Talk:Bluegill/Archive 1

Objectivity
Although it doesn't really affect the article as a whole, Wikipedia should be objective in every way possible. The line "They are widely considered to be the best tasting panfish" is quite obviously, not objective. It is important to note that the yellow perch article also says something very similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberSpork (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation page
Shouldn't there be a disambiguation page instead of a simple redirect from brim... most people wouldn't expect brim to come to a page about fish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.117.118 (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Pests
While bluegill may be pests, or a nuisance in foreign countries, many anglers consider this species to be a pest in their native waters (including myself, sometimes). A highly regenerative species, they can easily overpopulate many bodies of water. They can also annoy anglers at times when they are fishing for "more prized" game. Basically, bluegill can be seen as a pest in general, and perhaps this should be reflected in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.85.202 (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hook
I fish quite often myself, and I know bluegills have an infamous habit of swallowing the hook, which has caused me to have a fit more than a few times looking for the plyers to get a hook out of the poor fish's guts. Can anything be said about this?207.5.160.116 (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if there'd be any sources that explicitly state that they swallow the hook pretty often, but it's true. My guess would be it has something to do with either their small mouth, or the way they go about striking the bait, in more of a sucking motion that swallows the hook. Lime in the Coconut   18:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay,
I'm only 13, but I've been fishing ever since I could hold a pole, and I know for a fact that most bluegills are bait fish, or are MAINLY bait fish. I've caught LUNKERS with them sunofa**** snapped my rod, too! but I got him!! . Some of them get big enough to eat, and they are good. But, most of the time, they are just used as bait fish. At least, they are in Kansas. 164.113.135.1 (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess it depends on what type of fish you are going after, and what kind of water you're fishing in. I've fished in numerous small ponds where you aren't going to find anything bigger than a 1-3 lb lg. mouth bass.  In that case, the blue gills (or shellcrackers) are smaller than the bass, but not small enough to be used as bait.  Their shape makes them hard to fillet and get any meat, but they are quite tasty by themselves!  If you're in a big lake with plenty of Lunkers around, then they probably aren't worth your time to clean and cook!  Also, I think blue gills are the smallest variety of sunfish/panfish/whatever you call 'em Lime in the Coconut   18:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation Needed
Sorry. I was putting citations for the "They are relatively common and easy to catch.[citation needed]" part ... Turns out the citation I used to a State Department of Natural resources reference is copyrighted. I didn't realize that some States copyright the works of their government employees. I only realized this when I was going to add a second reference (in which the copyright was more evident) that I saw the copyright and went back and checked the first reference. I will keep looking for an authoritative public domain/commons source for an assertion that is self-evident to those who have gone fishing and caught many bluegills ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talfurius (talk • contribs) 15:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Reproductive strategies
I think something should be mentioned about the two different reproductive strategies of male gillfish: the standard morph and the sneaker morph that pretends to be a female to sneak into males' territories and mate with their females. It's quite interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.38.36 (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Conservation
In the conservation section, it says that the population is currently healthy in Minnesota. I would think that it should talk about bluegill as a whole, not how they are doing in a specific state. Also, this statement is confusing to me: "The current population limit (as of 2011) is 20 species." Is this still talking about Minnesota? I haven't ever heard of a state wildlife conservation service or the federal fish and game service putting a limit on species. Perhaps it is talking about a creel limit, which would change by state and in some cases by specific lake. I would like to made this section better.--4.226.171.7 (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Habitat
It says that they are absent from Northern Minnesota because the water gets to cold. We catch bluegill up here all winter long on frozen lakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.7.206.217 (talk) 04:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Management
From the article: "In the US, each state has a department that regulates and manages bluegill population and sets fishing limits accordingly.[11]" There is nothing in the reference cited that supports this claim. The reference is to a page relevant to the State of Minnesota, and no other states are mentioned. It's really just a very simple page about sunfish in general, only a small part is specific to bluegills, and management by each state is not mentioned at all. The unsupported statement was deleted, and the deletion was promptly reverted. But no support for the claim was supplied. Please, before reverting again, cite the actual wording in the reference that shows that each state regulates bluegill populations and sets limits. That's a big claim considering that many states have no regulation of bluegill catch. Unless there is wording in the reference that supports the claim, the claim gets deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The URL of the reference appears to be bluegill-specific, but it redirects to a generic sunfish page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Poison in their spines?
I have a question: Has anyone heard of sunfish (incl. Bluegills) having a low-potency amount of poison in their spines? My Grandpa and Dad love to fish, and taught me to be careful not to get pricked, because of the poison in the spines. My husband got pricked yesterday, and he can't use his finger without it hurting, and it is pretty swollen. I was wondering if anyone else has heard of that, or if it is just a myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.33.240 (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * it's most likely infected. There's no venom in their spines, but there's probably a lot of bacteria in the water that he caught the fish in, which could lead to infection.  They are quite nasty though, so be careful or use a glove to get them off the hook.167.7.17.3 (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My original research/experience is that all fishes with a bony spine will cause infection if they scrape or puncture the skin. Presuming that the colloquial use of the word "poison" would include harmful bacteria, the only part that is wrong is the word "in" instead of "on." ;) Fish like bluegill aren't as bad as ones like bullhead catfish that spend more time digging in the sediment, eg it isn't notable.76.105.216.34 (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)