okay i have a 15 acre pond with a max depth of 20 feet and average depth of 8 feet. there are way too many little stunted bluegills and i dont know a good way to get rid of them. the pond has a healthy largemouth bass population with some pretty good sized ones. also some but not many crappie and channel cats. is putting pike in there a possibility? they would be fun to catch and also help lower the bluegill population i hope? im in northern indidana need help on this!!!

I would stock pure musky or tiger musky over pike. I am not sure they will solve your problem though. What percentage of the pond has aquatic vegetation?

What size classes of LMB are present? Also agree with CJ....How much, and what kind of vegetation (hiding places for small BG) is present?

Are you sure you have stunted bluegills? If so, northerns or even musky won't solve your problem IMHO. As they get larger they will just target your larger bluegills and smaller bass. Mostly likely the bass as they are more fusiform. LMB are a much more effective bg predator.

What are you goals? Bass pond? Large bluegill pond? Both?

I would add more bass myself if i wanted to get the bluegills in check if that indeed is a problem Get a thousand feed trained bass from Laggis fish farms in southwest Michigan in the spring. Feed them in a cages for the summer until the fall and then release them. (If you don't cage them they will be larger bass forage). They'll start on your smallest bluegill and will go after progressively larger ones as they grow which will be rapidly.

If later on you feel you have too many bass due to lower relative weights you can easily cull them.

mohan15: Welcome to the forum.

Agreed on the points here regarding to the amount of plants in the pond (in relationship to the surface area of the pond), and the amount of LMB in the pond.

What size are the LMB, and do all sizes have the same overall body condition? Same question about the BG in the pond.

I know it's hard this time of year, but can you possibly post pictures of the LMB that are being caught and of the BG that you say are stunted?

Like othes have said, what are the goals for the pond? When it's fished, what fish are targeted, and is is C&R, catch and keep or?

Is the pond all on your property, or is it part of a housing development?

What city/town are you near? I'm about 12 miles West of Plymouth, just North of Rt. 30.

Cecil's advice is sound. Pike and musky when large will likely target your slender shaped bass instead of BG. In my old pond, I had a large n.pike (35") and bass recruitment was poor, and not very many bass in the 7"-11" range. After the pike died, I started seeing more small bass. BG population did not noticably change before and after the pike was present.

LMB are the best predator of BG. They evolved together. Ideally you want numerous bass present that are at least 3 times longer than the most common smaller BG that need thinned out. Other option is to have numerous small bass 3"-8" that prey on the smallest BG heavily thinning them out before BG get to 4" long. Each 6"-12" LMB eats about 150-250 BG per year.

15 acres can produce a lot of small BG when bass are out of balance. There are few labor intensive and sometimes expensive ways to manually remove lots of small BG - intensive target angling using bobbers and worms (cub scouts, youth groups rewards for most small 3"-5" BG caught), trapping, seining, electrofishing.

ill try to answer all your questions at once but i have a few uncertanties. it is a man made pond that came from a swamp so half of it is full of stumps and is 4 feet deep throughout all the swampy area and is pretty choked with curly leaf pondweed and coontail but in the dug section of the pond there are very few clumps of coontail and is primarily clay rock and course sand. the water is crystal clear so i can see the vast amount of little gills and as for bass population all the bass are well fed and i think are thriving on crayfish and frogs and younger bass. the little gills hide in the thick weeds out of range for any bass to get them. it is all catch and release and in my 8 years of living on this pond only one bass has died from swallowing a crankbait. when we went to see what was in its stomach all we found were a frog some crayfish shells and a little bass. we only fish for bass and can careless about the bluegills. with a strictly bass pond with possibilities of another gamefish being stocked in mind what is the best way to preserve the bass population but reduce the amount of all the gills.i would prefer to stock another gamefish in there for something else to catch than bass but will help reduce the bluegills

i am near st.john rite off of 41

You ARE in the NW corner of Indiana!

Instead of stocking another predator, I'd look into reducing some of the underwater weeds to allow the LMB to target more BG. I think the BG have too many places to hide.

If you want a LMB fishery, then I wouldn't stock pike or muskies - they'll target the LMB in a few years.

Do you have any weights/lengths of the LMB that you are catching? Say, a 17" LMB weighs 2 3/4#, etc., etc.

ill go out there and get some measurements soon

Most any predator that you use, it will also have a difficult time locating small BG in weedy habitat. IMO you should explore weed control. Herbicide for about 15 ac will be some $$. One option is to drawn down the pond then treat weeds. Or an annual drawdown will sometimes work to force small fish out of the shallows so predation is more efficient and effective.

Would some HSB work?

there is a lake about 5 miles away from my pond that is loaded with HSB white bass and striped bass if its not illegal it would be very easy to transport them in storage containers or coolers. will they help with the bluegills? walleye i heard will use those little bluegills as there only forage source would they manage them better?

Like Bill said, ANY predator will struggle to find the BG in very weedy conditions.

While whole lake treatments will run some $$, if there are coves or bays, you could treat those individually and that might help. Spot treating in a large BOW can be done, but you'd have better results by treating "spots" that are at least 200' x 200'.

So long as the LMB are healthy and doing well I wouldn't worry about the BG or the vegetation.

I know that in years where we had really good vegetation treatments at my dad's old pond the following year the LMB were left with too little forage and became skinny. There is a very fine line between too much vegetation and not enough.

Adding different predators will likely detract from the LMB population in some way, either reduced relative weights (RW) and/or reduced bass density. As mentioned a high amount or percent botom coverage of dense weedy habitat will inhibit or reduce efficiency of most if not all predators. If all you want is predator diversity, that can be done. But don't plan on addition of new predator species to make a significant decrease in BG density in a highly weedy pond. Normally in good conditions lots of BG result in larger fatter bass, but if the bass cannot find the BG due to too many weeds, then bass RW (body condition) often decreases and BG population trends towards more, smaller BG.
Before you do any fisheries adjustments and if you truly want to do this correctly, you should do three things. 1. get a good qualitative estimate of the weed community - all species present and percent coverage. Accurately mapping the weed community as location and depth is a good start. 2. learn if the BG are indeed too abundant and do a population struture evaluation - sampling and 3. do some relative weight measurements and population size analysis of the bass. All these things will involve some homework to be done correctly to determine the best approach and outcome. The shotgun approach is to just add new and more predators without knowing the real problems or causes. Cleaning up a "messed up fishery" is quite a bit harder, more time consuming and more costly than renovating a 1 acre or less pond.

I agree Bill.

Relative weights on the LMB should vary with the season and vegetation densities. Winter time and early spring are when vegetation densities are usually at a minimum and LMB RW's their best.

I would also look into the body condition of any larger BG that might be present, if they are in poor condition then this would be a good indicator there are too many BG mouths to feed and some adjustments might need to be made.

Often very weedy shallow lakes have great fisheries. Rice lake in Ontario Canada above Lk Erie and I think the Sand Hills lakes in NE are just two examples. Fish balance and species of weeds probably play big parts. Dr Willis may be able to add some insight here.

Bill, I think part of the Nebraska Sandhill lakes good fish quality is that the vegetation is interspersed. There can be open areas with no vegetation in the middle of the lake or near shore, and they can be lots of plant growth near shore or in the middle of the lake. Those plants produce a lot of insects that can be eaten by small predators and big panfish.

Dr. Willis, do you know what type of aquatic vegetation is most prevalent in the Sandhills?

Shorty, the aquatic plant communities are pretty diverse. I think one of my students has a plant survey report. If I can get a copy, I could email that to you?

Shorty, if you get a copy of the report please post the species of submerged vegetation that are present in the Sandhills Lakes. The average depth of a couple of the lakes surveyed would also be useful. They may also list the percent coverage of vegetation which would be informative. The turbidity and resulting light penetration of the lakes is no doubt important for those lakes with vegetation in the cenral basin. Some submerged weed species thrive in lower light intensities than other species.
Thanks.

That would work, even just a short summary of what is most abundant in the Sandshill lakes would work. I have to admit that I have never fished any of the Sandhill lakes.

Just from observing my dad's old pond for 22 years my gut feeling is that just having somewhat stable weed densities from year to year, no matter what type, are extremely important in keeping fish populations in balance. When weed densities suddenly and drastically change things tend to get out of balance quickly. I used to base how many LMB we needed to cull every year primarily on how well the milfoil/coontail treatments went. If the weeds got knocked back hard, then it was time to get agressive culling LMB. I will also say that winter ice cover, or the lack of it, and how long it lasts does play a role in weed densities the following summer.

IMHO aquatic vegetation is some of the best fish habitat there is, I would rather have it present than not.

i dont mind the weeds at all and they are great to fish off of for bass. we just had a weed treatment in my pond and i can see drastic changes on some weedlines. now heres where i have a problem with the bluegills. after fishing on this pond since i was eight i have never caught an actual bluegill bigger than the size of my hand. there all so little and there are soo many the exact same size, but every once in awhile i catch some hybrid sunfish that are massive! the goal for this pond is strictly catch and release gamefish. with LMB BG a few channel cats some crappie and the rare hybrid sunfish what would be a good additional gamefish to add to the fishery just strictly catch and release for some fishing diversity. i dont want a dominant fish because the bass already are. just a supplement fish. need suggestions

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but a strictly catch and release gamefish pond that has a spawning population of LMB will turn into a LMB stunted pond. They WILL eat themselves out of house and home, it's just a matter of time. Once they do that, it will be an expensive and time consuming fight to return a fishery that size back into balance.

By keeping track of relative weights and by keeping track of the forage fish you can keep the LMB in the pond from stunting, but you have to remove LMB..

I realize that my pond is smaller than yours. I have 37 tagged LMB in the pond and the rule is that ANY LMB that is not tagged gets removed, no matter how small or large it is.

Here's one from earlier this Fall that was not tagged and subsequently removed:




So you see that catch and keep isn't so bad after all! IIRC it weighed 4.2#. Notice the small head and small tail for the body size. That means that it's growing fast.

A single LMB needs 10# of fish to eat to gain ONE pound.

It's been said that a pond can comfortably carry around 50# of LMB per surface acre. BUT, a pond that is not aerated and doesn't have supplemental feeding can only carry around 300# of fish per surface acre. If there are 50 1# LMB/acre in that pond, then it would have to produce 500# of forage fish for those LMB to get to 2#. Remove some of the LMB and they will grow quicker.

Now would you rather have 50 1# LMB, 25 2# LMB or?

That's simplifying it, but you get the picture why strictly C&R is not a good idea.

I think the type of weed community (species compositon) and amount of weeds complicate the fishery and how many pounds of fish per acre that the BOW can support (carrying capacity, standing crop, harvest, mortality, etc) and the size structure of the fishes present. The more diverse the habitat, the more complex the food web becomes, both leading more and more to "It all depends", and trending towards fewer absolutes. A lot of the previous fisheries research regarding carrying capacity and population dynamics have been in larger habitat complex systems or in weed free smaller ponds. As far as I know, not a lot of research has been done with numerous species in smaller weedy habitats 20 ac or less. Ewest, with his literature access, may be able to add some info on this topic.

Above comments by Shorty regarding how in his experiences the fishery will significantly change when the weed community is heavily impacted, suggests the weeds play a big role how a fishery functions as far as size structure, numbers, standing crop, and the productivity of the pond.

Shorty -- here is a submergent plant summary for the Valentine Refuge lakes. The report was written by Robert F. Steinauer. If you send me your email address, I can send the entire report to you (david.willis@sdstate.edu).

The most common species include: sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus), flat-stalk pondweed (P. friesii), flat-stem pondweed (P. zosteriformis), clasping-leaf pondweed (P. richardsonii), small pondweed (P. pusillus), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), and Siberian water milfoil (Myriophyllum sibiricum). White-stem pondweed (Potamogeton praelongus) is fairly common in the highest quality examples of this community. Other regularly represented species include: slender naiad (Najas flexilis), southern naiad (N. guadalupensis), common waterweed (Elodea canadensis), and slender waterweed (E. nuttallii). Variable pondweed (Potamogeton gramineus), Illinois pondweed (P. illinoensis), floating leaf pondweed (P. natans), yellow pond lily (Nuphar variegata), white water-crowfoot (Ranunculus longirostris) and the duckweeds and watermeals (Lemna trisulca, L. minor, Spirodela polyrrhiza, and Wolffia columbiana) are locally common to abundant in shallow waters.

Dr. Willis, that is quite a diverse list of aquatic vegetation. Thanks!

One thing unique to the Sandhills region is that there is a lot more ranching rather than farming in the area. I suspect there are a lot fewer herbicides and fertilizers making its way into the Sandhill lakes than most other areas of Nebraska.

Here is what my dad's old pond had: Eurasion milfoil, coontail, chara, sago, duckweed, watermeal, some type of arrowhead, and cattails. There may have been other narrow leaf pond weed types present but I am terrible at telling them apart. The milfoil tended to dominate the pond in most years and grow all the way to the surface in 6-8 FOW. Estimates of the LMB population were 200+ fish/acre in the 9.9 acre pond. Keep in mind that our intial stocking was LMB heavy, 1800 LMB fingerlings, someone was a no show and we ended up with and extra 800 LMB fingerlings.

Thanks Dave - wow I could only identify probably 3-4 of those species.

I have a question - I've fished the refuge lakes for many years and have always loved the emergent grass growing out to about 2' depths. You recall how easy it is to fish a buzzbait or spinnerbait for big NP through that vegetation, and I thought it might make a great shoreline buffer for my ponds. Any clue what type of grass that might be? Not a huge deal, just thought you might know - it might be left off this list as it is not a submergent vegetation type, though.

TJ, the report has separate sections for the emergent and upland plants. I emailed a copy of that report to the email address listed in your PB profile. Let me know if you don't get it.

Shorty -- I really think we know very little about the herbicide effects in watersheds. You are right on target.

I sent Shorty a study on BG and weeds/plants a long time ago at his request.

Dynamics of Quality Bluegill Populations in
Two Michigan Lakes with Dense Vegetation
JAMES C. SCHNEIDER

Abstract.—Population characteristics of bluegill Lepomis macrochirus and associated species
were studied intensively to determine why many large bluegills were present at two Michigan
lakes—Dead Lake and Blueberry Pond—in which macrophytes covered 41–83% of the surface.
Both lakes contained unusually high proportions and densities of bluegills greater than 203 mm
in total length due to high survival of adults, low fishing mortality, a favorable growth pattern,
and low recruitment to age 2 or 3. Growth was rapid from 75 to 200 mm, then growth slowed
and condition deteriorated among older fish. Rapid growth was stimulated by consistently low
recruitment and consumption of limnetic Daphnia spp. and littoral benthos for food. Low recruitment
was partially due to predation; a diet study at one lake estimated 303,300 juvenile bluegills
per year were consumed by piscivores, mostly largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides. Each lake
contained dense populations of slow-growing piscivores, but these fish constituted less than 20%
of the total fish biomass. Observations indicated that few adult bluegills attempted to spawn in
Blueberry Pond, and this lack of spawning was probably more important than predation in controlling
bluegill abundance. A supplemental pond study demonstrated that young and old adults
of varying condition had normal reproductive potential. The triggering of spawning behavior may
be linked to adult density, and perhaps adult growth, by behavioral or bioenergetic mechanisms.
The implication for fisheries management is that weedy lakes need not be dominated by small,
stunted bluegills but are capable of producing large bluegills if fishing harvest is restricted and a
favorable food chain is present.

I remember that.

Here is another study ewest. I can scan it and send it to you if you want. Just to warn you, the edges are a little fuzzy from when I originally photocopied it.

Behavioral interations between fish predators and their prey: effects of plant density.

Jacqueline F. Savino* & Roy A. Stein
Ohio Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Zoology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

Animal Behaviour
Volume 37, Part 2, February 1989, Pages 311–321

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003347289901206

okay so if there is any chance of putting another game fish in the lake LMB will have to be removed. but im not in the mood to eat or kill any bass so would it be logical just to dump them in a nearby creek or a swamp thats walking distance from my pond? and if i were to keep these bass in check what would be a fish that would control BG and maybe take some work off my hands with the little LMB? Does this even sound logical

It sounds logical, but before dumping the LMB into another BOW, I'd ask around if anyone else in the area wanted them for their ponds, or wanted them to eat. Ask at some of the food banks and churches. Some will take fish/game.

While HSB aren't a large predator of BG like LMB are, that'd be another option. They normally won't spawn in a pond, so you wouldn't have to worry about them overeating the forage base.

But, and that's a big BUT, do some fish sampling and check the relative weights before adding anything to the pond.

I'd especially keep an eye on the Crappie size and numbers. They can throw a pond out of balance too.

Thanks Dave...appreciate the email!

northern pike are my favorite fish and it would absolutley make my day the days i would catch one if they were stocked in my pond. i really dont see any faults in this. as thier young they can eat some of the bluegill and when they everntually get big enough they can take out some of the little bass so i dont have to get rid of any myself????? need help

Before you go stocking NP I'd do more research into the pros and cons. The problem with stocking a top line predator is that you cannot tell them what fish you want them to eat. If you will continue with the C&R only in the pond, then I'd look into stocking Tiger Muskies instead of NP. They won't spawn and possibly over eat your LMB. Check into the spawning habitat requirements of NP and see if they would spawn in your pond.

Baby steps first, before you do any stocking of different fish species you have to get a good sampling of the Relative Weights of the LMB and BG in the pond. In a pond that size, making a mistake in stocking fish will be a very expensive one to correct.

mohan above says""okay so if there is any chance of putting another game fish in the lake LMB will have to be removed. but im not in the mood to eat or kill any bass..""
I'm not following (understanding) the concept that if you add another predator, LMB will have to be removed. Where did that idea (theory) come from? Most other species of fish predators will co-habitate to varying degrees in your existing fishery, but what ever new species you add, expect there to be changes in balance or percentage of numbers of existing fishes. The average sizes of existing fishes could and will likely change. Fisheries are dynamic and constantly changing. Individuals growing, getting eaten, dying and new ones hatched each year - changes, always changes. Who lives and dies creates the balance.

Adding pike or muskie will likely result in more annual bass and BG mortality. The amount of mortality of each species will depend on several things, mainly how many new and existing predators(LMB) survive and how well all predators are able to successfully capture food. IMO if you add a reasonable number of musky/pike /acre (1-3/ac), expect to have fewer LMB per acre and not a lot of noticable change in the BG numbers/ac or a significant change in BG population size structure. This is because the pond has significant weed coverage and BG are more prolific compared to LMB. Weeds will allow quite a few hatchlings to survive to compensate for annual mortality. IMO basically the pike or muskie would be primarily a bonus fish and would not solve your problem or poor size structure of the BG population. It is very possible that you may see more smaller BG because fewer bass are present/ac due to predation which would result in more BG recruitment. Also when the pike-muskie are large 30"+ and they eat a BG it will be a larger one 7"-9".

IMO the best solution to your problem is significantly fewer submerged weeds and more smaller bass who consume primarily 1"-4" BG.

Perhaps adding some larger smallmouth bass would give you the diverse fishery you desire. If you have stunted bluegill and 15 acres I think there is a good chance the smallies will do well, especially if there is a deeper area and/or rock cover in your pond. The largemouth will always dominate the pond but you could end up with a nice population of smallies in the deeper water. As long as the bluegill are small the smallies should be able to feed on them, adding an additional forage fish like golden shiners would only help. You could catch 10-20 12"+ smallies in a local body of water or try to buy some 6-8" smallies in the summer. If you stock wild fish you run the risk of introducing disease so be careful and don't stock any fish with rashes or open sores.