Backstory:
New pond that is roughly 2.5 acres. October 2024 stocked 75 F1 Tiger Bass. Would have stocked more, but a few weeks prior, we learned that native northern largemouth had infiltrated from a ditch that feeds the pond. Not sure how many, but I caught some and threw them in the grease before releasing the F1s. Bait fish were given a 6 month head start, but were obviously affected by the presence of the native fish that had leaked in.
All that being said, we did have a good weekend of catching and retrieving data at the one year mark from the introduction of the F1s! We harvested eleven bass ranging from 8 inches to 14 inches. Of the eleven we kept, 5 had bluegill in their stomachs. 1 had pellets. The other 5 stomachs were completely empty. The best relative weight was 90% from a 14 inch bass at 1lb 5oz. All fish were solid but only two(that we threw back) were exceptional.
Here's my two overall thoughts as the manager:
1.) The fish were delicious. I don't mind harvesting some. However, I am a little frustrated that our efforts to REALLY push a bait population 6 months prior were interrupted by native fish sneaking in.
2.) We're not at a true year one analysis. We are going to have to enhance forage fish + remove bass if we want to start seeing bass at 100% relative weights.
I'd love to hear other thoughts and proposals as well. This forum is a great resource.
First some thoughts:
I don't like that the RW is so low going into winter. This time of year, not only should the RW be averaging above 100, there should also be abundant YOY forage between the lengths of 1" to 3". Within this range of forage lies what is most optimum for the lengths of LMB mentioned above. I believe this class of forage is missing based on the comments on stomach contents and RW. If the lengths of the prey had been recorded from the LMB stomachs, I have a strong hunch that their proportionate lengths were > 25% the lengths of the LMB. If they were shorter than that, then those sizes still are not very abundant. So, if a seine survey were performed, I think one would confirm that the biomass of consumable prey is concentrated in sizes that are larger than 3.5" ... where the existing population of LMB have nearly completely consumed sizes that are smaller than that. There is a wide spread opinion that LMB need BG prey between 25%-33% of their length to grow best. I don't believe that, and if you were to do that seine survey, I think you would find that smaller consumable sizes are not plentiful but that larger relative sizes are relatively common and that their biomass comprises a large percentage of the weight of a seine haul's consumable sizes. This explains why so many of your LMB have empty stomachs. The prey they are being forced to consume cannot be consumed daily. Their density is too low to compensate for the decreased probability of successful pursuits. They are consuming these sizes but only one every two or more days or so and they are not consuming enough to fulfill their needs for maximum growth (and even possibly maintenance). I estimate your water temps in the mid to upper 60s. At this temp, LMB need a BG ration of 1.5% of their body weight daily for maintenance. If the ration is exceeded, LMB will convert that portion that exceeded maintenance to gain. If they were consuming smaller fish ... say 0.5% of the their body weight and if there were plenty of them ... you would be seeing all the LMB with meals in their stomach ... perhaps 3 or more of them in each LMB.
I feel your pain with regard to the influx of LMB prior to stocking F1s. I like how you stocked the F1s at 30/acre. If you hadn't have had the influx of NLMB, the sizes of your F1s would be at very remarkable weights and I would be suggesting to remove all LMB below the average weight. But it is evident that there were enough NLMB to severely limit the growth of all LMB (F1s and NLMB alike). I very much agree that you need to remove bass and supplement forage. If all had gone to plan you would have had possibly 24/acre surviving and many of the females would be breaching 2.5 lbs (more than 3 lbs if you had stocked 6" fingerlings). One half would have been mostly male and slower growing, whilst the other half would have been faster growing and female. And so, if all had gone to plan, you'd be removing 12/acre of the smallest LMB and have a population comprised mostly of female LMB.
What would I do? I'd stick to the original plan. I'd select 12/acre of the largest LMB in your pond for a total of 30. An Electro-Survey would be a great idea and much of the selection and tagging could be done then. You don't have to tag them ... even fin clips would do so that growout LMB can be identified and released to grow when caught. But it would be useful to have each fish ID'd so that individual growth could be monitored. I'd continue harvesting the slot. I don't have demographics on your LMB, but for those you tag/fin clip ... get the metrics so that you can determine the supplement from their combined weight.
Now to the supplement. It should be no greater in weight than 5 times the combined weight of the selected population of LMB. But it should be at least that amount if you confirm the biomass of YOY sized prey is very low. One should create some vacuum for the supplement. I'd remove BG that are larger than 1/3 the length of your LMB until the weight removed balances the planned forage supplement. This removal of BG could be accomplished when the Electro-Survey is being conducted. If one were to mark/finclip 80 to 120 BG before the survey, then one could use mark and recapture to census the population and biomass of BG. Removing nonconsumable or difficult to capture prey and replacing them with easy meals is what the LMB need right now. Replace what is missing. The YOY class that is in short supply. I'd supplement forage at average lengths of 2 to 2.5 inches. No greater average length than that. What I'd want is BIG NUMBERS of easy to consume big enough prey. I would not want smaller numbers of more difficult to consume prey. The LMB will be able to consume to satiation the prey size I am recommending at this stage of growth (12-14" LMB). GSH are ideal supplemental forage. They live up to 8 years but they don't get so big that a large LMB cannot consume them when GSH reach end of life. Stocking them as I recommended will provide a consumed weight far in excess of the initial supplement weight.
Think of this strategy as a reset that transforms a state of unfavorable balance to one of favorable balance that will support satiation consumption and maximum individual growth of the LMB. I'd hit the pond with a hammer ... wake it up ... and give it its best shot for producing trophies. Delay will only make matters worse than they presently are. So, I would urge a response that is appropriate for the circumstance.
