Once again, I find myself disagreeing with Mr. Boese. As a scientist myself, with an M.S. in Biology (I minored in Ecology), I am once again appalled at the lack of actual scientific evidence that many 'experts' put forward as fact, all in the name of Political Correctness. As far as "a little science" goes, it's nothing of the kind. A growth chart from the Alabama Co-Op Extension does not constitute a scientific evaluation. It is just an estimate. That's all, and it wouldn't even be relevant for bodies of water in other parts of the country.

A larger fish is not necessarily genetically superior to a more average-sized fish. It's just older, and on top of that, more than likely approaching the end of it's natural life. Leaving all the larger fish can actually hurt the gene pool, because since they have a size advantage, they can run more average-sized fish off from the best breeding areas, meaning less fish will be born, and less will survive. Keeping some of the larger ones allows average fish to have a fighting chance to increase the diversity of the gene pool.


And, large fish do not necessarily spawn large offspring. That only works under a controlled selective breeding situation, which is impossible in the wild. If large fish consistently spawned larger offspring, then panfish, which most species evolved during the Pliocene Period, around 5 million years ago, would be much larger than their fossilized ancestors. Fossil specimens of ancient bluegills are around 8-10"long, on average. So their descendants should weigh around 20 pounds and be a few feet long by now, but they aren't. The size has changed little in 5 million years. It's because genetics doesn't work that way in nature. There are many factors effecting genetics other than just size. Unusually large fish can even be an indicator that all is not well with its genes. An unusually large size usually comes at the expense of something else, just like in other animals. Organisms suffering from gigantism, and acromegaly have a short life-span, and if they can even breed at all, pass undesirable genes along.


The "leave the large fish" crusade is just a PC motto, as far as panfish go. They are in no danger of being wiped out anywhere in their range from over-fishing, and in most places do not get enough fishing pressure. Culling may benefit marginal trout populations to a certain degree, but it has no meaningful effect on panfish populations. They breed at an unbelievable rate, and can over-populate areas if there is not enough predation. So, the best way to keep the panfish populations healthy is actually not to cull your fish (except to release fish that are not legal sized), and just keep what you catch and enjoy them. As long as you do not exceed the legal creel limits, the panfish will be just fine.