Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations supplemental BG / tiger bass experiment

Please give your advice ,thoughts and suggestions regarding the following experiment I am doing on a 16 acre bass/BG/RE lake in central Miss. , which has a balanced population but where bass aggressiveness is decreasing. The lake is fertilized but BG have not been artificially fed. The lake contains northern , florida and F1 and subsequent cross generations of LM bass all ages and sizes [6 in. to 15 lbs.], and BG/RE. BG are both regular and coppernose. I have blocked off a cove [2000 sq ft] with a blocking net and removed [driven out] all bass and BG over 3 inches. Water is between 0 - 5 feet deep inside blocked area. Next week I will put in 800 3-5 inch CNBG which are feed trained. They will be kept there untill June to grow and spawn and will be fed via feeders. They will be released in June [ net raised]. Between now and Oct. we will reduce the 10-12 inch bass population in the lake and then add 8 inch tiger bass at a rate of 10 per acre . The net will then be lowered , fish driven out and 2 inch BG/RE placed behind the net. No small bass will be harvested between Oct. and the next spring spawn . The idea is to increase the aggressiveness of all bass by making them compete with the tiger bass which will by then have spawned and added their genes to the mix of bass genetics . Wish me luck . EWest .

ewest,

Great experiment!

If you have been following the recent discourses on the Forum, you will probably understand that your experiment is of great interest to several of us.

Having said that, I'm very doubtful that your experiment will work based on just my own limited experience. However, it will provide more data that we desperately need.

To wit, in an attempt to "retrain" my Florida strain bass two years ago, I introduced several very aggressive, "starved", native bass from another of my ponds that had never seen an artificial feeder. The result went the opposite of what I had hoped, i.e. the natives "learned" to line up at the feeding troughs just like the Florida strain and pick off BG while they ate the pellets.

In addition, and this was most disappointing/surprising, the natives became lure/fly shy just like the Floridas. Granted, I may very well not have added enough natives to the mix to force the “retraining” in the right direction…but it is also possible that artificial feeding may be a significant contributor to passive bass…and I believe that to be the case. I also believe Florida strain bass are a significant cause of passive behavior (and hence should never be stocked in small ponds).

That is why I’m trying an experiment this year with only F1’s and no artificial feeding.

Just a fascinating topic to me…and I strongly encourage you to keep us informed of your progress. IMHO, this topic is extremely important to future pond management. The answers to our questions may establish paths towards the use of other primary predators e.g. HSB instead of LMB in our small ponds…. and yes I recognize that many folks think that is crazy and that LMB do not “learn” and are always aggressive…. but that just has not proved to be the case for me.

Great experiment!

Have you been marking your LMB to separate the Florida from northern from F1s, i.e. fin clipping, tail clipping, tagging, etc.? Your experiment would be easier to sort out if you knew which bass you were catching after the experiment.

I also have hook shy FLA. lmb in my pond. I am also doing a little expermint to see if I can correct this situation. I am going to try the following and see what happens.
First I have added 2,000 cnb and will keep feeding them all of this year. Second I am going to increase my cull to 20 inches and catch as many of the present fish that I can knowing that I can't catch them all and keeping the big fish for breeding. The next step will be to add northern lmb 9" plus in the fall or early spring which is in Feb. in SW Georgia. The offsping should be at least some tigers and I'll see what happens. I will also have a survey done to see how well the cnb have established.I am also giving thought to feeding only part of the year perhaps early in the year befor the bloom.I to will share the results. Thanks to all for the great info I have picked up from this site.

Guys :

Thanks for your replys . The following may help. The BG in the lake have not been fed .They will not be fed except behind the net where the bass can not sit and wait for them and only for 3 months. This may work as a negative stimulus on the bass outside the net [ie. they associate the feeding behind the net as the bass not being able to feed]. I hope this will avoid part of the non-aggressive problem dicussed in other posts on this outstanding site [super site and magazine]. The lake is 20+ years old and prior bass have not been clipped/tagged , but the new tiger bass to be added in the fall will be cilpped. The lake has 3 long arms which make up 70% of the lake area and I do not think that the feeding behind the net [in one arm] will congregate the bass or existing BG . I think the supplemental forage part of this experiment will work . The real question is will the addition of tiger bass in a lake with an abundant forage base , over time increase bass aggressiveness in all or most of the bass [new and existing] . Thanks EWest

Number 1300 should be back where it all started with this first post. The first 750 3-5in. CNBG were added in April behind the net and fed Gamefish Chow 3 times a day for 3+ mths, spawned in June and were released at 4-7in on July 4. Below are pics of tiger LMB ( 8in.+- 150) added in Nov. along with some additional CNBG 3-5in. (500) and 2in. CNBG and RES (1500). One third of these went behind the net and were fed for 2 weeks and released.

I remembered the first post.

So did you end up fin clipping the tigers? How easy is it for you to tell an adult coppernose from an adult regular bluegill? I've never seen a coppernose. Will there be any feeding in 2006?

Bruce :

Tigers were fin clipped by the hatchery. I am working on a full report of what has transpired in this pond. There will be feeding (limited) in 06. On the CNBG vs BG I can tell the difference on the adult males in spawning color as the CNBG have a copper bar across their head. I will get a pic. to post. On the very young CNBG less than 6 mths. often the fins/tail have light/white edge but not always. I have seen this in the aquarium. I can't tell on the females which is which with any certainty. I have not documented any difference in size of CNBG over BG in the biggest males. In this pond the top male BG are more than holding their own against all other fish and they have no fear in swimming out in open water. It would take a really big LMB to eat one of these males ( I think 12+ lbs.).

A 12 lbs bass or a 12 lbs male BG?

The 12lb. male BG's mouth would be to small . He would have to go after a 6in. BG or 8in. LMB. :p

Bruce :

Pics. of CNBG.

Those are awesome! I especially like the bottom one. I guess it's pretty obvious how they get their name.

ewest - great BG pictures - especially the one with the fly rod...

You may be interested to know that the cork grip on my 5 wt fly rod is exactly 7 inches and a convenient way to extrapolate for BG measurement - you may want to check...?

Thx for the pics - I love them..

George Glazener

Update on the project as of 6-27-06.

The blocking nets were deployed to growout the next batch of additional forage mid-April. On April 24 333 2in. CNBG and 333 2in. RES were added behind the net to growout. Also added were 66 3-5in. CNBG. Feeding started with 36% fingerling food 2 times a day 10am and 3pm. Over time Gamefish Chow was added to the fingerling food and was increased to 3 times as the water warmed. Now feeding 3x 7am , 2pm and 7pm. Some small BG remained behind the net when deployed. Now there is a crowd and they have grown to 4-7 inches. There are several (10+-)large BG est. to be 10-12in. from the prior growout events that must have hidden in the brush when the net was put out. They are real pigs. Their siblings hang out just outside the net along with some pellet trained LMB to get pellets . There are also some small BG 1in. which must have resulted from a spawn inside the net. Anyway most of the added fish are now big enough to go free . This weekend the net will be picked up.

Has the Bass aggressiveness increased? Or do you have to wait until the spawning of the tiger bass to find out?

Still a work in progress as it is a long term project. We continue to take out small non-tiger LMB (fishing and electroshock) and augment the BG/RES populations through additions and feeding. In the size group of the known TB (fin clipped) there seems to be more aggressive behavior. The cause for the increase could be a result of a number of factors ( genetics , conditioning , age ,forage supply , fishing ability , time of day/mth or year , weather , LMB population size structure , water quality or stress factors). I can not isolate for any of these factors in the experiment so it is just a gut feeling that the combination of new genetics and increased forage is helping. We intend to continue the process and watch the results. One thing for sure the LMB population's RW and RK are improving slowly.

Bump!!!

Just wanted to know if this is followed up on in another thtead.

Thanks

Ewest, How is this lake doing today? If it went downhill or up, how long did it take?

It is doing fine. RW have improved and Fla genetics are in place. Should have a genetics test results sometime soon. They are at the test facility to id LMB genetics. That will tell us a lot.

Very good, it is nice when a plan works out.