A bluegill is not a bass, or a trout, or a walleye. I provided data specific to bluegill, based on years of research; I provided data from multiple studies by multiple biologists in multiple states; I provided assessments from anglers recognized as bluegill experts. What you have written above is the opposite of science - it's speculation on your part, with no scientific basis whatsoever.

Beyond that, fishing in this country right now for any of the species listed above, on public waters, is drastically better than it is for bluegill. There are hundreds if not thousands of public waters all across the country that right now as we speak are producing some of the best bass fishing they have produced in years, thanks to progressive management. Just as an example, there are dozens of fisheries that right now have historically good fishing for smallmouth bass, from the Great Lakes to Wilson and Wheeler dams.

But, first and foremost, a bluegill is a completely discrete species from the ones you mentioned, and it makes as much sense to extrapolate about what management should be implemented for bluegill from bass management, as it does to fish for bluegill with a 5/8 oz. spinnerbait.

You are correct in the assertion that many people see bluegill only as a food fish. My argument is that those people's rights to keep fifty or a hundred fish in a day, end where the anglers who practice catch-and-release begin. People used to value buffalo for food, and it was legal to kill as many as one wanted, and the species was nearly wiped out. So I think the fact that some people feel entitled to keep enough big bluegill to feed three families for a month, does not make it right.