Those are some huge bluegill. Impressive. Even in a managed pond with a feeding program 1 pound is about tops in the ponds I have fished.
I bet fish those size are really fun on light gear.
Printable View
Those are some huge bluegill. Impressive. Even in a managed pond with a feeding program 1 pound is about tops in the ponds I have fished.
I bet fish those size are really fun on light gear.
I appreciate you noting that, Sky Hawk. A lot of people don't realize how much goes into getting bluegill this big. Feeding alone will not do it; there are a lot of factors that have to be addressed. But I'm not done yet - the bluegill in the ponds that these fish came from were badly stunted when I began working with the ponds four years ago, so they've come a long way. But the ultimate goal is to get all of these ponds to where the bluegill average over a pound and two-pounders are common. I posted a photo in another thread, "a couple more," of a fish that probably would have pushed two pounds, but unfortunately was not weighed (I wasn't there when it was caught); hopefully there will be more this year. I expect that there will be.
Nice catch now go make some tacos with those bulegills!
That will not be happening. I am one of those who do not see bluegill just as a meat fish; especially the big ones such as these which take a lot of work and perfect conditions to grow this big, and are at least three years old, probably four. Overharvest of big bluegill is the single biggest contributing factor to the decline of quality fishing for large bluegill in most public waters throughout the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by wlshafor
Multiple state DNRs have done extensive research in the past twelve years that proves that overharvesting the larger bluegill in a water body permanently skews the remaining population toward smaller fish. Not trying to be a negative Nancy, but it's frustrating to me sometimes how enlightened and conservation-minded the average angler in this country is today regarding bass, but when it comes to bluegill and shellcracker they have no qualms about loading up the cooler with big fish. And it's just as harmful to the resource as it was to bass fishing when it was happening to that species back in the '60's and '70's (not that I was old enough to remember it, but I've seen photos). Hopefully someday the word will get out enough that anglers will begin to recognize trophy bluegill as a treasure in their own right, and one worth preserving rather than pillaging.
I'm no fisheries biologist, but I agree. One of my fav places to fish was the best public water for gills and shellcrackers I've ever seen. The average size was not as big as your fish, but these were very nice and lots of 'em, too. Word got out about this place, and people descended on it in droves. Although limits were very moderate, a lot of people completely ignored them and kept everything they caught. The place is still a good spot to fish, but it's a shadow of its former self. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by tnpondmanager
It happens all the time, Disco - I've seen it multiple times just within thirty miles of my hometown. About twenty-five years ago a thirty-acre lake near me was drained and re-stocked by TWRA; four years later, I had four trips where I caught ten to fifteen bluegill that averaged fourteen ounces each - I weighed them - each time. But people took them out by the boatful, and a year later it was over, and the bluegill there now are pathetic.
More recently, a TWRA-managed lake just about twelve miles from me was beginning to get a lot of bluegill in the 9-10" range, thick, healthy fish, just brutes. I tried to get the agency to lower the daily limit per person from 25 to 5, and to implement a slot limit of 8-9", but they said they would have to do an angler survey first to see if anyone was fishing for bluegill. The word got out about the big ones, and in the span of two months they had been decimated. The fishing report for March that year on the website of the people who run the concession commented that they couldn't believe how many big bluegill were being caught; two months later the fishing report said, "Don't know what happened to the bluegill this year...No one's catching any." Two months.
It won't change until enough anglers stand up and demand it. For instance, in the case of my state, they do a decent job with a lot of species, but they're as regressive as any agency in the country when it comes to bluegill; they seem to think no one fishes for them for anything but food. There are a few states that have adopted aggressive new regulations on some of their waters aimed specifically at improving those waters' bluegill fisheries, among them Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Missouri; unfortunately, at present, most states, most definitely mine included, assume that no one fishes for bluegill for any purpose other than a meal.
I think a conservative estimate of how many anglers in this country, as of this moment, fish for trophy bluegill purely for the enjoyment of catching these magnificent fish, and would welcome regulations that reflect the current knowledge of the species rather than pretend it doesn't exist, would have to be in the hundreds of thousands. But what do I know.
Nice pan stinkers!!!
Not sure how this is intended? Did you read the message right above yours?Quote:
Originally Posted by royinlox
Nope just saw first picture, but read. Thanks for your concern on protecting this species. I remember catching two pound blue gill in central florida lakes.
My guess is "no".Quote:
Originally Posted by tnpondmanager
There are two standard replies to a "fish picture" thread:
1) Nice catch!
2) Get the grease hot!
He just posted a variation of #2.