# Panfish Management Thoughts



## raisinrat (Feb 9, 2006)

Recently came across a blog talking about this very topic. I have been trying to keep tabs on these studies. This is something I think we could use here in the state. Vote on the pole and leave a comment.

_Panfish fans across the country are passionate about the quest for big bluegills, especially those humpy-headed, broad-shouldered bulls that seem increasingly more rare with each passing season.

Given the intense fishing pressure many lakes endure virtually year-round, and particularly when news of a hot bite triggers an intense onslaught by fish-hungry masses, it’s not surprising that big fish can be hard to find.

For years, many fisheries managers have allowed liberal bag limits or even unlimited harvest, often in an attempt to control stunting—a condition in which lakes become overrun with silver-dollar-sized sunfish. 

But new research from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources supports what many devout panfish anglers have long believed—that selective harvest and reduced bag limits are key to producing bigger fish in many lakes.

The study, led by Andrew Rypel of the Bureau of Science Services, compared bluegill sizes in a number of lakes with 25-fish bag limits, along with lakes where experimental 10-fish limits were in place. 

Over the course of three years, researchers found that the average size of bluegills rose by more than three-quarters of an inch in lakes with lower limits. Gains were particularly notable in lakes with lower water clarity—presumably due to increased fertility and more food being available to fuel bluegill growth.

Interestingly, even though little creel data was available, researchers found that experimental lakes with low bag limits quickly developed reputations among anglers for producing quality-sized fish.

Rypel also noted that, since bluegills can live 10 years or more, the research only covered a fraction of the lifespan of fish in lakes studied. Over time, even greater gains in bluegill size could be expected. Rypel also cautioned that regulation changes may take years to produce results, which means both fish managers and fishermen need to be patient as sunfish fisheries begin to heal after years of abuse.

For panfish anglers the take-home message is simple. Lower bag limits can be a tool for producing bigger bluegills on some lakes. If you’re interested in promoting better fishing, get involved with local lake associations, participate in your state’s fishery management process—including public input meetings—and help fellow anglers understand the importance of leaving enough large sunfish in the lake to sustain great fishing for generations to come._


----------



## raisinrat (Feb 9, 2006)

I am shocked no one has comments on this topic


----------



## brookie1 (Jan 26, 2011)

It's one of the few things left that I can still enjoy without a bunch of rules or unnecessarily small bag limits. Can't anything be left alone? Everybody wants to try to "improve" things when in reality they are chasing people away. The orvis boys won, I haven't attempted to fish for trout in years. And now in additional to the trout only waters, silly color coded rules, and small bag limits, we have a bunch of hook size laws to worry about if we fish anything connected to the great lakes. Deer hunting is heading in that direction as well. Now bluegills? Recreation is supposed to be fun, not burdened with a bunch of unnecessary rules and limitations for people that will never be happy with anything.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Alright Rat, you asked.
Panfish success, (if big bulls are the goal) is dependent on multiple factors and few of the "many lakes"referred to are likely to produce large amounts consistently based on restricting limits alone.
A fine balance of food availability, annual recruitment of natural reproduction, and predators, factor largely.
Any of the three out of balance can and often do affect year classes as well as population competition for food and bedding habitat..
I've found too many panfish a bigger problem than too few in effect on size.
There are some places a distinct difference in how and where older gills for example hang out.
If you're not working them just right you would not know they exist ,though many smaller ones can be in the same water body suggesting stunted fish.
Common sense should suggest taking home what is most abundant.
If people don't kill all the slabbers there will be enough for others to keep one of on occasion.
Regulating greed is a messy business.
Transferring it to panfish when the rest of the states fishery is out of balance socially just increases demand for more enforcement and study dollars already lacking.
Watching bass chase bedded gills gets interesting. As well as smaller fish seeking eggs and fry.
Pan fish are a base for diets in some areas, but not all.
Micro managing panfish is specific case based per water body for best results but is not going to be cost effective state wide.
A blanket regulation of size or numbers is not an accurate solution unless multiple factors in each population is understood.


----------



## brookie1 (Jan 26, 2011)

Throw food chain issues into the mix as well. Zebra mussels have been proven to wipe out a necessary part of the food chain that small fish need to get to the next level. I'm sure there are other examples. Fishing is probably not the issue or only a minor issue in many lakes.


----------



## raisinrat (Feb 9, 2006)

I am ok with the 25 fish bag limit but I would like to see a limit put on how many of a certain size can be taking in that 25 fish. Like only 5 can be over 9 or 10 inches depending on the waters. Or slot limit where everything below 8 and anything above 10 can be taken anything in the 9 inch range has to be released.

I am 99% catch and release by choice has I understand the importance to keep those really larger fish in the system. To keep the amount of successful breeds in check.

I have seen lakes ruined by over harvest of these larger specimens.


----------



## TK81 (Mar 28, 2009)

I am going to manage to eat a bag of gills tonight. Although it is great to catch 9" plus gills, I would rather clean the 8" fish. I agree with the posts above, too difficult to manage panfish.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Waif is spot on that you can't manage just one species. If you want to reach the kind of population structure you get on an unexploited lake, where 'gills will average over 7" and bass and pike will be bigger, you have to manage the top predators as well and have good habitat for all species. I'm all for bigger fish which you can get in a majority of lakes with the right management. Unfortunately, that management can only be achieved with public support and we're not there yet. Getting the idea out there that more and bigger fish is possible is the place to start. Everybody knows that a lightly fished lake is likely to have better fishing than a heavily pressure one. Getting them to make the logical leap from that knowledge to recognizing that we can mitigate pressure through our own behavior has been a problem. Bass guys figured it out a long time ago, fans of other species not so much.


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

The State manages for fishing opportunities, not QUALITY fishing opportunties. They are hurting all species by doing so. Ever hear of Caloric Deficit? A healthy "Sunfish" population is primary food source in most all inland lakes. A slot limit, lower bag limit and protection during the spawn are needed NOW. They have turned "their" backs on this stuation for far to long. Now that the big lakes are dying, perhaps they can turn attention to this. Other states have long ago taken steps to protect and manage Panfishes. It's time OUR fisheries people so the same.


----------



## Shlack (Apr 6, 2012)

brookie1 said:


> It's one of the few things left that I can still enjoy without a bunch of rules or unnecessarily small bag limits. Can't anything be left alone? Everybody wants to try to "improve" things when in reality they are chasing people away. The orvis boys won, I haven't attempted to fish for trout in years. And now in additional to the trout only waters, silly color coded rules, and small bag limits, we have a bunch of hook size laws to worry about if we fish anything connected to the great lakes. Deer hunting is heading in that direction as well. Now bluegills? Recreation is supposed to be fun, not burdened with a bunch of unnecessary rules and limitations for people that will never be happy with anything.


Well said.... just leave it the way it is....


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

There's always Wakely Lake. C&R, and full of big ole Bass, Bluegills, etc.


----------



## raisinrat (Feb 9, 2006)

*Seen This article on Facebook great read.*

*Managing Bluegills*
by Dr. Hal Schramm http://www.in-fisherman.com/panfish/bluegill/managing-bluegills/#comments







Until a few years ago, the management strategy for good bluegill fishing—meaning good numbers of hand-size or larger ‘gills—was simple: (1) keep the numbers of intermediate-size bluegills sufficiently low so the surviving bluegills have plenty to eat and grow quickly to quality size and beyond; and (2) don’t over-harvest large bluegills. That still is an effective management strategy in ponds and small impoundments where the fish community is simple—just two or three species.

The best way to keep bluegill numbers in check? Maintain a high density of bluegill predators in the pond. Typically that predator is largemouth bass. I’ve repeatedly seen anglers unhooking palm-size bluegills and throwing them on the bank in efforts to reduce the abundance of small, slow-growing bluegills. Good intentions, bad strategy. First, how much fun is it to catch 4-inch bluegills? Second, even the most zealous and dedicated angler can’t keep up with the sunfish removal capability of a largemouth bass.

A largemouth bass consumes its weight in bluegills each month when the water temperature is near 75°F. A 4-inch bluegill weighs less than an ounce, a 5-inch bluegill weighs about 1.4 ounces. From spring through fall, a single 1-pound largemouth bass eats at least two dozen 4-inch bluegills or about a dozen 5-inchers each month. Not only are largemouth bass superior bluegill removing machines, they crop ‘gills at a much smaller size than do anglers. This is important because a 3- or 4-inch bluegill eats the same food as—and therefore competes with—a half-pound or larger ‘gill.

Minnesota DNR fishery biologist Pete Jacobson suggests an opposite strategy may produce quality bluegills that panfish piscatores seek. He found average length of bluegills increased in three of four lakes where the sunfish daily creel limit was reduced from the statewide limit of 30 sunfish per day to 10 per day. During the same period, average length decreased in four similar lakes where the bag limit remained 30 sunfish per day.

Nothing mysterious here, or so it seems—harvest fewer fish, more survive to grow large, and the average length of bluegill increases. Good thinking, but to grow larger, bluegills need food. With lower harvest, more bluegills would survive to share limited food resources, and growth rate should slow. But Jacobson found growth rate increased in the reduced-harvest lakes, and the greatest increase in growth rate occurred in the reduced harvest lakes that had the greatest proportion of large bluegills.

The likely key to why reduced harvest resulted in larger bluegills was not that they survived to live longer and grow larger, but because they didn’t begin reproducing until they reached a larger size. Sexually mature fish channel a lot of energy into developing gonads and building and guarding nests, which leaves less energy for body (somatic) growth. By delaying sexual maturity until reaching a larger size, the fish can grow faster because energy is not shunted to reproduction. Jacobson found that average length at maturity of male bluegill increased from 6 inches before the 10-fish regulation to 6½ to 7 inches four years after the regulation was implemented. During the same time period, average length at maturity stayed at 6 inches in the reference lakes with 30-fish limits.

Does that small difference in length at maturity matter? Yes. Faster growth in the regulation lakes translated into bluegills that were 7 to 8 inches long at age-7 compared to 6 to 6½ inches at age-7 in the 30-fish limit lakes. While the 1- to 1½-inch difference in growth may not sound like much, it equates to a bluegill that weighs twice as much at age-7 in the 10-fish-limit lakes as in the 30-fish-limit lakes.

Reduced harvest, delayed maturation, faster growth, bigger bluegills. But something is missing: reduced harvest does not directly affect sexual maturation. Research at the Illinois Natural History Survey provides the missing link. Small (5- to 6-inch) male bluegills stocked into newly filled research ponds spawned. In identical ponds where large male bluegills (1 to 2 inches longer than the small bluegills) were stocked with small ones, almost all large males spawned, but only 6 of 208 small bluegills nested. In other words, large male bluegills suppressed spawning of their smaller brethren.









Reduced reproduction by smaller male bluegills can result from three different processes. First, bluegills nest in colonies of several dozen to several hundred tightly packed, saucer-like beds. Large males occupy the best spawning sites near the center of the colony. Smaller males are relegated to sub-optimal spawning sites at the periphery of the colony where they and their offspring may be more vulnerable to predation. Second, smaller males are less attractive to females than large males and, therefore, may not spawn. Third, the presence of large males suppresses gonad development of the smaller males. The Illinois researchers found that the testes weight relative to the body weight of small bluegills was significantly lower when large male bluegills were present. This suppression of gonad development, which has also been observed in other fishes, is attributed to “social influences” and likely mediated by hormones, but the exact mechanism for delaying maturation is yet to be identified.

The “social influence” effect works both ways. When large male bluegills are present, sexual maturation is delayed. But removing large male bluegills triggers maturity at a smaller size. This might be the case in high-harvest bluegill fisheries. With bluegill density reduced by harvest, surviving fish should grow faster. But if high harvest selectively depletes larger male bluegills, smaller bluegills mature earlier, more energy goes to growing gonads, and growth rate slows. End result—a lot of small, slow-growing bluegills, and a lot of reproduction to perpetuate the problem.

Jacobson’s findings were encouraging but not perfect—bluegill size structure increased in only three of four reduced-harvest lakes. A question is whether highly restricted harvest creates large size structure of bluegill populations in other lakes. This management strategy has been expanded to other lakes in Minnesota, including a few with the creel limit reduced to only five bluegills, so we wait to see.

Another question is whether the reduced-harvest strategy tested in natural lakes with diverse fish communities would work in small impoundments with simple fish communities? Dr. Derek Aday, fishery professor at North Carolina State University, has done extensive research on the effects of bluegill size structure on energy allocation and growth. He asserts that the large size-structure/delayed maturation/faster growth management strategy should be effective in small impoundments but emphasizes that rigorous evaluation is needed. Testing the effectiveness of limited bluegill harvest will be a tough sell in small impoundments where high harvest—by anglers and bass—is the prevailing mindset.

*Spawn Early, Die Young*

Sexual maturity of male bluegill is affected by population size structure and abundance, a process that biologists call phenotypic plasticity—the variation in anatomy, physiology, or behavior exhibited by individuals with similar genetic structure. Intensive study of bluegill spawning behavior revealed that not all sexually mature male bluegills build nests, attract and court females, and then patiently and aggressively guard the eggs and fry.

Thirty years ago, Dr. Mart Gross, working in Lake Opinicon, Ontario, identified bluegill phenotypes that he named “sneakers” and “satellites” and referred to both as cuckholders. Both phenotypes are males that mature at young ages—age-2 or age-3—compared to typical males (“parentals”) that mature at age-7. Sneakers are small males that dash into a parental’s nest and fertilize the eggs as the female spawns. Satellites are older and larger males, colored to mimic females, that more boldly enter a parental male’s nest and fertilize the eggs. Both exit after their sneaky deed and leave parenting chores to the parental male.

As would be predicted by the mature early-grow slowly model, both phenotypes have slow growth. Gross’ data also suggests that while sneakers may transition to satellites, neither transition to “normal” parentals, and the cuckholders may die young.

Further research reveals these seemingly deviant phenotypes are reproductive machines. The testes of sneakers and satellites are a significantly greater proportion of the fish’s body weight than are the testes of a parental bluegill. Further, the milt of the cuckholders has a higher concentration of sperm, and the individual sperm cells have longer flagella (“tails”), higher concentration of energy compounds, and swim faster, giving the cuckholders a competitive advantage in the race to an unfertilized egg.

What triggers the cuckholder phenotype—the development, physiology, and behavior—awaits explanation. The cuckholders have been found to have higher concentrations of sex hormones, which could be triggered by stress hormones released in response to high population density.

And there’s one more twist: bluegill cuckholdry may be restricted to northern populations, suggests Dr. Derek Aday. He has examined the gonads of thousands of bluegills from southern waters as part of his maturity-energy allocation research and has seen few examples of small, sneaker males with mature testes. The relative absence of cuckholders in southern waters may be a consequence of the longer growing season that results in fast growth to maturity of all male bluegills. “When male bluegills mature in their first or second year of life, there may be no opportunity for development of sneaker phenotypes,” reasons Aday.

*







Strategies for Finding Trophy ‘Gills*

To catch big fish you need to fish where big fish live. Returning to waters where you have caught big bluegills works, usually. Chasing off to a new water on a “hot tip” from a friend works, sometimes. Based on research findings of Minnesota DNR biologist Pete Jacobson, a trip to lakes with low sunfish creel limits should consistently yield big ‘gills. You’ll also probably find reduced competition by other sunfish anglers, at least for a while, who tend to be consumption oriented and discouraged by the low harvest limits.

Ponds and small impoundments can produce exceptional fishing for large bluegills. With so many to choose from, where do you start? A little “reverse reasoning” may work. Instead of tuning in to reports of big bluegills (which are reports of how the fishing was), listen closely to bass anglers who are complaining about “a lot of small bass.” These are the lakes that offer high probability of bluegill populations with a lot of large fish. Then target lakes without gizzard shad. If it’s a private pond, always ask permission before accessing.

*Show-Me State Bluegill*

Tobacco Hills Lake in northwestern Missouri has provided exceptional fishing for magnum ‘gills for at least 20 years. Missouri Department of Conservation fishery biologist Jake Allman gave me the stats on this unique, 17-acre lake located 20 miles from metro Kansas City. The lake is fertile but clear. Tobacco Hills is managed with a 10-fish daily creel limit and an 8-inch minimum length limit. The lake receives high fishing effort (300 angler hours per acre per year), and high angler success results in high bluegill harvest. Despite the high harvest, electrofishing catch rates of bluegills 8 inches and longer rank among the highest in the state.

Tobacco Hills might be the perfect storm of bluegill fisheries. The fish community is simple—bluegill, largemouth bass, and a few crappies. The largemouth bass have a small size structure and are abundant. They severely crop the bluegills, which results in fast growth to large size for those that escape predators. The persistent scarcity of crappies, which commonly overpopulate small impoundments, is additional evidence of heavy bass predation. This small, clear lake has a narrow fringe of pondweed that provides refuge to small bluegills, so there’s a steady supply of small bluegills to move up the size ladder. Tobacco Hills Lake bluegills reach 8 inches in only 5 years, 3 years sooner than the average bluegill in Missouri.

Allman also emphasized that this impoundment does not have gizzard shad. How gizzard shad suppress bluegills has eluded researchers for years. Possibly it is because bass selectively feed on shad, which allows bluegills to overpopulate, which in turn results in slow growth. Nevertheless, the reality is that bluegills don’t grow big in small impoundments where gizzard shad are present. Allman reported that bluegills don’t exceed 7½ inches in other lakes in his Northwest Missouri district that have shad.

The unanswered question at Tobacco Hills Lake is whether the exceptionally large size structure of the bluegill population follows the Illinois Natural History Survey model of large bluegills suppressing maturation of small bluegills. Or maybe it’s a combination of high bass predation and the “social influence” process that results in exceptionally fast growth.

Despite the ubiquity of bluegill and their popularity as a sport fish, they have received little active management. The management strategy in ponds has been to maintain high predation through a lot of hungry bass. Good “bream” fishing in thousands of ponds where quality bluegills are the management target is evidence that the strategy works. But the downside is that it is accomplished by giving up quality bass fishing.

Active management by reducing harvest holds promise to provide quality bluegill fishing without compromising the other fisheries available to anglers. Clearly, more evaluations are needed to test the effect of the reduced harvest regime, and also to understand why a specific management strategy is effective (or ineffective). These studies are difficult to conduct in public waters because they require intense creel surveys to measure angler effort, catch, harvest, and compliance with regulations. ■

*Dr. Hal Schramm, Starkeville, Mississippi, is an avid angler, fishery biologist, and freelance writer. He frequently contributes to In-Fisherman publications on science topics.



Read more: http://www.in-fisherman.com/panfish/bluegill/managing-bluegills/#ixzz3noxdgNb7


----------



## CrappieSlayer (Jan 3, 2014)

I don't think there's a practical reason for a size/slot limit. Some lakes are going to naturally produce bigger gills and some aren't. Some lakes are more heavily pressured than others, some aren't. I fished a lake in the LP in September and caught probably 200 panfish with literally 1 fish that I would consider a "keeper". I contacted the dnr and was told because of the structure and ecosystem of the lake, they've had a stunting problem since the 1950's and had even poisoned the lake and started over, only to have the same results. The point is, there are over 10,000 lakes in Michigan and I don't see a size, slot, or lower limit being practical because of the amount of surveying and enforcement needed. I love fishing gills as much as anyone, and I can tell you that normally I may keep 7-10 fish in the 9" class, if I'm lucky. The rest get tossed because it's not much fun cleaning a 6" panfish. I'm sure there are people who keep anything and everything, but I'd bet most fisherman would rather take a few larger fish than a bunch of smaller ones. I currently live in Ohio and the dnr has been experimenting with a 9" crappie limit on certain lakes. It's increased the size, but we're talking about a state with no natural inland lakes. The point is, this is practical because you're talking about regulating a couple dozen man-made bodies of water with similar ecosystems, not 10,000 natural lakes. Do the best you can do to preserve the bodies of water you fish and spread the word and educate when and where you can. But, let's leave more regulation and government out of it. Nature knows what's best, not Washington (or Lansing).


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Very interesting article. It's amazing to me that just about any species you can name follows this pattern, from apex predators right down to prey; protect a percentage of the larger specimens and the average size will go up. Why that is less true in rivers is a mystery unless the issue with rivers is we only manage small portions, somewhat like having a different limit on just one bay in the lake.

CrappieSlayer is right though, you can't just have a new statewide blanket regulation and expect it to be followed or enforced. When it comes to 'gills a lot of people "fill their freezer" in the spring or through the ice and I'm sure they don't think of themselves as violators for exceeding the possession limit. We've heard for years that you can't overfish 'gills and taking a bunch is actually good for them so they don't become stunted, so many folks think that keeping all they can is a net benefit for the lake. The opposite is actually true but it will take years of articles like the ones above to convince enough people of the facts to allow regulations that optimize population structure to be realistic. We've all seen lakes that had big 'gills, word got out and they get fished out. And many serious 'gill fisherman are seriously secretive about their spots because of it, too. Putting two and two together with that knowledge and information like the article above is too much for a lot of people. Of course, there are a few lakes that lack habitat or species diversity to ever be very good but, do we really want worse fishing on 9500 lakes because 500 won't get better no matter what we do?


----------



## raisinrat (Feb 9, 2006)

The number of inland lakes in Michigan depends on the minimum size: 
62,798 lakes ≥ 0.1 acres
26,266 lakes ≥ 1.0 acres
6,537 lakes ≥ 10.0 acres
1,148 lakes ≥ 100 acres
98 lakes ≥ 1,000 acres
10 lakes ≥ 10,000 acres

I think the key here is to identify the correct size lake for this type of management. Anything under an acre is a pond and should be managed has such. The lakes running 1 to 10 acres tend to be private and the ones that are public have a simple fish structure and can be managed more like ponds also. The Range from 10 to 100 acres will need to be broken down further. But if we where to take a look the upper three levels those lakes are larger, and we can start looking at the management style that was discussed in the article.

Just throwing our hands up and saying it can't be done is not the correct thing to do here. We can manage for better and larger fish. The studies just have to be done. And according to the study highlighted in the article, 75% of the lakes responded with larger fish fairly quickly ( 4 year). So if you take the upper three amounts of lakes and we assume we get the same return of improvement across those lake we would see the size structure improve in 942 lake out of 1256 lakes. 

The benefit to the state to see these improvements are hard to deny. More license sales, more tourism(both in state and from out state) and better management of our resource for our kids. More money going into areas of the state that could use it right now.


----------



## raisinrat (Feb 9, 2006)

I wrote to the author of the article to see if he can send me the studies quoted in the article


----------



## raisinrat (Feb 9, 2006)

I was able to get copies of the studies mentioned in the in fisherman article.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

raisinrat said:


> I was able to get copies of the studies mentioned in the in fisherman article.


Cool. Any chance you can forward them?


----------



## fishindad (Mar 11, 2009)

Justin, thank you for sharing the article and starting this discussion. Much rather weigh in on something that allows for intelligent exchange. As has already been pointed out, it would be next to impossible to manage every single MI lake for panfish let alone any species. Too diverse. More importantly, it is absolutely impossible to please every MI angler, lol.

Times change, anglers age, reasons for going fishing changes, and most importantly, science advances (with research funding) and gives us all more insight and knowledge of how to better manage state fisheries to try and please every angler.

Most of MI's inland lakes (not counting LSC or TC area lakes which were once part of GL eons ago) are weedy, sunfish and largemouth lakes. It would be difficult to disturb these food chains without affecting the other species, which would of course upset the bass guys, of which I am one. LM bass (and pike) love to eat sunfish. 

To me, the best way to increase the average size of sunfish is to implement a slot limit and mandate release of "trophy" sized fish - be they perch, bluegill, crappie. But in this day and age everyone wants to take home a limit of 9" plus panfish for the fryer. Matt Straw of In-Fisherman once wrote that if anglers would not filet fish and just prep and eat them the "old-fashioned" way by scaling and gutting them there would be much less waste of fish kept for the table. He referred to eating bluegill filets as eating potato chips and I agree! 

Finally, what needs to change is the angler's mentality. I love eating all freshly caught fish, with the exception of rough fish. Walleye, perch, bass, sunfish, pike, trout, salmon, whitefish, white bass, catfish, rock bass. I just don't see the need for folks to keep 25 big panfish each and every time out - even though that's each license holder's privilege, it doesn't mean it's best for sustaining a healthy population. JMHO.


----------



## raisinrat (Feb 9, 2006)

Here is the reduce bag limit study.


----------

