Pond Boss Forums MANAGING AN EXISTING POND Evaluating and adjusting fish populations Not what I ordered

I'm terrible at finding stuff here on the site, but I will look. If memory serves, this was the consensus of folks who had been there and done that.

I think if HBG are stocked together with BG, they will eventually be assimilated into the general BG population. The shortage of female HBG should mean that native female BG will comprise the majority of their spawning partners. If such spawning efforts are even successful, then the resulting offspring will be roughly, 3/4 BG and 1/4 GSF. That's a very crude, and not always accurate way to look at it, but it demonstrates the possible dilution of the GSF genes with each passing generation.

If the HBG were breeding "true", then maybe it would be another story.

There's also the possibility that recruitment would be extremely low, as is sometime the case when hybrids backcross with a parental species. That would further reduce their numbers.

All of this is speculation on my part. I will see what I can find.

Here is a non-PBF discussion with some information.

Hybrid Bluegill and inferior offspring

From what I recall of the different old threads I have read the opinions are all over the place. And they are mostly that, opinions. One study I recall the F2's they tested did ok and were not bad fish. Again, from what I recall, it seems it is the fear of the unknown more than what is actually known. I also will do some searches and see what I find, because the subject is also important to me. I also want "some" hybrids in my ponds, and this is usually frowned on by most. Supposed to have either all hybrids or all purebreds. No in-between. I also question this advice, but just learning so it is just that, a question.

Some cattle producers think all you can have is purebreds also. I don't recall black baldies being a bad thing. And I do realize fish are not the same as cattle. Just saying............. sometimes beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I think a lot of it boils down to maintaining proper management strategies. I still recommend not to stock HBG and BG together, but to be totally honest I'm not nearly as sure as I once was. A lot of the negative press you see regarding HBG comes from fish farms and hatcheries. I think some of these folks probably encouraged HBG stocking early on, and then reversed themselves.

In the beginning, HBG were touted as the cure-all for a common problem up here, that being the native BG's tendency to stunt. They were stocked heavily, and problems soon arose. We understand the pitfalls and shortcomings of HBG a lot better now, than we did then. That's not to say more research isn't needed, because I think it is. It means that proper management is still very much needed when stocking HBG, or BG, or even BG and HBG together. You should not just dump hybrids into a pond and assume they will do fine, and never overpopulate, or never regress. Steps should be taken to address these concerns, the same way we take steps to try and alleviate potential problems with our native BG.

In my opinion, if you understand and implement policies to maintain control over a population of native bluegills, then I personally don't see an issue with stocking HBG together with native BG. I still maintain that they will likely be assimilated into the native BG population over time, provided supplemental stockings are NOT made, and management efforts towards the native BG continue. That doesn't mean that you will not see traces of GSF in your bluegills, because I'm betting you will. I have a large and thriving population of naturally occurring BG x RES hybrids, and yesterday I happened to be in the right place at just the right time, and witnessed a male BRES pair up with a female BG. What will the outcome be? Further dilution of "pure" genetics? Is this acceptable in your pond? Are you alright with this possibility?

I don't have any science available for my musings, just a gut feeling from some time spent dealing with hybrid sunfish.

I see nothing wrong with stocking BG, HBG, or a combination. It all comes down to goals and planning for those goals that should dictate what species and numbers are stocked. Very few people think beyond what they hope to get on the end of a line when they stock.....till it isn't on the end of the line.

And I would assume that the only way I will know whether I have a good forage base is judging whether the bass are getting some girth along with their length? With a small pond I am seeing that I will always be on the knife edge of probability. Too many weeds and I will have a stunted population of young fish, too many GC and I won't have enough cover and the bass never get a big meal. Too much drought and the shoreline cover disappears, eliminating more hiding places, so I guess I would need a few buried pine trees in deeper water. Fun stuff!

FF, it's about like raising kids. It takes constant attention and maintenance. The only difference is that you can't cull your kids.

You need something to measure fish length, weight to 0.1 lb and a log book to keep track of the fish.

Compare weights to the ones listed here in the archives:
http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=160456#Post160456

So are these weights average or ideal, for fish that get fed pellets, or for fish living only on forage?

Those are average, healthy weights. The diet isn't usually specified, but supplemental feeding can certainly bump up the numbers. Ideally you want your fish at, or preferably above, those numbers.

I would guess that they are fish that aren't supplementally fed.

For instance, if Sparkplug made a relative weight chart, all of our ponds would have underweight bluegills in them!!

IIRC I think I read that in an article Bob Lusk wrote not too long ago.

Actually, I'm still gathering Wr data on HBG in both fed and unfed ponds for that very reason.

Wouldn't southern ponds tend to have heavier fish than those in the midwest and up near the 49th parallel? I know the LMB get bigger but I would guess that any fish that gets to feed for 12 months at close to optimum body temperature is going to outgrow my fish here in Ohio.

The water down South can be too hot for optimum growth.....

We'd best exclude The Herman's Lake Norris Fish from that contest...the ones below were not even the largest we caught, and not one of the 20 or so were under a pound that I caught in the 45 minutes or so spent fishing...






Nate's recollections....


Rainmain visited God's country once again with a truckload of fish. After we got done unloading fish for many happy customers we took a few minutes to rest while sitting on the dock with a couple fishing poles and bucket of night crawlers.

Before we strung up our first worm, I asked him what the biggest bluegill he ever caught was and just smiled with his response. I had a pretty good feeling he had a chance to break his 1.25 lb record.

Well, he didnt break his record once or even twice. He broke it 3 times in our 45 minute wind down, rest, and relaxation session. He also tied his record with a couple of other fish as well. I do have to say though that the fishing trip was not nearly as relaxing as it could of been. I had to keep getting out of my chair to take photos of his fish every 5 minutes.

The biggest one he caught was 30 ounces, the second biggest was 26 ounces, and the third was 23 ounces. I think if he would have had Cecil's phone number on his phone the big dog would have ended up in a fedex box headed for Ligonier and en route to its final resting place over the mantle.

Nice!

The Herman's have done an outstanding job with Norris. The sheer size and multitude of species present truly makes it an incredible fishery, and I consider getting to fish it for a weekend last winter a definitive high point in my angling endeavors.

Still, I believe where HBG are concerned, I might be able to give Norris a run for its money in a year or two, if I see the longevity out of my fish I'm hoping for. And providing their skin doesn't split.

Relative weights above 150% on our HBG are becoming commonplace, with a few on each outing exceeding 160%, and one that went 174%

Nine inches, 17.2 ozs.

That picture only hints at the thickness of the fish...........

Those are some massive BGs! Bet those would be fun to catch on a fly rod!