Bluegill Conservation

So at first the claim was made that surely there must be lakes in my region of Tennessee that produce just as many large bluegill as they ever have despite buckets of large ones being hauled out constantly by anglers; when I refuted that, now the claim is that the big ones are in a different region of the state. One participant to this thread claims there are just as many large bluegill on the St. Johns River as at any time in the past; I don't believe that, and I don't believe there are as many big ones being caught from Poplar Lake now as there were forty years ago.

I have provided hard evidence for my side of the argument: not only multiple thorough scientific studies with careful documentation and hard data that can't be disputed, but multiple noted bluegill experts every one of whom states unequivocally that the fishing for trophy bluegill in public waters is a shadow of what it once was, and that the cause – not a cause, but the cause – is overharvest. On the other hand, the people in this thread who wish to rationalize continuing to keep stringerfuls, present nothing but empty assertions – no facts, not a shred of data, just specious argument and hollow claims. For years after multiple scientific studies had conclusively proven that smoking causes not only cancer but heart disease, emphysema and a host of other life-threatening health issues, the tobacco companies continued to assert that there was no evidence proving smoking was harmful to one's health. It made no sense, and was an insult to anyone with any intelligence; but they kept up their mantra because it was all they had to defend their selfish actions.

Tnpondmanager. I cant give you eveidence of the St. Johns being over fished because there is none, it doesnt exist, its not being over fished. Im not going to give evidence of other small lakes being over fished becasuse you are right, some may be. But not the St. Johns.

Lets do some math here, just to show how large this fishery is compared to other lakes and break down how many fish i kept per square kilometer and lets look at the results.

OK, here we go. The St. Johns River is the longest river in the U.S. state of Florida and its most significant for commercial and recreational use. At 310 miles (500 km) long, it winds through or borders twelve counties, three of which are the state's largest. With a drainage basin of 8,840 square miles (22,900 km2), the St. Johns is one of the major interior wetlands of Florida.

Now lets look at the lake that has also been refrenced here several times, KY Lake. Kentucky Lake is a major navigable reservoir along the Tennessee River in Kentucky and Tennessee. Created in 1944 by the Tennessee Valley Authority's impounding of the Tennessee River by Kentucky Dam,[1] the 160,309-acre (649 km2) lake is the largest artificial lake by surface area in the United States east of the Mississippi River

Ok, so the St. Johns river system where I kept the 130 something fish is 22,900 square Kilometers, KY Lake is only 649 square Kilometrs. So if you divide 22,900 by the 130 fish I kept you get about 1 fish kept per 176 square Kiloeters. Ok, now take that 176 Kilometers and divide it by the size of KY Lake (649 km) which is MUCH smaller and you get 3.68.....lets just round it up to 4 for your benefit.

This simple math shows that the 130 fish I kept over 2 trips is the same as going to KY Lake and keeping 4 fish over 2 trips. Yes, you read that right. So if you think that keeping 130 gills a year out of the St. Johns is overharvesting then you would also have to agree that keeping 4 fish per year out of KY Lake is overharvesting. Now accusing me of overharvesting really seems silly doesnt it?

Bottom line is all the lakes you are refrencing are mud holes compared to the St. Johns. KY Lake is so small compared to the St. Johns that it will fit inside the St. Johns 35 times. Lake Okeechobee which you have said several times that "if it can happen on the Big O it can heppen anywhere" will fit inside the St. johns 12 times.

So for those of you who are reading this, be known that logic and common sense cannot be used in this thread. When someone is so deeply intrenched into thinking no matter what they are right, a reasonble arguement goes out the window.

For those who fish KY Lake, if you are keeping more than 4 big bluegill or crackers a year out of the fishery you are overharvesting according to the opinion and data here. Now, how many of you actually believe that keeping 4 a year is over harvesting?

Once again, specious argument and no data, not one bit. Logic? Here's a little logic: if you were the only angler who ever fished the St. Johns, the fish you are keeping would not matter. How many thousands of anglers do you think fish the river in a year? In a week? Try really, really hard to imagine how many bluegill are kept out of that river in just one week. And keep on telling yourself it can't be fished out; you'll feel pretty ridiculous when it happens, but I doubt you'll admit it even then. It will just be a coincidence, attributable to hurricanes or water level.

OK then .... let's say that your "proof" & sources are 100% correct, nationwide & in every size body of water in which Bluegill reside. Then what ?? Are all Bluegill anglers supposed to return all the largest fish they catch, and keep those few lesser sized ones that would make them one meal per that person ?? And who's to say that those lesser sized ones aren't holding the potential to grow even bigger than their predecessors ?? How would one know which was which ??

I mean seriously, man ... I understand your point, your frustration, and all ... but, one would assume that the DNR & F&W people KNOW about these studies & genetics & etc. because the people doing the studies probably work for, or are consulted by them. They set the size & creel limits in accordance with growth rates, availability & viability of said specie, their potential for size & numbers, and the interest level of the angling population that fishes for them. So, if the Bluegill angling population majority were up in arms over not having big fish to catch, or people taking their legal limits was the cause of the decline of that species ... then those DNR/F&W people would take their concerns into account, compare it to the "studies", and make size/creel adjustments to accommodate those concerns. At least they would on bodies of water where they had control (if it were economically feasible).

Seems to me that you'd be better served to get a petition started, concerning the lakes you're talking about, and present it to the TWRA (or whatever governing body is responsible for those lakes) ... and ask them to put a size limit, creel limit, or slot limit in place. Exchanging barbs with the membership here isn't going to solve your situation. And it certainly isn't going to help you garner any support from them, either.

... cp :kewl

I am almost finished with my USCG Captains License program and will be guiding by the end of the year. Next summer I will probably book a ton of shellcracker and bluegill trips, as I am going to be working with several local baitshops and give them incentives to help me book trips. I can promise you my clients will not want to throw back the kepper size gills and crackers. I will in no way, attempt to make them throw back the fish either. I am going to become a member sponsor on here as soon as I get my license and start promoting my guiding service. Tnpondmanager, if the 130-140 fish that I posted makes you this upset, then the pictures i will be posting next summer of guiding trips will probably make your head fall off. I just hope you dont jump on my reports and sabotage them as you have done in the past........we are going to have to agree to disagree as crappiepappy stated earlier in this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tnpondmanager

So at first the claim was made that surely there must be lakes in my region of Tennessee that produce just as many large bluegill as they ever have despite buckets of large ones being hauled out constantly by anglers; when I refuted that, now the claim is that the big ones are in a different region of the state. ... and I don't believe there are as many big ones being caught from Poplar Lake now as there were forty years ago.

---

I caught the fish 40 years ago and again as recently as 3 years ago with my wife. While Poplar Tree is in a different region of your state, it is 300 acres and it has been managed with the same regulations that you claim screwed up Laurel Hill. I really don't care whether you believe or not. If you think Laurel Hill is being fished out by a bunch of pirates then go ahead and petition the TWRA to set special regs. for that lake.

Crappiepappy, it seems you didn't read any of my posts closely. I already addressed every question you bring up. You obviously didn't read the studies I linked to, because those make it clear that there's a dynamic in any bluegill population that is upset when the largest males are removed, and it causes smaller males to mature sexually at a smaller size, which in the end greatly reduces their ultimate growth. As to the notion that the regulations in place must be appropriate because they were set by DNRs, I've already addressed that several times in the thread: there are a handful of states that actually care about bluegill and have implemented progressive regulations that are helping, but most states have not changed their bluegill regulations in fifty years or more, i.e. said regulations completely ignore all of the research from the past thirty years. Those regressive regulations are directly responsible for the decline of most public bluegill fisheries.

Cricketcage, if it were just TWRA lakes, I never would have made this thread. I don’t need public places to fish for bluegill: I’ve got some of the best bluegill water anywhere, and it most definitely does not allow fifty per day kept. Unlike some people in this conversation, I actually have regard for other anglers, and it angers me that anglers who only have the means to fish public water, no longer have good places to catch trophy bluegill thanks to the meathogs, not just in my state but around the country.

SYG, it’s one thing to make empty, baseless assertions trying to prove your fallacious argument; it’s quite another to brag that you’re going to increase your level of pillage. If ever there were any doubt you have no regard for other bluegill anglers, those three or four of us in the country who are not meathogs (yes, this is sarcasm), you just removed it. You are to be congratulated on your exceptional narcissism.

TN, I have not seen anything in the studies you posted that pertain to keeping large females and turning all the males back. Got anything on that?

Jpdawg, that's a good question. Many bluegill enthusiasts who also manage ponds, do keep mostly females when they keep fish. When I'm managing a pond for trophy bluegill and I feel the overall bluegill population needs thinning, I will keep females, though I personally never keep the largest even among the females, and most bluegill aficionados that I know are the same way. My thought on that is that those females may have superior genes (this is completely apart from the sexual-maturity effect involving only the males) regarding ultimate size potential, so if I remove them, I may still have hurt the average growth potential of the population. And the simplest reason that I personally release the largest females I catch (any over 10") is that they can't reach 12" if I keep them at 10".

If you come across any information pertaining to that please post it up here. Thanks. I own a cabin on a 300 acre private lake in Indiana. The fishing at this time is awesome and I would like to keep it that way. This lake gets very little fishing pressure because most of the people on the lake are pleasure boaters and when they do decide to fish they are no danger to the fish population.:Rofl