Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations fertilizer

we have a 80 acre lake here in ohio and it has a good bit of clear water. would it be useless to try to put a some fertilizer in this lake? i think we can get some 18-34-0 fairly cheap which is a good thing this lake has a average depth of 30 to 35 feet. the water level does not vary very much. what type if any weed would you recomend to try to start in this lake? what i am trying to do is create some cover for this lake and at the same time try to jump start the food chain. we have pretty good food source in the lake (thread fin) but we need more. some of the bass are to thin. one reason they are thin they have no or very little cover to relate to so they can ambush there prey. we have been placing brush in the lake and the fish have responded the way you would expect them to they love it. i think if we had a weed bed or two and can produce a good plankton bloom and sustain it in the warm months our lake will no doubt will do very well. thank you for your time and we are grateful for any help you can offer...........thanks mike

mkelley -
1. Where in OH is your lake?
2. How much management control do you personally have for this lake?
3. Are you positive those are threadfin shad in the lake? Threadfin shad do not survive northern winters and ice cover. They start dying when water temps get down below 45 deg. Other possibilities for southern OH are gizzard shad and skipjack herring (Tenn.River sys.).

i can pretty much do what ever i think is good for this body of water. i am certain that these are thread fin's i have caught many of them while fishing at cumberland with my cast net. i have brought them home from the ohio river and put them in my pond. they didn't last to long though. we have this small lake in pretty good shape but it needs some color in the water and it needs some weed beds. if fertilization is not a good option we need to at least start some kind of weed growing in this water. i would like to know what kind would be good (if any) to start. it may not be a good idea to try to get weeds growing but there sure seems to be alot of good fishing around weeds. we can do without 5 or 10 acres of water if thats what it takes and still have 70 or so acres to fish. i would be thankful for any advice you can offer............thanks mike

See posts under "Eelgrass" Jul 4 02 -Balance of Plants in Environment and Hybrid Water Lilies Jul 15,02, Identifying Plants; both are in category of Aquatic Vegetation. Long-leaf pond weed or variable pond weed are additional options.
Fertilizer to produce plankton blooms is not a good option if you want submerged vegetation to grow. Phytoplankton blooms will shade out underwater vegetation.
Gizzard shad also have a greatly elongated last ray of dorsal fin very similar to treadfin shad. Both are very sensitive to handling.
What is the lake's maximum depth?..What is the watershed like for this lake where does it get most of its water and the fertility of the water?

thanks so much for the point in in the right direction i will look up these articles. i understand that a bloom would work aginst the weed bed idea, but i thought that in shallow water that you could grow weeds and still work on the bloom in the rest of the deeper water. by that i mean if you have a area large enough with 3 to 5 feet of water that would have water 10 to 40 feet close by then you could pull this off. mabey not i don't know. i guess if you used enough fertilizer you could cloud out all of the water even the shallow parts. these shad are not very large and they have been in the lake for sometime now i am pretty certain that they are threadfins. they have never reached the size of the gizzards at cumberland. they are about 2 or 3 inches long and have this black dot on their side. i did not mean to imply that the ones that brought home from the river did not travel well i put them in my pond and the fish ate them very quickly. the deepest part of the lake is 40 to 45 feet deep. this lake gets 0 as in zero run off that is other than rain. so it does not have much of a chance getting any help from run off. i don't think that is a bad thing you don't have to worry about getting anything from up stream to mess you up. thank you again so much for direction with this project. thanks mike

Traditional fertilization techniques when applied to produce blooms will suppress rooted weed growth in 3-5ft of water. That is why many use it in pond management esp. in the south. I would not fertilize real deep ponds and larger bodies of water because:
1. Addition of nutrients (phosphorous enrichment)is the cause of lake aging (eutrophication). Lake aging speeds the death (filling in process) of a water body. Small amounts of phosphouous enrichment realitively quickly lead to blue-green algae blooms which form surface films or scums and are a big nuisance in summer. Some blue-green algae blooms are toxic. Check with any lake association about their overall water quality problems due eutrophic or hypereutrophic conditions. Clear water is a much better choice. Once the nutrients are in a big water body removal is very, very difficult if not impossible; no turning back in big water systems.
2. Fertilization is, in my opinion, to boost fish production for small drainable water bodies that can be routinely dredged to remove all the dead organic production that accumulates on the bottom as black sludge. If you can't periodically clean them out then you are prematurely "killing" or "filling in" those lakes. Prematurely aging them before their time. Fertilization often does not work for very long in deeper northern ponds due to numerous reasons. It is best used in shallower wind circulated ponds of southern warmer climates. Fertilization can also work if monitored carefully in northern ponds that are shallow or well circulated.
3. Fertilization and it's resultant phytoplankton blooms shade out the sunlight to deeper depths and stifles the oxygen production there. Due to no light, deeper layers become oxygen devoid, fishless (anoxic), and all the bottom animals (organic sediment processors) suffocate. The bottom animals, if present, also provide huge amounts of fish food and boost fish production. To prevent this bottom oxygen loss in deep water one has to aerate (mix top to bottom) the deep water to keep oxygen at the bottom. Shallow ponds easily circulate water to the bottom with wind action.
4. Most of the bloom or growth from fertilization is not eaten by criters and it dies and sinks into the depths sucking up oxygen as it decends. This decaying sinking material is speeding up the oxygen loss in the deeper layers. Fertilization and accelerated algal production is maybe okay for a shallow pond, but bad for a deeper lake with a large hypolimnion or deep zone. Shallow pond will quickly recirculate on the next windy day; deep one will not completely circulate on the next windy day. Only the warm water zone circulates.
5. If a large water body does not have the right sized fish, then the fish community should be managed or adjusted, not fertilized, to make bigger fish or change the preferred size of fish. This is done with harvest regulations, slot limits, forage enhancements, supplimental stockings, targeted species harvest etc. . The sport fishes should be monitored thru professional fish shocking surveys, test nettings and fishermen's catch records.

Bill - thanks for info - what do you consider a "deep" pond? Mine is in texas, 8 acres, up to 40 feet deep. Clear water but no real weed problems due probably to grass carp I stocked. Lots of forage available. I also deal with flow through water at times. I am considering fertilization this spring in order to get a bloom. After reading your post however, I question if fertilization is right or should I just continue with other management techniques? Thanks

thank you so much for the time you have taken to go over all this stuff with me. so if the fertilizer is a bad idea then the best thing to do would be to what start some of the grasses that are talked in the other articles that you pointed me too. then we should put more of our resources toward increasing the food supply. i know you would think that with shad in the water we would have enough but with some of the fish i have caught out of the lake they need more or better food or easier to catch food. i think that weed beds would go a long way to help the fish by giving them a place to hunt without having to roam around so much. i know that it made a big difference in my pond. it doesn't have any weeds but it has alot of rock piles and stumps and brush piles it also has a boat ramp built in it and a beach area and is lined all the way around with limestone. my pond is about 35 years old i have owned it about 6 years all the above was done to it after i got it the fish were not very big and not to many bass. now it is thriving the fish are much more abundant and much larger. it also has a aeratetor and we feed them daily. i just thought that i could do some of the same things to the lake we were talking about. but i am not sure how to go about it. the fishing is very good at the lake that is not the problem i just want try to put some weight on some of the largemouth and the smallmouth thinking that the fertilizer would help the plankton and that would help all the little fry and so on. as far as limits on the fish we don't take anything out of the lake but spots,crappie,bluegill,hybrid stripers, and this year we will start taking walleye. we don't take any l.m. or s.m. unless we hook one deep. so far the best striper we have taken was 12lb. but the l.m. and s.m. seem thin they need more weight. we placed a lot of brush in the lake this past fall hopefully that will help some. i thank you for telling me about the fertilizer problems your imput is very much appreciated thanks again Mr. Cody.....mike

I have been quietly reading this subject, but finally had to chime in.

Bill, Where is Mr. Lusk?? I think he will agree with some of your points,but disagree on your avoidance of fertilization, I know I do. That is what makes this site so unique. In the right situation, flow rate, alkalinity, etc. a fertilization program makes a world of difference in the production of both forage fish and the top end predators. Maybe it is different in Ohio, but in the south with a 6-8 month growing season I would not recommend not fertilizing b/c it will lead to the "eventually death" of the pond.

Mkelly, the answer to your skinny bass in your post. You must harvest the right sizes of bass so the others can grow. I agree with Bill, proper harvest is very critical to reach most pond goals. Why have you not taken any out? You have a set carrying capacity for a particular species that occupys a food source. Say you have a carrying capaciity of 1000 lbs. of largemouth bass, you can have 10,000 little 6 inchers, 1,000 1 lb fish or 100 10 lb fish , get the picture. If you want them to grow you have to take some out. I suggest running RW #'s and see which sizes are skinny. You should see that some sizes are healthy while other sizes are skinny, take these out and eventaully over time they will start putting on some weight.

Also I disagree with the philosphy that fertilization kills the weed growth. It can I know, especially if a phytoplankton bloom is established early b/f weed growth begins. However, if you have shallow growing weeds they will soak nutreints from a fertilization program and get worse not killed back by the "bloom". In fact I never suggest fertilizing until we kill the weeds with herbicides first.

However, I do not suggest fertilzing a lake your size to increase primary production. It would be very costly and money could be better spend in other pond management pratices. However, if you are trying to establish some of the mentioned plants fertilization would help you not hurt.
Just another mans humble opinion.

Evaluate your fishery, first. Consider a professional survey. It would be money wisely spent.
A survey will tell the dynamics of the fish population in the 80 acre lake. And, studying the dynamics can tell whether you have a fish fish production problem, or a population dynamics problem.
Here's what I mean...if water chemistry checks out with good pH, alkalinity, minerals, etc., and the fertility level is normal, fish production probably isn't the problem. If your water stays clear, all year, especially during warm months, fertilization should be considered. More on that, later.
If water has visibility less than 3 feet during summer months, and the survey indicates big numbers of specific size range fish, and those fish are underweight, you have a fish population dynamics problem. Harvest fish.
Look at it this way, a lake with produce "x" number of pounds of fish, per unit of water. You can change "x" by improving the lake's ability to grow fish. Feeding, fertilizing, that sort of management strategy. But, if the lake is producing "x", and that's enough fish, and individuals are not growing as you want, a harvest program becomes the best tool to use. Grow 16 inch bass by culling 10-14" skinny bass. Just because the lake doesn't produce giant fish, or just because your bass are thin, don't automatically presume you don't have enough food available.
Most likely, you have enough forage to feed some percentage of the fish you currently have. Too many mouths feeding on a given amount of food. Remove mouths, but be picky which mouths you remove. A survey will tell the tale.
Fertilization can be useful in larger lakes such as yours. For example, fish production guys like to maintain a heavy plankton bloom as long as they can. But, you don't have to do that. Consider this, fertilize at spring spawn. By increasing primary productivity by way of plankton, during spawning season, the bloom accomplishes two things. First, baby fish have a ready source of food, when they need it most. Second, the bloom postpones aggressive rooted aquatic plant growth. You "buy" an extra month of water not consumed by underwater salad. Then, don't fertilize again. The water will clear during summer, baby fish will have eaten, now can be eaten by hungry predator fish. You have accomplished several things...fed the babies, increased the lake's ability to grow fish during the most important season, put off plant growth, then make available all that forage produced by the bloom. All the while, you are harvesting intermediate, underweight predators from your system.

All good points presented here by Bob, Greg, and Bill. Your 80 ac lake is a very complex ecosystem. It is hard to give you all the information you need here on this forum site to 'fix' your lake. You definately need someone trained and knowledgable to exmaine this lake in all the areas suggested and then evaluate those results based on all factors; not just sport fish/predators. Then formulate a long term plan. You haven't given us all the facts yet to best evaluate your lake situation. We are all generalizing, presenting some good basic water/fish concepts. We have given you some information but if you are not careful, you now have just enough information to possibly make yourself dangerous (to the lake's overall health for the sake of fishing) and maybe you have been overwhelmed with concepts/ideas. Hopefully all these ideas have given you an inkling of the complexity of your lake.

Fertilization can do ALL, repeat ALL, the things stated in the above posts. You will be enriching an entire, very, complex multi-habitat ecosystem and sometimes it does not perform as you planned; mother nature can intervene and take it in a different direction due to many complex variables. This is especially true in big acerage deeper ave depth systems.

As far as your fishery, you may also want to enhance the spawning areas to improve recruitment of young fish w3hich has not been mentioned. Weed beds will also help here with young fish nursery areas. As Bob and Greg have said you probably have been over protecting too many bass and too many of them are over eating the small forage and not letting it get big enough to adequately feed certain or all the predators for proper growth. You may also have too many predators of different types in the system with not enough diversity of forage; all feeding and not getting enough forage for growth or plumpness.

Fertilizing the lake and just increasing the fish numbers without adjusing the ratio of forage to predator could just make the lake's fishery the same way as before fertilization but now with just more fish or biomass and still too many thin or skinny bass.

One needs to understand the all the concepts of fishery management science to properly begin to fix your fish problem. Keep in mind that your lake is not 4 or 5 acres but 80 acres with a diverse predator base which will take longer and more effort to adjust the entire fishery community. It didn't get that way in one or two years and you won't fix it quick either.

Keep in mind that if you fertilize, you will produce an more pronounced ANOXIC deep water zone. If you don't believe me, I will come to your lake and prove it to you before and after you fertilize. Make sure any expert you get to advise you takes this into serious consideration. The lake should also have a detailed baseline aquatic survey conducted before it is fertilized to document it's basic ecological parameters and the degree of change that has occurred. There is a lot more to a deep, clear water, 80 acre lake than fertilizing it and turning it into a green water, fat bass fishing lake. One can have fat bass with out green water. I'm sure many of you have caught fat fish from clear water lakes or ponds. Canada, MI, WI, MN, ND, ID, and many other states prove this. I know numerous, correction, LOTS of homeowners that live on shallow eutrophic green-water and/or weed/algae choked lakes that would give up almost anything to now be living on your 80 acre clear-water lake! I recommend you print & save ALL these comments and show it to whoever you chose to help you.

tim k: I'm a little out of my geographical region of familarity in talking about Texas ponds. But generally by deep I mean waters that form a strong thermocline that produces a fairly large hypolimnion or deep nonmixing zone of water throughout the summer or warm months. In fertile situations (eutrophic / nutrient enriched) this zone below the thermocline is quickly becomes devoid of oxygen after the spring circulation (overturn) due to the light shading effects of the abundant plankton bloom growing in the warm wind mixed zone on top (epilimnion). Temperature measurements in a depth profile method provide the depth or location of the thermocline, which is the thermal transition layer (often a thin layer)between the top and bottom zones.

A key to your situation is water clarity. You should have water transparency measurements over the course of the growing season (better every two wks or minimum monthly readings). Implementing a fertilization plan also depends on if you want a high productivity system with the pros&cons or not.
PS Personally I think the amur are already fertilizing your pond by eating and producing lots of nutrient rich manure. The spates of flow thru water also undoubtedly add some nutrients, however the timing and nutrient ratios (nitrogen:phosphorus) may be wrong.

what facts do you need? we do harvest fish we just don't take any largemouth or smallmouth we are letting them grow. we do take spots stripers crappie bluegill and some cats. there are not that many bass in this lake we have placed all of the fish in this lake that are in it. there are no streams or feeder creeks that feed this lake. what cover there is we put in it. there are no as in zero weeds in this lake. the fish are spawning and doing pretty good its just that some of the bass are skinny. it is about 15 years old and is pretty clear. i'm hoping that with the extra brush we placed in the water this year it will help. again thanks for the input if you have any more suggestions please feel free to send them our way. thanks so much...............mike

Mike,
I have re-read this thread several times. There are a bunch of red flags...things done to this lake without the assistance of a pro could quickly backfire, and backfire big. This bulletin board is designed for general information and discussion from biologists with landowners. On some occasions, I feel compelled to make a stronger recommendation. Yours is a case for that. Hire a pro, get a full evaluation of this lake, define the fishery, water chemistry, biology, ecology, then proceed. Money spent is an investment. 80 acres is big water for private management, so consequences can be big, too. Do the wrong thing, in good faith, and you might as well try to squeeze the vinegar out of a pickle. A fisheries management plan, guided by a pro, is a must.

mr. lusk we haven't really done anything to this lake other than put fish in it and cover. we have received advice from "pros" when we bought the fish and we have bought alot of them. we were just looking more for opinions on what to do next ,if anything, other than buying more fish. this lake will be 100 acres when its done. this is my first time posting on this board and it has been a good experience. i have learned a few things some i agree with some i'm not sure need more input. thats what boards are for i guess. you may not remember talking to me but we have talked on the phone a few times. i had problem with my pond (1 acre in my yard) the bluegill were dying in the spring. you gave me some ideas and i took a fish to ky. state u. they told me what was wrong and what to do and what with. we treated the pond and everything turned out great. you were very helpful then as now. mr. lusk what would you say are the stocking rates per acre with largemouth. we have put in 2100 total how many made it who knows how many spawned, again who knows. we have not went at this blindly i don't think. we have recieved advice along the way. i am a subscriber to your mag. pond boss. it is a very good source of information. its to bad we are so far apart i would like for you to see this lake. i think you would like it you have also had a hand in its birth along with your mag. articles. spring is not to far away we are looking foward to see what it brings. what kind of impact do you think aqua mats would have on our little hole of water? thank you for your time mr. lusk you and everyone else who added to this post you all have helped..thanks a bunch...mike

mike - From your comments so far it leads me to believe that your lake is an abandoned gravel, stone or strip mine quarry; is it limestone based? Where is it? Here are some but not all of the facts I was referring to that should be known for the best evaluation of the complexity of a big water system before implementing fertilizer. Keep in mind I am looking out for the real long term overall health or condition of the lake which can be around in a pristine condition for many human lifetimes (not just yours) if someone does not tinker with the delicate balance of ecological factors. Not all water bodies are like this one; preserve it, appreciate it.

1. depth profile map/survey - this will determine the shoreline development, fetch, amount of littoral vs bethic or profundal zones.
Numerous other things are also gleaned from this map regarding lake production and its fishery potential (what it possibly can support). Also helps delineate areas for spawning grounds for various fish. Littoral zone is esp important in fish production and recruitment. To a trained person it becomes much more than the best places to fish.

2. basic water chemistry measurements (monthly)over the course of, as a minimum, the open water season. These often vary or can be stable from month to month, but one needs to know if they are stable or variable and by how much. All these affect or are affected by productivity. Alkalinity, conductivity, total hardness, pH, iron, nitrogen, ortho and total phosphorus concentrations, temperature & oxygen profiles (min. monthly)are several of the physical/chemical parameters that are important. There are secondary chemical parameters that I have not mentioned but are also good to know. What is the extent and duration of the anoxic zone?

3. primary productivity measurements, that especially include plankton surveys of phytoplankton and zooplankton. one needs to know the structure of BOTH plankton communities in that, what types are present and at what densities during each month. These always vary dramatically from season to season or even month to month. In eutrophic waters species shifts can occur weekly BUT the general color can remain the same or also change weekly. Are they adequate or inadequate to feed fish and how many fish? This will determine if the lake needs seeding or introductions to produce more diverse plankton assemblages. One needs to know if any problematic species are present in rare numbers that will cause future problems if the fertility or nutrient ratios change. All questions that should be answered for large bodies of water. If the littoral zone is large, knowledge of the prodcution from the attached algae or periphyton community which absorbs nutrients and feeds the secondary benthic production would also be helpful.

4. What is the extent of the euphotic zone (not epilimnic) and how does it change throughout the year? This ties directly into primary productivity. A secchi disk can be used for measurements that are converted to photosynthetic depths. Where is the thermocline and its duration?

5. A benthic macroinvertebrate survey would help determine the secondary benthic productivity of the littoral and benthic zones. Again, who & what is present at what type of densities?

6. What are all the species that comprise the fish community? What is the population structure of each species? Which ones are reproducing? What is the recruitment and mortality rates of each population?

7. . Age & Growth studies are needed for each type of sportfish.

8. Conditon factors for each type of sport fish are necessary.

9. What are the forage fish population dynamics, species types and densities and reproduction success?

10. NOTE: I have not mentioned an aquatic macrophyte survey which is usu. important but since you state there are no weeds (zero) in the 15 yr old lake I did not discuss it. Sounds odd and there is for sure some reason for it. The reason or reasons why not, should be addressed. Can introduced species even survive since none occur there naturally after 15 yrs?

All the above things are tied together to produce energy flow through the system that ultimately can end up on the end of someone's fish pole. How well they all work together determines the degree of success of the system.

PS: Numerous people, that I know who sell fish, are not trained lake experts. They sell fish. Period. Many can adequately hold fish for resale or some can even raise fingerling fish. Many have little experiece evaluating, emphasis here on evaluating, or understanding the complexity of aquatic ecosystems, especially large ones, such as yours or ones even bigger. Would you go to your drug store & pharmacist for a heart bypass operation? However a few trained fishery biologists do sell fish just as some doctors also hand out medicine. Be careful who you believe. Notice how the same true facts are always repeated by various experts. Knowledgable experts usually always come up with the same answer to a problem because they are not guessing but are dealing with 'honest to goodness' facts of how nature or something works or operates.

mr. cody you are much closer than mr. lusk do you travel to far away places to look at holes in the ground filled with water? if you do how does this get worked out? at what cost? or can it be done by phone,email, and good ole ups? can we send you water samples? or we can get them done closer to home then discuss the results. what are our options? thanks for your help so far on this topic. we would be interested in learning more about what would be best for our lake. what should we do next? we will try to do what is in the best interest of the lake. we are open to suggestions. thank you very much. mike

Mike - From your responses so far I'm not so sure you "are open to suggestions" as you imply. It doesn't appear you accept teaching & guidence very well so far.
1. You still have not told me where your lake is located after two requests (Jan 5 & Jan 10 posts). Lake location, soil base structure, morphometry, etc. are all important features that affect how a lake behaves and is managed.

2. B.Lusk (Jan.8th post) and G. Grimes (Jan 8th post) have basically told you how to solve your bass problem of bass being "too thin or skinny and needing more weight". REREAD THEIR POSTS. Follow their good advice closely. Ask questions if do not understand how implement their recommendations. I have also basically advised these same methods but worded them a little differently (Jan 7th post #5) to improve the plumpness of the bass. You keep thinking fertilization is the answer; it is not the answer to your current shiny bass problem. It is too damn many bass! Get rid of some of the predators and there will be more food left over to feed the remaining fish who will then gain weight when they have enough to eat. To gain a pound a bass needs to eat ten pounds of fish. But first your bass need to get beyond skinny which will take a little time. I repeat, you have too damn many bass & other predators in your lake. Thin them out and accurately weigh each one. When the weights begin to increase for the same length of fish, you are making progress and thinning process can be slowed down. As Bob L. says, the bass will tell you when enough have been taken out. You just need to know HOW to LISTEN to them.

Don't worry about them not being able to find or hunt prey in open water, bass, walleye and yes even catfish(!!), yes catfish! frequently suspend over deep water even though they are all considered bottom fish. Lots of bass, walleye, and catfish are caught by smart fishermen who know how to fish open water. I've caught walleye at 8-10 ft in 22-30 ft deep water in Lk Erie. The current "In-Fisherman" mag has an article on suspended catfish. They don't absolutly need structure to get fat; just adequate amounts of forage that doesn't have to be SHARED with lots of borthers and sisters.

3 Again. You don't have to fertilize to get those bass fat. If you don't fertilize you do not need to do most of the studies I recommended in my Jan 10 post. Just the basic ones.

4. Aquamats will make your water clearer and provide fish habitat when used in the littoral zones. 80 acres is not as you say a "little hole". Your lake would require around 1000 to 1200 aquamats. Is your wallet fat enough for that? Besides your water is already clear which is their main function; to filter and clear the water. How much litoral zone is there in your lake???

5. Finally, Can you tell us WHO were the "pros" who provided advice and sold you lots of fish? This will help me know what type of advice you got. I know most all the midwestern fish selling "pros".
6. I occasionally visit some remote sick ponds when I'm in the area. Yours does not need a visit just yet. First, follow Bob and Greg's suggestions adjust the predator numbers don't forget to weigh each one and collect some basic water physical and chemical measurements. Get me some answers that I request and we can proceed.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink

mr. cody i went back and read the posts that you mentioned again. mabey you didn't hear me we do take fish from this lake every year. how do you know that it has too many **** bass in it. if you use 200 per. acre as the number for a bass lake then by putting in 2100 in the last 4 years we have mabey put a few too many **** bass in the lake. when they are in numbers as follows 4 years ago 100 bass from 6 to 8 inches. then 2 years ago 1000 bass 2 to 3 inches long. then last year 1000 bass 2 to 3 inches long. that is all the largemouth that we have put in the lake. further more the lake will be 100 acres when complete so there is room for the bass if they survive. that is why we only take out the spots, bluegill, striper, crappie, and last but not least the cats. this spring we will start removing the walleye which by the way are doing quite well. the bass, except for the ones 4 years ago, are not very big. and a good many of them most likely have been eaten for lunch. so its not fair for you to say that there are too many **** bass in the lake. i really do appreciate your help along with mr. grimes and mr. lusk but it is jan. and we don't fish much this time of year. so we don't do to much to the lake this time of year. we were looking for advice and we got some. you need to talk to mr. lusk but he most likely does not remember me i had a problem with my own pond and with his advice, that we followed to the letter, we had great success in treating the pond. so i believe that we can, and have, follow directions. to tim k. yes you can get that horse to the water but it is a little hard around the edges right now. mr cody to answer a few of your questions we have dealt with Mr. Fender very nice man, jones brothers. Mr. Arms you know pond boss you know him. and a very nice fellow from ok. his name escapes me right now. sorry to have stirred you up mr. cody which we must have done judging from your use of the **** bass word not nice for a man of your education. you don't need to reply we won't bother you with anymore questions we will just keep reading pond boss and hope for the best. thanks alot even if you don't believe it you have helped............mike

Damn bass and too damn many bass are quite different things. I also mentioned removing other predators not just bass until plumpness is apparent.

Who recommends 200 bass per acre? Most bass stocking recomendations of 100 per acre is assuming that bass will be the only predator present which is definately not your situation. Plus from your description so far the productivity of the lake is not high, or medium, but low which requires fewer numbers of everything that should be stocked.

Mike... I will at this point have to emphasis the point Bob made. I would hire a professional fisheries biologist to evaluate the fishery. Make sure to look into their background and experince. The lake is not as simply to diaganosis (I need spell check) as many typical "stunted bass ponds" with a few posts on this site. Hey, if you are in Ohio big buck country I would work cheap next fall to get in a good bow hunt! I think Bill was just trying to hammer home a point that I was trying to make also. If they are skinny you have too many or too much competetion for the same food source i.e crappie and walleye. If your goal is bass growth why take out bluegill? Ok, enough general advice. Good luck, Greg

Reminds me of a joke.

What did the bass say when he ran into a concrete wall?

Dam!