|
|
| While out for a walk this week, saw a new sign by the bridge, posted by the DNR. It stated that the new limits on pan fish for the chain where I live would be 25/10. A limit of 25 pan fish, but no more than 10 of any of the four species, perch, bluegill, pumpkin seed or crappie.
I think it is a great idea and later saw in the Rhinelander paper they are trying this on just under 100 lakes to see if it improves size structure. I was surprised by the stats in the newspaper about how long it takes a blue gill to reach 8 inches, something like 7 or 8 years.
I know it is not musky related but curious how others might feel about this. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | I really like the new regs.
"My" lake's crappie size structure is clustered around 8 inches after years of people pulling out their 25 fish limits of 12-14 inchers. I'm sure those who loved to fill their freezers every spring will be upset but too darn bad. Something had to be done and I'm glad the WDNR is acting. |
|
| |
|
| On our lake it was not just spring. A pair of guys rented a cabin near my home a couple summers ago and would hit a string of cribs that hold crappies early in the morning and then in the evening. Looked like they were doing very well the first few days. By the end of the week, not so good. They had been taking limits both morning and evening. Then they made the mistake of complaining about it in a bar on the same lake, one whose big windows looks out to where they had been fishing. One of the locals had observed their fishing and had a few choice words for them. One that I can repeat is "pigs". They left the bar in short order but those cribs are still recovering. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8832
| I think it's a good thing, provided that the current size structure is a result of over-harvest. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i love the new regulations! ... panfish can be so easily effected by over-harvest! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8832
| jonnysled - 4/9/2016 12:51 PM
i love the new regulations! ... panfish can be so easily effected by over-harvest!
And here I thought the muskies were eating them all.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 365
| When I take my sons and grandkids out pan-fishing ,, we practice 100% catch and release and have a great "time-on-the-water" ----- jim |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32930
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | best thing to ever happen on those lakes. We are hoping it goes statewide. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1286
Location: Stevens Point, Wi. | Long overdue! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 859
Location: MN | sworrall - 4/9/2016 3:00 PM
best thing to ever happen on those lakes. We are hoping it goes statewide.
X2 my father and I have been hoping for something like this for a long time. I think this is one of the best thought out regulations. Would love to see this go statewide as well. It just makes for better stewardship for future generations. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I'd support even more restrictive. 20/5. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 859
Location: MN | Pointerpride102 - 4/9/2016 3:44 PM
I'd support even more restrictive. 20/5.
True but it's smart to limit no more then 10 of one kind. I feel like many lakes I fish are known to be great perch or crappie.. Bluegill lakes no so much an overall panfish lake. That's just me though. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Pointerpride102 - 4/9/2016 3:44 PM
I'd support even more restrictive. 20/5.
I usually keep seven or eight for dinner (just the two of us). I'd be OK with five but five 9 inchers doesn't make much of a meal. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | North of 8 - 4/9/2016 12:12 PM
On our lake it was not just spring. A pair of guys rented a cabin near my home a couple summers ago and would hit a string of cribs that hold crappies early in the morning and then in the evening. Looked like they were doing very well the first few days. By the end of the week, not so good. They had been taking limits both morning and evening. Then they made the mistake of complaining about it in a bar on the same lake, one whose big windows looks out to where they had been fishing. One of the locals had observed their fishing and had a few choice words for them. One that I can repeat is "pigs". They left the bar in short order but those cribs are still recovering.
1-800-TIP-WDNR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | dfkiii - 4/9/2016 5:10 PM
Pointerpride102 - 4/9/2016 3:44 PM
I'd support even more restrictive. 20/5.
I usually keep seven or eight for dinner (just the two of us ). I'd be OK with five but five 9 inchers doesn't make much of a meal.
Not only would it help panfish size and numbers, it would also lower the obesity rate in WI! |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | OI !
It's tough to beat a good panfish fry, though I doubt that is the main source of the unneeded calories consumed across the state.
|
|
| |
|
| As I understood the story in the newspaper, some lakes will have an even lower limit of 5 of a species during the spawning period. I believe the limit was 5 of a species.
I know it would be easy on some lakes to really put a dent in the large spawning blue gills if you wanted to. They are pretty easy in clear water lakes when on the beds in the shallows. When I was a kid, my uncle had a cabin on a small lake in the Harrison Hills. Lake had tons of small gills but when they were spawning, there would be some very nice ones up on beds. I would go out with a fly rod and toss a small foam spider. It was a blast but always put them back. There were not that many large gills and they were necessary to keep in the lake for spawning. When we wanted a fish fry, we would take dead minnows and toss them out on wolf river rigs, into 20' of water after dark. Really nice bull heads. I think we were the only ones on the lake that fished for them. In that clear, cold, spring fed lake, they were really tasty. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Bullheads are a very underrated fish for a fry. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Very positive. We've been discussing protective regs with local biologists for several years. While I am in favor of the new regs on these lakes, I'd love to see attention on a few still 'good' ones that don't need ressurection, but protection. Also, a few of the lakes in this area are so far gone, that it could difficult to resurrect, without other known panfish rehab measures, and I'd hate to see future regs in the state not come to fruition if some of the 'test' waters don't bounce back with this minor change. Again, with so many panfish lakes in the state, it isn't a one size fits even most. Ultimately, while I'd love to see even more strict protection on many waters, I couldn't be happier with this step. Thank you to those who favored these changes, and supported them at the hearings and panfish meetings the past three years.
Edited by Reef Hawg 4/10/2016 3:03 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | The problem
Attachments
----------------
 image.jpeg (159KB - 610 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 223
| I am not going fishing if that's all I can bring home. |
|
| |
|
Location: MN | Many great crappie lakes in Minnesota have been decimated by over harvest under our 10 fish limit. This is a step in the right direction but I don't see this as a cure for these lakes. I'd love to see more restrictive limits in MN and WI. Some experimental regs that were set on some lakes in otter tail county are working great. |
|
| |
