http://www.iceshanty.com/ice_fishing/index.php?topic=300129.0

I'm leaning toward female due to the short eartab and subtle bar pattern.

What do you think?

Doesn't seem to be an ounce shy of 2 lbs. judging by the hand in comparison and average body shape, but then I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I vote for female. And the angler must have huge hands if she really goes two.

Not sure on that one, it kinda has intermediate characteristics. Is there such a thing as a hermaphrodite BG?

Actually there are but they are almost exclusively from artificial breeding programs.

There are ocassionally natural polyploid bluegills but they are rare.

Do polyploid BG tend to grow unusually large relative to normal BG?

I couldn't discern any scale tipping from the pictures which makes me lean toward female but better pictures would help.

I believe there is that potential as they would not expend energy for spawning purposes.

Wr of 138% if his measurements are correct. Very nice!

Doesn't look like a 138 to me. Looks more like a 15 oz. bluegill vs. 1 lb. 15 oz.

Not trying to burst his bubble but I'm just not convinced. We all know how some anglers exaggerate.

I'm with you Cecil, looks like a 1 lb BG to me.

I also get 138 for RW using his figures. However this whole discussion is academic. I won't believe the measurements of that BG until I see in on a ruler. I did a proportional calculation of the fish compared to his hand. The width of his hand from his thumb knuckle to level straight across the opposite edge is 7.75" on my computer screen; an actual man's palm measure is 4.5"-5"- 5.5". Measure your own hand for comparison. Now measure how long the fish is. On the screen fish length is a max 15.0". So a direct proportional calculation is 5.0"/7.75" X X/15.0" = 9.6" or 10.6" if we use 5.5" wide hand palm. No way my measurements are off by 1.9" (11.5"(his)-9.6"(Bill's) = 1.9"). Something is "fishy". This BG does not look anything like the 2 pound BG the members were catching at Richmond Mill Lake. Cecil you see every day what the body proportions of trophy size fish look like, so I think you are correct in questioning the stated size of the fish in the picture - good call. The guy must have been drinking some of Dwight's Hamm's beer when he measured that fish - LOL. Someone should send that angler a picture of a real 2 lb BG.

I tried posting a photo of a 2 pound bluegill lying on a flat ruler but my computer kept kicking me off.

You still don't have that fixed? What's the plan?

Go to another forum?

Just kidding....

But I think whoever administers this group of forums should have twenty dead gizzard shad put on his doorstep.

Could you go with 20 BH? No need to waste gizzard shad.

Get some grinnells they stink while alive


Pat W

Bruce,

You need to to stop in a computer shop and try and get on the site. If anyone there is worth their salt they should be able to tell you what the issue is.

...and they're ugly too...

I am having trouble with the kindle my wife got me for Christmas. I hit the "Mayday" button and they told me the site requires "plug-ins or was it add-ins" that are out of date/ nearly obsolete apps.

Bill,
Have you considered rebooting your device first before making any further setting changes. Sometimes when the forum balls up and I get bizarre messages, I logout and reboot my note. It doesn't happen very often.
Charlie

Thanks Charlie. I edited my post to say what they actually told me, I am computer illiterate! .

Sasquatch only roll in gizzard shad, then eat gizzard shad. Sasquatch fear flaming bag of poo!

That's the hardest I've laughed at a post on this forum for many years!

This is what a two-pound bluegill looks like.

Thanks Bruce for showing us what a true 2 pound BG looks like. Sasquatch reeking of dead gizzard shad probably was twisting that guy's arm or either water boarding him forcing him say his BG was 11.5" and 1 ounce shy of 2 lbs.

Wow! Bruce, is that from your lake or somewhere else (RM)?

The difference is startling.

Yes pretty big difference between a real 2 pound BG and a big BG. The difference was probably the Hamm's influence. LOL

Here's another "in hand" 2 pound bluegill...

....and another....



Tried to find pictures of legit 2 pounders that are in somebody's hand to give a known reference to the original photo.

First fish is from Richmond Mill, North Carolina, and the second and third examples are from Phoenix, Arizona.

Thanks for posting Bruce!

Beautiful!
You think we can grow em that big in our 5ac fed pond here in central Tex?


Pat W

Hey Bruce.

Should I create an account on the site and post that Brute you posted here?

I have fairly large hands and if I lay it out, palm up on a 8.5" x 11" piece of paper, comparing everything, the wall-hanger may possibly be over 9", but not much more.

There's no point in creating trouble on that site. It will black list me on the site.

Guys,

Help me out. Time for BG 101 class. That originally posted fish and the two posted by Bruce look like different species. I know they are not. Why do some BG have that platter shape and look like they had their noses caved in like in Bruce's photos and others look like that fish in the original post with a "protruding" nose?

BillD - At least three things cause what you are describing. 1. the BG in the 1st post was likely a female. The BG in Bruce's post pictures were males. Males are often considered to get larger that females. Some disagree. 2. The accentuated nose and forehead shapes are basically sexual dimorphism features of the old really big males. These features usually start on males that are around 10" for the males and become more pronounced as the fish gets larger toward the 13"-14" length. 3. The platter shape tends to be mostly related to the genetic strain of the BG and to a lesser extent the wide body is part of the sexual dimorphism characters of old very big males again a progressive aging feature. Some strains or clines of BG are more streamlined or elliptical shaped and less round. Many BG do not get as big as 1.7 to 2.0 lbs or are not harvested, so these features are not commonly observed by most pondowners - anglers. The lack of these dimorphic features is another indication for those that are familiar with huge BG the "wall hanger" BG in the 1st post is not really as big as it was claimed to be because it lacked these characteristic body features of a true trophy BG in the 11"-14" category. For Ref: standard weight of a 11.0" BG is 1.2 lbs and std wt of a 14" BG is 2.69 lbs.

Thanks Bill. I was hoping you would see my question. From a table fare standpoint, my wife and I prefer the first picture. Our experience is they are easier to scale and just taste better. Two questions. Do females ever get to the 1.5 to 2 pound size? What shape is a big female?

Female BG do get to 1.5 lbs and maybe 2.0 lbs. Bruce provided a picture of a 10.7" female BG for our Only Male BG article Part 2. Maybe he will post that or a similar picture. I do not recall seeing a BG female 2.0 lbs but Richmond Mill anglers may have pictures of a 2 pound female BG. Trophy BG catching anglers such as Bruce or Sprkplug will be better able to answer the body shape question for the biggest female BG.

Thanks Bill. I will hope for a reply from Bruce.....and don't worry, we would not eat a trophy like that. Back it would go!

I agree with you about the smaller fish are easier to clean and better tasting. I think the same applies to most all wild and farm raised animals. Younger ones usually are better table fare. The trophies should be photographed and returned for perpetuating the trophy size genetics.

I've never seen a 2lb female BG either, but Bruce would definitely be the guy to ask. In my limited experience the females do tend to feature more of a projected nose and more streamlined general appearance than the males, yet I have seen male BG that featured "shoulders" but not the round, platter profile found on trophy fish.

I wonder if the amount of food available, or lack thereof during the first few months of growth plays a role also. I have seen fast growing BG begin to display the round body dynamic at 4" or even less, provided food is plentiful. And as Bill stated, being genetically predisposed to exhibit this characteristic is a huge plus....Bruce and Cecil have both provided examples of these fish in the past.

Thanks Tony. I stocked a couple 6" ones last spring that had that platter pug nose look. Soooo...now I am wondering did I stock really old stunted males or really young fast maturing fish. I guess time will tell!

Take care man. Are you going to get the major arctic blast this week? They have changed our forecast for wednesday now to -17.

Nah, the low I see is 4 degrees. Our ponds opened up today, so starting from scratch on the ice building.
Here is a 10"+ northern strain female from one of our ponds. Long and slender, with that projected nose.

Perfect picture. Thanks buddy!

Edit: Got a be honest though...that lady would be bathing in a light fried beer batter, homemade spicey tarter sauce, a nice slice of pepperjack, thin slice of fresh vidalia onion, crisp iceberg lettuce on a buttered toasted bun if I caught it!.....Might get two sandwiches if the buns are small!

Bill - got Falstaff?



Pat

Nice fish!

Bill,
I'd hit that!!!!

Yep. Got a touch of the flu. I called the Doc and he told me to have at least 3 before bed. Not to worry Pat, I will save you the empty bottles and send to you to use as pond structure floats, bottle reef material or just to keep in your garage for refill!

Charlie,

We definitely need to get together and go fishing and eating!

Bill,
I'm in!!!

Hey!

We can invite Pat along. He always has a good supply of Falstaff on hand to make the beer batter for the fish fry!....We may have to wrestle him to the ground and pry a bottle out of his fingers though!

Bill is back!! Mmm beer batter fish! I'm in.


Pat W

Bruce, Bill,

It seems the male coppernose and coppernose intergrades seem to have more of a platter profile than the northern strain. Or is this not necessarily the case?

Interestingly at the risk of repeating myself I had a situation happen that surprised me. After one of my trophy pond drainings where I had females escape a cage and breed with the males, which I did not want (breeding takes place under controlled conditions in another smaller pond), I saved several hundred fingerlings for an Amish friend for his new pond. I didn't want them as part of my stock as they didn't have the robust look of the ones from my brood pond that are fed after swim up with artifical feed. I believed they would be inferior.

Turns out they made up for lost time in their new home and his biggest one of 1 lb. 12 oz. eclipses my biggest one of 1 lb. 7 oz.

I think I may have shared this with Bruce and he has said he too has seen them catch up in growth and relative weight.

See this for BG sex id. ewest - your link does not 'work'.

Here is the preeminent thread to see about Bill , Bruce and Cecil's PB mag articles. See Cody's note at the bottom.

http://www.pondboss.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=103883&fpart=1

















Cody Note: The text for these pictures are in a three article series in Pond Boss Magazine 2006: issues of Mar-Apr (article #6), May-Jun (#8), and Jul-Aug (#7). Males are described primarily in Mar-Apr and females in May-Jun. See this link for description of each article.
http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=92481#Post92481