I think I would prefer not to feed the LMB so they would do a better job as predators.

I would further add that I don't see RES, BG, or TP as consistent prey for Bass. The TP are going to all die and so cannot persist. The BG won't be consistent for the same reasons that the RES won't. Almost every unmanaged bow ends up in a condition with where there is a lot of small bass and large panfish. It is the natural course of events and can only be prevented by intervening with nature's natural course. This is the balance of small waters. In fact, the balance is so strong that once the balance is achieved it is exceedingly difficult to undo. Most managers will tell you to nuke and start over.

So you start over, for a time the LMB grow like on steroids. But is this balance? I propose that it is not. Sure, I get what people like about it. The LMB are getting a good start and for a few years the pond with reasonable management will grow some big bass. In fact everything grows well in the beginning to include the panfish. But LMB are going to reproduce in greater quantity than BG (or RES) can support. As time goes on, the reproduction of BG (or RES) fall below a level to fully support the needs of all of those bass and the bass will rarely grow beyond 12"-13". At this length they show the signs of being under-nourished. This is the natural course of events and it represents the balance most ponds eventually settle into ... indefinitely. The indefinite nature of this condition is evidence that the system is in a natural balance.

Some people say that balance is a knife edge or a temporary condition lasting a short time. Not so. The condition that they refer to is a the last fleeting glimpse of the pond being in the unbalanced condition of having a surplus of food for the fish within the pond. In fact, the pond is a long way from being balanced. It's in the condition where the population of fish exceeds what the pond can naturally carry and without introducing harvest mortality, or feeding/fertilizing, the growth of the population dramatically slows. In response, the pond begins its progress to a final system in balance where BG (or RES) don't support the growth of large bass.

If we rewind to the ponds that Don studied, they support LMB ranging from 27 to 118 lbs/ac. If not subjected to an appropriate annual harvest, it is NOT likely that the LMB in these ponds were in good condition (the same can be said of the RES). Even so, it cannot be argued that the ponds did not support the LMB or that the RES did not provide forage them. It is likely, just as it is in many aged LMB/BG bows that panfish forage provided insufficient nutrition and that the LMB competed with panfish for invertebrate prey. The LMB in this case prefer to eat RES but resort to eating invertebrates. In the end we have evidence there is enough food being produced annually to support LMB at the standing weights that were observed.

From my perspective, there is no moral obligation to support the LMB beyond what nature will. Particularly, there is no moral obligation to maintain the unbalanced condition that supports rapid LMB growth and large ultimate LMB size. This is especially true for pond owners that don't care about large bass but want large panfish. I don't feel sorry for LMB that are unable to grow to a large size due to environmental constraints. They adapt to the balance of the small pond environment, surviving, growing, and reproducing. It is enough to allow them to do that. That said, if one is of a mind to intervene by harvesting BG (or RES) and LMB in a sustainable way, the fish will respond to this intervention with favorable results. The panfish will grow and reproduce better and the LMB will grow better and replace themselves as well. Every year, they will grow to replace what is taken and they will do this indefinitely. What could be more balanced than that?

It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers