panfish limits

Move the panfish limits to ten a person? Good or bad idea?

Good idea for Madison/Milwaukee areas, very bad for the rest of the state. Just my 2 cents.

"I'd personally like to see an 8" size limit...but not like you're thinking...I think every gill over 8" should be released...they are just too important...probably the most important fish to protect in the state as they are at the base of the food chain and their health directly impacts every other game fish that swims." Sage advice. Ask anyone who understands bluegill genetics/biology and they will certainly tell you the bull gills are absolutely vital. Quite the reverse of bass where the big females are necessary to preserve. I would like to see a study done on a highly pressured lake (Delavan perhaps?) where for a 5 year period the sunfish/bluegill must be released if over 8" and a 15 fish limit is imposed. This is bound to rankle some, but may be just what the lake needs to be healthier. I would rather catch and release several giant gills every trip as opposed to never seeing them at all.

Reducing limits during spawning cycles may be a great way to protect vulnerable bull gills. Perhaps even a closure on specific lakes with the most pressure. I realize that gills can and will spawn several times a year if conditions permit however, common sense would dictate that the month of June is typically when they spawn. I too have friends (older and retired) that think releasing the females is the right thing to do. Solving world hunger would be easier than convincing them to release the bulls. I remember lakes in California where bluegills are strictly catch and release. These fish get very big and have a cult following. Seeing an enormous bull gill well over a pound, with the long operculum and bump on the forehead is trippy. Some stocked trout ponds in Nebraska were like that too. Huge gills just swimming by and people ignoring them because "what's the point if you can't keep them".

I think its a good idea...there are just too many people gill fishing and those numbers will only continue to rise as they always have. 10 fish is plenty, leaving a 20 fish possession, which is more than enough for a family fish fry. 50 possession limit in my eyes is not responsible considering the massive pressure these fish endure year after year. I'd personally like to see an 8" size limit...but not like you're thinking...I think every gill over 8" should be released...they are just too important...probably the most important fish to protect in the state as they are at the base of the food chain and their health directly impacts every other game fish that swims. People have all kinds of wild theories as to what causes stunting, but the truth is that the fastest way to cause stunting in a gill population is to remove the large males. Large males actually prevent smaller males from maturing and breeding...without them, the size of maturing and spawning gills declines quickly without large bulls and is the absolute number one cause for stunting. Those big males really need protecting a lot more than most people realize. I wish the WDNR would go on a campaign to educate the masses as to this fact. Afterall, how often do you see people proudly brag that they released the females to spawn and only kept males...females are basically meaningless in the gill world...healthy gill populations are all about the males.

My opinion is that small lakes that are less then say 300 acres should have a 10 fish limit.

There are a few ideas on the table right now. Something other than the current 25 is a good idea. I think breaking out crappies separate would take pressure off each species - I think Minnesota does this. Simply change it to 10 of each species - 10 crappies, 10 gills/sunfish, 10 perch. This would limit pressure when a certain species is most vulnerable, yet would allow a guy to still get a good meal of fish (may have to work at it a little more).