Pond Boss Forums GENERAL QUESTIONS Pond Boss Ray Scott's Trophy Bass Retreat

I too am at a loss here. And why remove 45 lmb when the ratio of forage was already above average? To try to make it far above average? This is a pretty large body of water, I wonder what those 45 slot bass represent? 10% 5%, less than that? And it is not like there is just one kind of forage here, these bass have a virtual buffet of forage, especially shad. Another thing I wonder is why even have CC in a supposed to be trophy LMB lake? If these retreat ponds/lakes are being managed and advertised as Trophy Bass destinations, why are the bigger fish undersized? This entire situation is befuddling. I am befuddled.

I want to go back to what Bob said about Ray Scott and getting things done. He has been tremendously important for public water fisheries, too. Here is one story.

Most of you probably know that anglers pay for most of the public water fisheries management in this country (same thing for wildlife, but let's keep this to fisheries). Most (not all) state agencies are primarily funded by license sales and by Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration funds. The Federal Aid funds are a federal excise tax on fishing equipment (10% excise tax on fishing rods, reels, lures, fishing line, and related fishing equipment) that is collected and then returned to states on the basis of their geographic area and their number of licensed anglers. A few states get some general tax fund money for fisheries and wildlife management, but not many.

The orignal legislation was the Dingell-Johnson (or DJ) act that was passed in 1950. We tried for an "expansion" of DJ funds in the early 1980s. This was known as the Wallop-Breaux expansion, and was to add some yachts and motorboat fuels to the list of taxed items. This expansion was highly supported by a broad range of tackle manufacturers to angling groups. In addition, this was during the presidential term of George H.W. Bush (senior), who was an ardent supporter of user-pay fees. Well, the darn process was going absolutely nowhere; it just couldn't get any traction. Well, finally someone got smart enough to call Ray Scott and ask for help. BASS was, of course, supportive of the expansion. Ray got in touch with President Bush, who had not even heard of the expansion! He was sufficiently isolated that the news had not even reached him. One contact from Ray Scott, and bingo, the expansion was passed in 1984. All of the common sense and logic in the world did not matter; we needed that one piece of help from Ray Scott and presto.

The

I probably spend less than 5% of my fishing hours on public ponds or lakes. The trash, the crowds, the lack of quality fishing all add up to less than an enjoyable experience. And then they tack on fees to use them, day use, boat launch, some even have special planting fees, just adds insult to injury.

I was under the impression this was the Pond Boss. Where private owners make thier own decisions on private property about private ponds to make thier respective ponds better than any public destination could ever be. Those collected government fees are paid by them for all that fishing gear, yet they never get one cent back to spend on thier own ponds. Is this Trophy Bass Retreat a public lake?

PF most of the info (studies , research and university) which we all benefit from are from public waters done by universities which are paid for by public funds. Most of those funds come from the source Dave noted. Those funds both directly and indirectly trained (education) all the fishery scientists I know both public and private , like Bob , Dave , Greg etc.

Ray's lakes are private. But they do benefit from the knowledge funded by those funds. Many here have also had help from state sources on their private ponds. Advice from Co-Op extension scientists and Fish & Wildlife agencies (electroshock , fish hatcheries , Management books ). Those sources are ending across the US and are being done by private FS now.

The catfish were put in there by error and are being removed/managed as best they can be. The lake is 55 acres IIRC. The LMB removed are a tiny fraction of the population but should help. The fish were moved to another lake that needs them. There is plenty of forage for small LMB and great big LMB but a little short for mid-size LMB.

I thought most research funding came from tuition, private donations and corporate sources. I thought those aforementioned funds were for management. Or mismanagement if the government is involved.

I would think putting CC in a trophy LMB lake would have to be a mistake. They could actually throw things out of balance and cause problems in managing for trophy LMB.

It was stated since the LMB were slightly underweight they were removed. But 45 fish for 55 acres? I would put that at less then 5%? Not even a drop in a bucket. How many slot LMB are in an average acre? I don't see how removing less than 1 fish per acre does anything.

5 sizes of bg, tilipia and countless shad means to me every sized LMB has adequate forage. Especially if the forage numbers are above average. Again, plenty or above average. Those midsize LMB are not that picky of foragers. They will dropdown to another size, even though I just don't see a 55 acre lake being short on one size of forage, especially when the electrofishing results say otherwise. And multiple species that many impoundments don't have.

My last concern is where are the trophies? Is this a new project and the LMB have not had time to reach that size? To 8 lbs means to me none were seen. What would you define a trophy LMB as?

I'm working on the data and graphs from Ray's lakes and I'll see if I can post the graphs when I get them done. Working on it now, but not sure if I can get it done before I have to leave for the next job at 3 this afternoon.
While the food chain is abundant, it isn't as abundant as it was the last time I looked at it about two years ago. There are tens of thousands of brand new baby threadfin shad along with fair numbers of 4-6" gizzard shad. There are five different size classes of bluegill and lots of young of the year golden shiners. Tilapia exist although we didn't collect any.
His bass in the 14-17" size class have average or slightly below average relative weights. When we looked at the size structure of the forage base we saw mostly little fish. 16 and 17 inch bass don't prefer 1-2" threadfin shad in open water.
Finding pelagic bluegill was interesting because it suggests they don't have enough peripheral cover...which is true. It's open season on bluegill because there is virtually no cover for them. The lake is fertile, with a plankton bloom and secchi disk visibility about 18". It's a great lake to grow lots of small forage fish to support an abnormally large population of intermediate size fish. But, the big fish depend on medium sized gizzard shad, which were slightly low in numbers, 4-7" bluegill, which were living mostly around the feeders and adult threadfin shad, which are gone, probably due to the harsh winter. Hence, the 14-17" bass are missing the key components of their size class of food and it will be a few months before the lake catches up to them. But, Ray's mission is to grow bigger bass, so when we see intermediate size bass where a fairly high percentage is slightly underweight, we remove them. Here's part of the reason. Those fish have lost some growth time that they can't make up. Right behind them is a class of fish in the 10-12 inchers that look like footballs. They will catch and pass those current fish which have lost growth time. When we remove bass and wait for the lake to catch up with its forage fish, we are getting rid of mouths but at the same time setting the stage (and table) for younger fish to quickly take their place and rocket past them. That's the logic.

The reason we saw no trophies is because the water was 92 degrees and they were deeper than we can shock. Ray has Lake Life Pumps working to keep the lake destratified, so bass can live throughout the water column, all the way to 22 feet deep. It was obvious to me, just looking at the size structures of existing fish populations that there are definitely trophy bass in that lake...not to mention the catch records and photos of recent catches this spring. One thing you learn as a biologist is this...just because you didn't sample a size class or species in that one electrofishing event on that day doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means you didn't catch them that day. When I watch a lake and study the different size classes of fish, where they were caught, what the habitat is like and then see how the community interacts within itself in that lake, I can tell you if there are big fish or not, whether I hold those jewels in my hand or not.

Regarding Wallop-Breaux, for you youngsters that don't quite understand the significance of it, here's why it's important to Pond Boss and all you pondmeisters. In the 70's states had to depend on their own state budgets to improve public waters. Sure, they stocked some fish, especially where the anglers squealed the loudest. Some states, such as Texas, for example, started a program to grow huge bass. That was the time when people watched Ray Scott build the B.A.S.S. empire and it was turning into such a phenomenon that an industry was being created around it. If it weren't for Ray, there would likely be no BassPro Shops or Ranger boats or Triton or Shimano as we see them today. Since those businesses depend on people who use public waters, it made sense to Ray to do what he could to help improve public waters. He's told me over and over that catch rates were declining, quality of fish was declining and those resources needed protecting. The merchants fought him over it...they didn't want an extra tax charged to their customers. But, because of Wallop-Breaux, money is used for habitat improvement, hatchery improvement, better management of recreational fisheries all over the nation. Look at states like Georgia, for example. They're making a push to bring people there to fish and part of the mission is to continue to improve the waters of Georgia. It impacts private landowners because it keeps fisheries management in the public eye. Just wait until you hear what's in the offing about our ability to use herbicides in the near future. If it weren't for Wallop-Breaux, too many lakes would simply provide water to drink and power for electricity. With conservation and fisheries habitat in the public eye, we stand a chance to continue the lifestyles we want and guys like Pond Frog can stay in business doing what he loves to do without the heavy hand of big brother sucking him dry to the point all he can do is repair riveted boats for a living.

If Ray is okay with it...I'll show you guys my report. But, it goes to him first and it is proprietary, since he is paying for it. It will explain and answer most of the question being asked above.

Thanks Bob, I understand. I think the small amount of LMB removed in such a big BOW isn't that much percentage wise, but you gotta start somewhere. That's only freeing up roughly 500# of forage for other fish in the short term, but again, it's a start.

Thanks for the explanations, makes a lot more sense, except I guess you would have to repeatedly remove those slot fish to have more of an impact, but you have to start somewhere. I also have removed underfed fish that fell so far behind the curve they could never catch up.

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act is not exactly all taht good for us in California. First since it is a public law, or act, it is a matter of public record. And the monies go towards a lot of aquisitions, plantings and surveys. The states are allocated the monies, which sadly means California Fish and Game gets them. With one population survey, paid for by monies from this, they completely wiped out the Pacific Salmon fishery business. I got off light, only holding onto a few thousand dollars of equipment. Commercial fleet and recreation fleet, party boats, tackle shops and supporting businesses were destroyed. Next survey, rockfish. Same results, closed fishery totally, then reopened with limits not worth going out for. The guys that switched from salmon to rockfish were done. I lost several more thousand dollars of equipment and supplies that now collect dust. Bodega Bay has one boat left. Baitshop and everything else commercial is gone. So I started a private pond business. Those same funds were used to survey private impoundements. The laws to be applied will pretty much wipe out the private pond stocking and raising fish for them business. The funds from this act are meant for noble purposes, but in my neck of the woods, it has not gone down that way. Like I said, it is all a matter of public record.

Thank you so much for the information on the LMB retreat, I have to do or try to do the same thing for some new clients. It is invaluable.

To be clear, our mission was to sample, not to remove fish. We captured quite a few bass and many were released. Part of the mission was to analyze the fishery and make recommendations to keep them on track for growing big fish. It will be their job to continue removing slot bass via angling. It's been an issue with this lake for years, by the way.
They do such a great job keeping the lake fertile that they grow so much small forage fish that the lake is propped up to grow 1-14" bass. With that management style, removing small bass is critical. Propping up a lake with little forage fish leads to growing medium size bass which tend to crowd since life in the food lane is so good for them...temporarily.
The biggest challenge for a lake such as this one is to grow as many bass beyond 17" as you can. That takes at least two years in an existing lake (although many of us typically beat that in new lakes). Once a fish hits 17", it's life changes. It feeds differently, it behaves differently and lives in different parts of the lake than those smaller cousins.

I thought most research funding came from tuition, private donations and corporate sources. Not even close as it relates to Fisheries programs. Those management dollars go to study all types of fisheries topics (gather data) which turns into studies , papers and knowledge/advice. The people doing lots of the work are students , profs and grad students. I will try to find some examples to post.

I thought those aforementioned funds were for management. They are used for many purposes as management is a big topic.

Here is one bit out of 1400+ AFS studies which cite it.
Understanding ecological
mechanisms can help
solve management prob-
lems, as revealed by Gary
Isbell, executive administrator,
Fish Management
and Research, Division of
Wildlife, Ohio Department
of Natural Resources (ODNR). At the AFS meeting, Isbell
and The Ohio State University's David A. Culver jointly
received an award for the "best" research project funded
by Federal Aid to Sport Fish Restoration funds for developing
techniques that dramatically improved walleye
(Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) and saugeye (S. vitreum x S.
canadense) produced via extensive pond culture. Surprisingly,
Culver et al.'s (1992) work dealt with Daphnia production.
One might ask, How many management agencies
would fund this research, and how often would
such seemingly esoteric research provide answers to
management questions? However, from Culver's study,
we now understand the temporal production of Daphnia,
an important food for larval and juvenile fish. In addition,
in Ohio hatchery ponds, we now know how this
productivity responds to delayed pond-filling and how
the application of inorganic fertilizers drives Daphnia
production. Consequently, techniques are now available
to Ohio DNR that overcome historical problems with
extensive culture of walleye and saugeye. Immediate
applicability came with this study because percid production
has increased six-fold in Ohio hatchery ponds,
where Culver's techniques have been applied. Annual
continuing-education workshops, led by Culver, keep
hatchery managers current about rigorous limnological
methods to assess pond productivity. Clearly, this
research, which might be considered expensive by many
agencies, has solved an outstanding management problem
that will provide a long-term, cumulative, positive
impact on Ohio's percid fisheries.

At the risk of re-starting something (sorry Pond Frog; it sure wasn't my intent to cause a fuss), the point of my story was the amazing fact that Ray Scott accomplished by himself in a very short time what thousands of people had not been able to do in a long time.

Agreed!

I enjoy black bass fishing, but I find the challenge of mastering multiple species more enjoyable. When I am fishing for largemouths, if I hook a bowfin or striper I don't get mad. To me, they are fish, they fight and it's enjoyable. I however realize that if it weren't for Ray Scott and the giant boom in the interest in fishing brought on by tournament bass fishing, many of the opportunities I have today wouldn't be there. I have fished in a handful of bass tournaments and just never got into it. However, I am still a member of B.A.S.S. because I know what they do in terms or representing angler's interests. I certainly wouldn't turn down a chance to shake his hand and say thanks for all he has done for recreational freshwater fishing.

I know for a fact Ray Scott's impact on LMB knowledge, management and research is invaluable. Legendary and pioneering. I also know monies for that program or act went nowhere but down the California Fish and Game bottomless sinkhole. But since our state is broke as a joke that has come to an end since we cannot even come up with the matching 25%. The last real expenditure was for the private owned ponds and fisheries, but that was because of the Stanford Lawsuit, which they completely destroyed CA F and G, not a hard thing to do. So 2 million was dedicated, state came up with 500,000 to decide every private body of water from here on out should be managed by them. Based on thier track record of continuous abysmal failures, and the hoops they are making the hatcheries jump through, that party is practically over. They really had very little else to destroy anyway. The public fisheries are less than 1% of thier former population levels. Mainly the rivers, and even off the coast. Those same monies get highjacked by state lawmakers who want some porkbelly boat launch in thier district. Less than 2% of the monies get to any university. The hatchery and farm guys have hired lawyers, and a lobbyist, but in this economy many are barely hangin on. I am done discussing that disaster.

Seems like the larger the lake, the more things you have to consider. But I am learning all I can about attempting to produce trophy LMB. Times have changed. Many decades ago trout and salmon were kings. They did not even have a bass tour, pros or anything. Now it is huge business. And customers are clamoring for trophy lmb which they never see in public areas.

Fisrt, I try to get good strains. FLA preferably. Although without strict DNA testing that is more a hope and a prayer. I have to get fingerlings up to 6" and purge out old been starved too many years fish. Depending if I am starting from scratch or not. My baitfish cocktail pond will have no LMB in it for a full year. Supposedly FLA are better foragers and longer lifespans. They have gotten to 20 lbs in CA.

Next is forage. And more forage. I just can't get shad, but try to keep different sized forage available for my subjects year round. Shiners are a work in progress, and I should have several ponds soon as no one out here produces them. I'm set on gambusia and getting there on fhm. BG are probably my best mid to large size forage now.

With one and 2 acre ponds I am not going to get too many tropies. So I have to keep the prime candidates and start selective harvesting out the rest. That is a fun part of the job. But I don't have the abilities to electrofish so I have to do it the ol fashioned way. Almost all the things I am trying I have learned from this forum, Ray Scott or Bob Lusk work, and trial and error. Just like any other business, the two keys are information and experience. A work ethic helps. The stories are great for around the campfire shooting the breeze, but the how's and why's are why I am here. Pig and jig's fish just amaze me. I just do not have confidence I can micromanage individual fish or dedicate myself as totally as he does with so many ponds to deal with. But I am adding some of his techniques as well. There are just so few resources to turn to in this business. I am lucky everyone here puts up with me.

PF it sounds like CA has some poor mgt. The states (not CA) and universities I work with and know about have had very good success with the part of the WB and other $ allotted to them for study and mgt. They often combine money from several sources to make ends meet. I can't speak for the rest of the $ that the agencies may use elsewhere as I don't follow that closely.

We are all on the learning curve as there are always more mysteries to uncover. FWIW our lakes are not managed for trophy LMB but more for balance. I do know from some of the study sources that CA has had good success with LMB (Fla) with TShad and RT in some of their small reservoirs. The combo of year round water temps and stocking (year round growth) have led to some trophy LMB. There is a very good thread here on the subject.