Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations We're gonna need a bigger dozer

Wow! Massive project ML!

Would your lake's depth be mostly dammed, or mostly dug?

If it's even 20% dug, what on earth will you do with all that dirt? I'm going berserk trying to place just a fraction of the dirt in your lake. I'm giving away a lot of dirt to neighbors and friends, but nothing makes much of a dent in it.

If/when you break ground, WE WANT PICTURES!

BoBad,

Whatever it turns out to be, it will be an embankment pond not an excavated pond. Pictures, you bet. I'm trying to set up a web site now to accomodate the pictures and I hope you guys will join in to track progress...but this will be a long term project, won't even start on turning the first dirt until next spring.

If I do a lot of the work, which I plan to do, you all will loose interest because of the slow progress.

Theo will probably have joined the 10,000 Superworm club by the time I get this going.

I'll stay with your reports no matter how slow, ML. I have had to develop a long term outlook toward progress; it took 15 years for me to get my first pond, I've been waiting 13 years (so far) in between finishing barn #3 and starting barn #4 (with no definite end in sight), and it takes me a year to get enough (bad weather) time together to rebarrel/restock a rifle. So if I have to fish my way through 10,000 worms (about 5 years, I think) for you to finish, I'll do it!

ML,

Help me understand your statement about mutiple small ponds vs. single large pond and fishing pressure? How is is different?

Here is mike's phone number 800 882 dirt. I don't have his e-mail address. One of the ways that Mike was able to save me money was by only moving dirt once. He used excess dirt to build islands and three large paninsuelas. I was taking the dirt behind the dam one day when he asked what about just leaving it where it was to form structure instead of a smooth bottom. This approach saved a lot of work and also made a better pond. The topography of your land would dictate what could be done but only someone like Mike can instantly see that. George Spann who was at the meeting can tell you what happens when you hire someone who doesn't know what they are doing.

Gator,

My response will be somewhat long and I apologize for that in advance.

My thinking has been influenced by my own experiences with multiple ponds, by publications/articles I have read, and information gleaned from Saturday’s session with Bob Lusk and the gang (one of which included some very interesting points from “Tentmaker Farm” who has multiple ponds). The decision on one pond vs multiple ponds does not hinge on catchability alone, as there are several factors that come into play. However, you asked about catchability, so let’s start there.

Let’s just use one 12 acre pond vs three 4 acre ponds as an example. We could just as easily use one 8 acre pond vs four 2 acre ponds.

Remember the expression (repeated many times by Bob Lusk on Saturday) that 90% of the fish live in 10% of the pond, which pretty much matches my own experience. In ponds on the order of 12 acres, one person fishing regularly can easily condition the LMB. That requires fishing only about 1 acre effectively to do that. Repeated fishing (I’m talking about weekly) will accomplish that, in my opinion. Now, if that same person on one week fishes one 4 acre pond, then the following week fishes another pond, and so on the fishing pressure is effectively reduced by 2/3 and the fish have a chance to unlearn or “uncondition” in the ponds that are rested.

Okay, one can argue that you would have to fish all three small ponds each time to have a comparable experience to fishing the 12 acre pond once and argue that by limiting the fishing to one 4 acre pond a week, you are sacrificing quality. I don’t believe so (90% of the fish in 10% of the water). I believe the effect of rest/rotation far offsets the possible reduced quality from fishing a 4 acre pond vs a 12 acre pond.

For this discussion, I need to define a quality pond fishing session. That definition will vary from person to person. For me, my family, and friends, a pond fishing session typically amounts to about two hours in length. We don’t pound the water all day long; we generally will fish the morning or evening shifts and do other things during the day. Now, my definition of a quality pond fishing session is 10 to 15 predator fish in a typical 2 hour session with an opportunity to catch one 7 pound plus predator. Opportunity does not equal catch. I also include big BG in addition to the predators, although not what I define as a predator, to be part of a quality pond fishing experience.

Granted, I don’t own or manage enough ponds to be able to say this or prove this conclusively. However, actual evidence of spectacular LMB fishing (not just quality) in a ¾ acre unmanaged pond and a ¼ acre unmanaged pond both of which were limited to semi-annual fishing vs my 3.5 acre pond which is fished weekly and yields very poor LMB fishing, leads me to believe that there is indeed something to consider here.

When you throw other considerations including the ability to refesh genetics, to have specialty ponds, and to have experimental ponds, the case swings me over to that approach. Then when I add to that the consideration that I could do much of the construction myself (which I like and which means my limited $ will stretch farther), the case becomes even stronger for multiple small ponds vs one large pond.

When I try to see the pluses for the other side of the argument, i.e. one large pond, I just don’t find compelling reasons that support that position. As it always does, when faced with decisions regarding ponds, it comes down to what are one’s objectives. If you are looking for true “trophy” LMB fishing, then perhaps the pendulum swings the other way. If you are looking for solid reliable quality fishing experiences with a legitimate chance at LMB in the 7 plus pound category, then perhaps the pendulum goes the other direction.

OK,

Let me ask this per the reply - if we agree for sake of argurment that 90% fish live in 10% of the water. The in a 12 acre lake that equaltes to 1.2 "fishable acres". In the other example, 3 - 4 acre ponds - is .4 acres each times 3 = 1.2 "fishable acres". Net-net same opportunity, right?

BTW, Im not for/against either particular approach, but think it's all in the management and desire of the owner and personal preference.

In the example above, my focus (should?) be to improving the "fishable acres" ratio from 10% to 20%, therefore inproving the impoundments I have (whatever size). Did you have a discussion about "why" 90% fo the fish live in 10% of the water? What was Bob's perspective here?

Gator,

Yes same acreage with fish...but the difference, at least as it appears to me, is that in the 12 acre pond I can condition just about every fish with repeated sessions whereas the other case, the fish don't even see a lure or fisherman a high % of the time. I believe bass do not have to be caught to be conditioned. Fish a school of them, after a time the ones that haven't been caught get conditioned. Now that's probably going to raise some eyebrows in disagreement.

Salt water flats are a good example of this behavior. Every lodge that is worth anything or wants to stay in business knows that they have to "rest" flats and rotate fishermen onto flats that have not seen a fisherman in a few days. Have all those fish been caught? Hardly, they become conditioned to seeing the results of a fisherman on the flats.

Have all fish that flee a heron been attacked by a heron before? Or have they observed their buddies disappear on the end of a heron's beak?

One day last winter after arriving to the ponds after a week away, I walked out on one pier and was astounded to see hundreds of fish hiding under the pier. The pond had been attacked by water turkeys and the fish that hadn't been eaten figured out that they better find a place to hide. Had those fish been directly attacked by water turkeys? Probably not, or they would not have survived.

I certainly don't claim to know the answers, but just go on what I have observed and read. I thank you for the questions and for the discussion.

Regarding Bob's 90/10 ratio, no we didn't discuss why that is the case...at least I don't recall any discussion of that. Maybe someone else who was there will chime in on your question.

Again, thanks for the discussion...and if I sound like I think I know the answers, then my bad. I don't. I;m just trying to sort out the questions, let alone know the answers to this activity we call pond management.

ML,

I was attempting to say (but somehow missed) why not fish 1/3 of the larger pond each session...wouldnt that equal the fishing pressure on the 3 smaller ponds in rotation?

Good discussion here.

This 90/10 rule sounds interesting to me. Assuiming 90/10 is the rule - changing the paradigm to 80/20 could yield double the fishable acres?

Gator

No you didn't miss. I missed in my explaination. I understood your point. Let me try again, please.

My point: bass are conditioned by the mere act of fishing and fish being caught. They don't have to be caught to be conditioned. With the 90/10 hypothesis, I can condition every bass in a 12 acre pond rather easily...I only have to fish that 1.2 acres where they all hang out with regularity. The other case, the bass in the ponds that aren't fished, don't get conditioned by me fishing in one pond. Two ponds get an extensive rest...studies show that bass can and do forget conditioning...you just have to hit that timing right.

p.s. by the way, I'm not likely to avoid that area where 90% of the fish hang out. Thats where I will fish, every time...maybe others more self-controlled can fish where they know there are no fish, but not me.

Mr. Bojangles coined the 90-10 phrase after decades of river fishing, and it's was my understanding that it's a good "rule of thumb". Bob just noticed that after years of pond management, the pattern appeared to hold true in other places. That's not to say that "if" you identify what's in the area that 90% of the fish prefer, and copy that habitat time after time, you can't swing the odds in your favor ! There were so many good stories & tactics told, I hope everyone else had as much fun as I did.

There was one other special area discussed that was truely amazing. Aggressive vs Passive bass behavior. Even within the same species (i.e. Northers or Florida). Ewest gave out posts/info on this one. The general concept was that fish that readily bit on artificial bait, had a higher rate of offspring that were aggressive. Sounds typical right ? Wouldn't you like to stock 100% of your bass with those traits ? Would it suprise you if 30% of your hatchery bass were passive and never bit a hook ? Worse yet, they were the broodstock for your future generations ?

Eastland,

Mr. Bojangles didn't have exclusive rights to that saying...my grandfather in Missouri who was one heck of a fisherman, told me the same thing over 50 years ago.

I just never knew how smart he was.

I have come to the conclusion that pond design might increase the 10% to a larger amount. Fish will orient on structure where they can find food and/or safety. I believe a meandering ridge that runs from one end of the pond to the other with appropriately placed structure will scatter the fish. Put it in about 6 or 8 ft. of water adjacent to deep water. Then place smaller brushpiles adjacent in shallower water to hold forage fish. This will create a fish highway with good stopover points. It also scatters and increases holding spots for forage fish.

Of course, this might not hold true for open water fish like white bass or HSB. But they also seem to orient on underwater humps and ridges.

I've been thinking about this concept for awhile and trying to relate fish settlement with human and animal settlement. If you look at early human settlement, it seemed to mostly happen along rivers or near water. This is structure for us and was a visible landmark to orient on. It also offered a lot of what we need in terms of food and access. Most life orients on structure. Until we got too crowded, very few towns were settled out in the open in some random spot. There has usually been some sort of structural attractant.

I think fish, like us, are seldom anywhere by themselves at a purely random spot. All life goes to structure with others of its kind. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule and I just might be full of BS.

Dave :

I agree. The 90/10 rule works in natural waters. In ponds with bottom structure and added cover {trees, brush, or art.} I think its more like 70/30 . This is even more so when you have fish highways as you described to lead them to more brush piles. I have seen underwater films of man made phosphate lakes in Fla. where the entire lake has fish in the amounts of thousands of lbs. per acre. ewest