Quote:
Originally posted by Bruce Condello:
I think I've figured out what my problem is. I've been cleaning the tanks of my own bluegill that I've raised, and I think the ones in my tanks are so compressed that I forgot how much more elongated regular bluegill are. My redears aren't nearly as healthy so they're a little more "streched out".
Uhh, Bruce, that kind of sounds like bragging ;\) , except if it's in the records it's not bragging . Left-handed complaining, maybe?

FWIW here's my opinions on the fingerling ID. I don't count 'em as fer-shure Redears until I see the color of anger on their opercules. And I have seen plenty of red/orange fringes on gill opercules of RES fingerlings as big as the one(s) in DonJovi's pictures. My backup, I don't trust it 100% identifier is side bands. IMHO DonJovi's fingerling side bands are too distinct and solid to be RES. Based on these two pieces of info, I would judge his fish to be BG (or CNBG) and would definitely not include them if I was trying to segregate Redear fingerlings.

Ewest's picture of a fingerling is smaller than I have seen many/any red-lined gill tabs on, but the sidebars on it are SO distinct and solid that I would class it a BG, 100% sure, if called upon to make a BG or RES judgement.

I think body condition (tall-and-fat or skinny-and-drawn-out) can vary too much from fish to fish and seasonally for me to use it as a reliable indicator of fingerling BG versus RES identification. My criteria are designed to work like your BG sexing methods - one might miss some small RES, but be able to select fingerlings that are all RES, definitely no BGs mascarading as the angriest of all Lepomis.

"Live like you'll die tomorrow, but manage your grass like you'll live forever."
-S. M. Stirling
[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]