The lake in question is 7.5 acres. In the studies, cited earlier in the thread, by state agencies in which pike or muskie had a profoundly positive effect on a body of water, no negative effects were found; in no instance was it found that the apex predators decreased the number of larger specimens of desirable species; in every study, they increased the number of larger specimens of other species.
My firsthand personal experience corroborates said studies, my experience having come with a three-acre pond. Pike are specifically recommended in a recent PB article for thinning overcrowded bass populations while maintaining high-quality (larger-than-average specimens that come with crowded bass populations) bluegill fisheries.
Pike and muskie both are present in many northern lakes; it happens that many of those same lakes feature unusually large LMB and BG both for northern climes; I don't think it's a coincidence. A prominent and well-respected (rightly so) member on here who owns a ten-acre pond in the very northern state of Michigan has caught largemouth to eight pounds, and bluegill to 10", from his lake that has northern pike. I think most pond owners in northern states would be pretty happy with a pond that would produce fish that size of both species without a feeding program - pretty remarkable if you ask me.
I personally think esox are a very underutilized pond management tool that can make a drastically positive difference in many ponds, especially ones in which large bass and bluegill both are desired; I can't understand the prejudice against them, mostly by people who have never stocked them in a pond.
