Pond Boss Forums MANAGING AN EXISTING POND Evaluating and adjusting fish populations Managing black crappie

Hey guys! Been viewing some threads for a while and finally made an account! Anyway, A buddy and I want to 'fix' a pond that our fathers built about 5 years ago, that they have since given up on. The pond is roughly 21-22 acres, with a max depth of about 24 feet, with a few humps and sunken tress here and there. Most of the pond is around 14-16 feet, and very clear. The current species that are in there are Black Crappie, Bluegill, Largemouth bass, and 6 little Walleye. The pond is currently dominated by the crappie. tons of 6-7" , tons of little 2-5", and a pretty decent amount of 8" and above. Bluegill can be caught, most around the 5-7" range, a few bigger ones. We have only seen 4-5 largies, but all seemed to be at least 3-4 lbs. about a week ago we put 6 walleye in there, ranging from 9-13". The crappie are all pretty skinny, but we've recently been doing our best to supplement the pond with shiners and fatheads. Our current plan is to hit the crappie as hard as we can when the ice melts when they stage for spawn, but that will only do so much. Other than harvesting them, what are some other ways to help control the crappie population/increase the amount of walleyes and bass, mainly walleye? We've thought about adding some musky possibly, but that might affect the Eyes and bass. Introducing crayfish was another thought to provide some other food sources, but we are both seniors in high school, and don't have a ton of cash to throw at this project. Any thoughts, criticisms, questions and anything else is appreciated!
Thanks!

Welcome to Pond Boss!!!

22 acres is HEAVEN!!!!!

The size of your pond (really a small lake) makes the management of it, towards a desired outcome, more challenging.

You've either got labor/sweat, or money, or a combination of both.

If you got an army of fishermen together in the spring, and tried to remove every Black Crappie you caught, it would probably have some effect towards goals (which need to be defined). I think you'd be looking to try and remove at least (100) Crappie/acre, so over 2,000 fish. Quite an effort.

For muskie stocking, I think you'd want Tiger Muskie as they would not reproduce. At least one per acre would be need to make a dent in the Black Crappie, and probable more like 2-3/acre.

Hey Sunil, thanks for the warm welcome and great advice! Finding/buying tiger muskies would be a little difficult, given delivery costs and the costs of the fish themselves, but I’m talking to some hatcheries to see if I can just pick them up myself to eliminate the delivery costs. As for goals, my friend and I are hoping to have a nice walleye fishery, and still have some nice catchable crappie (not this many though!). In our eyes, the bass are just an awesome bonus fish, and we aren’t super worried about them, but keeping a decent population of decent sized bass in there would be pretty awesome. Also, having a small population of reproducing, pure strain Muskie would be kinda cool, but would that hurt the Eyes or bass?

Most of the time when your black crappie are overpopulated like that they are also hungry, a couple guys on a mission could make a heck of a dent in your population, if they are big enough to filet at all you will have some really good eating, once you find the main spots where they hang out and what color slider they hit best you can slay em,
when they go on a spawn, me and my side kick have pulled 100 off of a brush pile in very little over an hr if that long.
Neighbor has a 3 acre lake that gets over populated with white crappie every several yrs because he doesnt fish them out regularly enough, we have pulled 450 out of it in a few weeks time in the spring, because his lake gets overgrown with duckweed in the summer, cant fish it at all during the summer.
Good Luck!

I'm not sure what kind of environment pure muskies need to spawn, but further, I'm not sure how you'd keep control over a muskie population that spawns and recruits.

Any muskies, tiger or other, are going to eat indiscriminately, however, depending on if you get stockers of all similar size, they will move through slot limits of food, to a degree, and perhaps allow some other fish to grow in parallel.

Maybe you could get 20 tiger muskies, and an army of crappie fisherman. That would make some kind of impact.

Gehajake, good to know! They are all pretty skinny, or most of them were until we started supplementing w FHM and Shiners, even the 5-6” Crappies will try and eat a 3-4” shiner!

I forgot to mention, one of our members, 'Snipe," has been doing a lot of nice work with Saugeye. They might have a role in this.

One word.... SAUGEYE. these fish would absolutely turn your BCP situation into a much more desired structure of many more large and medium size crappie showing up every year (12-15").

Howdy MnAngler,

So the pond is 5 years old and totally out of whack. Can you shed any light on how it was stocked. For example, stocking rates of LMB, BG, and Crappie? Also can you make a good estimate of the percentages of the different sizes of crappie (eg 70% 2-5", 25% 5-7", 5% 7-10"). This would be very helpful in terms of estimating populations.

This pond is what is known as forage locked. It can happen with any forage but BCP and GSHD are two very prone to locking up the biome. So a couple of things might have caused it. Bucket stocking adult fish is one possible cause. So Nature abhors a vacuum, and if this was the case, the initial stocking did not take up enough of the carry capacity the first growing season. Such would lead to the crappie filling that vacuum being a an early spawner. There may have been a suitable stocking of fingerlings, but subsequently over harvest of the LMB before successfully recruiting may have occurred. Whatever the case, it is clear that the LMB are severely under populated.

So how do I know the pond is forage locked? There are two year classes of slow growing BCP and the LMB have grown well. In other words, the LMB are growing at a decent pace (getting most of what they can eat) but they are not keeping up with either of these year classes. The current situation is probably one where no species in the pond can successfully recruit without significant mortality of the populations. So gehajake made a good suggestion, don't be picky about the size. Get a bunch of those BCP out of there. For now, do not remove predators of any size. You need some large predators that are big enough to consume at least the 2-5" year class that is abundant. If you don't stock them large enough, they will not grow fast enough to make a noticeable impact and could even decline from competitive pressures.

I could make an estimate of how many large predators to stock if I had a better understanding of the population structure (the percentages of the size brackets).

In highly forage deficient waters you need size and age information. Those 4 inch BC could be 1 , 2 or even 3+ years old. Here are 3 1 yr old LMB from such a situation.

Hey jpsdad! I’d say roughly 25% of the BCP are the 0-5” range, 50% are 6-10”, 15% are 11-12” and the remaining % are above 12”. In terms of how it was stocked, I don’t really know. Most of the stocking was done at the very start of the pond, and mainly just consisted of ordering the big crappie from farms and throwing them in there

MnAngler,

The numbers above do not jive with what you said earlier. You said there were tons of 2"-5" and tons of 6"-7" and a decent amount larger than that. From that, I thought you had an enormous population of BCP stunting at 6-7 inches and growing very slow. Based on your latest numbers above, these are normal healthy lengths distributions for most farm ponds. The proportions both in population and biomass favor harvestable sized fish. Based on your latest entry, there is nothing wrong (at least nothing seriously wrong). I don't know what the lake could carry per acre. Bill would you have any idea?

Just tentative tongue in cheek, limiting the BCP carry to 150 lbs/acre, assuming 70 RW, and using your stated proportions in the catch .. I come up with a population of no more than 940 BCP per acre. More than 50% of crappie biomass is > 10" and More than 75% of the biomass is > 8". What are you complaining about? Just harvest the crappie. Per your population percentages I estimate ~320 BCP/acre > 8". Don't pick on any particular size > 8", just take them that size and larger. Don't throw nothing that size back until the proportion of >10" isn't 15% any more. When the proportion is "right" it will be about 9%. That is, 1 >10" BCP for every 11 you catch. This should be all that is needed to improve condition and growth of the BCP. The numbers are fairly limited, I would be surprised if the standing weight of BCP is greater than 150 lbs/acre but if it is you will know if after indiscriminately harvesting 160 >8" BCP/acre you are still catching more than 1 >10" BCP for every 11 BCP you catch.

On the other hand, if you can't trust the information you gave me, then don't trust the analysis that came from it. Use your best judgment there and good luck with this. Sounds like a really fun project. Below is a breakdown of your data. Biomass is calculated based on your thin comment at 70 RW.

Thanks for all the info/stats jpsdad! Your numbers are actually very close to what my buddy and I discovered this ice season, a lot of crappie around that 7-8" range. It just seems no matter the size of fish, they all seem malnourished, and there's so many of them. I don't know how familiar people on here are with Garmin Livescope, but I will include some pictures from us drilling/hole hopping on the pond during the ice season.
I'm just unsure what next steps my buddy and I should take, other than taking a ton of crappie. We'd like to have a nice walleye/crappie pond we can fish, but we both think we should try and take care of the forage situation first. From what I've read, FHM can provide a little 'boost' in growth but aren't really a long-term fix. I was stocking shiners but now the baits shops I go to can't get shiners in until the MN Walleye opener.
As for stocking predators, what size of Tigers should we look into throwing in there? The place I'm looking at will sell 6-7" fish mainly. And are there any places in MN that will sell Saugeye for stocking? I've only seen pure walleye available.
Again, thank you everyone for all the info/suggestions, I really appreciate it!

If you could get various sizes of Tiger Muskie, it would be beneficial, but if you can only source 6-7" Tiger Muskie, then you have to go with it.

You may experience some predation on 6-7" Tiger Muskie depending on what other larger predators you have across the 22 acres, but you could make up for that in the initial stocking numbers.

Maybe go with (4) Tiger Muskie per acre, or an even 100 Tiger Muskie.

Along with that, do massive culling on all Black Crappie you catch, unless you catch a particularly large one or healthy one (only because BC is one of your desired species).

I think you'll have a hard time getting any kind of forage base established until you get your over-population problem corrected.

Regarding Saugeye, you should send Snipe a private message through the website and see if he can help you in any way.

I'd have Saugeye if they were readily available. I agree with the sentiment that it'll be difficult to establish more forage if you're already over crowded with predators.


I have a 19 acre pond. A couple of years ago I decided to start removing a significant amount of crappie. We fish more and invite friends out more. To be honest with you it's been a blast! Currently I believe I'm seeing a positive change in both length and weights of the crappie we are catching.

If you really want to cull a bunch of crappie, then a fishing derby is an excellent idea.

Do you know any Boy Scouts at school? If you had two scout troops come out with some leaders that want to teach fishing, they could catch a bunch of crappie when they are biting good.

I would make sure to determine what lures/baits are successful at catching your walleye, and insist that they do NOT use those baits. Also don't allow any live baits that you don't want in your pond. There is always a chance that a few will live (but probably unlikely).

I would also enforce a rule to throw back any fatter/heavier crappie. If they are mostly catching crappie that are X" long, then you might tell them to cull every skinny crappie within an inch of that length to either side. Or, if they all look skinny, then have them cull every single crappie they catch. I don't believe you can fish the crappie out of a 22-acre pond unless you also have a mass of predators.

I wish I could get BCP to even spawn !

MnAngler,

After you had responded with the latest population estimates, the predator situation did not appear severely under represented. That is why I didn't make recommendations for stocking predators. If you notice the 5-7 group, they are not that numerous. They may occasionally be eaten by 4 lb LMB. Also they will grow into the 7-10 group when you harvest BCP in the 7-10 group. Same thing goes for members of the 7-10 group that you don't harvest. They will grow into the 10+ group. You do need some small BCP surviving to become 8" or 10" or 12" some day. You have a top heavy population. There isn't enough BCP in the bottom two classes to impact the overall health and condition of BCP by harvesting them or submitting them to predation. Just doesn't make sense to pick on them. Their Biomass is too small to have much of an impact. Leave them for you 4 lb LMB to eat and the remaining to grow up some day. What kind of condition are LMB in? Are they fat? I did also try to balance an LMB population to the BCP and a very modest population of BG. One thing that concerned me was whether, given the top heavy BCP population, they may be a bit thin. I would like to know more about their condition before I could make any recs for adding predators.

Anyways, again, the BCP population is top heavy. They are thin because the food is limited. If you take away 37.5% of the Biomass by taking half the fish in the top two tiers ... the population will replace that biomass. Right now ... they may make a length increment ... but they cannot add weight when they have already filled the carry capacity. They just stay the same weight while the RW declines and they grow a little longer. Predators cannot help a top heavy forage fish population. Predators consume YOY and juvenile sized fish primarily. You are going to have to be the predator of 8" to 12" BCP. Again, I am just not sure you need any more predators, that is why I am not making a recommendation to stock extra at this time.

MnAngler,

After re-reading your last post I would like to comment on a couple of things. You said:


Just so that you understand, I didn't pluck any numbers out of thin air. All numbers were provided by you and I just did some analysis with your numbers. Nothing else. "My numbers" are "your numbers" expressed in a different format. To get good advice on balance, it is important to have an accurate understanding of populations. Your inch ranges have moved around a lot and I think you are trying to rely on memory of a very limited sampling. No fault there, I know you are trying to provide an accurate picture. I would just say, that if you aren't providing accurate information, the analysis will also reflect the same inaccuracy. If you are serious about managing this BOW at its peak performance, you will need a very accurate understanding of population proportions. At the very least, length measurements. I could work with length measurements and a gross weight too. But we need good data, not memory, if we are to truly do good analysis and make effective recommendations. Furthermore, good data on all species is really important. Good observations on year class recruitment or recruitment failure is also important.

I mentioned earlier that there is a food limitation. Your observations are evidence of that. Lets say your crappie are 70 RW (just hypothetically), what this means is that last year they were missing 30% of what they needed for maintenance at 100 RW. Give or take 3% or so. Let's say your pond produces the food required to support 150 lbs/crappie of crappie (just hypothetically). The support they need (in Minnesota) adds up to around 0.8 lbs of ingested animal dry matter. So around 120 lbs/acre. If they weigh 150 lbs/acre, you can rest assured they are getting it. But they needed (120/0.70=171 lbs) of animal dry matter. They get their ration from various pond organisms with various % dry matter content. The weighted average of that consumption would tell you the total weight of what they were eating. But lets just use shiners as an example. They are about 25% dry matter. So the difference of what they needed to be 100 RW is (51 x 4~200 lbs) of live shiners for each and every acre. Around a 4400 lbs shortfall of shiner forage overall for the BOW. If one didn't mind paying that every year then one could increase the carry capacity and fatten the hypothetical 150 lbs to 215 lbs. Now each and every year there after one would need to supplement the same 4400 lbs of shiners to maintain the same 215 carry capacity. Growth after the initial year will still depend on mortality. What ever (reasonable <50%) percent of the biomass dies, that percent will be replaced to fill the carry capacity. For BOWs that have reached carry capacity, highest growth will always be associated with the highest mortality. This is an immutable law that cannot be sidestepped without unlimited food supplementation (something that will lead to mass mortality anyway).

What is wrong with the BOW isn't really a food limitation. The condition of the BCP reflects the balance of food and the population numbers. There are too many BCP in the larger sizes to be supported in good condition. Their biomass at 100 RW requires more maintenance than the BOW can provide. Now it may well be producing a lot of food. Consider what 150 lbs of crappie need in terms of equivalent shiner consumption. Around 480 lbs equivalent or 9600 lbs of shiner equivalent produced annually. How much value is there(maybe $96,000)? All you have to do is bring your population into balance with this valuable natural production of food and the size and condition will be good. Mortality is the key to growth. You need to harvest a minimum of 20% of the biomass of > 8" BCP standing weight each year. Because it has been neglected for years, I recommended 37.5% this year. I don't think I would go beyond that number and would probably ease it back to 20 - 25% next year and following years.

There are ways to estimate population numbers (and biomass)from marking and recapture. I don't know how deep you want to go down the rabbit hole. Given the size of the BOW and the potential quantity of fish needing harvest, I think your plate is pretty full even getting close to the harvest needed. Whatever you do on that front should benefit the fish remaining even if you don't notice it by casual observation.

Pat, how do you get BCP to NOT spawn in south Texas?

If you could figure that out and apply it to other ponds, I think you could be a multi-millionaire pond manager.

All joking aside, I don't think I have ever seen a question on Pond Boss about providing increased spawning habitat for crappie. They seem to find a way to utilize whatever habitat that is remotely close to their preferred conditions.

Any ideas on what is different in your pond? Might start an interesting discussion among the experts?

Actually, contrary to popular belief, I have not seen the overpopulating problem nearly as bad with BCP, I personally fish in a number of ponds that have them and am not aware of a single one, where they are in a mix with LMB, or otherwise actually, that they overpopulate to the point of being stunted.
Now I cant say the same for WCP, I do fish a pond I know of where they overpopulate pretty bad, and also, I think the LMB in that pond have been decimated pretty bad by otters, used to have nice big LMB in it but not anymore.
Like Catscratch said, few things are more fun, or tasty, then trying to thin out a pond with too many BCP in it. and although I've not seen it in BCP, I do know that WCP, after you take a bunch of them out, you will see a definitive difference in size and weight in them in as little as a yr later.

I have 10+ LMB in my 6 acre pond that love to eat any size BCP that they can find. I used to catch quite a few but now can maybe get one in an hour of fishing for them. My neighbors have the same issue. To many LMB and way to many BG have stopped even LMB from pulling off a spawn. Have watched the BG raid LMB nests for several years.

Those dang LMB are going to town on your BCP. Though you wanted a BCP pond ... you have an absolutely awesome LMB pond that most everyone would be envious of.

To maintain the LMB fishery, you need recruits. Eventually your big old LMB will die. Some kind of ladder at 1 female per acre-year in the 1 to 2 lb range could help to buffer you for this transition.

Most of my interactions with crappie have been with the whites. Not in ponds, but in small lakes. For black crappie, the same, in small lakes. These waters supported good populations of crappie in the 7"-9" sizes. I just love this size crappie for fileting. I have caught thousands of them and never threw any back, LOL. Its been a few years since I have had the opportunity to fish for them but my bride really misses them and wants them in our pond.

I've read where crappie need to attain lengths of 10" to reliably spawn. I've also read where they need fish prey to be a significant part of their diet to reach lengths > 10". By the time they reach 10", the majority of the energy must come from fish prey. If abundant, they can grow at good rates of growth beyond that length. Where whites are concerned, I do know they don't have to be 10" to reliably spawn. Where such are very rare, there seemed to be no end to the spawning of WCP in the waters I fished. There were always WCP in sizes ranging from 4" to 10" where the predominant size was in the neighborhood of 8". Now all of these were stunted populations but for a fish that is stunted, an 8" WCP is mighty fine example of good eats. I have never really quite understood why anyone would disdain from harvesting WCP in this size.

One of the things mentioned above ... that is also corroborated by studies of monoculture. Neither WCP nor BCP are as prone to stunting as BG would be. So consider ponds with only BCP or WCP or at least primarily these fish. You have found they supported fish large enough to make the effort to harvest them. Sounds like you keep returning to them year after year to harvest a few messes of crappie. BG could never succeed at doing that on their own. There could be cases where BCP and WCP don't attain such lengths. This in large part depends on the biomass of their parent population when spawned. If the parental population is a major proportion of the carry capacity then their spawns will be mostly consumed by them. There isn't a lot of space for the YOY to grow into and so they grow slow and wind up on the menu ... mostly.

From time to time, I revisit the question of "What is the recipe for a successful crappie pond?" I have also visited the question, "Can WCP be successfully managed to have good balance with LMB in a two species pond?" So my interest in this last question is related to another observation that you mentioned that is also corroborated by the literature. WCP are more reliable spawners. So for and LMB/Crappie combination, wouldn't it make sense that WCP would provide more forage than BCP for LMB to eat? LMB need a good spawning fish to flourish but for fish that only spawn once a year, the biomass needs to be concentrated in fewer LMB. This allows the once a year spawn to produce the number of fish of larger average size that the bigger fewer LMB need. One the other hand, we could consider the opposite, where very few WCP/BCP grow to intermediate lengths that Big LMB need. Such a pond would contain (fewer but larger) crappie and more smaller LMB. Either is a balance that in theory could be achieved by managing the population structure.

So why don't crappie play nice with LMB? I think this is an important question where the answer probably lies with LMB recruitment. In your WCP example above, you noted large LMB in that pond when it produced better WCP and also mentioned you thought the population of large LMB were decimated by otters resulting in an overpopulation of WCP. Not saying that otters didn't do it, but I will also mention that Large LMB are susceptible to mortality due to their age. If they hadn't been replacing themselves, natural mortality may have played an important role in that pond's loss of predators. WCP have decent sized mouths (bigger than BG) and so LMB YOY would be vulnerable to predation by WCP for more extended periods of time. Competition with and predation by WCP YOY probably also play a role. WCP are more inclined to eat fish prey than BCP. So all these things considered, it is possible that LMB are prone to successive years of recruitment failure when combined with WCP. Without recruitment of LMB, WCP will eventually overpopulate without successful recruitment of LMB.

So how could one fight this dynamic as a management strategy? One possible plan is to opt for abundant LMB where the LMB are so abundant that WCP cannot attain large population numbers. Another possible plan is to plan for no LMB recruitment stocking only female LMB and supplementing the lack of recruitment with ladder stocking of female LMB (1-2 lb fish) annually. The idea here would be to have LMB spread evenly across year classes thus buffering natural mortality due to aging. If WCP are better at squashing LMB recruitment than BG, then they may even be a better candidate for the female only strategy than BG would be. Just some interesting thoughts on the matter.

In general, we are discouraged to add crappie to ponds but there probably are ways to very effectively manage them. Would be great to explore this and have some ponds dedicated to these strategies to follow here at PB.

Are the LMB keeping down the crappie population by eating the large ones, or are the tiny BG keeping down the crappie population by eating thousands of fry?

Even if only a few crappie reach the correct size to spawn, a female BCP can still produce 40,000 eggs.

If Pat has a relatively small number of trophy size bass, what is eating the 2-3" BG in the pond?

Pat, have you checked for stunting of your BG? I agree with jpsdad above where he suggests adding a few smaller bass each year. I believe that would extend the balance of your awesome pond a little while longer.

I have caught some BG this spring over a pound, the others don’t seem stunted that I can tell just a lot of them. Walking the dam I can see bunches of BG surrounding the LMB trying to spawn. This year the crappie haven’t been seen close to the bank- only LMB and BG. Last spring I caught 25 crappie 12-14” from my neighbors pond and released them in my pond. The few that I catch here are 8-10” and few and far between. I catch more bass on crappie jigs than anything. They range from 10-14” some 1-1/2# mixed in . I haven’t kept any BCP at all . We eat the LMB if under a pound plus or minus. Haven’t kept any BG to eat(don’t care for them).
Wonder if I should try to add a few breeding size WCP?

These are really good questions FishingRod

Pat, in your best judgment, what percentage of the LMB population is 8-12", 12"-15", 15"-20", and >20"?

Pat, I was just asking lots of questions about your pond as a learning exercise.

I think I remember some excellent LMB reports from your pond. I know that a managed fish population is always a moving target, but "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." is frequently wise advice.

Were the large crappie you caught at the neighbors' pond WCP or BCP? I would be reluctant to add WCP when apparently BCP have worked out very well for you in the past.

I would say that the ones I catch are mostly are 12-20

jpsdad,

Yes I understand that large LMB target the optimal size of BG forage for them.

However, I think I am missing some step in the progression.

If the LMB are predominantly eating the 3-6" BG, then I would expect a very heavy population of 2-3" BG. You frequently provide excellent data on the feed consumption required to increase the size of LMB. Apply those principles you vividly describe to the BG.

What I don't understand is how the 2-3" BG increase in size? If there are thousands of them in the pond, I would expect that they quickly consume all of the forage that is "right sized" for them. How do the small BG find enough calories to increase their size to become large BG? Is the productivity of a fertile pond sufficient to create a large enough natural food chain to amply supply calories for each size cohort of forage fish?

I do not remember if Pat runs a fish feeder to supplement the growth rate of the BG. Is that the key step? If the small BG get commercial food supplementation, then they can readily turn into large BG?

Sure. The first thing I would point you to is Anderson on Population Structure (PSD). He more or less wrote the book on this and others have expanded. They separate fish classes based on length ranges (Stock, Quality, Preferred, Memorable, and Trophy). For BG the stock designation begins with 3" and ends with 6". BG that are below 3" in length are not counted. You may ask why?. Well for one thing they comprise a very minor portion of the biomass even when they greatly outnumber all the rest of the population combined. Second, they fluctuate due to predation. At swim up there may be millions. But when a single 4" BG can eat 2200 of them an hour, they get whittled down fast. Only a minor fraction of them survive to grow beyond 1". If there is a sufficient biomass of BG in the 3-6" range, it is possible that none of the millions grow beyond 1" until the 3-6" fish are thinned down by predators. Generally speaking the biomass of 1-3" BG is always small when there is a sizable population of BG in the pond. Take a look at the image below where I depict different balance strategies as proposed by Anderson in a graph.



What I would like for you to notice is how populated the 3" to 6" are in the BIG BASS scenario. They are 25 times more populous in the Big Bass scenario than in the Big BG. Why? Because there are not enough small LMB to prevent their recruitment into the 3-6" stock class. Why does the stock class of BIG BG scenario have so few? Because there are enough LMB to prevent most all that grow larger than 1" from growing to 3". I did try to explain this before, so this is very important. The juvenile class of BG plays the pivotal role for recruitment of BG > 30mm (1.2"). When they are numerous much fewer are recruited to the 1-3" sizes. So the BIG BASS scenario both doesn't need to nor does it actually recruit as many 1" BG as the BIG BG scenario. This seems counterintuitive but it is natures balance. When LMB are less numerous, few numbers reach 1" but greater numbers reach 3". The opposite is true when LMB are more numerous. Much larger numbers of BG reach 1" but far fewer numbers reach 3". This is essential for balance under various predator densities and Nature has this baked in. Isn't this just beautiful how Nature works?

Now you asked:


As I said before, they have minor biomass and so can easily grow on things we call first consumers. They get more out these small creatures than larger BG can. There is almost always plenty of food available to BG of small sizes. That is why they grow at such remarkable rates of growth.

When I first started studying Anderson, one thing stood out. He stated that when a pond was balanced and running on all cylinders, the carrying capacity was about 50% full. I have since really learned to appreciate this. Consider this, at 16% of a ponds biomass, LMB must consume 80% of the biomass yearly in order to tread water and maintain their weight (at 5 lbs BG per 1 lb LMB). Now stop just for moment and contemplate the magnitude of this consumption need. If the biomass proportion of LMB is 16%, then the biomass proportion of the BG is 84%. IOWs, for maintenance the LMB need 95% of the standing weight of BG every year. Let that sink in.

Because we know that most of the BG population is to big for the LMB to eat, there is only one way this can happen. Large numbers of small BG must grow and die as LMB prey that are not part of this adult population. Now in this context what Anderson said about 50% of the carry capacity makes sense. The 50% of unused carry capacity is growing a weight of consumable BG that is very nearly equal to or possibly exceeds the standing of adult BG that are too big to eat. That's where the food comes from to grow the consumable sizes. It comes from reserved unused carrying capacity. So when we say carry capacity for BG, we really do mean the carry capacity of BG under predation. For a pond that carries 300 lbs of BG and 50 lbs of LMB, this same pond might max at 600 lbs BG with no LMB present. Its counter intuitive, and few here agree with me, but I have argued for a long time that it is important to ensure that the adult BG population does not become excessive. I will always stand by that even though I am a minority on that position.

Hey, jpsdad, how many ponds do you have with Black Crappie in them?

Theo back to being confrontational. Sorry Theo, I am not biting.

Considering the tomes of commentary put forth, Theo's question is valid, and not at all confrontational, in my opinion.

Regardless, the answer to his question is most likely "none" or "zero."

However, the original poster does indeed have a small lake at 22 acres, as opposed to a pond.

Sunil,

No, it isn't valid. Essentially he is trying to discredit commentary based on ownership of a pond with crappie.

I have a question for you.

What are your thoughts on my arguments and analysis of the OP's own population proportions?

I ask this question because I reviewed considerably before replying with my analysis. I did worry little about how much abuse from Theo and Sunil will I have to take. To be sure, I didn't recommend stocking predators after the OP responded with population proportions and I worried you would be either offended by the disagreement or just peeved. To be sure, its a much easier path to avoid any disagreement. So I was presented with a dilemma, either present the analysis of his data, in his pond, OR meek out say nothing. I wanted to help the OP, so I didn't meek out and if not me ... then who else? If his data is good, then so was my analysis of his population structure and my restraint from recommending predators at this time is warranted. The advice I gave about harvesting was proportional to the catch and so would work with any carrying capacity of crappie.

I would just say, I do not mind disagreement. When someone disagrees, I stop and listen. When I read something in the literature that doesn't jive with what I currently think, I just have to understand why the author has come to those conclusions. It's one of the biggest drivers of expanding knowledge. Hey, I want to be a part of that. So I guess what I am saying, is that if you disagree with my analysis, you are welcome to explain why and make your arguments as where my analysis of the OPs data of his unique small lake is faulty. If you do that in a logically consistent way that I cannot disagree with, I will graciously change my mind and thank you. On the other hand, if the source of disagreement is that I don't own a pond with crappie, then all I can say is "Your analysis of the OPs population proportions is "none" or "zero" while your analysis of whether I own a pond with crappie is "spot on". I will just add, that if you were to take the OPs populations and worked with it to estimate biomass proportions ... I very much doubt that you would disagree.

Anyways, judging the validity of the analysis of a unique lake's unique crappie population proportions based on whether the analysis was done by someone owning a pond with crappie just doesn't make sense. If it did, the same would apply to every other poster recommending things. For example, one could ask "How many ponds with crappie have you corrected with the OPs crappie population structure by stocking tiger muskie at your recommended rates?" If you have, by all means provide the diligent metrics that demonstrate the cause and effect.

So I totally understand that you and Theo don't like me. The tone is very clear, not just to me, but I think to most everyone. I would say, I don't feel that way. I would much prefer to be friends with both of you. But I also understand that is totally up to you. Friends just accept each other as they are with what ever faults each may have. Anyways, the invitation is always open if you are ever a mind to.

What's the source of your "expertise"? If it s experience, state it. If it's someone else's work, give credit. If it's common wisdom, add that disclaimer.

People you are giving "advice" to deserve to know.

P.S. It ain't just me and Sunil.

Sure Theo, the source of my expertise is Willis, Anderson, Swingle, among many, many others. I take their findings and apply these principles with models. In the analysis I provided the inspiration comes for Anderson and Bill Cody.

If the proportions of the different length classes are known, then it stands to reason that the biomass proportions can be determined. That is all me, as for as I know, I am just trying to apply what I have learned from them. It is intuition that owning a pond with crappie will NEVER endow a person with. All the same, its is analysis of the biomass structure of the crappie that is unique to the OPs pond according the OPs own observations. I just disagree that someone else's pond is a clear example of what should be done with his pond. It is often said here that every pond is different. I agree with that, The advice should be pertinent to his pond and his data ... applying principles that are sound.

You complain about "tomes" and to be sure I really do wish I could explain things with much fewer words. But I do try to provide enough detail that anyone ... who with a mind to ... can replicate and review the analysis. For example, it is hardly any trouble to put together a spreadsheet and see for oneself. I can assure you, that if you, Sunil, and anyone were to do that they won't find fault with biomass proportions estimate. Some may even appreciate it. But as long as advice has to come from some prerequisite pond experience that isn't the same pond, I don't think the advice will ever be as good as it could be.

Rod I would say that all the large crappie were BCP that were transferred from neighbors pond and as I haven’t caught and removed any BCP since they were stocked . Still no signs of BCP recruitment or LMB. Very frustrating sometimes. Low pond level doesn’t help .

It's too long for me to read, frankly.

Of course, all we are doing is speculating on the original poster's anecdotal information. As such, it's hard to see how one can then make conclusions that seem to be presented as definitive information.

From what I can tell, the OP has strong case of overpopulation of Black Crappie, a lack of forage, and a lack of predators that can keep Black Crappie numbers down. Material changes have to be made to right the ship.

I'm going to step in this pile in regards to the missing Crappie element in Pat's pond.. At one time, I believed BG were possibly affecting BCP recruitment, but That is an assumption, not any fact. I believe there is another element missing that is needed for both species to recruit to some level.
I've seen crappie recruit in plain, cover free ponds, massive habitat ponds and everything in-between.
I'd love to spend a week down there with my compliment of nets to look at population structure as an experiment. Not sure we could come to a conclusion but there "might" be something show it's ugly face.

I'm going to add one other comment, then I've got fish to tend to... TM are NOT a good choice for crappie control.

I believe the OP said he does not really want LMB. That doesn't leave a lot of options for a predator that can do anything with Black Crappie. If you could hook him up with some Saugeye........

Thanks for dropping in to add your 2 cents.

Take good care of your fish, spring is rapidly approaching. I hope your fish find very good new "homes" this year!

OK, so at least extend me the courtesy of withholding judgment of the merits of my commentary. If you don't have a thorough understanding of the commentary then you are unqualified to judge its merits. I will encourage you to doubt it and seek to find fault with it. In so doing, you will learn what the commentary is and why I made the rec I did. What you will find, is that I will do everything I can to answer your questions and provide the basics of the analysis. If you like, we could take it offline. I am a very helpful person that you don't even know yet. Honestly, I don't think you would disagree with the commentary based on the information the OP provided if you take a deeper look under the hood. You may appreciate some things you might learn from it to apply elsewhere.

I agree that the OP data appears rather anecdotal and subject to the error of memory. I addressed this and presented the recs as "tongue in cheek" and "tentative". I warned the OP that for the analysis to be good, that his data from whence the analysis is derived must also be good. I tried not to inject my own impressions of a pond I have never seen nor fished. I trusted his observations because that is all I had to work with.

This is very interesting water that seems to have produced 4 lb LMB in 5 years in Minnesota. Reasonable growth, I think. The BG per the poster just meet minimum expectations for quality fish. The BCP have attained lengths >12" with more than 50% of the biomass of crappie concentrated in >10" BCP (per the OPs population proportions). Dang, its a dandy lake really. The crappie are thin (maybe other species are too), but this can be corrected by harvest. Having only the OPs observations to work with, the >10" population was already over represented but I just can't see thinning this size of BCP with predators. It makes a lot of sense to me to filet them. The effect of adding predators may help down the road after the existing populations >10" BCP have long since died. It will take time to influence the condition of fish in the >10" tier of BCP by using predation.

Oh, I've read many of them, so I can certainly judge any of them if I were to want to; I just don't want to.

Respectfully, Theo's question is valid especially set against the vast writings you've developed based on conversational and anecdotal information. So, from my perspective, if the foundation is weak to begin with (and that's no offense to the original poster, or you), then I don't really put any weight in any kind of scientific analysis based on stacked assumptions, let alone spend the time to read it. As such, I'm not bothered by it.

Obviously you enjoy writing.

Can the OP get Saugeye???

This would be a great study on Snipe's project if we could get it to happen.

It would, but they'd need a LOT - 20-40 per acre fro a 21-22 acre lake? Hopefully Snipe can chime in sometime. But being HighSchool Seniors, I don't know how much disposable $$ they have!

Sunil, if you had a choice, would it be beer or fish at that age? ROFL

It'd be both!!! But only bucket stocking!!

I'll chip in some funds if it's possible to get Saugeye there with no strings attached.

If Snipe is down with it, maybe there's a way to ship Saugeye frye. I thought he had the capability.

Can I vote for beer-battered fish? That is a very tasty compromise!

I would be willing to chip in on the saugeye experiment. I think it's great that a couple of high school students can take interest in a project like this. Maybe we could get some other forum members to join in.

As an aside jpsdad I have read many of your replies and I am sure that you give plenty of thought to them. But my personal opinion is many of them seem to be condescending. Almost as if you are trying to prove that you're more intelligent than the rest of us. That's not always a bad thing but having to deal personally with large groups of people that are your peers I have found that it generally rubs people the wrong way

Snipe come on with it! I would like to have a fishable population of BCP so I could actually eat some. As far as weeds I am overrun with underwater spike rush across whole pond. Good hiding place for the lil fellers and shrimp
Ps I have Never thought that jpsdad was condescending to anyone. I like and respect his information, just my two cents

He's back!!! Glad to see you made it back from your trip.

5-8 per acre is as high as we've stocked in 35-150 acre impoundments but I would say 10/ac is safe but they will really thin the BCP as they grow at about 1.2-1.5 times faster than WAE.
I would donate 50 6-8", maybe 75.
Fry need shipped on day 2 overnight and stocked out immediately when received. They also should be stocked from a boat throughout the middle of the lake.
I will have Sauger collected on the 8th, WAE eggs will be fertilized on the 17th, probably have hatch starting around the 22nd or 23rd..

MnAngler,

It seems like there could be some great benefits to trying Saugeye in your pond, and people willing to help with no strings attached. Of course, we all hope you update us on the project.

Can you check with all the decision makers on your end to see if there's any interest and support?

I think the OP also likes Walleye as a desired species, so what will he/they get with Saugeye, relatively?

Saugeye is a cross between Walleye and Sauger? And does not get as big as Walleye?

Looks like some of the state record Saugeye are 8 and 9 lbs, and over 25" long.

Maybe like a great Dane and a chihuahua cross won't get as big as the Great Dane?

Walleye state records approx. range from 12-18 lbs.

If Snipe is going to send them some fry I'll donate a little $$ for shipping for these kids.


Of course if Snipe is shipping fry and I'm writing a check I might as well have him ship me some too... Snipe, let me know if that is possible.

Now that we've used them within the state for 28 years I posed the question this am to my Reg 1 Bio about which he would prefer..His personal opinion is he would rather have SAE than WAE because of growth rates and total recruitment.
The further you get from absolutely perfect water conditions, the better the SAE do in comparison.
We have trouble in KS with rule enforcement because even Game Wardens have a hard time telling them apart.
As for size, most large WAE come from large impoundments, SAE, not the case, they seem to continue to grow as long as they have the right forage regardless of pond/lake size.

I'd rather deliver them 2nd day post hatch vs shipping, I have complete control of temp and handling that way and yes, I can make that happen.

Pat, I appreciate your comment. I know its uncomfortable to stick your neck out like that. I don't expect anyone to do that. All the same, I value your friendship and those who replied to me by PM.

CB100, oddly enough, I appreciate your comment also. Notwithstanding how you feel, because I know your feelings and opinion are real, I have not tried to prove that I am more intelligent than you are anyone else. The reason I post these things, is because I think you and most everyone else is intelligent enough to grasp it, use it, create additional conversation around, etc. What I think and feel is completely the opposite of your feelings and opinion. I don't like that you feel this way and have this opinion. What I most dislike most about it, is how you feel. This is definitely not my intent nor the desired result.

I have read through my posts in this thread and I think my commentary should stand given the limited information we have. IOWs, I see no cause to alter my thoughts that thinning the crappie by harvest is most advantageous and that adding additional predator might need further consideration of pending information we don't yet have. All that said, it is clear that, as community we have decided that a predator introduction is much needed. So much so, that it is going to be gratis to the BOW owner. Notwithstanding my dissent, I am "getting with the program". So IOWs, I am supporting what we as forum after reviewing all information currently available, have found a consensus with only one dissenting (however dysfunctional arriving at that consensus may have been). The consensus being that the clear remedy is that the BOW needs a predator infusion of SAE by inoculating fry. These fry will do their best and the strongest among them will carve a place for themselves and will later contribute to the consumption of prey fish as they grow. I am hoping, just like Sunil, that good data can be collected to plot the growth and condition of prey and predators alike so that we can judge, if not the efficacy of a fry introduction and SAE growth rates in MN ponds, at least whether as community, by working together, we were able to find a solution that was effective for this particular member's particular BOW.

In the spirit of deferring to consensus, I want this project to have its maximum opportunity for success. One thing I worry about being problematic is the timing of the inoculation. Will the MN BOW be ready for the fry when they are stocked is my main concern. For example, is there any chance that there will be ice cover for example? Is a minimum temperature required? Could the difference in latitude between the source and destination create logistical constraints that should be considered and planned for? I know nothing about this aspect as it pertains to SAE and will not be able to make recommendations but I am very keen to read what Snipe has to say regarding it. In any event, I am not trying to make any feel unintelligent by bringing this up. I just don't want to be the one who didn't speak up when there was an opportunity to plan for a more successful opportunity.

Can't shut up, can you?

Too funny Theo! Especially considering your broken record comment. I guess I have the same fault you do.

This in-house bickering is why some very intelligent forum folks have left from posting!

Collected Sauger last night. Plan is fertilize WAE eggs 19-20 March. I also have the option of obtaining eggs on the 26-27th and again April 5-15 from a Colorado source at 5500'elevation, which would put the fry at last week of April, which I agree with jpsdad, would be the best option going up north. New hatch are delicate, require a bloom for obvious reasons.
I can do 30 day old, 3/4-1" fish as well and might be the best option for MN stocking. I won't be selling these in general so If 1" is best, I'm willing to tackle that for this project but I need to hear from the MN owner because paperwork is required.
All that I would ask is the owner keep us informed going fwd on any and all changes.
If Fry are requested, I need addresses per PM

I'm still in to support things with some money if the OP is down with it.

From my Reg 1 bio based on best practices for BCP/WCP management:

Re: Stocking SAE

Initially we stocked fingerlings but availability became an issue due to requested numbers.
As you are aware, I have mainly been stocking fry most years now. Usually stocked fry at 1000/ac, annually, but more recently 500/ac.
Recruitment variability determines year class strength almost regardless of stocking rate.
Most important to maintain good numbers of smaller SAE to keep the heat on small crappie.
I would go up to 3000/ac for introductory and annual followup with 500-1000/ac maintenance thereafter.
May be able to get by with biannual stockings also, depending on recruitment.

I agree with Pat W. Bickering among or between members is not conducive for good forum participation. I think we should accept all types of honest input as long as it is not offensive nor derogatory and follows the Forum Posting Guidelines. .

Looks like the LMB are getting ready to start their spawning…. Haven’t seen or caught any BCP in the shallows as of yet , looks like perfect conditions

Sorry for not replying for a while, school has quite the hold on my time at the moment. But Sunil, it’s not that I don’t want the LMB in the pond, I think they’re an awesome addition, they just aren’t my top priority. I do recognize that they are a big help in trying to get the lake back into shape, but I’d like other predatory species if possible, mainly walleye or saugeye after catching up with the posts.

Thank you to everyone that is willing to help/ helped out already. I'll need to contact the MN DNR most likely, as well as the city, just to be safe about stocking. Other than that, Snipe, what other paperwork would be needed to fill out? Feel free to PM me if its sensitive.

I am also a little gun-shy of stocking anything right now, due to current weather patterns. This year MN has had an extremely warm and dry winter, we've only had 1 inch of precipitation since Jan 1st. The lakes have thawed out around the Twin Cities and south of them, which is abnormal for this time of year. What concerns me though is what's to come. The current weather forecast is saying that we will be back to our average temps for this time of the year, being maybe up to 36-38 degrees F during the day, and below 20 and sometimes below 15 at night. It's predicted that it will stay like this roughly 3 weeks, which could very well put ice back on the lakes. This as well as some snow heading my way could put a damper in the project.
Snipe, should these be concerns or would it not matter?

MnAngler, I could be wrong on this, but if you check with the State of Minnesota and are good with them, I don't you'll need to check with any local or city 'authorities.'