Thread: Bluegill Conservation

Originally Posted by Cricketcage

Maybe your work in developing trophy ponds will start to change that.

I hope you're right. More likely it will just take devoted bluegill anglers across the country making it known to their DNRs that they expect their favorite fish to be treated with the same care and attention that most other gamefish are now.

There are many, many anglers across the country for whom bluegill and redear are not "just bream." That is the whole problem - people who don't care about the species except for any easy meal, and have no regard for people who take the species as seriously as bass or walleye or trout.

The fact that you can compare bluegill who have been fished forever and are still around to the buffalo shows you have truly gone off the deepened. Buffalo were hunted to the brink of extinction in a matter of years. Buffalo may have 2 offspring while a healthy female bluegill can have up to 100,000 eggs during the spawn. This statement shows reason is beyond your grasp in this conversation.

Originally Posted by tnpondmanager

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.

I don't have or want a dog in this "discussion" but it would seem that some men want to scuba dive and take photos and videos of the wonders under the water, and some men want to catch and eat those same wonders. Which are right? It depends on which you agree with. Frankly I quit a Catfish related forum for just the kind of confrontations I have been reading here. When you fall to the point in trying to persuade folks to your belief by saying, and I paraphrase "you need to learn basic genetics so you will agree with me" or on the other end "you don't know what you are talking about" the discussion is over, and the feud begins. I doubt any member here would refute that tnpondmanager is a wealth of knowledge about pond management and Bluegill management. I also doubt anyone who is a member here would disagree that There should be limits on the fish kept from any waters. So those who don't want to be geneticists give a little way to those who do and vice versa. And I will mind my own business from here on out and stay off your panfish forum even though that is what I love. Fishing for panfish.

I have already acknowledged that bluegill may behave differently than other species, it was you that implied that managed species have better genetics and I was pointing out that that isn't necessarily true. The overall fishery is better for those who can afford the license fees, but the growth potential of the fish will not change except in restricted environments where natural selection grows bigger fish due to some survival advantage or if man gets directly involved through selective breeding.

If by buffalo you mean the American Bison, they were not decimated by meat hunters, but intentionally were slaughtered to eliminate a primary food source for Native Americans so that they could be driven off the land. If you're talking about the fish I wouldn't know anything about them. Many species of fish and mammals have been devastated by overharvest, but they all have the capability of recovery if left alone.

In any event, I haven't said that you are wrong about the effects of overharvest, but my own experience suggest that there is more at play than just overhavesting the big ones. Specifically, I believe that in some cases quality bass management actually has a negative effect on bluegill quality. Speculation on my part, but I believe removal of many smaller bass to facilitate growth of the larger bass also removes the primary predator for small bream and causes dramatic overpopulation.

GENTLEMEN !!!! Agree to disagree, and do it with civility !! And that means ALL OF YOU !!

... cp

Originally Posted by crappiepappy

GENTLEMEN !!!! Agree to disagree, and do it with civility !! And that means ALL OF YOU !!

... cp

Dang that's was what I was try to think of the other night !!!! just Agree to Disagree !!! thanks crappiepappy !!!

Two things I do agree on:

1) I do think removing too many large bluegill from a smaller body of water will suppress the size and quantity of the fish. I believe I actually affected a 40 acre pond in my youth by overhavesting the bluegill.

2) Bluegill probably do have survival mechanisms that allow them to compensate for removal of most of the mature breeding population and still remain prolific.

You know, its good to keep a few, maybe 10 or so for yourself, or for a fish fry, 30. no one needs to keep over maybe 50 if theyre having a large party. i saw a post where someone kept a mixed bag of over 200 fish, even though 6 or 7 were crappie, the rest were gills. big and medium sized.