Pond Boss Forums MANAGING AN EXISTING POND Evaluating and adjusting fish populations Too Many Brooders??

Before I go 8 miles down a dead-end road, I need help figuring out if I am even headed in the right direction.

I am trying to rebalance a >35-year-old retention pond 3 acres in north FL. I have reduced the number of skinny LMB over the past 3 summers. Fishing effort has gone from .7 fish /hr. to .16. although the RW have changed little and are still in the 75% range. Most LMBs are still in the 11-13-inch range. I very rarely see or catch anything in the <11inches. I am not a highly experience fisherman. I have expected more of a change in the RWs.

I believe I have more BGs than in years past. Last year I used my Z-trap baited only once & caught Zero BGs. This year I average 10 a night in the 3–7-inch range. With a baited minnow trap, I very rarely catch BGs in the .7-1.5-inch range. The range of sizes caught in the Z-trap are roughly equal for each size & RWs are near 100%. There is not a size that is predominate. I do hand throw 2lbs of food a day. Osprey, Anhinga, & great blue Heron have spent many more hours fishing at the pond than in recent years past. I am surprised with a few BG & Redear crosses, also BG & Warmouth crosses.

When angling for BG, they are easy to catch, are in the 8–11-inch size with the RWs at 100% range. While angling the <6-inch BGs are very rarely caught. All BGs from 3-10-inches have been fin trimmed, with only 2 in the 4-7-inch range being re-caught out of 80 fish.

What to do now? Electro-fishing is not an option.
Continue on as before? Removing skinny poor performing LMB. BGs are fine & numbers recovering? LMB will follow?

Reduce the number of brooder BGs 5-9 inches? Remove females, return males? Trying to reduce competition & increase the numbers of fry & fingerlings?

Survey recatches? Increase number of marked fish? PSD?

It depends?

Thank for your time & help!

Aside: Tug of War 1 to 1. I caught an 8" 7 ounce CNBG because of PP poor planning my scale, ruler & hemostats were not close. Leaving the BG in the water, I tried to develop a plan. Then the tug of war was on, line quickly being stripped from my ultra-light reel. After a minute the BG was released & I weighed, measured & fin trimmed the BG. 15 minutes later it happened again. This time I lost the BG, leader, hook, & sinker to a demon of the deep. I did not think I had a LMB big enough to take a BG that size, >16". Hope she does not have indigestion.

While creel data (fishing) is helpful it can be inaccurate. Both BG and LMB have a heritable trait of becoming uncatchable. See below.
My guess is you need to remove more LMB in the 12 inch range. Here is what the creator of RW said.
Prof Anderson - who literally wrote the book on RW posted.

Keep taking <12 in bass until the number 8-12 equals number 12-15. Ideal pond structure is 40% 8-12, 40% 12-15 and 20% 15+

J.E Craig,

Using ewest's chart, I estimate that on the low side (higher vulnerability to angling) that you went from 21 LMB/acre three years ago to 5 LMB/acre. That's a difference of 16 LMB/acre. So, have you removed around 48 LMB? On the high side (lower vulnerability to angling), that you went from 34 LMB/acre to around 8? 26 LMB/acre removed (78 total)? How many LMB have you removed?

Have you been seeing LMB YOY these past 3 years? It would not surprise me if you hadn't seen many or none at all.

Do you think that removing bass is delivering what you were told it would? Why wouldn't it work in your particular circumstance? Do you believe ewest? That you have lots of LMB but that they just cannot be caught? See how convenient that is? Let's say you have removed most of your LMB and now there are hardly any. That can happen too ... even if ewest were to say it can't. But with the hard to catch story, see how convenient it is? No matter what ... he can never be wrong. One thing is for sure. Unless you free up some potential for the YOY that you aren't producing ... it will be more of the same. If you keep removing LMB, I think it will only get worse from here.

Just to demonstrate that ponds can be over-represented in forage that is too large to eat ... below is a chart of the metrics of 42 Oklahoma ponds (actually those that had LMB populations). These ponds exhibit the spectrum of possibilities with regard to F/C ratio. This is the biomass of Forage to the biomass of LMB. Above 10, the forage is over-represented. This happens when the forage standing exceeds 65% of the forage potential. Notice how LMB standing weights decline when forage standing weights are a high proportion of the forage potential? I've left off the ponds that had no LMB. It's unknown whether the ponds with no LMB .... ever had LMB ... but if they did ... they were extirpated.

What percentage of these ponds exceeded 65% of potential? More than half did. It's not uncommon for too many large forage to squeeze out LMB biomass.

"I estimate that on the low side (higher catch rates) that you went from 21 LMB/acre three years ago to 5 LMB/acre. That's a difference of 16 LMB/acre. So, have you removed around 48 LMB? " wrote jpsdad

You are some relation to Carnac the Magnificent? I would like to understand how you figured that out.

I have removed 50 LMB & 7 brown bullheads RWs also at 75%. During the past 3 years, the number of YOY LMB that I have seen or caught, I can count on one hand. I do believe in the 80/20 rule. My little corner of the pond has the most structure & it is where the BGs are fed. hence sooner or later the LMB more to this area. My gut says that there may be less than 5 LMB/acre now.

What I am now seeing & what is supposed to be happening, the two just don't make good sense. I have a much larger population of > 8" quality BGs than I ever had of quality LMB. Removing more LMB no longer made good sense as I began to wonder if there was no longer an abundance of LMB to remove. Something else appears wrong. After reading & re-reading PondDragon's post & the Must Read post I began to wonder if excessive large forage biomass is the problem.

The biomass (LMB & BnBH) that I removed is now turned into BG Biomass? If I continue as I have I will have a BG only pond with few or no LMB?

What is the most effective size forage to remove? All BG caught >6" ? Males or females? Keep large Males for greater survival of fry & fingerlings. Stop when I am catching BGs 40% <6" & 60% > 6"?

No, not related to the Magnificent Carnac, LOL. The chart ewest posted displays vulnerability to angling. The units are (catch/hour) per (LMB density). The density in the chart is number per hectare but I like to use number per acre and so the number is adjusted to acres. The parent generation is .033. Soooo, if you know the catch rate, and if the vulnerability is like the parent generation (the higher vulnerability to angling) .... to estimate the population ... divide the catch rate by .033 and it will be an estimate of the density per acre. Now it isn't fool proof. Some people are better at fishing than others for example. But it is a place to start for sure. What we did, was determine if the evidence of your total catch is consistent with the estimates (including our assumption of vulnerability). That feedback suggests that you may have decimated your LMB population following forum advice.



You are on the right track now. You have figured it out.

It is important to understand your forage population and biomass. So that is what Ponddragon did. He also marked his LMB, and has good info on what he knows is in the pond. Estimating standing weights, he has a good understanding what he needs to take out on the forage side.

You should do something similar to make a good estimate of your standing weights (both Forage and LMB). Then we can make estimates of the poundage that needs to be removed. If you'll do what Ponddragon did, I can do more to help you. If you read the thread carefully, you'll see how the picture became clearer with more data. For example, in the beginning, I was off on the weight of forage the pond was supporting. When Ponddragon expressed doubt to that number, we decided to actually make an estimate with mark and recapture. A lesson there is that even though his pond probably mobilizes enough nutrients to carry higher standing weights ... the mix of veggies growing on that mobilization won't carry that weight. The profuse chara lowers the forage potential relative to a good bloom. It doesn't matter, he can manage the pond just like it is .... but he needed to understand what that "just like it is" ... actually is ... in terms of forage potential.




Not exactly. A pond has a forage potential ... but ... a pond doesn't have an independent LMB potential. The standing weight of LMB DEPENDS on the consumable forage. And not what some forum participants think is consumable. It's what is actually consumed. The LMB don't care about our opinions. They eat what they can ... when they can ... and our opinions don't matter to them. If a pond appears to someone to be full of forage and LMB aren't in good condition and growing fast ... then someone has the wrong opinion about their forage. They are just wrong because the LMB are not in agreement with their assessment. The evidence says otherwise.

So LMB are the tail and the BG are the dog. LMB depend on BG ... but ... BG do not depend on LMB. BG are the horse and LMB are the cart. What determines the standing weight of LMB is the weight of BG they ate the prior 12 months. It is no more complicated than that.

Removing the LMB as you have been advised ...lessened the predation and what happened is that more BG grew past them and now they along with the others occupy more of the BG Potential. Since they are too large to be good consumable forage, they occupy potential that 3 years ago produced forage and the pond can now only carry the reduce number and biomass of LMB you now have. You know this because they have poor condition. You can't fix this problem by only adding LMB. You know that you must remove the forage fish that the LMB cannot eat so that there will be more forage produced that they can eat. Only then could you add LMB that could grow.


I think this is possible, but I also think you have enough knowledge now to see that this does not happen.


I would not remove BG that have good profitability. Nothing under 25% of length of your average sized LMB. There are two aspects to balance. One is biomass while the other is population. So what you want to do is reduce the biomass of BG brood to less than 50% of the potential so that when they grow over the next 12 months they will occupy no more than 50% of the potential. To do this effectively, the population of brood should be restricted enough that they grow near their potential of annual growth. If there are too many brood, they will want to grow each at their potential if they can. So a 50/50 male/female mix wants to grow .37 lbs/year ... that means ... 200 brood fish want to grow 74 lbs but 1000 brood fish want to grow by 370 lbs. See the difference. With 200 brood fish, you need to maintain their weight 74 lbs below your target proportion of the potential but with a 1000 ... what happens ... is that it is untenable ... they can't grow at their potential but grow much more than the 74 lbs and so increase in proportion to the potential by much more ... which means ... they squeeze out consumable forage production and the LMB suffer for it.

The chart is not mine but from Philipp et al. who is one of the most accomplished Fisheries Science professors. He has an outstanding career in LMB genetics , growth and development. He was a lead in the preeminent book on LMB by the American Fisheries Society - Philipp, D. P. & Ridgway, M. S. (editors). Black Bass: Ecology, Conservation, and Management. American Fisheries Society. 740 pp. (2003).
Philipp's research examines genetics, reproduction, and spatial ecology of fishes, and the effects of fisheries interactions on these dynamics in North America and the Caribbean. His early research examined centrarchid population genetics, gene expression, reproductive physiology, and strategies, heritability of fish behaviour, and life history strategies.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Philipp

You can't simply extrapolate from a theoretical program and get all encompassing answers. That is why the hundreds of studies using/discussing programs for RW , energetics , growth and other topics state that more work needs to be done or later change the program. There are just too many variables that are not understood or are unaccounted. You need real facts to get better answers.

In your location you likely have substantial FL LMB genetics which only increase non-catchability - see the many threads about that on the Forum. Since some people think we don't know what we are talking about I suggest you call the Pond Boss office and talk to Bob with your problem.

I am not sure what is meant by the comment of ...."what Dave, esshup, Bill, Bob, or ewest thinks is consumable."

Obviously if the forage item is not eaten for whatever reason it has no benefit for the physical growth of that fish at that instant . However if that uneaten forage item is able to reproduce it does have a benefit to that fish and other fish who can benefit from the reproduction that is consumed a later point in time.

The other variable to this lack of growth of the LMB is one has to remember this FL pond has the possibility of other species of forage available to the LMB as noted by in posts by J.E.Craig as "The pond’s original populations include LMB, CNBG, CGC, RES, MF, Eels, Br. Catfish, Bowfin, snails, mussels, clams, crayfish, shad, gold shiners". The other concern to me is what other predators that are listed as "Regular visitors include River Otter, GBH, Anhinga, Osprey,.." and what influence that they could have on the fishery balance. The pond's fishery is likely complicated and not just one based simply on BG and LMB. I think one also has to consider the type and amount of habitat available that influences the balance of the fishery.

I am not saying that jpsdad in wrong in his thinking. It is just the fishery for J.E.Craig is not just a simple BG-LMB fishery that could be complicated by other factors working within the Florida 3 ac pond. Complexity could make the fishery balance not a simple one.

To be sure, it's not meant to offend anyone. There seems to be uniform agreement that 1/4 to 1/3 length BG are most appropriate, most advantageous and/or most needed to maximize the growth of LMB. My intent is to say I dissent from this widely held opinion. One that is frequently promoted by those with considerably more influence here than I. Most often, I do not reply, dissent, or challenge when this idea is republished here. What makes this case different, is that I am trying to help the OP and I do not want my idea of most appropriate, most advantageous, and/or most needed to be confused with the widely held opinion.

Part of what was snipped was further explanation. Very often, people express the opinion that the forage situation in their pond is very good but then follow that with comments of low RW and slow growth. We can have the wrong opinion about the availability of consumable forage. When RW is low and growth is slow ... most often ... there isn't enough consumable forage. When this occurs and we think there is lots of forage to consume, we should review ourselves. We should seek to understand why our opinion is not consistent with the evidence.

To provide an example of a case where the opinion of what is consumable is clearly incorrect ... read this paper which is the first documented test of the use of formulated feed in a sport fishery (that I am aware). The paper documented effects of feeding. There was a control, a test pond that was drained along with the control for comparisons (after 19 months), and finally a sport fishery that was exploited over the course of 4 years.

Although, the paper documents the substantial increase of potential in support of the forage species (BG), there were some disappointments. For example, the test pond that was drained after 19 months ... it only had 29.4 % higher standing weight of LMB than the control which wasn't even fertilized in the prior 12 months. It is a great example that greatly expanding the forage potential will not necessarily proportionately expand the standing weight of LMB. To be sure, the LMB had the potential to grow much more than they did. The reason they didn't, was because they did not consume enough BG to grow at their potential. I will be first to note that it was NOT the fault of feed that the LMB did not reach greater proportions of their potential. The balance of predator and prey (particular the size of the predators at the time of stocking -- should have been larger) could have been better. But this does deal with the appropriateness of relative sized prey. Much of YOY produced quickly outgrew the capacity of the LMB to consume them.

So the success of feeding in terms of supporting greater weights of the forage species is not in question. However, the idea that supporting greater standing weights of forage fish must lead to proportionately greater consumption of the forage species by LMB .... well that is. This experiment is evidence of that.

Now on to the sportfishery. The sportfishery finally failed and reached a point of considerable imbalance. The pond appeared to be in balance for the first couple of years -- meeting Swingle's definition of balance. But ultimately, the project failed miserably in comparison to Alabama state owned lakes with regard to the LMB. The exploitation of LMB was significantly less in the fisheries test pond only being a minor fraction (69%) of the state owned lakes. This despite the remarkable standing weight of BG carried in the test pond and good gross production of BG. Presumably, LMB carry and exploitation should be proportional to the water's ability to support the forage species. This is an example where that presumption is false. But again, it was NOT the feed's fault, it was that the production of BG that the LMB could consume was lacking (But again, this does deal with the appropriateness of relative sized prey and their abundance).

At draining, they assembled the balance statistics for the fisheries pond. Forage comprised almost 97% of the biomass ... where LMB comprised only 3%. What was remarkable to me was the reported Y/C. This is the ratio of the biomass of consumable prey to the biomass of LMB. In 1964, it was widely agreed that BG between the sizes of 1/4 and 1/3 proportionate length were consumable, important and advantageous prey for LMB. So my impression is that they counted all prey less than 1/3 length of the average LMB (~13" LMB) in this accounting of Y/C.

But here is the rub. Y/C is not just a metric. It incorporates opinion. First, one has to go out on the limb to define "what consumable is and means". Once he has done that ... all metrics he gathers pertaining to Y/C is tainted by his definition which ... without corroborating research ... is simply an opinion. IOWs, when based on an opinion of what defines consumable, reports of Y/C are not objective but rather subjective, subject to a definition that may not have basis in fact. In this paper, they report a Y/C of 8.0. That's a massively high number that suggests that the LMB were swimming in consumable forage. In the context of LMB growth in the test pond it just doesn't make any sense. If it were really that high, the growth of LMB and the average weights of LMB would have been much higher. There is an incorrect definition of "what consumable is and means" at the heart of the disagreement. They were counting forage fish as consumable when they really were not all that consumable free chase in the fishery pond.

Alot of people will read a paper like this and just take what they want from it. They may take, for example, that a fed pond produces larger BG relative to a pond that wasn't fed. I noticed that but I also notice things like E-LMBs of 3% and Y/Cs of 8. I notice how inconsistent those metrics are. I noticed that the test was a failure for LMB. I can't help but notice things like that ... in addition to the greater standing weights of BG and better early growth. I don't just take what I want from it ... I take it all in ... and I try to put all of it into an understandable representation of basic but indisputable principles. For example, principles based on energy balance and how these limit standing weights and the production of consumable/consumed forage. That's what I have been sharing in this thread and the must-read thread. I mean to improve our understanding of these things ... that is my only intention.

I hope ... that all read this post thoroughly ... so that they may understand why I can't agree with the idea that 1/4 to 1/3 sized BG are most appropriate, most advantageous or most needed. I believe otherwise because of a substantial volume of studies (many of which I have already posted here) that do not support that idea. The reason I share my dissent? Because I think it can help everyone make better decisions that result in better outcomes. It's not a shortcoming to be wrong about something one has been taught. It's a strength to question ideas and to be persuaded by good arguments and supporting evidence. Sometimes this requires abandoning an idea that one once believed. This isn't a shortcoming in the least. It takes strength to recognize when one has believed an incorrect idea and to change his mind. All anyone can expect of others is to have good intentions and to do their best in terms serving their interests. Part of that is learning to improve what that best effort can be. Knowledge never sits still. Scientific research is always testing the status quo skeptically. This is how we improve.

Thank you for taking the time to explain the rationale for this thread. I find it interesting and informative. Hopefully it helps members learn more about the fishery in their pond. Ponds can be widely different in the complex ecosystem of each one. As I learned long ago in Limnology class - "It all depends".

I thought a long time about whether I should respond to this which paints me as person with little respect for the author of the paper from which the chart on catchability was taken. If follows by saying that I am using the research to get all encompassing answers. Finally, it states that I think "they" don't know what we are talking about.

None of this is true. On the record, none of it is true. It violates codes of conduct in scientific debate. Its an ad hominen attack, it uses a strawman (extrapolating for all encompassing answers), and finally an ad hominen attack mixed with a red herring.

What I did wasn't extrapolation. It was deduction in response to the argument that the fish in J.E. Craig's pond had become uncatchable. The paper referenced, authored by Phillip, defines catchability. There is no "uncatchable" or "non-catchability" in that paper. There are only representations of the "catchability". Philipp, IMO, thought fish were catchable to varying degrees.

If any of you think that using the papers findings to discredit the argument that the fish were un-catchable was wrong or disrespectful, give this some consideration:

I accepted his premise ... and I thoughtfully considered it .... and analyzed it sufficiently to make a thoughtful response. Honestly, that is all would hope from anyone responding to my thoughts here. I am giving more respect than I have ever received by addressing the problem with facts around the argument. If the respondent would give me the same respect, I would very much appreciate it.

I know that Philipp defined catchability in a specific way. The (catch per unit effort) per (population per unit area). I am not drawing all-encompassing answers. In that definition, is a population density and the definition is ... in and of itself ... an algebraic equation. That equation can be rearranged like any algebra can. Knowing the catch rate, we can test for densities under differing assumptions of catchability. That's what I did. The result of those efforts is that we found that the catchability best describing the OPs personal experience is very near the catchability of the parent generation in Philipp's paper. I am not going to say that population didn't undergo more mortality than the OP's exploitation. This is possible ... but it is unknown. All we have are the facts that the OP is presenting to work with. We should not reach for anecdotes of other ponds and present them as facts about the OP's pond. How do we relate the OPs experience of real world facts to what is going on? One good step in that direction is understanding how many LMB were removed.

So, I am really passionate about this. I really do believe that his population of LMB has been mostly removed. More simply put, I cannot apply a very low catchability to explain his low catch rates. I fail if I try and I did try which is show of respect for the idea that the OPs LMB are of very low catchability. Can't everyone see the importance of this for the OP and his actions going forward?

I am confused with the specific references to the LMB catchability paper by Philipp. Is there a specific link to see the article or it's title that is in question and is being discussed? I would like to read the paper. Thanks

Catchability of fish is a keen interest for me.

Bill,

Do a search on "Selection for Vulnerability to Angling in Largemouth Bass". This paper, although public domain, was published in the AFS journal. I know you have access from there. Others interested can find a downloadable copy from Science Direct doing a google search on the title.

FWIW, I should not have described the topic as "Catchability". The authors name it "Vulnerability to Angling". Properly, vulnerability to angling is how I should have described it.

One of the rules of science, is that a measurable be defined as something that normally has a non-null value. So, vulnerability or catchability would meet that criteria. Non-catchable, uncatchable, invulnerable ... these all define as a null metric and thus they are not an appropriate metric.

Bill the article has been covered on the forum in great detail on the many catchability threads. Nothing in it that you don't already know. Catchability is an inherited trait. Here is one with links

https://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=475742&page=1

Thank you for the vulnerability of bass to angling information. ewest has discussed I think this specific paper in PB magazine. For those interested in reading the summary of that specific article by D.Phillip here is the abstract of the article.
Selection for Vulnerability to Angling in Largemouth Bass by David P. Philipp et.al
Abstract
Although a great deal of effort has been expended to try to understand the consequences of fishing-induced selection by commercial fisheries, relatively little effort has been put into trying to understand the selective effects of recreational angling. We conducted a long-term selection experiment to assess the heritability of vulnerability to angling in largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides. Three successive generations of artificially selected largemouth bass were produced from a single experimental study population. Within each generation, individual adult largemouth bass were identified as having either high or low vulnerability to angling through a series of controlled catch-and-release angling trials. Individuals of each vulnerability group (high and low) were then selected from that population for breeding to produce the next generation. The response to selection for vulnerability to angling increased with each generation; that is, the magnitude of the difference between the high- and low-vulnerability groups of fish increased with each successive generation. Realized heritability was calculated as 0.146 (r2 = 0.995), indicating that the vulnerability of largemouth bass to angling is indeed a heritable trait. Our results indicate that recreational angling has the potential to alter the gene pool of wild fish populations, which may indirectly affect population characteristics such as survival, growth rate, and reproductive output as well as directly affecting angling success rates.

Plan of Action Moving Forward :

1 Remove as many BG >4” as possible before the Spring spawn & continue removing them throughout the Summer of ’26.
2 Pause all LMB fishing and evaluation till after the ’26 LMB spawn. Consider adding LMB in the largest size available after the ’26 BG spawn.

Your thoughts, comments, opinions, & advice would be much appreciated.

I am very sure that I have decimated my LMB population. Any LMB <10” is very rarely seen or caught. LMB >10” are now difficult to catch. From analysis I perhaps have as few as 15 in the 3 acre pond, my gut says there might be as few as 5. Last week I was heartened to see 3 LMB >15” trolling a group of BG & 2 YOY after some MF. There is always a small amount of mortality with capturing LMB & I do not feel that I can afford that at this time. I will re-evaluate the LMB population in ’26, marking each fish & doing RWs.

From pond observations, I have No or negligible: BnBH, eel, GSD, GC, GSH, Bowfin, crayfish, or GAR. Although I have added & attempted to add more shelter for fry & fingerlings: I consider the pond poor in that respect. No recent otter sighting but the Osprey, Heron & Anhinga visit daily. Today I consider these & the LMB have a negligible effect concerning the ponds biomass.

I believe the ponds biomass is locked up in an excessive amount of BG. I am surprised that the BGs RWs are in the 80-100% range. I have abandoned an attempt to get accurate estimate of population by recapture. I have observed problems in biases from change in season, geo position, z-trap size, trap vs angling. I am lazy & going KISS. The average pond/acre in FLORIDA can support 400-600lbs of fish. I will assume 500lb/Acre & all that bound up in BG biomass. I roughly know from my trapping & angling that <4” is 40% of the population the remaining 60% is >4” . My gut says that a surprising amount is >8”. Remove 50-60% of that as a goal. My slot is >4”to 9.5”. Those males 9“ & above & healthy will be marked & returned. All < 4” will be marked & returned. Angling,I have not caught a BG <8” . They are not difficult to catch. Trapping numerous small BG is now much more of a challenge. I have marked 177 BG & recaptured none in the past 10 days.

My question: that 50-60% to remove is of the total BG biomass (250-300 lbs /acre)? Or the 50-60% that is >4” (150-180 lbs/acre) as I now assume?

The pond is an enigma wrapped in mystery. I wouldn't normally associate these sizes of BG with BG over abundance. It seems to suggest that your LMB have competitors. Competitors can take the form of various species you have noted present in the past. For example, Bullhead, Bowfin, and/or Gar. If you have X-pounds of these competitors, then you have that many pounds of LMB fewer than you could have.



I would discourage discounting the presence of any of the predator fish listed above as negligible if they are still present in your pond. If they are there ... there is an impact that isn't negligible. Gar, for example, can get quite large and they can be difficult hook and land. The average life is 15-20 years. I used to fish with a 1.25" streamer below the 3rd set of gates at Grand Lake. Have encountered many Long Nosed Gar that were in excess of 4 feet long. Big fat things that would leap out of the water to get free. Invariably the hook was engaged near the tip of the snout where the barb could not penetrate well enough to get a hook set. I have had as many as a half dozen give me hope in a day while fishing for other fish (sandbass, crappie, and buffalo). They must have been using the long snout to first grip the fly (as tiny as it was). Anyways, if you had just one of them in your pond ... that is one too many. Bullhead are much smaller but if you had 5 2lb Bullhead to the acre ... that's preventing 10 lbs/acre of LMB. Same goes for bowfin, they are intermediate between the Bullhead and GAR in size. Even as few as 2 or 3 per acre ... they can crimp the carry for your LMB. You really must be sure they are not present to be sure they are negligible.



This was posted in the original post. But you don't say how many were marked. Is it the 177 mentioned below? If not, how many were marked at that time when you recaptured 2 of 80?



Can you answer these questions?

How many BG have you caught these past 10 days?

How many hours have you fished these past 10 days?

Did you record the marked BG mentioned above? For example, Date, length, and weight? You mentioned that they were 100 RW, so at least you must have weighed them and measured their length? Can you report the metrics collected thus far?


One species that could be of particular importance is the Blue Tilapia that inhabit your pond. Their feeding will cross some with BG. They will consume insects, invertebrates of all kinds, and to a much lesser extent small fish and fry. They are large in your pond (up to 4 lbs). I would think 11" BG might not prevent at least some nest raiding for eggs by TP that are this large. Whatever you can do to remove Blue Tilapia could help to benefit BG.


Finally, you have purchased a Z-trap, a minnow trap, and feed 2 lbs/day. What type of feed are you feeding? Does your budget allow for supplementation of forage? What would that expense be limited to?

Answer these questions, and I will be better equipped to respond with advice that I think could help you.

The pond is an enigma wrapped in mystery. Yes! what pond in North Florida has problems with a Beaver?

I would discourage discounting the presence of any of the predator fish listed above as negligible if they are still present in your pond. If they are there ... there is an impact that isn't negligible.

I agree! The Gar was eliminated in the late '90s. I have not seen or caught one since. I think he was a bucket stock. The bowfin were also first caught in the late '90s while early evening fishing for LMB. About a half dozen eliminated none seen or caught since then. The BNBH were eliminated the last caught in '23 about a half dozen all the same size, mature adults RWs 75%. No fry balls seen near shore since '01. What pond in Florida does not have Gators? We have one now. As many as 8 about 5 years ago. 3 in '23. average 4-6'. They are invited to leave routinely.

But you don't say how many were marked. Is it the 177 mentioned below? If not, how many were marked at that time when you recaptured 2 of 80?

The 2 recapture were from the group of 80 marked. 177 is the total marked from angling & trapping to date. Last recapture ,one 12 Nov. Total recaptures from start 6.

How many BG have you caught these past 10 days?

I have not been consistent with every day trapping or angling. The last 10 days active , both trapping & fishing a total of 76 BG. My best location for the trap now recovers less than 5 BGs it averaged 10 or more in late OCT early NOV. The BG now feed further out & are reluctant to come close to the bank to get the feed that drifts there.

How many hours have you fished these past 10 days?

Ballpark guess 6hr. At the normal feeding time & tossing the line into the feed area, it takes a minute or two & I have a BG always >8". If I was efficient, perhaps I could catch 10 an hour. It is me that limits the amount of fish/hour not the fish.

Did you record the marked BG mentioned above? For example, Date, length, and weight? You mentioned that they were 100 RW, so at least you must have weighed them and measured their length? Can you report the metrics collected thus far?

I have the weights only for the original 80 or so fish. I abandoned the weights when I saw their RW range in the 80-100% . I would be happy with a pond with all fish in that range. I have been good with the lengths. I have not been as accurate with the dates. I have continued to take the lengths of all fish caught. Please remember my computer in school was a slide rule & typewriter. Typing has never been my Forte. I was hoping that this question would not be asked. I will provide my summary that I did with pencil, calculator & paper. All is Ballpark. I am not planning on publishing a paper.

3"-8 BG 5%, 3.5-20 11%, 4" 44 25% ,4.5 -10 6%, 5-19 11%, 5.5" -5 3%, 6" -18 10%, 6.5 -12 7%, 7"-14 8%, 7.5 -2 1%, 8"-4 2%, 8.5-2 1%, 9"-7 4%, 9.5 -6 3%, 10"-6 3%

One species that could be of particular importance is the Blue Tilapia that inhabit your pond.

I have tried to establish BTP as a second forage fish with VERY little success. An inversion eliminated all but one large Tilapia early last winter. They have come to feed with the BG and I see in the past schools of the larger fish this time of year but only that single BTP in '25. I have never seen small BTP at any time of the year or any year.

What type of feed are you feeding?

Yes! is a GOOD answer. '24 & '25 I have a partial bag of Aquamax Starter that I hand throw at the bank for any fingerling that might find it & MFs in the Spring. Rest of the year, It is an on occasion thing, to observe what fish are near shore, well I have some time & don't want to start the lawn. Aquamax Sport 500 or MVP fish in the early Spring before, during, & after the spawn, Aquamax Game fish Chow most of the time. In the past it was the cheap Nutrena from Tractor supply. It was what was available. Budget? It is always been a cost benefit. Yes, I could afford more but have never seen the benefit. The pond in recent years has had that olive green, 30" visibility year round. I never wanted to get into the feeder thing. I am into average, healthy, & balance.

This is the second painful attempt. First lost to my stupidity!

Given your reply, I like your plan but would bump up the minimum length to > 6". Per your samples, proportionately, 85.8% of your BG biomass appears to be > 6" in length. The biomass of the small lengths is much smaller and concentrated in 4"-5" length range. These could still be consumable, let them grow, you will be harvesting some of the survivors next year. You've sampled 46.58 lbs of your BG Biomass.

I am unable to make a population estimate (from which a biomass estimate could be made). To do mark and recapture, one first marks fish and records the number marked, then he resamples and the gross number of the resample along with the number of recaptures are used in a formula to estimate total population. It just wasn't clear to me what each of those numbers were based on your comments. But you do have marks on 71 BG that are greater than 6". Let that reference be a base line.

Starting now, I would harvest >6" BG that are unmarked. Release >6" BG if they are marked. But record each fish >6" that are caught in a spreadsheet whether culled or released as a marked fish. Google has a free spreadsheet if you do not have excel. I think a Date and the length and weight of the fish you keep would be great for estimates of biomass removed. Also, you want to assess how frequently marked BG are recaptured as you cull. Let's call that a lookback. So if you lookback 50 captures and 48 were culls and 2 were recaps ... this suggests that your pond had 24 times as many >6" BG that were unmarked than marked at the beginning of the lookback. I would like to see you cull until the lookback of 100 fish falls to around 86 unmarked or 180 lbs Gross weight removed (60 lbs/acre) ... whichever comes first. Over winter, you should consider keeping your fishing spot baited. Just a half pound or so of fish feed each day. I would crush to a crumble so that it sinks well. This kind of chums the water and may help keep fish concentrated near where you will be fishing.

Also, I don't see a problem catching LMB. Give them a fin clip ... and if you want ... also clip some of the dorsal spines to uniquely identify. Again, to start get at least a length. I like the idea of a fin clip that identifies the year it was clipped and that way you can reuse the dorsal spine clips each year and still know which fish is which. Try to get a good census of your LMB by fishing with live bait. If the water temp falls below 57F, stop fishing for and handling them but try to understand what you know is in there. Using live bait will attract fish that may otherwise ignore artificial lures.

You are blessed with fishable temps most of the year. Take advantage of it and keep us up to date on your progress.

JPSDAD,

Thank you for your help & advice!

I now feel very confident as I move forward. I will update this as I see progress.


Happy Thanksgiving to you & your family!

You are most welcome Mr Craig. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours as well. Earlier, I prepared an excel spreadsheet for PondDragon for tallying catches. It has an automatic lookback calculation in it. I think you'll have to tally 100 catches before it calculates. Anyways, if you have excel this might be a handy tool.

How did it get so strangely out of balance? Reading the current PB Magazine & the Otter thread, it came to me, the otter family that frequented the pond years back. They were around for a couple of years & have moved on.

I now know how the dog that chases cars feels when he finally catches one. I got it now what do I do with it?

It has been a learning experience. It is my very first excel spreadsheet. I can make it do the simple calculations but I have great frustrations with the more complex. I google the operation I want to do, then it tells me to many filters, it is written wrong, or asks me what are you trying to do. Where is the best place to go for properly written formulas? I know it will work if I can just write the correct question. Now if I can get it attached?

JE Craig,

Reach out to me by PM where we can converse about what you are trying to do in this SS and I will help you.

The lack of small BG to me is an indicator of too many LMB and not enough forage. If it was my pond or a pond that I managed, I'd remove EVERY bass that I caught, not just the low RW ones. That would minimize the hook shy ones. Keep removing LMB until you get a balanced size distribution of BG in the pond. Larger LMB won't target smaller BG, but they WILL eat smaller LMB.

After the size of the BG get more varied, only then would I think about removing any BG that are big enough to reproduce. Remember not all of the bass in the pond will strike at a lure. That is why e-shocking is used to check fish populations and not angling.

Your LMB not growing to me means that there still isn't enough forage in the pond for them to grow.

In my personal pond, I tell anybody that I allow to fish it that EVERY LMB that is caught gets removed. 5 pounds or 3 inches, ALL come out. After 5-6 years of that, there are still LMB reproducing in the pond and this pond is only an acre in size. In the summer if I see smaller LMB cruising the banks I will go to a small bait and 2# test line to specifically target them, sight fishing for them whenever I see them.

If the catch rates of the LMB in the pond start dropping, then go to live bait. #2 wire hook tied directly to the line, 8# test fluorocarbon line, a weight 12" pinched above the bait to keep it at a certain depth and a bobber that is enough to keep the bait from taking it under the water. I'd try fishing with 4" golden shiners.

Have you run an ES survey or a seine survey?

I'd remove EVERY bass that I caught, not just the low RW ones.

Since '23 that is exactly what I have done. I have very good records. The fish caught, almost ALL were in the 12-15" range & RW 75%. By the summer of '25 I had expected to see a relative weight change. I did not, only a decrease in fishing efficiency. Only at the end of the '25 summer did I return a fish that was >18" RW 80% & a 12" RW 90% that fought very hard. Spending 6 hrs to catch a LMB, I chose to spend time surveying BG.

Keep removing LMB until you get a balanced size distribution of BG in the pond.

I have been using 2 baited Z traps, Reel Texas Outdoors, & angling. Angling I have found that I only catch > 7" (7-10.5") rather easily.. The traps capture 3-7" BG. I have good records (Excel) with BG captures, 400. Culling 5-9" & happy to see that the greatest # caught are in the 3.5-4.5 range 40%. I am sure there are a great biases in these figures because of the traps & small area used. 400 caught, 30 lbs of 180 lbs goal removed, with 26 recaptures. The surprise information gained: 1% caught were Warmouth, 1% White Crappie, 2% RES.

In the summer if I see smaller LMB cruising the banks I will go to a small bait.

Since '23 I have never seen a small LMB 3-10" cruising the shore, but I have the rod rigged & bait ready for them. My fishing buddy Hank Heron is looking forward to those times, LMB are much easier to swallow. I have caught only one <10 LMB

If the catch rates of the LMB in the pond start dropping, then go to live bait. #2 wire hook tied directly to the line, 8# test fluorocarbon line, a weight 12" pinched above the bait to keep it at a certain depth and a bobber that is enough to keep the bait from taking it under the water.

This I was going to try once the LMB spawn is coming to an end, perhaps 6 more weeks. No bait shop near me has shiners. I was going to try BG in the 3-4" range. Once in awhile as I throw a small BG back after marking the water explodes. I assume the BG will never be seen again.

Seine, tried it once. I looked like a fool. The fish were all quicker & smarter than me. Never trapped a single fish.
Access to the pond for an e-shocking is extremely difficult & limited.