# Nothing makes me more mad



## bradley4 (Mar 31, 2014)

No wonder there aren't any good fish in nimi. This is the 3rd time on the ice I've saw this. Why must people be like this? Just release them!! This is the kind of stuff that ruins it for everyone else. Any one want to put their 2 cents in?


----------



## Eliminator (Aug 26, 2006)

Man i would have picked up few of those for dinner mmmgoood. ***** and coyotes and whatever will get those probably by dawn. But i agree it's bad ethics. At least there's not MT propane bottles and trash left.


----------



## swone (Jan 24, 2007)

Yeah, it's really not hard to throw them right back down the hole. I have to STRONGLY disagree about Nimisila not containing quality fish, I have put the hurt on them everyday since I first got out last Saturday. And I haven't even been out to some of my favorite honey holes...


----------



## nixmkt (Mar 4, 2008)

bradley4 said:


> No wonder there aren't any good fish in nimi. ...This is the kind of stuff that ruins it for everyone else. ...


Just the opposite. An overabundance causes stunting and prevents the small fish from getting bigger.

Not saying its the ideal but they are not just being wasted. As noted, the herons, eagles, *****, etc. will eat them now. Any that are missed will be eaten by catfish, turtles, or others after the thaw.


----------



## bobberbucket (Mar 30, 2008)

nixmkt said:


> Just the opposite. An overabundance causes stunting and prevents the small fish from getting bigger.
> 
> 
> 
> Not saying its the ideal but they are not just being wasted. As noted, the herons, eagles, *****, etc. will eat them now. Any that are missed will be eaten by catfish, turtles, or others after the thaw.



X2 nixmkt! I was gonna stay outta this one but I think we have this same discussion every season.


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## Frankie G (Aug 18, 2014)

At least throw them back down the hole so the catfish can get bigger!


----------



## randymcfishnsfun2 (Dec 24, 2014)

Buy a 6 pack, go home and make yourself some fish sticks! I'm sure there's a little bit of meat on those bones! Better than wasting them but I'm sure it won't hurt the fishing


----------



## canoe carp killer (Apr 2, 2014)

That is crappy, I never did get why some people do that. I've found groups of catfish, carp and drum laying on the river before. I onow people hate carp but if you're going to kill them do something with them. 


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## Frankie G (Aug 18, 2014)

I saw a guy a few weeks back at a local to me lake. He was in the right spot to catch trout after trout that had just been stocked. He would catch one, pull the fish out, wipe off the slime coat with a towel, and throw the fish back in the water so hard some of them actually skipped. I really don't get some people.


----------



## cement (Jan 8, 2015)

was at congress lake last ice season and somebody left a pile of fish on the ice and some were keepers, somebody called the warden and he sent a park ranger out to check it out. I walked over and asked him what he would have done if he caught them, his answer...... wright them a ticket for littering. that's sad


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

As much as I appreciate our pretty liberal bag limits and game laws, I'd like to see a wanton waste law enacted. Although I doubt it would get enforced effectively so meh. I guess littering will have to do?


----------



## bradley4 (Mar 31, 2014)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> As much as I appreciate our pretty liberal bag limits and game laws, I'd like to see a wanton waste law enacted. Although I doubt it would get enforced effectively so meh. I guess littering will have to do?


ABSOLUTELY!! I totally agree. There needs to be a wanton waste law! Even enforce littering tickets for this would make me happy. No fish should go to waste because some dingbat doesn't want them to be back in the population.


----------



## McMish (Mar 23, 2009)

nixmkt said:


> Just the opposite. An overabundance causes stunting and prevents the small fish from getting bigger.
> 
> Not saying its the ideal but they are not just being wasted. As noted, the herons, eagles, *****, etc. will eat them now. Any that are missed will be eaten by catfish, turtles, or others after the thaw.


Actualy, just the opposite. 

Admitaly I was of this old mindset as well for a long time. I was reading a study from michigan DNR in a fishing magazine a few years back. To sum it up...

They did some decade long studys on remote no access lakes and cross referenced those against heavy pressure lakes. They found that when a lake is left to its natural devices the fish will grow to a much healthier and larger size. When you remove a 4 inch fish from the lake you are elimatimg a KEY meal for
A predictor fish that targets that food. And when they have a harder time they will start eating a different food group. Which starts to put things out of whack. 

There should be LOTs of small baitfish when you go out. But eventually you will land those fryers. 

The only time that killing of fish mah be nessisary is on very small bodies of water like ponds with poor predictor prey ballence. 

The different species in the water know how to ballence themselves. And if there are tons of dinks than there is sure a reason for it. We may not know why that lake needs Dinks. But if we know better than the time tested ballence of the water were Gona be sorry some day.

I remember fishing with my dad back in the 60s. Pullin a carp on te shore and killing it because they are "scum suckers" and thinking we were doing the lake a favor ... So I would defiantly side with the origonal poster. Let the lake decide the fate of a dink. Not the raccoons


----------



## ErieRider (Mar 23, 2010)

Dead on McMish!!


----------



## nixmkt (Mar 4, 2008)

McMish said:


> Actualy, just the opposite.
> 
> Admitaly I was of this old mindset as well for a long time. I was reading a study from michigan DNR in a fishing magazine a few years back. To sum it up...
> 
> ...


The OP's stated reason for the rant was "No wonder there aren't any good fish in nimi." But another poster titled their comments "Nimisila Rocks!!!" and STRONGLY disagrees about Nimisila not containing quality fish. Others have also caught plenty of decent fish out of Nimi so the OP's logic pretty much falls apart.

Many factors affect the overall status of a lake or reservoir. It would be interesting to see just what factors that study took into account and what they didn't. Nimisila has an abundant population of shad so removing a 4" bluegill is not going to be eliminating a KEY meal for a predator fish there. Even if the different species know how to balance themselves, Nimisila is very heavily pressured and will never be left to its natural devices.

Its not just an old mindset. The need for removing small fish out of other than very small bodies of water like ponds has also been recently documented. Wingfoot is one example. Not saying that it is needed at Nimi, but don't believe that removing some 4" gills can hurt the population of decent size fish there either, at least for now.


----------



## canoe carp killer (Apr 2, 2014)

I don't want to argue lol but couldn't help myself. Not gonna be long winded either. I totally disagree with nixmt's opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## mastercatman (Jan 30, 2005)

nixmkt said:


> The OP's stated reason for the rant was "No wonder there aren't any good fish in nimi." But another poster titled their comments "Nimisila Rocks!!!" and STRONGLY disagrees about Nimisila not containing quality fish. Others have also caught plenty of decent fish out of Nimi so the OP's logic pretty much falls apart.
> 
> Many factors affect the overall status of a lake or reservoir. It would be interesting to see just what factors that study took into account and what they didn't. Nimisila has an abundant population of shad so removing a 4" bluegill is not going to be eliminating a KEY meal for a predator fish there. Even if the different species know how to balance themselves, Nimisila is very heavily pressured and will never be left to its natural devices.
> 
> Its not just an old mindset. The need for removing small fish out of other than very small bodies of water like ponds has also been recently documented. Wingfoot is one example. Not saying that it is needed at Nimi, but don't believe that removing some 4" gills can hurt the population of decent size fish there either, at least for now.



Right on! The fewer mouths to feed, the more food to go around. This is not quack science people! There are better ways to remove these fish than leaving them on the ice, that's the only thing I have a problem with. Panfish do overpopulate and stunt because of space/food competition. Eliminate competition, the remaining grow larger. FACT!


----------



## mastercatman (Jan 30, 2005)

Also, with bluegills in particular. Removing too many large mature fish can allow smaller fish to mature faster which slows their growth rates further exacerbating a stunted condition in a population.


----------



## swone (Jan 24, 2007)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> As much as I appreciate our pretty liberal bag limits and game laws, I'd like to see a wanton waste law enacted. Although I doubt it would get enforced effectively so meh. I guess littering will have to do?


There is such a law. A friend of mine said he saw a guy get a ticket on Campground Bay for doing exactly what was in the picture. No matter what we think, the law of the land dictates that we are to return those fish. I would suggest that if you see it taking place call the poacher hotline.


----------



## nixmkt (Mar 4, 2008)

swone said:


> No matter what we think, the law of the land dictates that we are to return those fish.


What law is that? Ohio fishing regs do not require that all small fish must be returned to the water everywhere and some recommendations do indicate small fish should be kept and removed from certain waters.

I've stated that leaving small fish on the ice is not ideal and I agree that it can get excessive. Some have noted cases where others have left larger fish or done more sinister things and I agree those are wrong too.

Many of you are clamoring for tickets to be issued for leaving small fish out on the ice as littering. Many DNR's recommend that leftover minnows be dumped out onto the ground or ice to die rather than be put into the waterway in order to prevent other problems. Why is that any different?

Even from the wanton waste perspective, picking the small fish up and just dumping them in a trash can is wanton waste. At least leaving them on the ice contributes to the overall ecosystem by providing food for other animals or fish.


----------



## hunt4smallies (Feb 4, 2009)

They need to start writing tickets for regular littering on the hard water, that makes me sick,im carryin others mess off every time I go to the foot


----------



## canoe carp killer (Apr 2, 2014)

So many people taking fish for many different reasons. Public lakes especially. I know a lot of us that go to public lakes to catch bluegills for catfish bait, people eating them, swallowing hooks, herons, other birds of prey.... So on and so forth. I think that the populations are quite under control in any of the public areas that I've came across. To just leave them to rot blows mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## randymcfishnsfun2 (Dec 24, 2014)

X2 smallies. Everywhere I go shore or ice I'm picking up trash from people that are too lazy to put it in their buckets. They should take hunting and fishing licences away for the remainder of the season for these people! And a fine. You took it out there you can take it back.


----------



## bobberbucket (Mar 30, 2008)

Some days when a heron is around I'll feed him dinks till he's so fat he can't fly I've had them stand within 6 feet of me waiting for me to catch them another dink that is always fun! I've tossed dinks on the ice Ive never been ticket for it I've never seen anyone ticketed for it. It's not against the law no matter how much some of you feel it should be. Last year I got checked by the warden while packing up out on the ice I took the fish I was keeping leaving some dinks behind on the ice the warden said nothing to me about it walked right off the ice with me so he obviously saw me leaving the dinks behind. It's been going on for decades and obviously hasn't put a dent in the bluegill population. Trash on the ice that's another story I've already picked up 4 propane bottles and some bait containers that were left by some lazy person! 


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## Beermanic (Oct 28, 2013)

I don't see a difference between leaving fish on ice and keeping them. If they have a 9" size limit and you keep them smaller, you get cited. Why not getting cited for killing them under this size? I understand that some might get gill hooked and die but not the case here. They don't want to deplete the smaller ones for a reason and that is exactly what is happening here.


Sent from my iPad using Ohub Campfire


----------



## bobberbucket (Mar 30, 2008)

Beermanic said:


> I don't see a difference between leaving fish on ice and keeping them. If they have a 9" size limit and you keep them smaller, you get cited. Why not getting cited for killing them under this size? I understand that some might get gill hooked and die but not the case here. They don't want to deplete the smaller ones for a reason and that is exactly what is happening here.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Ohub Campfire


There's No size or bag limit on bluegills there's also this has been going on for decades. And there obviously no shortage of dink gills so I think we are safe the whole "depletion "theory. 



Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## Beermanic (Oct 28, 2013)

Thought they were crappie


Sent from my iPad using Ohub Campfire


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

bobberbucket said:


> There's No size or bag limit on bluegills there's also this has been going on for decades. And there obviously no shortage of dink gills so I think we are safe the whole "depletion "theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire



Why do they do it?


----------



## nixmkt (Mar 4, 2008)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Why do they do it?


 You apparently need to re-read this thread from the beginning.

An overabundance causes stunting and prevents the small fish from getting bigger. Although one post describes this as old mindset, it is the current mindset at ODNR Dist. 3 and many fishermen believe it is the case for bluegills in most local lakes including Nimisila.


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

McMish said:


> Actualy, just the opposite.
> 
> Admitaly I was of this old mindset as well for a long time. I was reading a study from michigan DNR in a fishing magazine a few years back. To sum it up...
> 
> ...



The study you referenced dealt with the effect of reducing the number of consumable sized prey, for the fish that feed on them. In that context, the study has validity. Your referencing it in conjunction with the secondary topic of this thread, does not. 

While I agree that a proper balance is essential to healthy populations of all fish within a body of water, I think you're failing to understand the entire predator/prey relationship. The predator/prey relationship is not a one way street. The prey fish those predators eat are also predators. They're predators on the eggs, the newly hatched fry, and any young predator fish that is of consumable size. Let's also not forget that those prey fish feed on the same things that young predator fish feed on. 

The same holds true for intra species competition. An over population of any one species not only hurts other species, it hurts fish of the same species as well. That's not the "old school" way of thinking. It's nature's way of thinking.

The study you referenced also compared the natural balance of predator and prey in highly pressured lakes, to lakes with no access. Highly pressured lakes aren't left to nature's own device. Predator and prey numbers are both affected by harvest in highly pressured lakes, where as it's not in a lake that receives no fishing pressure. Also .... most fish that are prey to other fish, are highly prolific. It's natures way of providing for survival of the species. If there is even a slight wobble in a predator fishes population, prey fish can quickly become over populated. 

With over population, comes imbalance. So your contention that if a lake has a lot of dinks then it means that nature intended it to have a lot of dinks, is clearly incorrect. In this case nature is telling you through an exorbitant number of smaller fish, that there is an imbalance that nature on it's own cannot fix. At least not without some sort of potentially catastrophic disease.

As far as the original topic of this thread goes ..... I personally wouldn't do what was shown in the photo. I think it's sad to see, and regardless of whether or not it was done with the intention of thinning the population of smaller fish. It was not done in a good way.

Anyhow...... hope I didn't high jack the thread too badly. I don't ice fish anymore, but I do enjoy reading the reports from you guys. Just wanted to share my thoughts on what some of the posters were talking about.


----------



## James F (Jul 2, 2005)

I am not a Fish &Game Biologist, there fore I would not assume to make such a decision as this.Unless directed by the DNR.Not something I want to see and to me this is a thoughtless waste.Just my opinion.


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

James ... I understand your feelings that DNR should be one that make the decisions on the size of fish to be harvested. And like you, I'm not a fisheries biologist, but it is something that I have been interested in since I was a teenager, so it's something I have studied quite a bit over the years. I'm certainly not saying that, that interest qualifies my opinions or assertions as being completely correct, or that they are based on anything other than personal observation, and common sense. They're just my opnions.

DNR does make the decision on the size of fish to be harvested through the use of length limits. DNR considers, and actually depends on angler harvest in their equation when setting those length limits. Without that projected harvest taking place, DNR's assessment is thrown off, and therefore the balance they are trying to achieve within a specie of fish's population, is thrown off. 

There is no length limit on bluegill for a reason. They are prolific spawners, and according to studies I've read in the past, can spawn 2-3 times a year. They become sexually mature at 3-4" in length, although as one of the members mentioned earlier, the demographics of the bluegill population itself has a bearing on when sexual maturity is reached. It seems that if a population of bluegill is dominated by larger specimens, then sexual maturity is delayed until a larger size is reached. 

How do we as anglers know the dynamics of a specific species of fish's population better than DNR? We don't necessarily, But we are in a better position to observe those dynamics, than DNR is. That's why creel and angler surveys play an important role in DNR's management practices. Do anglers and DNR's evaluations always coincide? No. But IMO that's usually a result of DNR looking at the overall picture, while anglers only see the part of the picture that affects them. 

And before anyone gets the idea that I'm saying I, or DNR know better than they do ... I'm not. I'm just going by discussions I've had with anglers and ODNR fisheries people in the past. You'd be surprised what you can learn from a fisheries employee at some of the area sports shows. Most of them are more than willing to spend their time talking to you. 

Anyhow ..... I think everyone would agree that there is more than enough evidence to support that an over abundance of a species of fish is going to slow the growth rate of fish within that population. You see it in nature all the time. There's almost always a runt in the litter. The runt is the one that isn't getting as much food as the others in that litter. 

In the case of Nimisila, the increasing amount of weed cover in the lake, is also a factor that needs to be considered. The more weeds there are, the easier it is for prey fish to hide from predators, meaning a higher survival rate for those prey fish. 

Oh well .... I can see I've gone long winded yet again. Sorry about that. The topic is just one that I have a lot of interest in. It's that .... and I have a severe case of cabin fever. lol


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

nixmkt said:


> You apparently need to re-read this thread from the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> An overabundance causes stunting and prevents the small fish from getting bigger. Although one post describes this as old mindset, it is the current mindset at ODNR Dist. 3 and many fishermen believe it is the case for bluegills in most local lakes including Nimisila.



I read the thread thanks. No need to get insulting. So let's say that's true. And that people have been throwing them on the ice for eons for that reason. Has it helped? Apparently not since some still feel the need to do it. That's my point.


----------



## bobberbucket (Mar 30, 2008)

It does help imo! And I will continue to thin the herd so long as it remains legal. Everyone seems to be over looking the fact that this culling of the dinks doesn't occur much during soft water. Anyone who honestly thinks that the ice fisherman in the sometimes short or non existent ice season we have is are going devastate the fishery is a fool. I'm done with this BS dinks on ice thread for the year. Although just like this year and years past I'm sure someone will post a bleeding heart save the dinks thread next year!


----------



## swone (Jan 24, 2007)

I used to do this. I am not saying I think it is right or wrong. I didn't leave them on the ice, I took them home, fed some to my cat and used the rest for compost for my garden. I had the best tomatoes ever. I honestly thought I was helping out by doing it. Now I feel (and this applies only to me) that I don't really know if I am helping or hurting. Taking the life of any creature is a hard choice for me and I feel that when I do, it should be something I am sure about and I am certainly not sure if it is right or wrong to keep every single fish I catch.


----------



## nixmkt (Mar 4, 2008)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> I read the thread thanks. No need to get insulting. So let's say that's true. And that people have been throwing them on the ice for eons for that reason. Has it helped? Apparently not since some still feel the need to do it. That's my point.


Wasn't trying to be insulting, just didn't see how you didn't get why people did it since it was explained in the thread already unless you didn't read all of it. Yes it has helped. Although its only a minor dent in the number of dinks, the overall number would be that much worse without it. Bluegill are very prolific as has been noted and some locations could benefit from continuous culling to help keep them in check, not just during ice season.


----------



## ballast (Sep 15, 2011)

Maybe this will fuel some fire 

http://www.gameandfishmag.com/fishing/fishing_crappies-panfish-fishing_il_aa051603a/

over harvesting caused the fish to mature to fast? So keep on harvesting to fix it?


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

nixmkt said:


> Wasn't trying to be insulting, just didn't see how you didn't get why people did it since it was explained in the thread already unless you didn't read all of it. Yes it has helped. Although its only a minor dent in the number of dinks, the overall number would be that much worse without it. Bluegill are very prolific as has been noted and some locations could benefit from continuous culling to help keep them in check, not just during ice season.


When there is a huge number of stunted fish it should take years of consistent thinning to see much of a change at all. Some bodies of water may never really change much unless there is something like a major fish kil or die off and then a few subsequent years of selective harvest or management afterward to recover a natural balance. Unless its a very small body of water , wasting all those dinks on the ice is probably not helping anything.


----------



## nixmkt (Mar 4, 2008)

ballast said:


> Maybe this will fuel some fire
> 
> http://www.gameandfishmag.com/fishing/fishing_crappies-panfish-fishing_il_aa051603a/
> 
> over harvesting caused the fish to mature to fast? So keep on harvesting to fix it?


Their logic doesn't seem to make sense. Their stated theory is that if too many large fish are removed, the small ones will mature faster and not grow bigger. (Which agrees with other posted info.)

_Both of these premises are important to the researchers theory, that being that if large bluegill males are present, smaller males will delay maturation and continue growing until they are large enough to compete for those central nests. But if large bluegill males are removed from a lakes population, the smaller fish will choose to mature at an earlier age  and while they are smaller  therefore reducing the overall average size of the bluegills in the lake._

Yet their regulations limit catches (removal) to only large fish.

_Diana said some lakes are being regulated by just adding more-stringent fishing regulations. This includes requiring that all bluegills and redear sunfish be a minimum of 8 inches in length, and restricting anglers to just 10 fish per day._

What am I missing?


----------



## nixmkt (Mar 4, 2008)

yonderfishin said:


> Unless its a very small body of water , wasting all those dinks on the ice is probably not helping anything.


Even if that is the case, its not hurting anything either and they're not just wasted. They're providing food for birds, animals, etc. which is what ODNR notes when they recommend dumping leftover minnows on the ground instead of into the waterway.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

ballast said:


> Maybe this will fuel some fire
> 
> http://www.gameandfishmag.com/fishing/fishing_crappies-panfish-fishing_il_aa051603a/
> 
> over harvesting caused the fish to mature to fast? So keep on harvesting to fix it?




Thats an interesting read. 

What some think is a problem with too many fish for the food sources available could really be just the gene pool run amuck. Genetics are important to fish size. Once the gene pool is ruined by fisherman pulling all the larger fish out you wind up with only the small or weak fish being around to breed. Over the years the fish can be incapable of growing much bigger even under the best of circumstances. At that point , thinning a population of pygmy fish would be pointless. Even regular stockings may not do much to improve the gene pool if the place gets enough fishing pressure since all the preferred breeders get removed as they reach maturity because they are the keepers. Inbreeding is known to cause stunted fish just as much as lack of food or environment does , only in that case they arent going to get any bigger.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

nixmkt said:


> Even if that is the case, its not hurting anything either and they're not just wasted. They're providing food for birds, animals, etc. which is what ODNR notes when they recommend dumping leftover minnows on the ground instead of into the waterway.



Its probably safe to say that is the case in some places. But I think you are right that its not necessarily hurting anything except there are people who wouldnt mind catching those stunted fish again. And the birds and animals dont really "need" all that easy food , they are no worse off without it. A lot of fish frozen on the ice will only be so solid and frozen into place they will still be there when it thaws only to rot and feed crayfish. ODNR says to dump leftover minnows on the ground as a way to help prevent them from living in the particular body of water as an inadvertant transplant of a fish from one body of water to another , which is usually illegal anyway.

Look at this....

http://www.kens-fishfarm.com/?page_id=32


While it mentions lack of food or habitat as a cause for stunting , it also talks about the effect that inbreeding has , essentially the same thing. But when genetics are involved , the fish are just incapable of growing much bigger and they pass that on to the offspring. If pygmy fish get more food they just become fatter pygmies or higher numbers of pygmies. Of course the article is about the georgia giant hybrid , but it says that Over a period of time, with in-breeding, fish become smaller. The basic law of genetics applies to " ALL " fish and animals. This is why livestock breeders work hard to prevent in-breeding.

I may have missed it but I dont recall ever reading or hearing about Ohio's fish management program dealing much with genetics in an established fishery. If they do I am betting they dont give it as much attention as they should considering there are so many lakes that suffer from stunted fish for one reason or another. I cant count how many reports Ive read on here and other websites of the general fish size not being at all what it once was and the high number of dinks showing up. Probably not all a genetic issue but there is bound to be some if genetics is not an active part of the management process. Maybe they think regular stocking is the answer and the boneheads dont take into account that as the stockers reach maturity and are removed as keepers and their genetic contribution is lost ?


----------



## ditchdigger (Feb 22, 2012)

Buddy of mine was told by the game warden at Spencer to just leave the dinks on the ice!


----------



## c. j. stone (Sep 24, 2006)

mastercatman said:


> Right on! The fewer mouths to feed, the more food to go around. This is not quack science people! There are better ways to remove these fish than leaving them on the ice, that's the only thing I have a problem with. Panfish do overpopulate and stunt because of space/food competition. Eliminate competition, the remaining grow larger. FACT!



This is exactly the apparent plan to improve the crappie quality at Wingfoot. (That and stocking a major predator(channel cats!) Anyone else notice the majority of crappie caught there are small? That's why there is no size or quantity limit there(yet). Since the state took over the lake, catching 30 crappie 8"-or more, is nearly an impossibility(yeah, I know, a few "expert" fishermen are doing it!) As soon as the average size "measures up", look for immediate restrictions to be implemented. Same for Mogadore unless I'm mistaken.


----------



## swone (Jan 24, 2007)

Bradley4, I bet you never expected to see this much discussion on your post!!!


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

Ballast, that was a good read, and is what I and another member were trying to convey in our posts about bluegills delayed maturation at a larger size if the population is dominated by larger fish.

I have to say that while reading it, I noticed the same thing that nixmkt did. Their use of an 8" length limit contradicts their studies, and studies that I have read about bluegill in the past. If you want larger fish wouldn't you want to set limit restricting the taking of fish larger than 8"? Or at least a slot limit? I know Ohio uses slot limits, and from what I understand, the lakes with slot limits seem to be showing the results that DNR is looking for. 

Ohio also uses the stocking of additional predator fish to help on lakes with stunted panfish populations. Mogadore had, and may still have, the same problem as Nimisila does regarding stunted bluegill. Ohio stocked channel catfish. It would be interesting to hear from some of the Mogadore bluegill fisherman as to whether or not they are seeing an increase in average fish size. 

As far as it being hard for anglers to catch nice sized fish be they crappie or bluegill or any other fish species that is regularly harvested. There is something that I always think about when I read a post on OGF like that ..... I always think....... well of course you aren't going to be catching as many keeper sized fish ..... you're taking them home and eating them. 

Now I know that not everyone keeps every keeper sized fish they catch. I've read posts where some anglers mention catching 30 or 40 keepers but only taking home 10 or so. I can assure you that those kind of posts are in the very small minority. The vast majority of the posts have guys talking about taking home 30 fish for 3 days straight. week. Multiply that number by say 10 people that don't post on OGF.... and that's 900 fish. Maybe a little more catch and release would be a good idea.

I only target bass, and I release everyone I catch. Not because I think a bass is some noble fish that deserves to be released. I release them so I can have a chance of catching them again. There is something that I like to say and it's "taking a fish home and eating it reduces the chance of catching that fish again, by 100%" lol 

Anyhow ...... love the topic.


----------



## nixmkt (Mar 4, 2008)

swone said:


> Bradley4, I bet you never expected to see this much discussion on your post!!!





Bassbme said:


> .... love the topic.


Agree! I never thought a topic like this would last this long without getting closed. Although many disagree about the topic, everyone has kept the discussion civil and some interesting info. has been posted.

Most fascinating to me is that bluegills can and will adjust their sexual maturity, that they will delay it until they grow larger if the population of bluegill is dominated by larger specimens, or they will mature sooner and smaller if too many larger ones are removed and therefore reduce the overall average size of bluegills in the lake.


----------



## swone (Jan 24, 2007)

nixmkt said:


> Agree! I never thought a topic like this would last this long without getting closed. Although many disagree about the topic, everyone has kept the discussion civil and some interesting info. has been posted..


X2 Tom. I've learned from this post, an excellent byproduct of a civil discussion. 

'Murica!


----------



## nixmkt (Mar 4, 2008)

Bassbme said:


> If you want larger fish wouldn't you want to set limit restricting the taking of fish larger than 8"? Or at least a slot limit? I know Ohio uses slot limits, and from what I understand, the lakes with slot limits seem to be showing the results that DNR is looking for.
> 
> Ohio also uses the stocking of additional predator fish to help on lakes with stunted panfish populations. Mogadore had, and may still have, the same problem as Nimisila does regarding stunted bluegill. Ohio stocked channel catfish. It would be interesting to hear from some of the Mogadore bluegill fisherman as to whether or not they are seeing an increase in average fish size.


It would be interesting to know if the catfish have helped increase the average bluegill size in Mogadore. The very abundant shad population there may reduce the catfish stocking effect on bluegill though. That seems to be the case in Nimisila.

Don't know how it may correlate between bluegill and crappie but do have personal experience with the stunted crappie at Wingfoot that c. j. stone noted. When Wingfoot was first opened to the public, the crappie population was severely stunted. An 8" crappie was a pretty large fish then and most were paper thin too. No restrictions on min. size or daily limit were implemented and keeping small crappie was encouraged to thin the herd. That has been working and crappie caught the last couple of years (at least thru the ice) have been increasing in thickness and length. I'm not one of the "expert" fishermen there but I have caught some and I've seen several that those "experts" did catch. This ice season seems to be kind of sparse so far though.

The catfish should be getting to a size to be affecting the stunted gills and crappie in Wingfoot. The minimal weeds and cover in the lake should be a boon for the catfish to feed on them. Don't believe Wingfoot has many if any shad yet so that shouldn't be a significant factor there for now.


----------



## McMish (Mar 23, 2009)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> I read the thread thanks. No need to get insulting. So let's say that's true. And that people have been throwing them on the ice for eons for that reason. Has it helped? Apparently not since some still feel the need to do it. That's my point.


Agreed. But some people feel they know better than Gods Green Earth. That somehow nature got it wrong and their purpose is to kill something for no reason. 

If the fish were starving they would spawn less. 
I admit I used to be like these guys. And I hope it's not the first thing St. Peter asks about when I'm doing my final interview


----------



## ShaneMC (Nov 27, 2012)

Everyone, we should write a letter alerting the ODNR wildlife office of this BS. Include the picture and see if they send out officers.


----------



## bradley4 (Mar 31, 2014)

ShaneMC said:


> Everyone, we should write a letter alerting the ODNR wildlife office of this BS. Include the picture and see if they send out officers.



I was told officers and rangers are always out and about. Just haven't seen anything done about it.


----------



## EnonEye (Apr 13, 2011)

McMish said:


> Agreed. But some people feel they know better than Gods Green Earth. That somehow nature got it wrong and their purpose is to kill something for no reason.
> 
> If the fish were starving they would spawn less.
> I admit I used to be like these guys. And I hope it's not the first thing St. Peter asks about when I'm doing my final interview


Ahhh someone with a sensible answer. What makes people think it's their decision/right to waste a life? All resources on this earth were given for our use but if we waste them for no good reason, not good. Using them for catfish bait, fertilizer, cat food, that's using the resource. Allowing them to lay on ice and die is waste.


----------



## fishingfool101 (Mar 2, 2014)

Ok everyone said there peace, let it alone.


----------



## nixmkt (Mar 4, 2008)

EnonEye said:


> All resources on this earth were given for our use but if we waste them for no good reason, not good. Using them for catfish bait, fertilizer, cat food, that's using the resource. Allowing them to lay on ice and die is waste.


Again, they are not being wasted. They do get used as a resource. As has been noted, herons, eagles, *****, etc. will eat them now. Any that are missed will be eaten by catfish, turtles, or others after the thaw. Even the DNR notes that is the case when they recommend that leftover minnows be dumped out onto the ground or ice to die rather than be put into the waterway in order to prevent other problems. Picking the small fish up and just dumping them in a trash can would be wanton waste.


----------



## Eliminator (Aug 26, 2006)

Ironic is that in this day with modern electronics and high tech fisherman that overpopulation stunting would be a problem, you would think just the opposite.


----------



## nixmkt (Mar 4, 2008)

Eliminator said:


> Ironic is that in this day with modern electronics and high tech fisherman that overpopulation stunting would be a problem, you would think just the opposite.


Not really. All of that just helps people take more and more of the larger fish, and some of the information posted indicates that can be a significant factor in the stunting problem. Few people target the dinks.


----------



## Eliminator (Aug 26, 2006)

Daaaa...that's true. I'm an idot.


----------



## ballast (Sep 15, 2011)

I must have missed the sign that says, " leave all dinks on the ice". Maybe odnr sent me an email, I better check?


----------



## murphy13 (Jun 30, 2013)

ballast said:


> I must have missed the sign that says, " leave all dinks on the ice". Maybe odnr sent me an email, I better check?


right? I think that killing animals just to kill them should be mandatory psych evaluation and a fine. 
Here's a great peer reviewed article on the subject...(sorry if this is already posted)
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1006755702230#page-1
full study here
http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/IR-99-050.pdf


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

murphy13 said:


> right? I think that killing animals just to kill them should be mandatory psych evaluation and a fine.
> Here's a great peer reviewed article on the subject...(sorry if this is already posted)
> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1006755702230#page-1
> full study here
> http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/IR-99-050.pdf


I'm a little confused by your initial sentence, and the results of the study you posted the links to? 

The majority of the speculation throughout this thread has been that the person that dumped those fish on the ice, did so with the idea that thinning the population of small fish will help other fish of the same species to grow to a larger size. Based on the results of the study (I read the full study) the study supports that line of thinking. 

Therefore I can only assume that your problem is with the way the fish were disposed of, and not with the speculated reason for dumping the fish?

Anyhow, it was an excellent study. The only problem I had with it, is that as far as juvenile and small fish survival is concerned. It seemed to only point to a low number of predators as being responsible for increased survival, and not predator hunting efficiency. 

You can have all the predators in a body of water that you want, but if they can't hunt their prey efficiently because of other biological factors, they're not going to be efficient as a population control device.

Oh well ... I thought this thread was dead, and it probably still is. But the study was a great read on a cold snowy morning, and I thank you for posting it.


----------



## murphy13 (Jun 30, 2013)

Bassbme said:


> I'm a little confused by your initial sentence, and the results of the study you posted the links to?
> 
> The majority of the speculation throughout this thread has been that the person that dumped those fish on the ice, did so with the idea that thinning the population of small fish will help other fish of the same species to grow to a larger size. Based on the results of the study (I read the full study) the study supports that line of thinking.
> 
> ...


As for the initial sentence I think taking the life of any vertebrate should be atleast a little bit hard. I don't have a problem with harvesting fish for food for you, your pets, your garden ect.

As for most assesments on the topic of harvesting to keep fish sizes in check I would argue very differently most places I've seen that argue for selective harvest are for much much smaller bodies of water that I really don't think apply in the case of portage lakes. In fact I'd argue that Nesmith and long lake (the two in the chain I fish the most) don't seem to be experiencing any stunting. I'll get more into why I think that is.

From the paper survival and growth is dictated by the amount of biomass in the lake not predation. The more biomass you have the more potential for growth and survivability you have. The more biomass you have in terms of plants means a better environment for fish to hide in aswell as hunt for macroinvertabrates. 

If you want to get rid of stunting problem in your ponds and lakes stop killing the weeds so you can boat or have easier access to the 5lber in your back yard. It really is that simple.


----------



## Jigging Jim (Apr 3, 2010)

Fish Biologists have a Degree for a Reason. Without knowing the Scientific Ideals for a particular Body of Water, We are all just making a Bias Guess on the correct way to "Manage" any Body of Water.


----------



## bobberbucket (Mar 30, 2008)

Jigging Jim i don't have a problem with a discussion about the topic but I do have a problem with guys who watch too much wild justice like "canoe carp killer" it's not like want and waste lil kiddos its science prolly something people like canoe carp killer couldn't begin to understand!


----------



## chaunc (Apr 11, 2004)

Calm down fellas. No personal attacks are permitted here and you know that. Opinions on this matter will always differ but keep it civil or infractions will be passed out. Doesn't matter how long you've been here either. Keep it civil.


----------



## canoe carp killer (Apr 2, 2014)

bobberbucket said:


> Jigging Jim i don't have a problem with a discussion about the topic but I do have a problem with guys who watch too much wild justice like "canoe carp killer" it's not like want and waste lil kiddos its science prolly something people like canoe carp killer couldn't begin to understand!



I never said it was wanton waste, I just think people like you shouldn't breed is all. Who are u to make a decision that effects everyone's catch? Just disrespectful and trashy in my opinion. No need to get upset, people like u are what make America so diverse..........


----------



## bobberbucket (Mar 30, 2008)

I'm a real fisherman I'm not playing with you flat out what's wrong with you? Is the fish stunting problem that hard for you to wrap your mind around "canoe carp killer " it's really not that hard and from a guy who's never fished hard water you sure know alot why don't you go be a drama momma in the central Ohio fourm where you usually reside. I've forgot more about fishing than you will ever know.


----------



## bobberbucket (Mar 30, 2008)

chaunc said:


> Calm down fellas. No personal attacks are permitted here and you know that. Opinions on this matter will always differ but keep it civil or infractions will be passed out. Doesn't matter how long you've been here either. Keep it civil.



Chaunc you have been around a long time how many times have you seen this dinks on ice topic honestly?


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

murphy13 said:


> From the paper survival and growth is dictated by the amount of biomass in the lake not predation. The more biomass you have the more potential for growth and survivability you have. The more biomass you have in terms of plants means a better environment for fish to hide in aswell as hunt for macroinvertabrates.
> 
> If you want to get rid of stunting problem in your ponds and lakes stop killing the weeds so you can boat or have easier access to the 5lber in your back yard. It really is that simple.


I think you're misinterpreting the context of bio mass in the study provided in the links you posted.

"The suggested proximate causes for stunting all result in more severe resource limitation. Our hypothesis therefore is that strong resource limitation is the single ultimate cause of stunting. Under conditions of low resource availability, individuals will allocate resources mainly to maintain their biomass. Only small amounts of resources can then be invested into individual growth, resulting in a decrease of annual growth increments.

In addition to these immediate effects, poor growth conditions and severe resource limitation may result in altered life histories of fish populations. Especially the age at maturation is expected to be affected under these circumstances. The age at maturity in stunted populations is observed to be generally lower than or equal to that in normal populations, although differences are often small and contradictory observations exist."

Actually, your contention that "The more biomass you have the more potential for growth and survivability you have." Is contradicted by the study in this passage.

"Increasing juvenile and adult mortality dramatically reduces the total biomass; therefore, resource competition is relaxed and growth approaches to normal levels."

Also, the last passage fly's in the face of your assertion that "If you want to get rid of stunting problem in your ponds and lakes stop killing the weeds so you can boat or have easier access to the 5lber in your back yard." 

Heavy weeds have the causal effect of enhancing juvenile and small fish survivability. Which as the study shows, can lead to stunted fish populations.

It's true that lakes with weeds are usually more healthy fisheries. But too many weeds lead to very unhealthy fisheries. There is a plethora of factors that must be considered in developing and maintaining a healthy fishery. 

So you see ... your contention that "It really is that simple." couldn't be further from the truth. It's not simple at all.


----------

