Hello to all.
In the "north" country, we would have called your original pond situation a "panfish option." Sometimes we purposely crowd largemouth bass, resulting in a higher density of primarily smaller (lots less than 12 inches long) bass. They tend to grow slowly, and often are a little thin. This high density of small largemouth bass will thin out the small panfishes such as bluegill. The surviving bluegills then have a lot less competition for zooplankton and insects, and grow quickly to larger sizes, with many reaching 8 inches and a few reaching 10 inches. This is one way to produce large panfish without a feeding program. We're not real big on feeding programs in the north, because the long winters coupled with increased nutrients from the feed may increase risk of winterkill.
Anyway, here's my question for the various readers. I've been following the PondBoss forum for the past several months. It seems that most of the southern pond owners really want to manage for larger largemouth bass. In the northern states, at least some of the pondowners are more interested in the big panfish. Does this seem correct to everyone? What about the Ohio area? About the only explanation that I can come up with may have to do with maximum size. I tell most of our local pondowners that producing a 5-lb largemouth bass around here is pretty good, and a 6 or 7 pounder is a trophy.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts!
Dave Willis
