Occasionally, I'll get a call, or a pm or an email about a thread. Honestly, I don't read all the threads...I just don't have time.
But, for this one, I got three phone calls, six pm's and five emails....from different people!
Geez, talk about passion.
So, I've just spent the last hour and a half reading through it.
First, I appreciate the input of everyone...and the quality of people who view and participate. This thread has had a lot of looks...I would like to think it's because of the information. But, alas, I know better.
Some saw it coming.
Gentle contention, I call it.
So, here I am....responding for two reasons. Reason 1 is to dispel several items of mis-information that were posted as fact. Second, is to remind everyone that being open to discussion leaves no room for the need for repetitive defensiveness.
Not one person on this site, or any other, knows enough to give some ultimate answer to another person that will fully define the success of their pond and its inhabitants.
Better, this site is full of thoughtful people willing to toss out their opinions, based somewhat on facts, that can be a piece to the pondmeister's puzzle...for the consumer to figure out.
If someone were to have definite answers to all these issues, we wouldn't need Pond Boss magazine or this forum. Someone would write up a pond management 'cookbook' and sell it and all our ponds would be perfect.
That ain't the way it works.
All of us need to be humble enough to recognize that we are limited by what we know and the experiences we've had. Just because we've done something that works over here doesn't automatically mean that it will work over there.
Nature laughs at us when we try to pull that stunt.
So...there's the admonishment of this thread.
Next, I want to address the biology advice. Some of the advice on this thread is seriously convoluted. Some of it is sound. Some of it is taken totally out of context and the use of it won't bring about the same results as it did in the original context.
First, let me help bring more order to the discussion.
This advice will transcend this thread...but since there is so much interest in this one, I'll focus on it, but, I want to write for people beyond the scope of the original post, way back at the beginning.
Always...always..start with goals. If you don't have a clear cut mission, you are more likely to fail. Chandler's first post didn't offer any goals, only the perceived status of the fishery.
We must know the goals.
Then, we evaluate the LAKE...not just its fishery. Odds are high that the existing fishery developed based on the stimulus provided by the lake, its environment, climate and habitat...Not as much because of the fish.
Changing the dynamics of the fishery by stocking more fish only changes it temporarily, unless a crucial species which can fill a distinct purpose is added. When a fishery is out of food, stocking more food doesn't solve the "problem."
Part of the evaluation focuses on studying the habitat. As goes the habitat, so goes what lives in it.
For JHAP, green sunfish habitat is important. For everyone else on the planet...maybe not so much (tongue in cheek).
Start with habitat. That's where Pond Frog's advice about adding cover is strong advice. But, be sure to think about all the different species of fish needed for that environment and be sure to provide habitat for each size class of each species to increase your odds of success.
Chandler plans to add Christmas trees. Good move, as long as they are placed to be the best habitat for their intended inhabitants.
I would say that most all pond "problems" begin with inadequate habitat. Often, there's too little habitat, sometimes there's too much, sometimes it's in the wrong places. Focus there, first.
Second, study the food chain. All living things need food, whether single cell, primitive algae or giant squid. The food chain combines into a food web. Most people don't understand the food web. Take Chandler's case, based on his original post. The bass are skinny, but the crappie are 'fat as pigs' and the bream are 'fairly nice sized.' That suggests the food chain for crappie may be thriving, but the hapless bass are...well, hapless. Crappie are feeding on a portion of the food web that interrupts the food chain before it can become significant to feed the bass. So, does that mean the bass are overcrowded? For that case, yes they are. But, if the crappie numbers were reduced, would there be more food for bass? I bet so. Focus on the food chain and the food web. Where predators are overeating the food chain, it's much, much better to reduce the number of predators than it is to try to money-whip a food chain. It goes back to the adage that if we cook the bag of beans we have a meal. But, if we plant the bag of beans to grow more, we'll have much, much more food. That's the principle behind harvesting predator fish. To build a fishery, you can't prop up a food chain for long without harvesting the fish which ultimately overeat it.
The third key principle to always remember is genetics. If you want big, fast growing fish, pay attention to genetics. That's not as important for this discussion thread, but it's still a key component.
Last, harvest is the backbone of good fisheries management. It's one thing we can control. Every pond, at some time in its life, has a bounty. Figure out how to identify the bounty and harvest it.
Next, I want to take a few recommendations on this thread and expound on them.
CJBS said to reduce the competition...That's good advice because as you reduce the numbers of predators, you reduce competition for food. That takes pressure off the food chain, allowing it to regain its productive dynamics. But, be careful to selectively harvest fish. If the goals are to have a balanced fishery, remove all bass with below-average relative weights and all crappie caught, regardless of size. In Chandler's case, the crappie are most likely the main culprit.
RC51 suggested not stocking fathead minnows. Sound advice. Stocking fathead minnows into this fishery is the same as giving my grandson a tootsie roll pop. He'd smile, say "thanks" suck it down and be done. Very inefficient and costly. It would cost about $100 to put a pound a game fish in that circumstance. He also suggested stocking larger bluegill. If the lake doesn't currently have adult bluegill, it needs some. If it has adequate numbers of adult bluegill, they simply need pressure removed from their offspring to be able to survive and thrive. A feeding program could sure be a good idea for bluegill. Assuming the bream are not bluegill, I recommend stocking at least 150 adults per surface acre. This would be a case where stocking is beneficial. Bluegill, in this situation, in Louisiana, are the backbone of the food chain.
esshup next suggests that if there are no baby bluegill, that's another indicator of overcrowded bass. Good thought...but don't discount the impact of the crappie. Plus, without knowing the species of bream, those panfish could also be culprits.
Omaha suggests angling could be a tough way to remove enough bass. Good thought there, too. But, we must ask "how many is 'enough' to take out?" In this case, start with 25 per acre...for 17 acres, that's 425. Is that too many? The pondmeister has to figure that out. And, most likely, 425 might not make a big enough dent.
Then Walt suggests threadfin shad. Good thought, as long as the habitat and food chain are managed for threadfin shad. Crystal clear water and overcrowded bass make for an immediate feeding frenzy, much like those fathead minnows. If threadfin make sense, prepare the lake and the fishery to successfully receive these. I've seen too many people stock threadfins, expecting them to be the golden bullet, only to find out the survival rate was lower than a kamikaze pilot's. So, as you think about threadfins, learn all you can about their needs and then supply those needs. Walt suggested gizzard shad could be an option later on. Maybe so, maybe no. I've seen gizzard shad so misapplied to actually cause the demise of a fishery. Right this minute, I'm talking with a man who hasn't caught a bass in two years in his 30 acre west Texas bass lake. He casually mentioned the lake has gizzard shad. I'll be electrofishing it as soon as the weather warms up. Gizzard shad give off a pheromone that, once the density is high enough, stops reproduction. That fact alone has been a cause for good bass lakes to go bad. On the other hand, I don't have a single, solitary trophy bass lake under management at this time that doesn't have gizzard shad. Used in the proper circumstances, where there are plenty of big mouths to eat those fast growing, slimy fat creatures, excellent results can be seen.
But, when Walt starts talking about threadfins affecting the growth rates of bluegill, he misfires. Some selective research and some ponds with minimal management can be affected by this combination. But, the overwhelming majority of southern ponds stocked with both threadfins and bluegill don't impact the growth rates of bluegill. His advice may be sound for a specific case, but my 30 year career professionally managing lakes and ponds has seen many, many more cases where those fish actually complement each other. I have numerous lakes under management with many, many large bluegill and threadfin filling a totally different niche. This combination actually increases the standing crop of largemouth bass, rather than diluting the food chain.
The next advice...to stock flathead catfish, is shortsighted. Don't do it. Flatheads are not selective eaters. As they grow large, they eat large. Plus, there's another fact about flathead catfish. They are territorial, taking the best cover, best habitat. And, they defend that territory. I've literally watched flathead catfish kill fish and not eat them, just to defend what's theirs. I've worked on many lakes with flatheads. Bass lose. Plus, flathead catfish are among the poorest food converters of the freshwater species. It takes lots of flesh to support even one flathead. Stocking flatheads or even blue catfish only trades problems over the long run.
Then, the debate over tiger muskie started. I use tiger muskie in select cases to accomplish several goals. One of those goals is to help control overcrowded bass. The second is to diversify the fishery. Still, for other lakes I manage, there are different species of Esox that are problematic. I'm very cautious about using these fish as a corrective measure. I've used tiger muskie in New York, Missouri and Illinois with inconsistent results. There's a delicate balance between the climate, habitat and food chain for these fish.
Then, Yolk Sac chimed in with good, practical advice, targeting more of the actual problem, assuming the main goal is to grow larger bass.
Rainman was right on with his advice. Let's say Chandler decided to "money-whip" the food chain and added 2,000 pounds of immediate food into the system. For the next period of time, the predators will grow like crazy. But, the lake's propensity to grow more forage fish on its own hasn't changed. Now, based on the 'ol 'it takes 10 pounds of forage fish to grow one pound of game fish' theory, that 2,000 pounds of food lasts for x-days, months, whatever. It will support an additional 200 pounds of game fish. Just for argument's sake, let's say that 17 acre lake carries 50 pounds of fish per acre right now. So, that's 850 pounds. Add 200 more pounds of predator mass and what do you have? Roughly 25% more mass, demanding that much more food that the lake wasn't producing successfully in the first place. At some point...such as right now...that body of water must be relieved of some predator fish, unless someone wants to prop up the food chain with a fat wallet.
Next, the thread takes a right turn when skinnybass seeks advice. The advice above will be helpful. Will tiger muskie be of service. Probably moreso for this lake that the hot climate of Louisiana, where a tiger muskie stands little chance of survival.
Pond Frog's advice centered around habitat...as mentioned earlier, that's the place to always start...always. The case study he talks about was remedied by providing habitat for the food chain, which responded nicely. While it worked there, it doesn't always work that way. Refer to his original comment, "The problem was multiple causation, all intertwined." That's the way to tackle pond management problems. Never assume one alteration will solve the "problem." Always assume the pond and its fishery will adjust to the changes you make...and those adjustments may not be something you want, i.e. flathead catfish. I've taken ponds overwhelmed with Eurasian watermilfoil, eradicated it, only to be followed by the biggest blue-green algae bloom I've ever seen. I just knew I had killed fish. Luckily, it didn't.
I would like to go on...completely through this thread, but just don't have the time. And, you probably wouldn't have time to read it anyway.
I don't like the contentious way it ended and the mixed advice only tends to be confusing.
Here's my parting thought. Follow the four fundamental, guiding principles I have outlined. That's the primary science behind the art of pond management. Keep in mind that we have some excellent advisors on our website. But, the bottom line is that you, the consumer, must do your due diligence and then make the best choices. Do your homework, think it through and then decide what's best for you and your pond situation.
Have a great adventure learning about your pond(s)
Fish on!
Oh, and if you haven't subscribed to the magazine, please join the family of Pond Boss subscribers. The magazine supports this website and the subscribers support the magazine. Many thanks.
