I'm trying to remain calm as I respond to the posting of a link to this particular article, which is probably the most scientifically careless and irresponsible, not to mention inaccurate, single article published in the history of pond management. I read that article a while back on another website; I comforted myself with the thought that perhaps it hadn't been widely read. That article is one big collection of falsehoods, false conclusions, and sloppy, inexhaustive, poorly founded research trotted out as conclusive science. A study done on a lake that already had gizzard shad, which were then reduced and then brought back to prominence? How in the world does that make more sense than to take a lake that has no gizzard and add them, which would give a much clearer picture of their effect on fish populations? If the bluegill were already overpopulated thanks to insufficient pressure on them by the bass, temporarily lessening the shad would do absolutely nothing to remedy the overpopulated bluegill, therefore not affecting their size - stupid. Or what about using total poundage of a species in a lake as a measuring stick of the health of the population, not even bothering to state the average size of the individual members of the species? And how in the world did the author determine that, contrary to the findings of every biologist who has ever studied bluegill previously, bluegill don't eat plankton? Did he cut open their stomachs and when he didn't find any microscopic plankton conclude that they hadn't eaten any? Perhaps he tagged the benthic invertebrates and then found them in the bluegill's stomachs? Or maybe he counted the plankton and recounted them a month later and saw no change? I'd really love to hear how he scientifically proved bluegill don't eat plankton. There's no mention whatsoever of his study methods, which doesn't exactly go a long way to inspire confidence in his conclusions.
The total poundage nonsense: a lake with an overpopulated bluegill population is always, always going to have more total pounds of bluegill per acre - they're just going to average about one-sixth as much in weight. I've fished not one or two but several lakes that had had large bluegill at one point, then subsequently had either threadfin or gizzard shad (or GSH) stocked and subsequently saw a dramatic drop, as in more than 50%, in the average size of the bluegill. It didn't happen twenty or forty or sixty percent of the time, it happened 100% of the time. This article is careless and irresponsible.
I believe 100% that gizzard shad can help a pond owner who cares about nothing but trophy bass, grow larger bass than he could without the gizzard, and for that reason, I think they have a place in pond management. But this article tries to say there are no negative effects in any way, and that's just not true, and the shoddy attempts he makes to substantiate his argument are really an insult to anyone who's ever fished a lake that had once been a bluegill honeyhole and has now been ruined by shad. For that matter, it's an insult to anyone who puts faith in the scientific method and the notion that someone who conducts a study does so objectively and rationally, rather than with an agenda and no concern for accuracy, reliability, etc.
