Printable View
No need to explain. I see nothing wrong with the amount of fish you kept. I was just trying to relay the fact that by keeping a few over a longer period still adds up. To TNpondmanager, the reason for keeping the fish is irrelevent. It doesnt matter if they are going to some people down the road that are hungry, a family fish fry, slabfest, it doesnt matter. His one and only message is DONT KEEP THEMQuote:
Originally Posted by Speckanator
Big fish have definitely proven their genetics, can't argue with that. But if you throw back a 5 year old 10 incher in favor of keeping a two year old 7 incher that would have grown to 12 inches you aren't doing the gene pool any favors.
Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Usain Bolt are the result of controlled breeding?
So standing up for other anglers makes me a bully while being a self-centered meathog makes you a saint? That makes perfect sense.
Go back and read the studies I linked to. Bluegill experience their most rapid growth before they mature sexually; when there are large males in the population, the smaller males will delay maturity, and grow to that larger size before they mature; but if the large males are removed the smaller males mature sooner, meaning they grow less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cricketcage
And on an even more basic level, not all fish have equal genetics. The 10-inch fish has proven it has the genes to get large, but the seven-inch fish might or might not have genes that good.
Anyone who is seven feet tall has genes that allowed him or her to grow that tall - you don't get that big without having unusual, superior as far as height is concerned, genes. Anyone who can run a world-class sprint time has genes that most of us don't. I never said anything about controlled breeding - I merely pointed out that the knowledge that not all members of a given species have the same genetics is fundamental to modern agriculture and aquaculture. Bluegill are not being bred in a controlled environment in public lakes, but genetics still plays a major part in their growth.
I just noticed I forgot to include this link to the Genz article. Several different bluegill fanatics are quoted in the course of the article, and every one of them is harping on the problem of overharvest:
Cult of the Bluegills: Minnesota Conservation Volunteer (May-June 2002): Minnesota DNR
I certainly find merit in the studies you have referenced.
What I don't like is that it went from a discussion about a condition that could affect the quality of a body of water and what can be done about it and gets spun into a moral argument about social obligations.
No doubt, allowing significant numbers to survive to maturity will increase the average size. However, unless you have a way to determine genetics along the way, the gene pool will not be improved. If you want to keep a stock of fish and allow them all to grow to complete maturity and then discard the smallest and breed the biggest then you will improve the genetics with respect to size. However, in a stratified population, the genes are there in the one year old just as they are in the four year old. Harvesting only young fish will not improve genetics.
If you can point out a way for me to identify the fully mature runts for removal I'll be glad to do my part and remove as many of those as possible. Calling the counter arguments of others laughable and suggesting that some form of communist approach to fisheries management is the answer makes it sound like you just favor forcing your ideas upon others.
If over harvest of mature males causes a switch to go off to allow smaller males to breed, does their ability to grow larger before maturity get passed down to their offspring? In other words, if the population were left alone for a couple of years would they revert back to a normal population, or has the genetics been forever altered once that survival adaptation has occurred?
In my mind it is very important to know the answer. The later would suggest that it would not be possible to grow large bluegill from a new stocking of fingerlings since there already is a lack of mature males in that population. There must be some other dynamic also at work.
I think some of the people in this thread need to do some basic reading in genetics. The whole foundation of genetics is the fact that different members of a species have different traits, which includes different top-end potential for growth. Some bluegill have the genetic potential to get big; others do not. You can't look at small bluegill and tell which ones have good potential and which ones don't; but when you catch a large bluegill, you're looking at one that for certain has that potential, and if you remove him, that's one less fish with superior genes in the pool, and a little more room for the fish with inferior genes to spread said inferior genetics.
In my experience, once the larger fish have been fished out, the fishery typically is never the same. That said, biologists in some of the more forward-thinking states have had some success in improving inferior bluegill fisheries with stricter regulations.
As far as the "communist" remark, that's easily the silliest, most baseless thing I've ever read on a fishing forum. I'm as far from that political ideal - again, I already said this multiple times - as a person can possibly get. I don't think actually having consideration for my fellow anglers makes me a communist.
By that logic, the regulations on bass in most states are communist. Pretty silly.
Gamefish that have been intensely managed for quality over the last 30 years (world records):
Bass, Smallmouth 10-14 1969
Bass, Largemouth 22-4 1932
Muskellunge 67-8 1949
Trout, Brook 14-8 1916
Trout, Cutthroat 41-0 1925
Trout, Lake 72-0 1995
Trout, Rainbow 42-2 1970
Walleye 25-0 1960
The genetics are not getting better. The average size is increasing because more are put back to live longer. If you only want to consider data that promotes your viewpoint then go ahead. That is not a discussion, that is a lecture. I understand your love of giant bluegill and why you want to see them everywhere, but for many people the primary value in panfish is as food, not as trophies. Maybe your work in developing trophy ponds will start to change that.
For goodness sakes. They're just bream. Keep a few for supper, throw the rest back, get a life.