was out fishing them, but was not keeping any. If I want to have a fish fry for my inlaws, wife and myself I should be able to do that and 20 gills and 10 crappies of ok size seem to be enough. I also like to have a fish sandwich the next if any are left over. Most the time I dont get left overs. I toss back all crappies over 11 inches and gills over 9.

[frazwood]

I was thinking about this thread a bit over the weekend... and monstermoose hints of the question that I've only now thought that ask:

We've had these lower limits for several years... has there been an improvement in panfish, crappie, or perch populations? And I am not talking anecdotal evidence (i.e., the type of "I catch the same types of fish now as then on Lake XXX), I'm talking hard survey data that the DNR collects year after year in many of our lakes.

Have the numbers and/or size changed at all? Simply put, have the reduced limits had an effect? If not, then I would say that we could probably increase the limits back to where they were.

My best guess is that some lakes have been helped but many lakes were not affected.

[Ybone]

Bowfin, when were we allowed 3 daily limits in possession? I know that since at least the 60s the daily and possession limits have been the same. Perch in recent years being the exception.

[noodlerod]

it should be closed from ice out to june 1rst my opinion thats when the hogs rape the lakes of all the very vulnerable spawners , and not to mention the double and triple dippers filling there freezers .

[goblueM]

I was thinking about this thread a bit over the weekend... and monstermoose hints of the question that I've only now thought that ask:

We've had these lower limits for several years... has there been an improvement in panfish, crappie, or perch populations? And I am not talking anecdotal evidence (i.e., the type of "I catch the same types of fish now as then on Lake XXX), I'm talking hard survey data that the DNR collects year after year in many of our lakes.

Have the numbers and/or size changed at all? Simply put, have the reduced limits had an effect? If not, then I would say that we could probably increase the limits back to where they were.

My best guess is that some lakes have been helped but many lakes were not affected.

you're probably right in that some lakes are helped and others are not, for a number of reasons. First off all lakes are different and there may be some lakes that just can't grow large panfish very well, for whatever reasons (fish assemblage, productivity, cover, spawning habitat, etc)

Secondly, non-compliance with regulations could effectively render the regulations useless, for example on Green Lake in Chisago Cty there was significant non-compliance with the crappie regulations

Finally, with the amount of lakes that the DNR has to monitor and the standardized way in which they do so, sometimes clear (and in-depth) evidence is not available, which is what makes fisheries management so difficult - making correct decisions based on an incomplete picture

[noodlerod]

[quote

We've had these lower limits for several years... has there been an improvement in panfish, crappie, or perch populations? And I am not talking anecdotal evidence (i.e., the type of "I catch the same types of fish now as then on Lake XXX), I'm talking hard survey data that the DNR collects year after year in many of our lakes.

First off all lakes are different and there may be some lakes that just can't grow large panfish very well, for whatever reasons (fish assemblage, productivity, cover, spawning habitat, etc)

Finally, with the amount of lakes that the DNR has to monitor and the standardized way in which they do so, sometimes clear (and in-depth) evidence is not available, which is what makes fisheries management so difficult - making correct decisions based on an incomplete picture

[Bowfin]

Bowfin, when were we allowed 3 daily limits in possession? I know that since at least the 60s the daily and possession limits have been the same. Perch in recent years being the exception.

I thought back when I was a kid the fishing limits were modeled closer to what small game hunting limits are (example currently daily limit for grouse is 5 with possession limit 10, squirrel daily is 7 with possession limit 14). I must be wrong if fish daily and possession have been the same since the 60's.

For those of us who enjoy eating fish and not being able to get out as often as we like, it would be nice to be able to have more than 1 daily limit in possession. Especially if they are talking about lowering daily limits.

[fishface]

I vote to hire more CO's with the lic. increases.

Let's keep all hunting and fishing $ in hunting and fishing. including the tax $ from equipt.

We have pretty good limits now.

Rienhard1's 9 & 10" panfish rule would be good

[noodlerod]

I vote to hire more CO's with the lic. increases.

Let's keep all hunting and fishing $ in hunting and fishing. including the tax $ from equipt.

well said

[Brad B]

If the state was to put a 5/5 limit in place state wide I would start to consider taking my money and start going on trips to other states where the bluegill and crappie limits are higher. I would start going to missouri where the bluegill limit is 50 (they are considered a non game fish down there). this doesn't mean I would take a full limit of 50 but I for sure would take 20(which is what we currently can have in minnesota). Keep limits where they are at but maybe put special regs in place in the metro area. a 5/5 limit would cause the state to lose alot of money. it would have a negative effect on the economy. people would buy less equipment thus jobs would be lost. resorts would see less people thus losing money. it would be a trickle down effect. the state can't afford to lose money.

[noodlerod]

How bout a slot on pannies and keep limit the same with only 1 sunfish over 9" and 1 crappie over 10" as stated by reinhard1 on another thread or something close to that

[Brad B]

1 over would be okay.

I pesonally will only keep a bluegill that is 6 to 8 inches and crappies 8 to 10. if it is smaller or larger it goes back. I will personally take only the smaller fish especially on lakes I know that there is a size issue on. on the over populated lakes people should keep some of the smaller fish to help thin out the stunted population. they did this for northerns on this one lake I fish. there was to many hammer handles but the lake association asked people to keep a limit of smaller northerns to thin the lake out. they went as far as posting signs at the access asking people to do this. after doing this I have seen some nice eating size fish come out of this lake. I also had one swim by my underwater camera this winter that would of went 36 to 40 inches. I think the 1 over and a lake by lake regulation would be the way to go if they did anything.

[fishlips]

110% for some type of reduced limit - 5 of each is reasonable as is a length limit for crappies (12" or under can be kept). This is 2011, can't keep harvesting fish basically year around like this. Also, this website needs to get more active in promoting low or selective harvest. A couple of the featured videos show a good bite and into the bucket they go with high fives.....maybe 80% were released, who knows, but this site as well as those filming the videos need to promote catch and release.

[spankster80]

THEY SHOULD MOVE IT BACK TO 15. IT ONLY TAKE 5 MINUTES TO CATCH YOUR LIMIT IF YOU KNOW WAHAT YOUR DOING..

[Recon]

Amen!!! The only answer that makes any sense close the season 4/15-6/15. Rules are for people who break them.

[Davidjojo]

When you get out once or twice a month, 5/5 seems a little low. Maybe 6/6 or 10 or 12 in combination. A little personal responsibility would go a long way. I've seen people walk away with a bucket of fish only to return latter to continue harvesting fish. I've also had many guys look at me like I'm crazy for releasing a nice Crappie and telling me they will take the fish I catch. I've had fish go bad in the freezer because I didn't get around to eating them because I had fresh fish to eat. I am trying not to have that happen and keeping fish only when I know I will be eating them right away. Keeping a couple small Bass in the mix is also an option. There's always a good number of those to be had. I like to sneak a Rock Bass in every so often. No one knows the difference when they've been cleaned and cooked. Next time your out fishing Crappies in a crowd of boats on a dock, let a few nice ones go. It's fun to see the reaction you get. Maybe others will do the same.

[Brad B]

there is a article in the infisherman 2011 panfish guide that talks about regulating panfish harvest. there is a statement in there that backs ups my feeling that a 5/5 limit would not give us bigger fish. here is the statement : "Furthermore, natural mortality rates often exceed 40 percent or more, making it difficult to save fish. Reducing harvest may only result in more fish lost to natural causes and provide no net gain in the number of large fish available to anglers". here is another one that sticks out : "More stringent regulation of angler harvest won't improve panfish populations in all situations". bottom line to remember is "Panfish anglers are, however, largely harvest-oriented and size selective". I feel we should be able to use the fish instead of them getting lost to natural causes. We need to keep the limit where it is at and look at this issue on a lake by lake basis.

[noodlerod]

Excellent post bradb