Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations That whole fed fish not biting thing again...

I've read several threads about fed fish being harder to catch. Does this also mean that they don't chase and consume baitfish, instead preferring to sit and wait until the feeder goes off?
Or do they just not bite on artificials, but will take live bait?
Please discuss.

IMO I don't think a fish quits hunting/grazing waiting for the feeder to go off. My thinking is that fish eat whenever an opportunity presents itself, perhaps even beyond satiation. Using the 10-15 minute rule on pellets also controls the amount of pellets broadcasted and available food. I do think pellets help take a measure of pressure off the natural forage chain, but I don't think it comes that close to entirely replacing it. If I quit feeding my pond my BG would probably get skinny, my SMB and HSB would hammer them but also would eventually lose body condition, yet I'd see an impact on the BG and GSH population, at a price. Eventually I'd have to cull quite a few apex predators to improve population health conditions across all predator species due to lack of easy, high protein meals.

Here's something that fascinated me and was a bonus of feeding: Some of my predators are clearly not taking pellets, but they do hover below feeding fish in the shadows of deeper water of the first break and hammer smaller BG - bluegill and GSH - golden shiner. I don't know how successful they are, but they are trying to make a living ambushing feeding fish, and it's a riot to watch the water boil just below the surface. It's clear they aren't taking a pellet as they are floating, but hammering something just below it. I can only imagine its smaller fish.

In my own experience, on a small BOW under 3 acres, my SMB smallmouth bass and HSB - hybrid striped bass quickly became lure shy. One can throw artificials all day now and maybe catch a fish or two. Nosehook a GSH on the surface or slip bobber rig a fathead and game is on for all species. Use a pellet fly and again all species are on fire. I don't mind it...if anyone trespassed and threw spinnerbaits all day they'd think it was the Dead Sea, which is ok by me.

Those are my experiences so far.

I gues my Pond is still not pellet dependent because I can catch fish on artificials pretty easily. Also I've read don't fish around feeders which is where I do prolly 75% of my fishing and never have a problem (I prolly have 3 lb BG laying low thinking oh this idiot again hold on boys) but I'd rather catch my fish once than never catch them at all..

I believe that pellet feeding may play a role in reduced "catchability" of your fish, but I don't believe that it's possible to completely eliminate the predatory instinct just by adding a feeding program. However, I think other factors come into play here also, such as the amount of artificial feed that is supplied, the time of year it is, the species of fish involved, and whether the fish in question are subject to fishing pressure, and/or a program of catch and release.

I currently feed in four of our ponds, three of which I consider supplemental programs while the HBG pond utilizes AQ500 as a primary food source, as that pond has no aquatic vegetation or structure necessary for many types of natural forage. And I have noticed that the HBG are much harder to catch than both the supplementally fed ponds, and the ponds where no feeding occurs. BUT...the HBG are also more heavily pressured, and catch and release is the order of the day. I do believe that fish can display conditioned behaviour, whether or not that is ascribed to intelligence is up for debate.

Good input guys. I'd still take the tradeoff of reduced angling rates for increased carrying capacity and improved growth rates feeding provides. Very few "natural" ponds can boast WR100+ for all fish caught, and I've seen some pellet ponds get close to that mark. For me, it's worth it.

I'm with you there TJ.. Benefits far out weigh the drawbacks..

Absolutely. I'm not planning on stopping feed anytime soon either. I pulled a HBG (hybrid bluegill) out last year that had a Wr of 156%...thanks to supplemental feeding.

Would you say it's more a testament to a pond manager's skills to create an world class fishery relying on all natural perameters like ideal fishery species selection, varied forage base, water quality, population management through angling, etc? Seems going natural would be more challenging, at least. Makes me apprecite the outstanding ponds I've fished that much more.

TJ, what are the parameters that define a 'natural' effort vs. an artificially induced environment? What's allowable one way or the other?

If you mean totally natural, as in no feeding, period, then I agree...that would surely be the pinnacle of pond management. IF...it could even be done. I wonder if there is a certain size BOW that would lend itself more readily to this type of effort? I think it would be tough in a small pond, but I also think a large impoundment would present its own set of challenges. Perhaps there is a 'sweet spot' somewhere in the middle, where the size would lend itself to this type of management strategy.

Then again, what species are present? Perhaps the ideal combination of fish would make this task easier, but many times our choices are limited due to availability, geography, and our goals for the fishery. What good would a perfect combination of species be, in an all natural environment where the pondowner made compromises in order to make the system work.....perhaps going as far as doing without a species or two that they really wanted. I can't imagine having a pond without BG, as I prefer them over all other fish...but, management of these fish requires that a top line predator be present, and my choices are limited in that regard. So, to have BG, I have to choose....allow LMB, or switch to a different fish, one that's less likely to overrun the pond. Compromises.

What do you think?

Yes, that's how I would define "natural" - no feeding, just allowing the ecosystem to do its thing, with corrective stocking, harvest, etc. being your primary tools.

Goals would determine species, I suppose. Trophy BG would mean LMB - largemouth bass heavy pond, but could one create a trophy fishery of both species simply through "pure" management techniques - meaning, no feeding?

I once fished a lake in my late teens that was legendary and defies all fishery management tenets as I now understand them. It was a 20 acre farm pond with an active creek feeding it. We had to park in a rural graveyard to access it, so we named it aptly "Grave Lake". It was a half mile walk to the pond, and we fished in the worst weather possible to improve our odds of going undetected. This fishery defied belief: Crappie averaged 15" - the largest I saw was 18.5". LMB averaged 3.5 and we caught several fish over 5, which is NE master angler. BG averaged 9-10", and we caught many 10-11" fish. The CC - channel catfish averaged mid teens, with our best fish going 22. Even the bullhead from the creek were massive, with 3 lb fish common when catfishing. This farmer didn't fish, didn't manage the lake, didn't care about it at all. This fishery somehow attained the magical balance, and we truly felt at times we were fishing in God's private pond.

We never caught any small fish...I have no clue where they were. In my 20s the farmer sold adjacent land to a private developer who put in a golf course, silted in the pond due to construction, and the fishery was ruined forever.

How did this fishery attain such epic status?

I think fish that are fed are easier to catch. For instance, in my pond, if the fish aren't biting, I'd throw in a handful of food and they'd start feeding. I'd use an artificial bait and catch them, where I couldn't get a bite before when using the same bait.

Shup, I don't know if that's a good habit you mentioned.. But I do it all the time lol

Perhaps we should define trophy status? I realize that individual interpretation as well as geography comes into play here, but are there ballpark figures that could be used as a benchmark, to indicate the quality of the BOW in question? Again, speaking from the perspective of a dedicated BG angler, I group fish into 4 categories...average, good, personal best (PB), and trophy. Using a BG - bluegill as an example, I consider 8-9" average, 9-10" good, over 11" a PB, and 12" or over a trophy.

For a LMB - largemouth bass I'm severely limited....I have lots of small Bass, but few large specimens. My PB LMB was a tick over 5 lbs, and the biggest I've seen come out of our ponds were a pair of 8 lb. fish...and that was a long time ago.

I still consider the size of the BOW to be paramount to success in this type of situation. You mentioned that the farm pond you fished was 20 acres in size? My friend, that's a lake out here not a farm pond! Our farm ponds are usually less than an acre, with many half that size. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there are very few one acre ponds that produce LMB over 8lbs AND BG over 12", especially without supplemental feeding, or intervention on the part of the pondowner. I don't see how the math could work in that small of a pond.

Now 20 acres? That sounds more like a possibility to me. I still wonder about that sweet spot....a size range that strengthens a BOW's ability or likelihood to produce trophy fish, Au natural. I also think that aquatic vegetation plays a huge role...especially if BG are present. What kind and how much? It would seem that an invasive, or spreading plant might eventually dominate the lake to the point that the perfect balance could no longer exist. So that raises another question...what time frame constitutes a successful, natural, trophy pond? How long will the magic last?

To switch gears a moment, My HBG - hybrid bluegill will consume pellets ferociously, however a cast into the mix will yield maybe one fish...BUT, I probably fish more often than a lot here... I feed by hand everyday during warmer weather, and I usually fish that pond EVERYDAY...practicing catch and release...and my fish can be tough to catch, despite the HBG's supposed vulnerability to angling.

Now, if I stop feeding for a day or two, then it's game on. Certainly there are times when that increased feeding activity is due to weather patterns, or the time of year, but not every time....So does hunger play a role? And if so, then would it not also stand to reason that being not as hungry, (fed every day),would reduce the number of fish caught?

It's all about the forage base.

Forage may be the cornerstone of the foundation needed to produce a natural trophy BOW, but there surely must be other factors also? For forage to do it's part it must be both sustainable, and attainable to the species that depend on it....and in many instances that requires intervention on the part of the pondowner. In an all natural environment, I would expect to stock the BOW one time and walk away...and therein lies the rub, as that is exactly the strategy employed by far too many unknowing pondowners....why doesn't it produce a trophy BOW for all of them?

There must be something else in play here.

Habitat, like aquatic vegetation and algea blooms, do play a significant role in a natural BOW, those are what feed the forage base. The intial stocking numbers also play a big part in how things turn out.

This is mostly appropriate to Southern bass ponds.

My observation is that most bass ponds are pretty good for 3 or 4 years. Then, the bass start slowing down and declining. I attribute that to the forage base. However, the out of balance forage condition is mostly attributable to the ponds environment(water quality) and being bass heavy. The smaller bass overeat the forage base so the up and coming 2 pounders have problems finding the appropriate sized forage. A small # of the originally stocked predators keep growing to feed on the larger bluegills.

The water quality issue can be fairly regional. Some need lime and fertilizer and it just doesn't get done often enough. Others have enough alkalinity to create a lot of weeds that allow forage to escape predation. A booming rain after a drought can wash in a lot of suspended sediment that effects and even prevents photosynthesis.

This stuff is mostly Ponds101 but, over time, we start neglecting the most important part. That part is the ponds environment and balance.

And then, there is the lack of or over supply of rain. I've personally not had to use my overflow in quite a few years. Make that 8 or 9 years.

IIRC there was a PB article [Lusk?] about a similar fishery like the one I described: Grave Lake. The ranch ownere didn't actively manage the fishery, it was plenty old, and was full of immense LMB and BG. How could this fishery evolve into such a perfectly balanced honey hole without any management whatsoever? I think the final hypothesis had something to do with the timber in the pond which served as a perch for many birds. The birds may have helped cull some smaller fish and their dropping helped fertilize the water. Not sure if I have that right, or I could be unintentionally fabricating the entire story. Anyone remember that article?

In my limited experiences, it seems these BOW that produce large fish with little outside help usually have 3 naturally occurring things. Sun, stuff, and a self sustainable forage base that's 1/4 to 1/2 the length of the the top tier predators. Feeding forage replaces or supplements the lack of some of these things.

I've rarely seen a muddy, bathtub shaped BOW with no timber, grass, or structure be able to fully support the food chain.

I only feed my CNBG, and they do bite lures also.