Thread: giant from a different pond

Originally Posted by tnpondmanager

This pond and the other pond I posted photos from a couple days ago both have feeding programs. The feeding alone, however, doesn't produce bluegill this big - there are thousands upon thousands of private ponds and lakes across the Southeast that have feeders and don't grow bluegill like this or anywhere close. Many of those lakes are far larger than these two ponds; and water body size is a major factor in fish growth. A study was published three years ago in which the author found that bluegill growth in central Georgia small impoundments was more influenced by lake surface area than any other single factor:

Influence of lake surface area and total phosphorus on annual Bluegill growth in small impoundments of central Georgia (Book, 2016) [WorldCat.org]

All that just to say, it ain't easy to grow bluegill this big, anywhere, and it definitely isn't easy in smaller ponds.

Amen to that! Trying to grow big bluegill on a public lake is really hard too ( in Arkansas anyway).


Sent from my iPhone using Crappie.com Fishing mobile app

Originally Posted by D10

Amen to that! Trying to grow big bluegill on a public lake is really hard too ( in Arkansas anyway).


Sent from my iPhone using Crappie.com Fishing mobile app

Public lakes in the South are a lost cause until DNRs decide to come into the 21st century with their regulations. Several northern states have enacted stricter harvest regulations on bluegill based on the dozens of studies that have been published since 1980 that show that overharvest is the single biggest cause of poor bluegill size structure (it actually changes the genetics of a population), and have seen their bluegill fisheries improve. But our game and fish agencies here seem determined to destroy every last vestige of quality public bluegill fishing. There would be many public lakes across the South that regularly produced 10-12" bluegill if they were properly managed.

Originally Posted by tnpondmanager

Public lakes in the South are a lost cause until DNRs decide to come into the 21st century with their regulations. Several northern states have enacted stricter harvest regulations on bluegill based on the dozens of studies that have been published since 1980 that show that overharvest is the single biggest cause of poor bluegill size structure (it actually changes the genetics of a population), and have seen their bluegill fisheries improve. But our game and fish agencies here seem determined to destroy every last vestige of quality public bluegill fishing. There would be many public lakes across the South that regularly produced 10-12" bluegill if they were properly managed.

Yep. A size restriction on bluegill or redear wouldn’t fly with the average bream angler in Arkansas. Most just want to be able to go out and keep what they catch. There’s nothing wrong with that but it makes it hard to grow big fish. I have been thinking about experimenting with some kind of size restriction on one of the lakes I manage but I don’t think it would get approved right now. Maybe as time passes and more bream anglers are more in it for the sport than the table, I could do that.


Sent from my iPhone using Crappie.com Fishing mobile app

Originally Posted by D10

Yep. A size restriction on bluegill or redear wouldn’t fly with the average bream angler in Arkansas. Most just want to be able to go out and keep what they catch. There’s nothing wrong with that but it makes it hard to grow big fish. I have been thinking about experimenting with some kind of size restriction on one of the lakes I manage but I don’t think it would get approved right now. Maybe as time passes and more bream anglers are more in it for the sport than the table, I could do that.


Sent from my iPhone using Crappie.com Fishing mobile app

Just my personal opinion, but I don't buy that a majority of anglers wouldn't accept limits on bluegill. Certainly there are people who think they're not bluegill fishing unless they can take the obligatory tailgate photo with fifty or a hundred bluegill laid out dead, but there are ten or twenty anglers for every one of those who would give anything to be able to fish a properly-managed bluegill lake in the southeast and would not think twice about adhering to stricter regulations.

Even beyond the question of whether or not anglers would buy it: it's hard for me to fathom why that's even a consideration. I have no doubt that thirty or forty years ago when it became illegal to keep as many big largemouth bass as one wanted, that that was not a popular regulation change; yet DNRs across the country did it to protect the future of the resource. They were protecting anglers from themselves.

And yet somehow bizarrely they reason, here in the South, that they couldn't possibly enact regulations to salvage - because we're well past the point of protecting, the resource has already been destroyed - bluegill fisheries because anglers wouldn't like it. It's really mindless.

Originally Posted by tnpondmanager

Just my personal opinion, but I don't buy that a majority of anglers wouldn't accept limits on bluegill. Certainly there are people who think they're not bluegill fishing unless they can take the obligatory tailgate photo with fifty or a hundred bluegill laid out dead, but there are ten or twenty anglers for every one of those who would give anything to be able to fish a properly-managed bluegill lake in the southeast and would not think twice about adhering to stricter regulations.

Even beyond the question of whether or not anglers would buy it: it's hard for me to fathom why that's even a consideration. I have no doubt that thirty or forty years ago when it became illegal to keep as many big largemouth bass as one wanted, that that was not a popular regulation change; yet DNRs across the country did it to protect the future of the resource. They were protecting anglers from themselves.

And yet somehow bizarrely they reason, here in the South, that they couldn't possibly enact regulations to salvage - because we're well past the point of protecting, the resource has already been destroyed - bluegill fisheries because anglers wouldn't like it. It's really mindless.

Thank you for your perspective on the topic. I may be miss characterizing what the “average” bream angler wants in a Bluegill/redear fishery. I need to ask bream anglers these question first hand during creel surveys. You know what they say when you assume things...

And yes you are right. I bet bass anglers threw a huge fit at first when restrictions were put on bass harvest. Now you can’t convince a bass angler that they need to keep some small ones to improve growth. Now the problem with managing Bass is too little harvest to effective manage the population through regulations (another topic of conversation).

I have a lake that was at one time a true trophy bluegill and redear lake. That was 30+ years ago. What has changed? The pressure and harvest on this lake has exploded. The local bait shop can’t keep enough crickets and worms in stock during the summer months. Now a days, an 8” Bluegill is a big one and occasionally an angler catches a pound plus redear. For this same reason we had to enact a 10-in minimum length limit on crappie. Exploiting was about 67% for crappie. If I had to guess it is probably very close to the same for bluegill.

To enact a regulation like this, we have to have three years of data that demonstrate a need. That mean extensive age and growth studies and probably an exploitation study. Unfortunately a project like this get put on the back burner due to a lack of time. I may need to talk to a local university to see if I can find some students interested in helping me with a side project.

Thanks again for your perspective. It’s not often that Fisheries biologist in Arkansas have this type of conversation about bream. Maybe that will change one day.


Sent from my iPhone using Crappie.com Fishing mobile app

Originally Posted by D10

Thank you for your perspective on the topic. I may be miss characterizing what the “average” bream angler wants in a Bluegill/redear fishery. I need to ask bream anglers these question first hand during creel surveys. You know what they say when you assume things...

And yes you are right. I bet bass anglers threw a huge fit at first when restrictions were put on bass harvest. Now you can’t convince a bass angler that they need to keep some small ones to improve growth. Now the problem with managing Bass is too little harvest to effective manage the population through regulations (another topic of conversation).

I have a lake that was at one time a true trophy bluegill and redear lake. That was 30+ years ago. What has changed? The pressure and harvest on this lake has exploded. The local bait shop can’t keep enough crickets and worms in stock during the summer months. Now a days, an 8” Bluegill is a big one and occasionally an angler catches a pound plus redear. For this same reason we had to enact a 10-in minimum length limit on crappie. Exploiting was about 67% for crappie. If I had to guess it is probably very close to the same for bluegill.

To enact a regulation like this, we have to have three years of data that demonstrate a need. That mean extensive age and growth studies and probably an exploitation study. Unfortunately a project like this get put on the back burner due to a lack of time. I may need to talk to a local university to see if I can find some students interested in helping me with a side project.

Thanks again for your perspective. It’s not often that Fisheries biologist in Arkansas have this type of conversation about bream. Maybe that will change one day.


Sent from my iPhone using Crappie.com Fishing mobile app

When an eight-inch bluegill is a good one, as is the norm now on public lakes across the southeast, it's well beyond the point of need - it's to the point that if something isn't done soon, there will be no public bluegill fisheries in the region because bluegill will average four inches long everywhere and people will stop fishing for them.

well since lake surface area is a constant and not likely to change, guess that only leaves phosphorus. so you add that to the water to grow bigger gills or fish?

married a gal who happened to have a 17 acre private lake and land around it. Totally underfished with bass actually malformed because of numbers and most were 10 to 14 inches but huge population of big bg's. BBF and I started catching boatloads of bass and fileting them to get population in balance which we did but BG's still had big population of really big fish. Were more in balance but still needing harvesting it was nice to be able to fill your two man full of both and sustaining a very healthy population.

On public waters I think most fisherfolk would welcome a limit restriction as it has worked on bass, catfish and crappie. why not sunfish?