This report is a couple of days early but there is a cold front approaching this evening and as a result, the fish were very active in all the ponds. Here is the update for May:

The aggressiveness test resulted in the following readings: TGG=65, CNBG=35, native BG=15.
I used a small grass shrimp/baby crawfish imitation fly. For those of you who fly fish, I tie this fly with tan fly fur, flashabou, and black bead chain eyes back close to the hook bend.

The TGG = 65 is about as high a reading as this test will see...in fact, it is the highest reading I've ever experienced on BG on a fly rod. This isn't feeder fishing either, where one can expect a hit every cast right next to the artificial feeder. This is open pond fishing. Three TGG caught, seven hits in 10 casts. The three fish were each approaching 8 inches with one of them a solid 8 inches and very good girth. There is a definite trend developing...the TGG are meat eaters, not bug eaters. This may explain their rapid growth, in part. I intend to use a Miss Prissy for the next test and expect the TGG to drop way back on the score...but we will see.

I didn't have my digital camera (on loan) so I will not use the lengths in the data table this month (there will be no recorded data without pictures to prove the data). I will update the table, however, with the aggressiveness test results. Next update will be around the first of June. I expect to record the first official TGG fish at or above 8 inches at that time (and will have the camera next time to document the catch).

Stay tuned. The summer should get real interesting.

Good new, ML. How big are the CNBG you are catching? How big and when were they stocked?

The CNBG, for the most part, have been in the ponds for a long time. They come in various sizes all the way up to and over 10 inches. This spring I made a pilgramage to Tyler Fish Farm to get some of Bob's CNBG genetics in my ponds. He hand selected CNBG from Florida many years ago and has some terrific genetics.

One of the limitations of this study is lack of a prefect control group, i.e a CNBG pond identical in every respect to the TGG pond. To combat that weakness, I requested and received "control group" data from Bill Cody. Interestingly, that control data is pretty uniform across the South.

The TGG through the winter, exceeded that baseline data, doubling it in fact, and now that the growing season is really underway, appear to be exceeding that baseline even further.

With all the dire warnings about the vast hordes of stunted green sunfish that would result from this experiment, I've been trying hard to trap/find some offspring from the TGG's.

This past weekend, I set a large fish trap, one which usually nets a couple dozen baby BG every couple of hours in my large pond, and checked it regularly over a three day period.

Result: zero Fx offspring, not a one.

Some possible explainations that have come to mind for this are:

1) there are no surviving Fx offspring and the HSB are doing there job just as intended
2) the TGG's haven't spawned yet
3) the trap is ineffective
4) I received all male TGG from Deb's place
5) rumors of green sunfish are, as Mark Twain once stated about his death, greatly exaggerated.

I'm strongly leaning to #1 and #5 but welcome any comments and/or suggestions as to the reasons for the apparent lack of Fx offspring.

Not being familiar with the spawning habits of these fish, #2 also seems like a possibility....although I have considerable evidence of large CNBG spawn in other ponds.

Thanks ML good update, In my pond with a mix of GG and CNBG I got good reproduction but most if not all were CNBG(a good thing)
One difference with my pond is that the GG readly took to feed up to a point in size then would mostly eat live things. I know this from fishing if you wanted to catch the largest GG you fished away from the feeders. One drawback to GG I found out is they will drive you crazy hitting your lures when you are bass fishing, I pulled in many thinking I had a small LMB
Bill

Bill, what's the biggest Georgia Giant you've ever personally seen?

Thanks in advance.

http://www.pondboss.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=112031

No picture, but it was 4 years olds and weighed 1.5 Lbs on a digital scale. Wish now I had kept better records. As I just stated got very little reproduction so at year 4 all(or most) were F-1s and all weighted 1 Lbs or greater.

Are the GG Bluegill-GS crosses or Bluegill-RE crosses? I've always read that the GS cross was only 60% male, while the RE cross was 97% male.

Great report ML
I am thinking of having a lil panfish pond in a few years and if things keep going so well for you I might give them a try
good job

Ealong59 no one knows the GG cross other that Ken and Jason Holyoak but it is known that it is a cross of more than two types of fish

Bill I am wondering how you learned that the GG is a cross of more than 2 types of fish? Has anyone said that and if so who? Was it someone other than Holyoak? I have seen them referred to as a proprietary strain of HBG in a study. Just wondering and trying to keep the facts straight in my mind. I will hunt up the old thread where some guy claimed to have worked on this before Ken and see what it says.

Deb told me and I think she said so at the Georgia Pond Boss meeting. The thread you are refering to is the son of a man Ken was mentored by and claims his Dad gave the GG cross to Ken. Ken through Deb said the man was like a father to him but GG was developed after they worked together.
I am sure Deb is restricted as to what she can say about GG but it would be interesting how many fish are crossed
Eric to answer your question the info came from Holyoak through Deb

Does anyone know if these are just a southern fish, or will they survive a northern winter?

ML, if you want your GG threads to remain scientific in nature, I urge you to refrain from comedic comments like "With all the dire warnings about the vast hordes of stunted green sunfish..." unless you want the anti GG group to comment. I feel you've been given a fair shake to represent your scientific study. If you're looking for a counter-strike, I would like to remind the masses that your GG population has no lasting value, and that they degenerate in size each spawn.

Robinson thanks for the link where does it say GG are prohibited in Fla

A warning shot across your bows, gentlemen. Please maintain decorum and respect. Your friendly neighborhood moderators will not take the time to sort out your facts from your opinions when the latter are inflammatory. Deleting is faster.

Bill:

Read the section on Green Sunfish. Florida states that GGs are a hybrid of GSF and they are therefore banned as well.

Theo I second that caution. Lets stick to the facts on both sides.

ML my guess is trap is to large for tiny offspring at this point. They are still to small for HSB ,if they have spawned. No indication from sellers that they have trouble reproducing. Now one thing to think about is if the ate their own as with BG who are the biggest predator of their kin when small. Studies show 3-4in BG are the biggest predators of small swim up sized BG

MI unlike FL is surrounded by FRESH WATER, and they tell the people of the state to stock Hybrid Sunfish over regular Bluegill! I've lived in both states and I believe the fishing in MI to be much much MUCH better than FL. Just maybe FL biologists know more about salt than fresh water?

To quote Bob Lusk from the Georgia Pond Boss meeting "Georgia Giants or Hybrid Bream can not and will not revert to Green Sunfish", "you can't unbake a cake"

I have a pretty good population of green sunfish. However, I stocked neither Hybrids nor greenies. I figure they came from the hatchery mixed with BG. Or, I got some help from neighbors. I still don't believe that the stork brings baby fish.

I don't understand the concern. They spawn once per year and their elongated shape makes them good predator food. I find that a much bigger danger to a small pond is BG overspawning.

My personal take on Florida's ban on GSF is that they are VERY concerned about non-native species. Being sub-tropical, a vacation land, a retirement land, and a major entry point for all kinds of commerce coming into the U.S., they have aquired a host of invasive exotics, finned and otherwise, that makes them extremely sensitive about letting any more in on purpose.

Don't they have pythons that have made in into the Everglades and give the Gators a run for their money?

I was in South Miami at a Power Plant last week. You would not believe the amount of "wild" parrots that they have now. These parrots were building huge nests of 1/4" to 1/2" diameter sticks up on the overhead crane. The nests were about 3-4' in diameter.

These "wild" parrots originated from people letting their "pets" go.

The everglades do now have populations of pythons, and anancondas from what I heard.

Also, in South Florida, there is an area where iguanas [sp?] have taken hold.

EWEST,

Cannibals...that seems like a very good possibility also. The GG's really do attack small minnows. The trap did catch some small Gambusia, so I doubt it is too small to catch GG offspring. Maybe they are very late spawners compared to regular BG?

I'll continue the trapping as the summer goes along and report results. The thesis of the experiemnt is to evaluate the growth, aggressiveness, and sustainability of the GG's in a small pond. The trapping is part of the evaluation of the sustainability and nothing more. I'll continue to trap during the summer and report results...as well as continue to measure and report on the growth and aggressiveness.

Florida is already overrun with all the fish that they have listed, and many others. I know the canals out of and near Miami and Naples are full of Oscar, fun to catch(1 lb. fish fights like a 5 lb. fish), but definitely not a local fish. They have peacock bass stocked near Miami, also.

My son was camping in the Keys in March. They have a bounty ($50, IIRC) on the iguanas.

ML:

Maybe the GG's aren't mature yet? Some of that excellent growth could be due to prolonged adolescence.

Let's realize this is a pond for kids, or GG, and we're back on the same page.

I don't want this kind of thread to minimize the consequences of introducing these fish into a predator pond. A mistake by a new member could cost them hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Seeing mixed opinions where spawning is stated as nonexistant, or a minor factor disturbs me. Pond Owners who desire predators should always stock forage species with superior genetic traits and high reproduction numbers. Stocking a forage fish that improves over time makes sense, stocking a forage fish for 1 generation that deteriorates over time doesn't. I new member to this forum should understand that these fish are for small ponds destined for a bottle of poison after several generations.

Anyone stocking any hybids as forage species is a very foolish person. I don't look at the GG as a forage species and neither should anyone else, because it isn't!

Did I miss something? Who said they were stocking GG for forage?

This is not a statement on the value of GG, but in my humble opinion, there is a profound difference between attempting to establish a sunfish pond and using a predator as an adjunct, vs. trying to establish a predator pond and using a lepomis species for forage. You can say any derogatory things you want about sunfish hybrids, but you can't say they aren't willing participants in the angling game. Therefore, if the goal is increasing CPUE, then achieving that goal is a slam dunk. If you feel a particular forum member isn't being scientific, then it would be advisable to produce your own scientific research to the contrary.

Pond Owners who desire predators should always stock forage species with superior genetic traits and high reproduction numbers. Stocking a forage fish that improves over time makes sense, stocking a forage fish for 1 generation that deteriorates over time doesn't.

Bruce, I believe this statement by Eastland makes an assumption that someone is advocating stocking GG in a predator pond for forage. Maybe I missed out on the meaning, but Eastland is a known non believer in any positives of HGB.

Thanks, burger...

I hope I'm being perfectly clear that I'm not making a statement on the value of hybrid sunfish and GG's in particular. I don't know enough about them to make an intelligent commentary (some would argue that I don't know enough about anything to make an intelligent commentary ). My point is that if a person wants to disagree, that's great--that's one of the things that makes this forum so appealing. But if they do so, they should endeavor to fully understand the argument being made by the opposition and also use decorum in making their disagreement. I've been on here long enough to know that threads that display different viewpoints are learning tools, until it gets personal. Then nobody learns because meanspirited comments take the place of objective argument. Everybody ends up looking bad and nobody learns anything.

There have been dozens of times in the last two years that people have disagreed with me, and even more times that it was pointed out that I was flat-out wrong. My first inclination was to get upset. My second inclination was to lash out. Once I even thought I'd just quit the forum. As it turns out, these were the threads that I learned the most from. Sometimes by being forced to change my thinking--other times by being prodded to crystalize my opinion into something more defensible. Either way, it was a good thing.

I enjoy spirited discussions with differing viewpoints. Like Bruce says, it is the only way to open my eyes regarding predetermined opinions; most of which, in my case, are not well thought out from all sides. I often don't have enough education or background in the subject to even ask the right questions. Thus, my logic is seldom the same as someone/anyone elses. Actually, some of my most brilliant ideas now look like a sieve due to holes being poked in them.

I prefer test results with conditions and constraints spelled out. I love questions regarding test criteria with both sides being open minded.

A Forum is, among other things, the place to report and discuss results. It is also a place to expect questions regarding the results. It's the only way we learn anything other than "do it yourself". If you think about it, 5 years ago, tilapia and HSB, according to Texas Parks and Wildlife and Texas A & M, were not considered acceptable as pond denizens.

All research is open to questions and disagreement. However, unless the reporter or questioner has ulterior motives or it is determined that they are trying to hustle a buck, they are not subject to personal attack. That constitutes rudeness which has no place here and is not to be tolerated.

Almost all of us deal with species both Lepomis and Micropterus; I think problems arise when we sometimes project our own goals on other PM's discussion points. And this is totally understandable - if you and I are talking and you leave some information out or I miss hearing something, I'm going to fill in the blanks with data from my own experience and apply that to our talk. But it may not be the correct info.

We talk about bass and bream, about goals and tools. But my hammer may be your nail. If a big bream, small pond enthusiast says that HBG can be a good thing, a big bass guy may well think "Is he crazy? HBG don't breed true or produce sufficient forage for bass!" And he's right - but through information transfer deficiencies which may be the fault of the speaker, the listener, or no one (it's very hard to transfer much of the info we take for granted in fact-to-face conversations via typed words!) he has mistaken the hammer and the nail.

From my experience here and elsewhere on the web, bream enthusiasts seem to be in the minority compared to fans of big bass or other fish. I have found more information on how to catch BG from catfishing sites (where BG are bait) than from any dedicated BG sites. So, big bass guys - try and remember some of us are after what appears to you to be a funny, deformed hammer. And bream guys - remember most of the world thinks differently. We should all try to speak and hear what the tools and goals are more clearly.

DD,

I'll never forget attending the first "Pond 101" conference in Athens about 6 years ago and several noted pond management speakers said exactly what you said...Tilapia are a "NO NO" because they will leave you with huge fish kills and cause your bass to get too large for your pond....yes, they actually said that..."cause your bass to get too large for your pond."

That's when and where I got the idea to stock Tilapia...I kind of wanted to see some LMB "get too large for my pond".

I haven't seen that yet, but am still hoping.

I happen to like all fish, do not consider any fish a "trash fish". Fish simply do what their genetics are programmed to do (no hidden agendas)...and in some cases, that programming isn't consistent with the PM's goals. That does not mean, however, that the same fish can not indeed be the fulfillment of another PM's goals.

The GG pond is, thus far, one terrific BG pond and is achieving one of my goals for my ponds...to provide a place where kids and kids at heart can experience fast paced exciting fishing that can turn into a lifetime love of a sport I cherish.

If it turns into a mess of stunted green sunfish, as some on here continue to say, it will still have been worth it to me. There is a little girl in Ash Grove, Missouri named Bethany that is now hooked for life on fishing and is trying to convice her classmates and teacher of the wonders of the TGG pond in Texas. Doesn't get much better than that, for me.

Watching my 84 year old Mother catch GGs on a cane pole one after another and smiling and laughing like a teenager again was my reward.

We should all keep in mind that there is a vast difference in the knowledge level and experience of the good folks who take the time to be forum members. Further, that there are many more pond enthusiasts here who come for help and to learn but who never become forum members. If you post you have an obligation to all of them to be as clear as possible.

There are many here who are outstanding in their ability , knowledge and pond management skills. Often such members are the ones who join in the discussions and help with the cutting edge info which benefits us all and who move the learning curve forward. Pond masters who fit in this category are not in danger of making a mistake without first being able to weigh the positive and negative aspects of an action. In short they know enough to protect themselves from risk they don't want to take.

But what about the others ? The ones who could make a serious mistake because they misunderstood what was said or what it meant or who chose the wrong tool to use because of a poorly written post. The ones who dearly love their pond but can't afford to make such a mistake. We have an obligation not to abandon them or cause harm through our writing.

Because of the thousands of different factors at work in any pond there is risk even with the most proven methods not to mention cutting edge ones. I often have to stop and recall Bill Cody's admonition " It all depends" before I make choices at the ponds. We should also write with that in mind.

Advocacy is different and bears a different burden. We each have a right to advocate but if you do be prepared on this forum to be questioned. It is part of the scientific process to test the theory. The process moves the knowledge base higher but remember that through the process there are as many failures as successes. Advocacy when combined with an economic interest is not allowed. Advocacy requires full disclosure with no hidden purpose or facts.

These failures are only a concern when they have been advocated and the unknowing choose them as the wrong tool. On the larger scale of life there are peer reviewed processes and then government regulations and then laws to protect unknowing people from unwise avocation. Those protections do not exist here for the unknowing but the damage done can be just as serious. To the unknowing the line between fact and advocacy is not clear. No bright line can be drawn even by those in the know because "it all depends". Think of how many times you have read a post and thought it clear only to have someone reply in a manner that makes you scratch you head. Understanding depends many times on the readers knowledge level. So if you want to advocate a position then you bear the obligation of writing so that the unknowing can clearly understand. Advocacy requires that you ask yourself " Do you want to be responsible for damage to someone else's pond".

Acting as a buffer for the vast number of the unknowing from uncertain advocacy is a noble goal. It is also a critical element in the continuing purpose of this forum. The forum is not here just for those of us who know enough to push the knowledge curve forward but is for the least of us also.

If what I am reading is correct almost everyone agrees that the GGs are not a forage species due to their reproductive and feeding characteristics. My question is why is that such a big deal? If you have a large and diverse forage species and are feeding what's the problem?

I don't live in Florida I live in Texas.

I think your right I have seen it all in Texas or at least I thought I had until the next day comes around.

IMHO, a vast majority of landowner ponds are just that, ponds. 2-3 acres down to 1/10 or less. Many if not most endeavor to a lunker bass piece of water. The facts are that most would be much better off to use the water to produce maximum enjoyment with minimum of work/headaches. That will usually be bream, catfish and bass, the bass to keep BG populations down and to hope to catch a decent bass occasionaaly.
It needs to be realized that many people are doing just that, managing their water that they can afford to capture, or keep. Managing it smartly for their and their loved ones' without being chastised by others.
I find it to be similar to public water fishers in large boats not respecting the folks in jon boats fishing for bluegills under a willow or cutting legally placed and tagged trotlines. To each their own.

I'm sorry I got a little upset with a couple of the posts and overreacted! I do beleive that the green sunfish hybrids(standard HBG) work well for a forage species up north where the bass grow slower and therefore reproduce less. But the GG doesn't reproduce in large enough numbers to be a good forage species( from what ML and Bill have stated). ML isn't using them as forage, I know that.I like the idea of HSB and GG, as a great fishing pond, though MI still won't allow HSB in the state I'm not thay great with words, just thought I should try and clearup the mess I made

ealong59, I dont think of your post as an over reaction, but that some folks didnt associate it closely enough with previous posts and digest them together.

ealong59 I missed your question early in this thread about HBG %s. There is a lot still unknown about HBG and a # of posts here discuss those matters. Studies on HBG are not in agreement on some issues. For example the male % of the cross BG x GSF ranges in studies from 66% to 98%. This is a large difference if you are counting on low recruitment rates. Some think that is partly a result of non-pure GSF stock. There is speculation and some info that suggests that there is a noticeable difference between a HBG from a mBG x fGSF and a HBG from a mGSF x fBG. There is data and conclusions wrt genetics that say which parental species is the male or female makes a difference in Centrarchid fishes. There is also serious question about whether a HBG can backcross with either parental species . There is proof that an Fx HBG can reproduce with its parentals (HBG) but at low success rates. Those factors alone are enough to make one scratch his head. There is almost no independent published info on GG from which to draw any unbiased conclusions.

I'll make one final statement, then abandon the GG threads until "new" posts arrive in months to follow.

I am opposed to those who stock HBG and GG. I feel those fish only achieve short term goals and have a very high risk factor associated with them. Each pond owner is responsible for what they send downstream when overflow conditions exist. I urge others not to stock degenerative fish when other options are available to meet your goals. If you want a bream pond, stock Coppernose, don't pollute downstream genetics with a hybrid.

Eastland, I have mixed emotions, philosophically, about your post. My first thought recalls an environmemtal saying I have heard that we all live downstream from someone. It mostly concerns pollution. We should all be considerate of others and it's sometimes hard to figure out where my rights end and your nose begins.

However, about 200 yds. below my main pond, a neighbor has a 1/10 acre pond that he stocks only with CC. He feeds them to satiation and doesn't want anything else in there. He fills it from a well and has named the fish. Due to their breeding habits, he wants no BG or other fish of any kind. However, I have stocked BG, RES, bass and CC. Green sunfish are also present. On the one time that I have ever overflowed, we found small BG and greenies below the dam and we know that they made it to his water. To his way of thinking, I have polluted his pond. If I stocked tilapia and had an over flow, it would understandably get him bent out of shape. In my arid area, with varying water levels, an upstream neighbor stocking tilapia could be ruinous to my biomass. Fortunately, my neighbor understands that I can and will do as I please on my land.

DD,

As I read your post I couldn’t help but extend your story and think about the neighbor that is directly below your "catfish neighbor". Theoretically speaking, what happened during the overflow event? Perhaps one of your neighbors catfish, lets call him Johnny, swam into the next pond down. Now the second neighbor may perceive he has trash fish Johnny in his pond. All kidding aside – we are all connected + one mans trash fish is another mans prize.

I have a similar situation. I have two or three ponds above me and an intermittent stream leading into my pond. There is about a 99% chance of greenies coming in that stream, IMO. So I plan for it. It’s a fact of pond life and something that I can manage (I hope) and deal with. They guy upstream from me may feel greenies are the best fish for his pond or simply lack the desire to raise anything else. I have no idea, but I will have greenies.

DD,

First, I'd like to say that on my place, there is absolutely no risk of inadvertant downstream stocking...unless you buy into the bird theory of transport and if you buy into that, then as Gator says, we are all connected, regardless. Likewise there is zero risk of my ponds ever receiving upstream fish...again unless you buy into the bird theory.

In spite of that, my first stocking (CNBG and fatheads) from a commercial fishery several years ago resulted in the unplanned addition of green sunfish in one pond. How do I know? I don't know for certain but there were no green sunfish before the commercial stocking, but I had them thereafter.

So, using what I consider the flawed logic of "protecting everyone from everyone else", the commercial stocking of fish should be disallowed.

Those who believe in "protection" should also scorn commercial fish stocking. It is far more likely, IMO, that one will get unintended stocking from a commercial source than from run-off. Of course, evey commercial operator will vehemently deny that he has any unwanted fish, but I have many data points that say otherwise. That is not a criticism of commercial fish sellers..it is a fact that they can not for absolute certain be 100% sure that they never deliver any unintended fish to a client.

One can avoid that circumstance or minimize it by buying individual fish, watching the selection process, and transporting them yourselves. This is what I do myself. But, should we outlaw all those that haul fish to the site? The "protection" logic would say yes....but I say no, that isn't practical or necessary.

Having said all that, what has been the result of that unplanned stocking...nothing, absolutely nothing. We very occasionally catch a green sunfish from that pond and it does not bother me in the least. Had it been a GG or HBG, the impact would have been even less because of their limited reproduction. Had it been a catfish, I'm not sure of the impact.

If you want protection and you are really concerned about the spread of unintended fish, you better not buy fish commercially and you should be campaigning for the ban of commercial fish sellers. I certainly do not support that cause.

You guys are making a good case to have a stock tank handy when the fish truck arrives. If you can take the time to visually inspect each fish instead of just dumping them in them in the pond then you can avoid some unwanted species being accidentally stocked. Overflow events from ponds upstream will always be much harder to control.

Shorty,

I agree with you in the general case and should have stated that way....in my case, which I was talking about, there is zero risk from upstream ponds, but proven risk from commercial fish stocking.

To use Gator's logic, which I agree with, in the general case an upstream pond could get stocked with unwanted fish from a commercial source and those fish could cause downstream implications in an overflow event. So, without even knowing it happened or certainly ever intending for it to happen, the upstream owner can and does sometimes cause downstream events simply by buying fish commercially.

We all can and should take reasonable precautions, IMO, but protecting everyone from everyone else by law or whatever just isn't going to happen.

David, hypothetically, if Meadowlark, who enjoys and has had success with tilapia, and georgia giants, where to stock them upstream, or right above your pond, am I to take it as your position, that "he can and will do as he please on his land"?

I can tell you are torn, in your post. I would like more clarification. My brothers pond has been ruined by greenies/hsf, gg's. It is from his neighbor downstream. To my way of thinking, I would have a man to man neighborly talk with them on how to prevent this in the future. If that didn't work, I'd be talking to a commercial fisherman I know, during next flood(or low light) conditions.

It pays to be a good neighbor, and to have one.

I think the minimum bottom line, is that one must keep one's stock on one's property, and make every attempt to do so, whether livestock or fish stock. Maybe nets at the spillway could help.

Nevertheless, things happen. Cows, pigs, and fish get out. But when neighbors don't make every attempt to stop it, then there becomes real disputes.

I think Eastland has pretty well nailed it. See what fish are OK with your neighbors, before stocking. At least consider their thoughts.

Like I say, I have mixed emotions. I don't want to do any damage to a neighbor but I don't want to be constrained by my neighbors wishes for his pond. To do absolutely right by him, I would be limited to a fed catfish pond. I have no real idea where to draw the line. Obviously I'm not going to put a trash dump upwind from him. When I built my dam, I put an awful lot of brush below my dam to keep sand from washing onto his place. I'm actually providing all of his water. Six draws come off my land into his various ponds. Many times I've wished I had that water.

I have no idea how far upstream or downstream we ought to be concerned with when Mother Nature finally calls. If you think about it, every time we impound water, we cut off someone downstream.

ML, I'm also sure that I got Green Sunfish from the fish supplier. As I've previously posted on several occasions, I just don't see them as a problem. If you will recall, Lusk brought this up at the D/FW meeting and also stated that he didn't see them as a problem.

Dave like Bill reminds us "it all depends". If you have/want a LMB pond and have an established BG or BG/RES population then it should not matter if some (small %) GSF are there. If however you want a BG pond you would get a different answer. I bet Bruce would not want GSF in his trophy BG ponds. Ask him if he would mind if you put a couple dozen adult female GSF in his all male BG pond. :p Also if you were just starting your BG forage base I don't think you would be to happy if the hatchery gave you 25% GSF. Then you would end up with a substantial portion of your forage base being HBG which don't reproduce enough to sustain your predators. It would be like having a new engine with a couple fouled spark plugs. No matter if running at high speed or low it is not what you paid for and is not efficient.

I do think that it is not unusual for a few GSF to slip in via the sources noted above especially from the less careful hatcheries. I think unfortunately some growers/sellers will add HBG to an order to make up a load when they may be short on BG. Very hard for the average pond owner to tell them apart when small even if they take the time to look. As ML notes they will deny that there is any problem. I have seen a couple of new ponds at 3 yrs old where there is no up or down stream source of contamination who ordered BG/RES and ended up with a fair % of HBG. That did not come from a couple GSF slipping in .

Eric, Agreed, regarding Bruce or other "purists".

My statements pertain to average guys like me. I don't do a critical examination of each fish in a bag. I have always stocked 2 to 4 inch BG and most are a lot closer to 2" than 4". Even if I did look over each fish, I would probably make a mistake. I expect that I usually get about 95+% BG and that's all I can reasonably expect.

My PERSONAL observation is that a pond that is overrun with "trash fish" has not been managed and/or has a predator shortage. Nothing wrong with that; to each his own when it comes to the individual efforts regarding pond management. Pond management can cover a wide spectrum.

I have a seasonal creek that is loaded with Green Sunfish and Bullheads. It is unmanageable and that's OK with me. It flows into a 40 acre private lake about 2 miles downstream. After a heavy rain (rare) I see bass and other fish. The point is that when he impounded water from a creek, he could expect to lose any semblance of control. I doubt that he even thought about it. Had I built my pond(s) close enough to that creek to receive overflow, I could expect uncontrolled additions from it. I would expect no apologies from him. Simultaneously, if one of my ponds ever again overflow and add fish to the creek, I'm not about to go hunt up everyone downstream and offer an apology. I actually do have one forage pond about 50 yds from the creek. It is uphill and hasn't overflowed or even totally filled in years. Darn it!

Dave we have 3 oxbow ponds 400 yards south (below the control structure) of a 33,000 acre flood control Res. which is connected to a river which is seperated from the ponds by about 50 yards of river bank . No effective management. The river overflows and replenishes the ponds several times a year. Trash fish like you would not believe. Gators also and beaver and otter and water turkeys and trespassers and duck weed and milfoil ... every type of problem you can have. A real challenge. It is a great place but I don't want the other ponds to be like those.

Eric, I can't help thinking about trade-offs. In my arid area, just about any water would be OK. However, I gotta agree. I don't need those kinds of problems.