Since the Moderators are near consensus, then perhaps you should go with that. Possibly a blend of esshup's and ewest's recs. EG 25 8"-10", 25 6"-8", and 10 or 20 4"-6".

Were it me, I would request the supplier to provide the LMB fin clipped. If each length class of LMB were fin clipped in a different fin location so that the initial length class info is preserved and can be tracked.

esshup has an idea of what he anticipates as growth for the LMB. Long story short, the faster those LMB grow, the more BG they ate (or if you will ... the greater number of BG were controlled). Success would be defined as enough BG population control that the growth of the BG provides the BG fishing experience you are seeking. So long as that is reasonable, and so long as your predators are a good match for the goal, then you should attain your goal.

So I am not sure what is reasonable expectation in OH. But my favorite decades old ponds in OK for BG grow BG to 10"-11". They do that with native fertility and with little or no human intervention. They tend to be overpopulated with LMB ... although I do occasionally catch LMB up to 15" in them. In these ponds, there is enough LMB predation so that that oldest BG can reach in excess of 1 lb without culling the BG or the LMB. I figure the standing weights are pretty low relative to the forage potential. So a pond that may support a total of 650 lbs of BG (without predation) may only have 200 -300 lbs of total fish. These ponds are old enough to have accumulated the nutrients that support a forage potential of 650 lbs. The difference between the forage potential and the standing weight is the biomass of mortality annually. The major portion of that mortality are BG consumed by LMB.

With a goal, to harvest BG, a pond like these top producers of BG top-end sizes needs to have some the LMB thinned. This should have two effects. 1st it should allow greater survival of BG that can reach harvestable sizes. 2nd it will necessarily reduce the rate of annual growth. In a case where LMB are cropped to allow greater BG survival, where one still wants examples exceeding 10", the harvest becomes a necessary part of growing BG to >10". Just talking a stable system where the recruitment of BG bigger than the LMB gape equals the sum of natural and harvest mortality. Well managed, you could harvest a consistent number of BG annually and grow dandy BG (though a modestly smaller top-end weight than when predation is greater). A pond managed with less predation will attain a greater standing weight of total fish.

Even though there is a consensus, you will still need to monitor the situation. IOWs, you can't take success for granted. Success means you are happy with BG growth. BG > 5" are capable of growing up to an average of .39 lbs annually in OH. I base that on a model sourced from the forum and posted by Bill Cody. Your expectation should be some partial/whole fraction of that. The lower the growth ... this is evidence that the number of BG exceeds what would be required to attain the maximum potential.

You've allowed the BG a year without predators and so the biggest concern from my perspective is the population structure of the BG. Your preliminary seine census seems to indicate that 1"-1.5" BG are 10 times more numerous than the 4"-5" BG. If this were reflective of the whole pond, then the standing weight of 4"-5" BG is roughly 6 times greater than the standing weight of 1"-1.5" BG. It's not clear how close the standing weight BG is to forage potential. If the forage potential is mostly filled, then growth will be moderated mostly by mortality. IOWs, the surviving BG can and will grow into the potential freed by natural mortality. So the key here, is that mortality must be high enough to support the growth you are trying to achieve. That's where the predators come in. You want them to provide that mortality.

The biggest challenge ... as I see it ... is the control of BG >4" in length. 8"-10" LMbass averaging 9" in length will have a maximum consumable prey size of 3" BG (33% length). The laterally compressed body of the BG will serve as protection against predation LMB. Given your census indicates a biomass of 4.5" BG 6 times greater than the smaller BG ... and the 4.5" BG are to large fit a 10" LMB gape ... it seems the food the 8"-10" LMB will be relying on will be smaller than 3.5" in length and so they will be competing with the smaller LMB for those resources. They have to eat ... don't they? And so they will eat but they will not eat BG bigger than their gape.


Long story short, I do believe you are going to have to introduce mortality to the BG >4" in order to get growth to a good proportion of the BG potential. Traps, fishing, seining ... these can all help. If you don't do this I think the number of LMB you are stocking would lead to poor growth of the LMB where they never reach the size required to thin those >4". Natural mortality (excluding LMB predation mortality) will drive the growth of BG.

FWIW ... I do not believe that there is an optimum number of LMB to reach your goal of large BG. The present condition of the BG size structure is favorable to an LMB size structure that is low in number, with high rates of growth, and large average weights. It is not favorable to an LMB size structure that is high in number, with low rates of growth and low average weights. The latter is what you are trying to move your pond to in order to grow larger BG. You need a good population of LMB but the BG the population structure is like a desert to such a large number of LMB which means they would not grow sufficiently to consume your 4.5 BG which are probably presently over abundant to reach your goals. Removing some of these fish will free forage potential for the survivors growth and it should increase the number of BG YOY recruits that your introduced abundant LMB will need.