Panfish Fishing
panfish limits
2/15/15 @ 10:22 PM
Displaying 16 to 30 of 82 posts
People are either part of the problem, or part of the solution. Even if the daily bag dropped to 10, your possession limit would be 20. That means 40 fillets. Not sure why a person can't feed a family and guests on 40 fillets!
Its not like the old days. Fishermen now have better equipment, electronics, boats, augers, shanties, clothing, etc. that allow them to say out longer and be more mobile and versatile than ever. And then add in the internet and weekly local fishing shows that put more and more pressure on already heavily fished waters.
Don't think it matters? Tell me what happened to the panfishing on Monona Bay, Fox Lake, Delevan, Mendota perch, etc.
My intent isn't to argue, but your argument holds about as much validity as mine, because yes, I hunt from southern WI through Adams/Wood/Marathon counties/up to Sawyer county. On the lands I hunt, there is no issue at all with the deer herd. With that said, there is a great deal of concern over the deer herd on lands within a stones throw of places I hunt. Likewise there is a perilous situation on some of the dozens lakes I panfish, while I can get a good meal on some of the neighboring lakes that continue to produce.
The point is, harvest has proven to impact fisheries both small and large. In fact, there aren't many lakes open to the public that man hasn't altered fish population dynamics to a degree(whether 'good' or 'bad' is in the eye of the beholder). There isn't a one size fits all for every lake in the state. As an extremely avid panfisherman that has seen certain vulnerable fisheries become depleted, I am 100% onboard with restricting harvest to a degree on some of the waters I fish. Based on what our states fisherman/fisheries managers/creel surveys are seeing, the fact that populations/size structure/trophy potential has been impacted on a large number of waters, is no abarration.
Because I enjoy feeding my family a frequent meal of panfish, I choose lakes that have hitorically produced similar numbers/sizes of panfish. I do not continue to hit the same lake, but that is my choice. With that said,I also like to chase trophy bluegills and feel that they are as vulnerable as any species with regards to overharvest. There is no mistake that some of the private lakes/resevoirs that I fish give up the true 10-11" bluegills with more frequency than some of my favorite local, once trophy destination lakes. To allow for a handful of these protected gems, looks out for the growing number of folks interested in panfish, along with an ever diversified interest in terms of what they want to catch.
One issue with panfish, is doing something too late. Not unlike trophy smallmouth populations(G. Pyzer etal), once the lions share of the adult spawners are removed, the smaller/younger fish will begin to develop reproductively at a younger/smaller size, eventually selecting for stunting for reasons that cannot be completely repaired through harvest. In other words, in addition to the DNR/public looking to repair certain waters, protecting certain others could be key to the subsequent return studies that occur in 5-7 years after implementation.
Wale, your question is a valid one whether you are for it or against. Since when is it a bad idea to have an open discussion about a concern? Limits are in place for a reason. Unfortunately, there are people who don't know when to say enough is enough, and for them, the law makes that decision for them.
I would say most lakes should, in an ideal world, be managed independently, as they are all different.
I don't mean to offend anyone, or tell them how to live.
I deleted my post, even though it only answered the question that started the thread.
Marc: Thank you for making the determination as to how many fish my family needs for a meal. Do you have a decision on how many squares of t-paper I may use? Perhaps I need your wise counsel on my health care. I am so happy to have such thoughtful advise on how I should run my life. Are you in a government job?
Here is the final proposal, which is on the spring hearings ballot. They did change one category to address some spawning concerns:
http://dnr.wi.gov/About/NRB/2014/Dec/12-14-3C2-handout.pdf
Glad to see that its not on every lake. I've fished the Madison chain my entire life and have not really noticed a drop. Years ago along Lake farm on waubesa there would be a hundred guys in waders taking 50 fish limits day after day. Today you'll see 50-60 boats on the sames beds. No change from the 70's. The beds in monona that produced in the past still produce today, like wise for Mendota.
The comment about fancy toys is spot on.
Winters 30 years ago you didn't see ATV's running around everywhere towing sleds equipped with portable shacks and flashers. Some folks did have lighter (ATV's and snowmobiles) modes of transportation but the market wasn't as saturated as it is now. So you walked out or you waited until you could drive. Once on the ice you either sat on a bucket or in a hard sided shack. You just moved and spent time until you caught something or didn't...instead of plopping a transducer down a hole and moving on if there was nothing there.
Add in the ease by which people can get information through online sources are simply because more and more is written each year and voila, there's an environment where people can be more efficient. That aspect is nice in some ways but aggravating in others. It's aggravating because more and more people have an expectation that they need to catch a limit each time out instead of just enjoying the chase.
An example of how technology and greed impacted an area from this year....my brother and I had a pretty good bluegill run going on a small lake with little pressure. One day a buddy of ours joins us and it's no big deal, between us combined we kept right around a dozen fish two weeks in a row...just enough for a couple of meals and that's it. The third week this buddy of ours invited a coworker to join us not expecting the fallout. We get out there a little later than usual and find seven guys and two permanent shacks in that area, all of the hole hopping like a bunch of robots with their high priced electronics. They had fished it the preceding three days and limited out each time. On that day they were complaining that "the fish just turned off completely" and " it started slowing down the day before." Well golly, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to come up with a good reason what was going on.
I dont know where you guys fish that are for decreased limits, but where I fish, I dont have any issues with the current limits. I dont think that you can have a one size fits all approach to this issue. Panfish are just that, Panfish. It is what most kids start out on. They are very prolific because they are a prey item. If certain parts of the state need a reduced limit, so be it. But to impose that on every body of water in the state is crazy. You can not manage panfish in the same way you do eyes or muskies. Enough of my rambling, it just say be careful for what you wish for, because you just might get it.
The bite was better and the panfish were bigger because
1) there wasn't as many fishermen and
2) those fishermen that did fish didn't use all the fancy toys we have today to effectively fish
These add up to WAY more fish being taken out of the system than in the past, even with the old timers taking their 50 or 100 fish limit back in the day. Just from 2001 to 2011, there's an extra 110,000 ice anglers in Wisconsin. I can't imagine how many from 1980's to today.
I know there will be people that will hate to hear this and everyone has there thoughts but I never was fishing when the limits was still 50 but from what I see and hear for alot of older people the fishing was better when it was that way the bite was better and the panfish were bigger.
Displaying 16 to 30 of 82 posts
