Stunted Fish vs Overfished vs Special Regs

[whateverisbiting]

This topic will probably elicit some passionate responses but thought it would be interesting to hear what others have to say...especially in the doldrums of winter where I am having trouble finding time to get out (fun reading fishing reports it keeps me going).

I have often heard that fish, especially panfish, are small because there are too many little ones competing for food so they can't grow and the options thrown out there are to keep more fish and manage for more predator fish (bass, northern, musky).  I personally think this is exactly the wrong thing to do without some harvest restrictions; here is my case.

There are tons of metro lakes with lots of bass, musky and northern and very small panfish (like crappies under 9", sunnies under 7", perch under 8".  In contrast, there are a lot of similar lakes 100 miles outside the metro with lots of predator fish but it is much easier to find crappies up to 14", sunnies up to 11" and perch to 13".

In my opinion, the difference is simply the fishing pressure.

For instance, I fished Green Lake in Chisago as a kid (1980s) and could get a limit of 8" crappies on any day but never caught anything bigger.  Northern and bass were plentiful and there were enough walleye to keep you interested.  A few years back, a regulation was put in place that you could not keep crappies on Green under 9".  I fished there during that time and found almost every crappie was 8 7/8" but managed to actually keep a limit between 9-12", a size I had never seen before on that lake.  I also witnessed plenty of people not paying attention to the size restriction and keeping crappies under 9".  I was disappointed to see them lift that regulation.  I literally caught 100 crappies that day...was fun and I was able to take some home.

In contrast, I always hear about trying to get bigger fish in a lake by encouraging people to keep more fish or by stocking musky.  Well I don't think that works very well if only small fish are in the lake and there are no size restrictions because people and fish will take what is available and it gets worse, not better.  On the other hand, when coupled with a size restriction that does work.  Besides my Green Lake example, there are success stories out there (take Rainy lake for example to bring that back you could only keep walleye under 15" and that worked and I think there were similar successes with Leach and Winnie).  In contrast, Mille Lacs has been destroyed and I think the special regulations are too special and doing more harm than good, though with netting and zebra mussels and the population drifting to smallmouth there are a lot of complicating factors.

Now there is a proposal for local management of northern pike populations with some interesting modifications of what you can or cannot keep based on the part of the state you are in.  I think that there are some real good options in there, but I can see they are proposing to deploy this by region of the state, not by what is needed for each lake.  I think that will do as much harm as good since we have very different lakes in the same region so it will hurt as many lakes as it helps.

In the end it is still trial and error and I think the DNR should keep any special regulation simple and lake specific and keep a balance of being able to harvest while managing for a better fishery.  They should learn from successes and deploy those learnings in a step-wise fashion.

In that spirit, I would be interested in hearing of other success stories for lakes that had special regulations and why you think it worked, or alternatively, of special regulations that were put in place that did not work.

Mike

 

 

 

 

[jvm1]

The proposed pike regulations are absurd. They want to make every lake a potential trophy lake? Give me a break.... Why not designate some lakes to be regulated and keep the rest the same, or open up the regulations to be like some that have the hammer handle problem, keep 9 under 22. I like pike, I'll take 9 small ones and let the big ones swim no problem. Help me help you with the hammer handle problem.  Each lake its different, they can't manage them as regions. That's silly.

[mrklean]

They aren't trying to make every lake a potential trophy lakes some they are others they are trying to increase harvest opportunity, I think it will be a massive failure.  In the central region they are trying to increase harvest on small fish under 20" or 22" I cant remember the exact number but I don't think it will matter so many have it in their mind the small fish are full of bones and to many don't want to mess with them.  Yes some have no problem but I really believe the general population will not keep the small pike and keep tossing them back fewer larger pike will be kept because of the slot but the small pike will still be there.

[jvm1]

Well, I'll gladly takes two more hammer handles coming through my spearing hole in the next half hour 

[th64]

The Mpls. city lakes have always had stunted panfish this has always been blamed on fishing pressure but these lakes have never received a lot of pressure for panfish except for some shore fishermen. Lakes like 'Tonka get much more pressure but you are still able to get good fish. Some lakes just seem to have the right forage base to grow good fish. The forage base has to be right to grow trophy pike too or any other species for that matter-also you have to accept that even good lakes have cycles, but that is a rant for another day,

[PLfisherman]

Th64 hit it on the head I believe. FORAGE. Most lake around here don't have the proper  forage in my opinion and the also have too many panfish.

[drscholl14]

Habitat and forage.  I also think there is a real problem in this state of not letting the larger fish go which in turn helps regulate the smaller population.  Harvest medium "eater" size fish and let the larger ones go.  It would help immensely.  

Edited February 11, 2016 by drscholl14

[whateverisbiting]

Well its no surprise that there is agreement that lakes are different even in the same region and that reduced harvest will equal better fishing.

Beyond that, I was hoping to see a few case studies of special regulations and whether they did or did  not work (excluding the big walleye lakes)

I have one more.  I fished Turtle Lake is Shoreview as a kid and was never really impressed with the lake as far as bass fishing goes.  A while back now (10 years?) a special regulation was put on that lake that you cannot keep bass.  I fished it a number of times since the closure, and sure enough the numbers went way up it is a fun time for C&R.  However, I am surprised that the size structure seems stuck at 11-16" with a few jumbos (20") here and there.

Just reinforces this is a complicated dynamic to manage.

 

Mike

[popriveter]

It is so much more complicated than simply "forage and habitat."

That seems to be the key for crappies and pike-a lot of lakes don't produce many minnows, so the crappies eat bugs and don't get very large. The pike stay in shallower, warmer water to eat perch and sunfish, or maybe the lake is too shallow to have cold water through summer. The hot water temps in summer make them actually lose weight. Where there are forage fish out deep (like ciscoes) they have incentive to hang deep and get big.

Sunfish are totally different. Fishing pressure is key. It can change a population genetically in a single season. The bulls are the biggest, prettiest, most aggressive. Therefore, they are the first to get caught and eaten, and the sneakers dominate the gene pool. This is the recipe for the 5" adult sunfish. As soon as you fish out 50% of the bulls and you've just ruined the lake until the next winterkill reboots the population. Even that won't help unless the DNR steps in an reintroduces some breeders from a stronger gene pool.

I've watched the bass populations get stronger and bigger in my lifetime, so I believe good management and angler education can make an impact. I hope they manage to turn the corner with pike and sunfish. It's been a long decline for them.

[metro fisherman]

I believe water quality started reducing in the metro about 20 years ago and its progressed to the point that forage for panfish has been reduced. When i lived on a metro lake and went swimming i would feel a clam with my feet every 10 steps or so, this gradually reduced to never finding a living clam. The decline of indicator species (clams were the example) is an obvious sign of water quality reduction or contamination that the DNR is either unaware of or are not concerned by this.