Pond Boss Forums STOCKING A NEW POND Types of fish to choose Gizzard shad

Meadowlark - Finally a little controversy. Things were getting too dry around here. Thanks Meadowlark for getting this started. I think this board thrives on discussion. I think it makes it better; at least more interesting. Here is more of my opinions on this topic.

Firstly you asked for input good or bad, positive or negative. I provided several facts and maybe a couple disadvantages (including one expert opinion) about gizzard shad. I figured others would provide plenty of the positive side. I often try and present the alternative view so both sides are available. Often views or articles are biased toward an objective. See later.

Note I did not say that I thought g.shad should never be stocked into a pond or lake; that was Huner's opinion not mine. Reread my postscript. You seemed to focus primarily on the small negative part of my Nov 8 post.

Secondly. Reread Kendric's PBoss article which I think was pretty good and informative if you are primarily interested in growing trophy LMB. I do not dispute what he says. But he implies or leads one to believe that g.shad will are okay for most all private waters for growing large bass. He needs to remember the research he cites was from southern waters and all the research was from fertilized or nutrient rich waters. Not all ponds fit that mold or description. In less nutrient rich waters food items become limiting and fingerlings and panfish rely more on plankton and start competing intra and inter species wise more aggressively due to the lower food amounts. In these situations I think they do not need shad as extra competitors, especially if trophy bass are not the GOAL.

Kendric Nutt in the PB article qualified as prerequsites the stocking of G.shad that the lake /pond should be fertilized and it should have bass in the 24-28" range that are capable of consuming the larger g.shad (10"-12") so they (shad adults) do not overpopulate. None of Kendric's references dealt with studies of fishery populations in the presence of over abundant shad populations. Those studies do exist. Kendric's article and referenced studies assumed unlimited plankton communities. Shad are proven consumers of the larger forms of zooplankton and their presence does have a definate impact of the species structure and composition of the zooplankton community. This is what biomanipulation ecology is based on.

Thirdly. Kendric stated that the typical large g.shad he sees is 12". If g.shad only grew to "12 & smaller" they would be even more acceptable in my opinion as forage fish. Bring Kendric to northern Ohio where g.shad live longer than they do in the south and I will show him lots of g.shad 15" to 19" long. I could even send home with a truck load of them. LMB would need to be abt 30" to 38" long to eat these oversized shad. (note, a 38" bass weighs abt 35 lbs, maybe 38 lbs with a freshly eaten 3 lb shad; nice bass!).

Fourthly. I would like to talk or email Kendric. Does he participate and have an alternative handle on this forum? I want to ask him if his MS thesis study looked at bgill in unfertilized ponds and if he studied bgill feeding habits during winter in ice covered ponds?. Better yet I would like a copy of his MS Thesis to study and learn from. Winter feeding bgills (large and small) rely heavily on large sized zooplantkon to maintain body condition when aquatic insects are basically dormant or not active or emerging. Large sized zooplankton are the first to disappear when shad are present. His MS thesis study may not have been all inclusive regarding bgill feeding. Plus in his article he noted he studied only small bgill for his research and did not study feeding habits of large and trophy bgill. He might have assumed too much from his study.

Kendric's article is primarily what I was referring to above about presenting the "other side" of the argument. I think the goal of his PB article was to promote g.shad for raising large bass which he convincingly performed. But he did little to warn of any disadvantages of using g.shad, and as far as his article explains, there are no disdvantages of stocking g.shad. I tend to disagree somewhat. I do disagree with his quote that "scientific research ... shows proof that there is no downside to stocking shad". The average pond owner and reader has to be able to put everything he stated into context when they read and believe that statement. I'm not sure many can do this without extensive ecology /fishery backgrounds. G.shad can be good or bad depending on the pondowner's goals and management methods. I am trying to present the other side of the picture. Always be careful what you believe from what you read. This includes what I "print". There is always another side to the story.

As I always say "It all depends".

PS - Rarely is a rearing pond or any pond at a fish hatchery indicative of a typical private sport fish pond. Hatchery ponds are subject to intensive management and rarely are they neglected to the point of most private ponds. I also question your comment about the results from Todd's rearing pond; also it is no doubt fertilized and monitored "fairly" closely. How big are the fish allowed to get in this pond before it is routinely harvested?.