hey y'all. been a couple of days. sorry. told ya i'd get back with ya on how i've used a notebook to raise trophy bass. back when i got serious about management, as i've already detailed, i started a journal. i've already covered how i started the journal with my goals, objectives, and dreams, so i won't belabor those points. but i told ya that this little notebook also served a very important second purpose. it was my "crystal ball" with which i could accurately predict which bass in the pond were destined for greatness. that's what i hope to cover here. but a word of caution before you read any further. if you are dealing with big ponds, if you are not really serious about raising lunkers, or if you do not want to invest a little (and by a little, i mean VERY little) more time than usual in your management process, stop reading here. what i'm about to say will be impractical for you.

we all know that when it comes to raising monster bass in small ponds, selective harvest is a must. sadly, most folks don't seem to pay too much attention to proper selective harvest for the purpose of raising trophies, even when they THINK they're doing a great job with it. yes, they are dilligent. and yes they harvest in correct proportions. but unfortunately sometimes they are shooting themselves in the foot by removing the WRONG BASS. unknowingly, sometimes pond managers fire their franchise players! to make it worse, they keep sub-par performers on the team. i'll illustrate on a small scale to make things a little more simplistic.

one day joe goes fishing at his pond. he's been at this pond management thing a while and has now decided he wants some lunkers in his water. joe realizes he needs to take a fish or 2 out every so often to make his goals a reality. so on this particular outing, joe catches 2 healthy fish, a 3 pounder and a 4 pounder. well, this is a no brainer for joe. he quickly releases the 4 with dreams that this fish will one day be a jaw-dropper. without a second thought, he harvests the 3 to accompany some slaw and hush puppies. he goes back to to the house patting himself on the back for a successful "selective harvest" thinking he's right on track.

here's the problem. what joe didn't realize was that the fish he released was a male fish that had basically topped out in growth. over the past year, that fish had only shown a net gain of 3 ounces. the one he kept for the skillet was a little female destined for greatness until her progress was permanantly brought to a screeching halt that day. prior to being caught, that fish had doubled her body weight from the previous year. her growth rate was fast, and the sky was the limit. like a snowball rolling downhill, she was gaining even more momentum with each passing month. she was one of joe's "star players". of course the key word here is "was" because now she's swimming in the fry daddy instead of joe's pond.

poor joe. but we can't fault him though, can we? he was just doing what seemed right. there's no way he could have known that he had released a fish back into his pond that would never be any bigger than 4.75 pounds. there's no way he could have imagined that the one in his belly would have grown to 11.5 had she been allowed to live out her days. it's just not possible that he could have guessed all that from a half hour fishing trip. or is it?

enough typing for now. more later if anyone is still interested.

I think we may have another rising star here.

It will be interesting to see where this goes.

Yeah I am wondering myself? I am not much for all the drama that seems to be with this story. Sorry I just want/need answers and advice and direction not a 15 chapter story. Just kidding Jig but I am sort of impatient being a new pond owner and all.

come on with chapter 2 already, will ya!

"Just kidding Jig but I am sort of impatient being a new pond owner and all."

RC, I think that's part of the the equation,'patience is a virtue'.

Weither it be fiction or non-fiction its still worth the time since it makes you think out of the box which is what we should do anyway. So far its questionable too some, but if nothing else jignpig will lull you in for a good read.

Write more.

Well, I got a pm from jignpig.
We've spooked him off with our skepticism.
I, for one, was intrigued to hear what he's done and how he's grown those monster fish.
Maybe he'll reconsider.
In his pm, he shared a few of his techniques and I have no doubt he knows what he's doing. He's just willing to work at it harder than most people are. He's done some extremely thoughtful culling, learning how to read his fish and figure out which ones are young, fast growing fish and which ones aren't. He figured out some techniques to use competition between fish to teach some of his fish how to eat artificial feed instead of doing it the traditional ways we are all used to.
He's figured out how to manage his natural food chain in the best ways to feed his targeted fish.
It would have been a good out-of-the-box strategy to learn. He's kept a meticulous journal and has used a deeper line of thought than most people.
He's a father, husband and worker first, pond manager fourth. He doesn't type fast and it takes time for him to post. When he reads how we want him to cut to the chase over something he's passionate about, he feels the need to not do it...same when we infer 'fact or fiction'.
While this isn't designed to be an admonishment, it's sad to me on two fronts. One, we live in a fast food society and tend to be impatient with people. Two, it bothers me when someone gets their feelings hurt even the tiniest bit, over something we think is fundamentally trivial.
He should get past the comments and post his thoughts.
We should all be more thoughtful how we talk through our keyboards.
I should probably keep my keyboard-based mouth shut on this one.

I hope i'm the first to reply here... I stated the 'fact or fiction" part and ment it (wait!). That being said, please understand it was only because it was a statement about an unknown entity. I certainly wanted to hear more and still do. I did not mean to upset or offend and if i did here is my public apology to jignpig right now. I liked his style of writing and made mention of it lulling you into reading it. I hope he didnt think i was being unkind and i hope he writes more. I evidently was part of the reason for him not wanting to stay and for that i sincerly apologize to the others on the forum as well. It was not my intent to run him off. At the time i wrote that i did not feel jignpig would have that type of reaction to my post. I am sorry if i offended, it was not what i intended.

I hope we didn't run jignpig off. I thought that his story was very interesting and enjoyed the way he presented it.

I second that!

jignpig, I wish that you'd reconsider. I really was (and still am) interested in what you'r techniques are, and now I'm really interested in hearing how you do it, especially how you feed train the LMB, and how to tell who the "shining stars" are.

I note Bob's comment. This is why we try to remind folks of the reluctance of many to even post and the need to be careful with what we say. I did not take any of the prior posts as overly negative but can understand how a new reluctant poster might not understand all the personalities and comments. It is very difficult to write what we feel or think so others will understand not only the facts but the emotion behind them. Kidding can come across as anger , legitimate questions as disbelief and a needed warning of possible results as criticism. So we need to think how others will take the exact words we use.

I sent jignpig a PM asking him to join in the fun.

Don't include me in your we've. I din't spook anybody, I loved the guy and had some great posts with him. I've got abused a lot worse from some of the old timers here. But I just let that roll off my slimy back. I respect his accomplishments and his presentation, and if he is done here I respect that as well. Even if I can't follow his path it was a lot of fun readin about his. I hope he gets his state record and may all of his fish be lunkers. Good for him.

Pm sent.

Jignpig, I hope you'll stay. I for one would love to hear more about what you're doing and I really enjoy your writing.

Ditto.

Please reconsider jignpig. I was eagerly anticipating each new post from you. Your unique writing style always kept my interest that I could relate to with a distinct human element. I have been a part of this forum for five years now and have for the first time used the "follow" button for distinctive members on you. Not that I don't enjoy many others perspectives, just that I don't want to miss any of your captivating posts. I will be saddened if we lose the talent and insight such as yours because of a few indiscriminate comments. Please, anybody considering any skeptic jabs in an effort of weak humor... Just keep it to yourself in the name of making this great forum ever better.
Out of respect for all here,
Blaine

well i didnt send you a pm jignpig, and i havent posted on this thread yet, but i'll let you know here that i've thoroughly enjoyed your enormous contribution to this forum so far, and hope you decide to come back. you are a talented individual, and i'd love to hear more. even for those that dont grow bass, yer management approach is compelling.

and i'll bet a nickel, i probably speak for hundreds of other people lurking about and not posting.

I think he done flew the coop.
Shane! Come back, Shane!

o.k. y'all. back. never intended to leave, just needed a minute. probably my fault more than anyone's. bad week at work so far. when you're new, it's really kinda hard to know how to take things sometimes. even harder on absolute minimal sleep. maybe some of y'all have been there and know what i'm talking about. anyway, i see things in a different light now. thanks for setting me straight. it's all good. and even though it might be hard to explain things completely sometimes, i'll try to be a little more brief and to the point in my posts if that's what y'all really want. quicker for y'all to read. quicker for me to type. guess i can always try to answer questions if necessary. thanks to those who pm'd. that meant a lot. really. i tried to respond to everyone that did. if i missed anyone, i apologize sincerely. promise it was not intentional. in the future please don't think you can't joke around or say what you wanna with me. that wouldn't be any fun at all. i'll try very hard to take things as they are intended and we'll make this work. try me. my mood will be much better after friday once i'm in a new boat. let's do this.

Thanks for continuing the party jignpig. I am not a LMB guy, but still find your passion very interesting. Many of your ideas will work with any fish, not just LMB. Keep on posting...

good news and bad news...
-
good news: we're back on track with JnP Hawg report
bad news: he is considering changin' his info delivery method to conform to a presumed forum need. WRONGO! jignpig...you stay right where you started; in your comfort zone. Period.
-
-
thanx, man

Jignpig I am definitely intrigued. I spent the daydream portion of the commute (Both ways) thinking about your comments on culling. From a survival of the fittest and resource allocation standpoint it makes total sense.

I wish I could know my fish that well! Yes I know a couple of large Bluegill with a dozen holes in their upper lips, but I'm lost with my prized possessions.

I did see some tags in Jones Fish that could be useful, but I'm not sure yet. I am curious how you approached this issue.

P.S. I actually enjoy your thought provoking posts, as I said you have me looking at my pond from a different perspective.

Yea! Glad your back. I'm with Brettski pick up where you left off.

Wish I was getting a new boat on Friday

Well said Brettski. I second the motion!

BlackBass, if you are interested in the floy tags, I suggest you contact Greg Grimes here and do some price shopping. You'll probably be surprised. I bought a gun and 100 numbered tags from Greg last year. I still have to catch a tagged fish, but I've never found one dead yet either....

take just a minute to reflect on your retirement plan and its various options. what's a good strategy to maximize growth? doesn't it make sense to allocate as much of your resources as possible to your consistent, long-term "performers" to maximize your gains? what about the funds that have been consistent underachievers for you? don't you eventually decide to to cut your losses to rid yourself of a non-performer fund? after all, it's a win-win. first, you get rid of dead weight that's doing nothing but slowing you down and keeping you from reaching your goals. second, you are able to use those newly freed up resources to invest even more into the "blue chippers". and how do you distinguish the funds and investments that are performing for you from those that aren't? you study the quarterly reports to learn how your investments are doing over both the short and long term.

this has been my approach to raising lunkers. when i started pond management, i got numbers down to where i thought they should be through my best efforts at a "smart" selective harvest - indiscriminantly getting rid of all the runts i could, and then getting rid of all the males i could during the spawn (when it is relatively easy to identify and catch males.) i then set out on a program to grow and easily identify the "blue chip" bass in the pond. every bass had something to prove, and its future in the pond depended on it.

this is where my journal came into play. i wanted to do two things - come up with a system to accurately identify my bass, a "who's who" of the pond so to speak. after identification, i wanted to track growth rates to identify the fish that were growing the fastest, and therefore in my mind showed the most potential.

the identification part wasn't really difficult. i said earlier that i had stocked the pond with "wild" fish that i had caught at other locations, mostly fish in the 2 pound range. to be a candidate for the pond, the bass had to appear relatively young and healthy. when it was possible, i tried to use bass that had some sort of distinctive marking to make future identification easy. you will be suprised at how many of your own bass (and other fish species as well) have at least one distinctive mark if you examine them closely. for example here's my little fishing buddy proudly holding up one of my younger project fish she caught. notice the light colored pigment blotch on its back, right behind the top part of its gill plate and right below where its dorsal fin is just beginning.



now if you don't have a bass with distinctive markings, don't despair. you see each largemouth has its own "bar code" in the series of dark spots and blotches that form the line down it's side. like snowflakes, no two are ever the same. prior to releasing a fish into the pond i always took at least one picture of the bass, a close up of the fish's entire side. i always used the same side of the fish for obvious reasons. you want to compare left sides to left sides. if the fish had a distinctive marking, i took a picture of that as well. for those who don't want to try to identify fish through their natural markings, i have heard of using various fin clippings and tags to make i.d. a breeze. but i never wanted to fool with the tags, and i didn't want to injure my fish unnecessarily. in cases where the bass' "bar code" was dull or indistinct due to various water conditions, i had a little trick. i kept a large 35 gal. storage bin in the back of my truck full of clear water. i only had to let the fish swim around in the clear water for a few seconds before its unique individual pattern popped out vividly. if you look at some of my fish pics, you will see how "pretty" and vivid most of my fish look with their spots and colors popping. the clear water in the bin is usually the reason.

each fish got its own "chapter" in my notebook starting with it's pictures. as a whole, the notebook represented an inventory of most of the bass in the pond, and all of the ones that mattered to me. these were what i called my "project fish". every time i caught a fish from the pond that was not identifiable as a project fish, i removed it unless it appeared to have some potential. in the extremely rare case that it did show potential (very few of the original bass in the pond were up to par) i took pictures and it too became part of the project inventory. from there, i gave each fish a name to simplify identification. i kept a series of statistics on each project fish. the most important of these were the date i originally released the fish into the pond, its weight upon initial introduction into the pond, subsequent catch dates, weight at each catch, and whether the fish appeared to be "soft bellied" (empty stomach) or "hard bellied" (full stomach) at each catch. please note that i wanted to make sure i was giving each fish a fair shake as i considered its potential. i did not want to compare a pre-spawn weight one year to a post-spawn weight the next. i did not want to compare a fish with a full stomach one year to that same fish with an empty belly the next. we all know that even a relatively small bass can gain 6 oz. of body weight in one feeding binge. i wanted to make sure i was always comparing apples to apples. each time i caught a project fish, i was extremely careful with it making every effort to keep it safe and avoid injury.

i probably don't have to tell you the rest of the story. i was absolutely amazed at how quickly i got to know my fish and could recognize them both in and out of the water by their appearance, and if you can believe it, their own unique mannerisms and habits. some were always shy. some were always naturally curious. some were consistently aggressive. before i knew it, i didn't even need the pictures to immediately identify each fish. soon, i didn't even really need the journal to be honest, even though keeping it made things more exact. using the story each fish told me about its potential through the statistics i recorded, i was able to easily identify the "blue chippers" - the fastest growing fish. i even sorted the fish into tiers, based on their potential. i tried to make sure that all my project fish were generously fed as long as they were showing acceptable growth. but i ALWAYS made sure sure that MAXIMUM food resources were allocated to top tier fish to squeeze every ounce of growth out of them that i possibly could.

that little journal forced me to do something very, very important - become familiar with my fish. to this day, i believe that is a vital ingredient in managing for trophies in a small pond. i was able to raise big fish because i was able to recognize the star performers and accurately evaluate potential. i could compare growth rates. i knew which fish to keep around and allocate resources to. i knew when a fish was an underachiever and needed to leave the pond to free up resources for the overachievers. to me, star quality in a fish is not determined by how big it is, unless it is huge already. a fish's star quality is determined by how fast they are getting big, in other words, their growth rate. at least that's the way i see it. right now, there are 3 pound fish in the pond that i value more highly than some of the 4's. why? because they are growing faster. they are getting every single ounce of growth possible out of each growing season. soon these young butterballs will surpass their older counterparts. in time they'll become the tales that my daughter and i tell with big smiles on our faces, and the pictures that have my friends drooling. and it's in those moments that i can't help but fondly recall how it all started with a dream, a few goals, and a notebook.

well, i made it through this without the beeper going off. unbelievable. might be a quiet night. really didn't think i'd get to finish this until next week. hope this helps someone in some small way. i told ya it was micromanagement to the highest degree, but it worked for me beyond anything i ever imagained and became very simple after only a short while. hopefully it will work for some of y'all too.

Jignpig: Interesting read, which brings me to these questions (if you dont mind). You mentioned that you always did your best to give maximum allocation of food resourses to your top achievers. 1.) How do you know what food they wanted the most? (ie. flushing the stomach contents, or?) 2.) Have you found a way to "know" what size food a certain size fish wants to quickly achieve max size or are you taking a SWAG(sophisticated wild a*s guess)? Thanks, Don.

I have just found the answer to one of my question each fish identification. In my little pond this is something I really need to do. I have a limited space and need to keep the best fish and know how many I have. This form is a life line for guys like me that are working and trying to manage a little family pond. GnP thanks for your input and to all who have helped this old man. Ain’t got time but to do it right the first time.
Please forgive me if I ask the same questions two or three time.

"i said earlier that i had stocked the pond with "wild" fish that i had caught at other locations, mostly fish in the 2 pound range."

Hey Jig,
Question about above quote. I have been told and read time and time again that this is a big no,no. Is this part of your thinking out of the management box? I actually was going to do this myself as I belive most of my bass are stunted from several years of non management but was told and read not to do this as it can lead to bad results? But it looks like you did fine with it? Your thoughts?

Is JnP available to manage my retirement funds?

This stuff is meat, I'm telling you.

Excellent read. Tell us more.

I had a feeling this was part of the path I could not walk down. Extreme fine tuning with highest potential fish by selective harvesting. I just have too many fish, way too many individuals to track consistent. And no way am I ever tagging. Thanks for coming back and writing in your own style. I thoroughly enjoy your posts. And when you said in some ways my management style and goals are more difficult than yours, I respectfully disagree. I can half ass it and get away with good results. You are just downright perfectionist. The results speak for themselves. Good for you jig and pig. I'll tell you one thing, I am starting ponds where I will be able to use some of your methods. Thanks for all of the tips. Your input to this forum is invaluable, especially to a multiple pond guy like me.

for the sake of continuity, i am taking the first part of the post and attaching it to the second. i am not really sure if this is even the section this belongs in. maybe it should go under managing an existing pond. if i have misplaced it, i apologize. anyway, i got to thinking about it and thought it might make more sense this way. mods, bob, delete the other two posts if you wanna. i tried and i couldn't. sorry. hope i'm not making a mess here. i'll try to answer a few questions as i can throughout the day.

back when i got serious about management, as i've already detailed, i started a journal. i've already covered how i started the journal with my goals, objectives, and dreams, so i won't belabor those points. but i told ya that this little notebook also served a very important second purpose. it was my "crystal ball" with which i could accurately predict which bass in the pond were destined for greatness. that's what i hope to cover here. but a word of caution before you read any further. if you are dealing with big ponds, if you are not really serious about raising lunkers, or if you do not want to invest a little (and by a little, i mean VERY little) more time than usual in your management process, stop reading here. what i'm about to say will be impractical for you.

we all know that when it comes to raising monster bass in small ponds, selective harvest is a must. sadly, most folks don't seem to pay too much attention to proper selective harvest for the purpose of raising trophies, even when they THINK they're doing a great job with it. yes, they are dilligent. and yes they harvest in correct proportions. but unfortunately sometimes they are shooting themselves in the foot by removing the WRONG BASS. unknowingly, sometimes pond managers fire their franchise players! to make it worse, they keep sub-par performers on the team. i'll illustrate on a small scale to make things a little more simplistic.

one day joe goes fishing at his pond. he's been at this pond management thing a while and has now decided he wants some lunkers in his water. joe realizes he needs to take a fish or 2 out every so often to make his goals a reality. so on this particular outing, joe catches 2 healthy fish, a 3 pounder and a 4 pounder. well, this is a no brainer for joe. he quickly releases the 4 with dreams that this fish will one day be a jaw-dropper. without a second thought, he harvests the 3 to accompany some slaw and hush puppies. he goes back to to the house patting himself on the back for a successful "selective harvest" thinking he's right on track.

here's the problem. what joe didn't realize was that the fish he released was a male fish that had basically topped out in growth. over the past year, that fish had only shown a net gain of 3 ounces. the one he kept for supper was a little female destined for greatness until her progress was permanantly brought to a screeching halt that day. prior to being caught, that fish had doubled her body weight from the previous year. her growth rate was fast, and the sky was the limit. like a snowball rolling downhill, she was gaining even more momentum with each passing month. she was one of joe's "star players". of course the key word here is "was" because now she's swimming in the fry daddy instead of joe's pond.

poor joe. but we can't fault him though, can we? he was just doing what seemed right. there's no way he could have known that he had released a fish back into his pond that would never be any bigger than 4.75 pounds. there's no way he could have imagined that the one in his belly would have grown to 11.5 had she been allowed to live out her days. he couldn't possibly guess all that from a short fishing trip. or could he?

as you consider that question, take just a minute to reflect on your retirement plan and its various options. what's a good strategy to maximize growth? doesn't it make sense to allocate as much of your resources as possible to your consistent, long-term "performers" to maximize your gains? what about the funds that have been consistent underachievers for you? don't you eventually decide to to cut your losses to rid yourself of a non-performer fund? after all, it's a win-win. first, you get rid of dead weight that's doing nothing but slowing you down and keeping you from reaching your goals. second, you are able to use those newly freed up resources to invest even more into the "blue chippers". and how do you distinguish the funds and investments that are performing for you from those that aren't? you study the quarterly reports to learn how your investments are doing over both the short and long term.

this has been my approach to raising lunkers. when i started pond management, i got numbers down to where i thought they should be through my best efforts at a "smart" selective harvest - indiscriminantly getting rid of all the runts i could, and then getting rid of all the males i could during the spawn (when it is relatively easy to identify and catch males.) i then set out on a program to grow and easily identify the "blue chip" bass in the pond. every bass had something to prove, and its future in the pond depended on it.

this is where my journal came into play. i wanted to do two things - come up with a system to accurately identify my bass, a "who's who" of the pond so to speak. after identification, i wanted to track growth rates to identify the fish that were growing the fastest, and therefore in my mind showed the most potential.

the identification part wasn't really difficult. i said earlier that i had stocked the pond with "wild" fish that i had caught at other locations, mostly fish in the 2 pound range. to be a candidate for the pond, the bass had to appear relatively young and healthy. when it was possible, i tried to use bass that had some sort of distinctive marking to make future identification easy. you will be suprised at how many of your own bass (and other fish species as well) have at least one distinctive mark if you examine them closely. for example here's my little fishing buddy proudly holding up one of my younger project fish she caught. notice the light colored pigment blotch on its back, right behind the top part of its gill plate and right below where its dorsal fin is just beginning.



now if you don't have a bass with distinctive markings, don't despair. you see each largemouth has its own "bar code" in the series of dark spots and blotches that form the line down it's side. like snowflakes, no two are ever the same. prior to releasing a fish into the pond i always took at least one picture of the bass, a close up of the fish's entire side. i always used the same side of the fish for obvious reasons. you want to compare left sides to left sides. if the fish had a distinctive marking, i took a picture of that as well. for those who don't want to try to identify fish through their natural markings, i have heard of using various fin clippings and tags to make i.d. a breeze. but i never wanted to fool with the tags, and i didn't want to injure my fish unnecessarily. in cases where the bass' "bar code" was dull or indistinct due to various water conditions, i had a little trick. i kept a large 35 gal. storage bin in the back of my truck full of clear water. i only had to let the fish swim around in the clear water for a few seconds before its unique individual pattern popped out vividly. if you look at some of my fish pics, you will see how "pretty" and vivid most of my fish look with their spots and colors popping. the clear water in the bin is usually the reason.

each fish got its own "chapter" in my notebook starting with it's pictures. as a whole, the notebook represented an inventory of most of the bass in the pond, and all of the ones that mattered to me. these were what i called my "project fish". every time i caught a fish from the pond that was not identifiable as a project fish, i removed it unless it appeared to have some potential. in the extremely rare case that it did show potential (very few of the original bass in the pond were up to par) i took pictures and it too became part of the project inventory. from there, i gave each fish a name to simplify identification. i kept a series of statistics on each project fish. the most important of these were the date i originally released the fish into the pond, its weight upon initial introduction into the pond, subsequent catch dates, weight at each catch, and whether the fish appeared to be "soft bellied" (empty stomach) or "hard bellied" (full stomach) at each catch. please note that i wanted to make sure i was giving each fish a fair shake as i considered its potential. i did not want to compare a pre-spawn weight one year to a post-spawn weight the next. i did not want to compare a fish with a full stomach one year to that same fish with an empty belly the next. we all know that even a relatively small bass can gain 6 oz. of body weight in one feeding binge. i wanted to make sure i was always comparing apples to apples. each time i caught a project fish, i was extremely careful with it making every effort to keep it safe and avoid injury.

i probably don't have to tell you the rest of the story. i was absolutely amazed at how quickly i got to know my fish and could recognize them both in and out of the water by their appearance, and if you can believe it, their own unique mannerisms and habits. some were always shy. some were always naturally curious. some were consistently aggressive. before i knew it, i didn't even need the pictures to immediately identify each fish. soon, i didn't even really need the journal to be honest, even though keeping it made things more exact. using the story each fish told me about its potential through the statistics i recorded, i was able to easily identify the "blue chippers" - the fastest growing fish. i even sorted the fish into tiers, based on their potential. i tried to make sure that all my project fish were generously fed as long as they were showing acceptable growth. but i ALWAYS made sure sure that MAXIMUM food resources were allocated to top tier fish to squeeze every ounce of growth out of them that i possibly could.

that little journal forced me to do something very, very important - become familiar with my fish. to this day, i believe that is a vital ingredient in managing for trophies in a small pond. i was able to raise big fish because i was able to recognize the star performers and accurately evaluate potential. i could compare growth rates. i knew which fish to keep around and allocate resources to. i knew when a fish was an underachiever and needed to leave the pond to free up resources for the overachievers. to me, star quality in a fish is not determined by how big it is, unless it is huge already. a fish's star quality is determined by how fast they are getting big, in other words, their growth rate. at least that's the way i see it. right now, there are 3 pound fish in the pond that i value more highly than some of the 4's. why? because they are growing faster. they are getting every single ounce of growth possible out of each growing season. soon these young butterballs will surpass their older counterparts. in time they'll become the tales that my daughter and i tell with big smiles on our faces, and the pictures that have my friends drooling. and it's in those moments that i can't help but fondly recall how it all started with a dream, a few goals, and a notebook.

Will finding identification marks on each fish is a good idea. I was moving toward the tattoos. LOL
But everything you are stating makes sense. Just gotta put a little more time in the though process. JP keep us up dated with pictures. I’ll have to go back and start looking at the pictures I’ve been taking. This will help me know, did I catch five fish are the same dummy five times?

o.k., here are my attempts at answers. please keep in mind these are just my opinions based on my own observations. i don't claim to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination, just a guy who does this for fun.

"You mentioned that you always did your best to give maximum allocation of food resourses to your top achievers. 1.) How do you know what food they wanted the most? (ie. flushing the stomach contents, or?) 2.) Have you found a way to "know" what size food a certain size fish wants to quickly achieve max size or are you taking a SWAG(sophisticated wild a*s guess)?"

don, i can tell you would be a good chess player. you seem to be able to take a look at something and automatically think a few moves ahead. this will serve you well in pond management.
at first, it was not a matter of knowing "what" food they wanted, because they all got the same thing - small bluegill and green sunfish. while this is probably not the best forage fish to stock for the sole purpose of feeding bass, it worked for me because i could get all the gills i wanted for free. and i also eventually wanted big some bluegills in the pond to catch as well. in addition to the gills, based on what i saw around the pond, i'm sure that my fish gobbled up an occasional frog. there were plenty of crawdad chimneys and holes around the pond, so i figured they had to be munching on those frequently as well. in time the fish seemed to know when i was coming with a
load of bluegills for dinner and they would "meet" me at the waters edge. i watched the way they behaved and ate, not just the group as a whole, but each individual fish. needless to say, this served me well as i quickly found out that some fish had very distinctive "personalities" for lack of a better way of saying it. over time, i began to process what i saw and learned through these observations, and crazy as it seemed, began to believe that i could "feed train" these "wild" bass and convert them to a cheap, artificial food source that would free up more of my time. and that's exactly what i did. even though at the time i thought the idea would never work, in hindsight, i realize that it made perfect sense and it was staring me in the face the whole time. i did not figure out anything really. the fish "told" me how to feed train them through their own behavior. it was plain as the nose on my face. i just wish i hadn't been so blind and could've figured it out earlier. sure would've saved myself a lot of trouble. i've since learned the best times and opportunities for "feed training" a completely wild fish. it doesn't work with all of them. but you'd be amazed to know how many of them it does work with. and really, a feed training program doesn't have to "take" with every fish in your pond. think about it and do the math. if feed training only "takes" with 25% the bass in your pond, then you have immediately increased the natural food resources available to the other 3/4 of your non feed trained bass population by 25%! you just freed up 25% of your forage fish resources. how's THAT for a return on your investment? in the real world, i'm all over any investment that almost immediately guarantees a return of 25%. done correctly in the pond world, this process almost guarantees that the % of your population that for whatever reason will never become feed trained will never want for food either. i guess what i'm saying is that feed training does not have to be an "all or nothing" proposition to be a highly pracical and effective intervention in a pond.

to answer your second question, in a word, yes. although i don't think it's a certain "size" food as much as it is a certain "amount", particularly with an artificial food source since obtaining an artificial food source does not represent a significant energy expenditure for a bass. with a natural food source, it's kinda like making change at the grocery store with a very important twist. a half pound of bluegill meat is a half pound of bluegill meat. whether it's one 8 oz. bluegill a bass eats, or 2 4 ouncers, it's still 8 oz. of food. here's what you have to consider though. the bass has to expend more calories and energy to obtain the two 4 ouncers because that's 2 separate hunts and captures instead of one. the smaller the portions, the more energy required to obtain them. and the energy required to attain food to a degree offsets the nutritional value of the food once it is captured. so the logic is simple, when possible, i think bigger food is better.

wow, i kinda got ahead of myself on your question don. you have a sneaky way of asking seemingly small and simple questions that really aren't very small and simple at all. i'll have to watch out for that. just kiddin' bud. very good questions. i'll have to stop here for now.

I'm crackin up!
I don't normally read alot of the fish stuff cuz it just ain't me....but this is above and beyond. JnP is likeThe Fish Whisperer.

thanks, i guess. and by the way, i AM available to manage your retirement funds. just cash in your plan and send me the money. i'll see what i can do.

rc, i'll say this. i'm gonna try to be careful here, yet at the same time completely answer your question. hopefully i'll do at least one of those things anyway. anytime i have someone tell me something, i consider who's doing the telling and why they're telling what they're telling. there are sometimes agendas at work. all i know is wild fish have worked just fine for me. better than fine really. i have been able to personally select each fish that goes in the pond based on my own pre-determined criteria and rating system. a fish that appears young and healthy with above average weight for its apparent age (comparing its body mass to the size of its head fins and tail) MIGHT go in the pond if i have room or if it's an especially impressive specimen. any fish that is in at least average shape and is easily identifiable by a distinctive mark will PROBABLY go in the pond, because recognizing them is so much easier. any fish that meets both of those criteria will DEFINITELY go in the pond, even if i have to cull one or more others to make room.

how many hatcheries or farms would let you come in and hand pick the bass you wanted from all of their entire stock at a bargain basement price? if you know of one, hop on that deal. yet that's exactly what i am able to do with the wild fish i get. and mine are FREE (well they do cost a fishing license, gas, tackle, etc. i guess)

i think one of the reasons folks are warned about putting wild fish in their ponds is because the temptation is to go out and catch an 8 pounder and chunk it in your pond, thinking how it'll be so much easier to turn that one into a giant because it's pretty big already. i learned back a LONG time ago that this was usually a huge mistake. the "big fish stocked in a small pond" thing hardly ever seemed to work out for me. usually both the fish and the pond suffered. i think big bass tend to be much more "set in their ways" than a younger fish. once they are uprooted from a spot they've lived in since birth, it is hard for them to make the necessary adjustments to thrive in another environment. and to make matters worse, they have only a limited time to make those adjustments as they are older already. in simple terms, that 8 pounder could turn into a skinny 6.5 in short order before it's ever able to adjust to its new environment. and by then it might be too late. at best, you might be able to get that fish slightly above the 8 pound mark again before you're out of time. not only that, but people fail to fully realize the massive food requirements for a large bass. stocking even one very large bass in your pond could completely wreck your food chain if you are not careful. i'm not saying that taking big fish out of the wild and successfully making them grow even bigger in small ponds is impossible. i'm just saying i think it's difficult and could prove costly to both the bass and your pond if you don't have a very specific plan in place for specifically meeting the needs of that one fish. i've played around with it a lot, and i prefer the 2 pounders. i can grow those big soon enough. o.k. that was a little off course, but that's probably one of the reasons you have heard not to stock wild fish.

the benefit of stocking the same year class of fish from a hatchery or farm is that at least initially you know exactly how old each fish is and that each fish is starting on a level playing field. it is quite easy with those fish after only a year to see who the stars of the bunch are probably gonna be. probably don't even need a journal because you can look at them and plainly tell. there is no guesswork involved. but even then, after a few spawns its not usually so clear anymore. and if you are not careful, even with farm fish, it can become convoluted in a hurry.

i'll just say this. i know of 3 ponds around here that were stocked with wild fish and taken care of properly. know what they all have in common? big fish. i think it has more to do with the management than the type of fish. you can take a super expensive "pedigreed" fla. strain or one of those newfangled "tiger bass" with all the bells and whistles and if she lives in a poor environment and is poorly fed, you've wasted your money. on the other hand, you can take a regular old "mutt bass" and put it in an optimum environment with good food intake, and one day that fish is gonna drop some jaws.

hope that helps bud.

Hey Jig,

Thanks I never thought of it that way. That makes more since. So once I get my forage base right and my current bass under control i may just try that plan myself to see what I can do with it. I believe my current bass are all fairly old and stunted. They all seem to be 8 to 13 inches long. So I am going to continue to yank em!! Till I feel good about it and maybe try your plan. I don't really want BIG,BIG bass anyway 2 to 4 pounders would be GREAT for me!

Thx,

Now that's hardcore. I try to explain to pond owners, looking to grow trophy bass, basically the same process your doing. Some are diligent some are not. It is important to learn to recognize young fast growing fish, especially females and keep them around and growing.

The other thing about that plan is this. If you are putting in selective 2 lbs bass and no smaller in your pond it would not be hard to figure out what bass need to go if your bass are like mine old and stunted with nowhere to go. I think I may be catching on to some of this. I may be slow but I think I get it.

Jignpig, how big is your pond and how many bass are you currently tracking in your journal?

pond is 2-3 acres. not mine. don't use a journal anymore. i haven't for a while. couldn't even tell ya where it is now or if i even still have it. truth is, i don't have to use one anymore. i was able to do away with it fairly quickly once i was sure of what i was doing. i did it at first to force myself into good management habits. you will always be able to keep things more "exact" with a journal. but the bottom line is that you just need to figure out which fish are your star players and which ones are not. as we have touched on before, if you want lunkers, young, fast growing females are where it's at. i don't want anyone to look at this journal idea as if it's a permanent ball and chain that you have to continually use, update, fret over, and carry to the pond with you every outing. that just wouldn't be any fun. the whole point of the journal for me was that i knew it would force me into proper channels of thinking and make me pay attention to the fish i was managing. and too, the journal served as written and photographic affirmation to me that my plan was working and i wasn't wasting my time. that helped me build more confidence and momentum, which in turn inspired me to try new stuff. after that it was like a line of dominos falling. it was so cool how validated decisions or documented observations led to newer, bolder strategies. the way i looked at it was i could always go backwards if i had to, but i didn't really want to so i kept pressing forward and pushing the envelope. soon, it was like i was on cruise control. no journal necessary. it's neat how success tends to breed confidence and confidence tends to breed more success. but i am absolutely convinced that i could have not done nearly as well if i hadn't started with the journal. it kept me accountable to my goals and plan. it provided me with the statistical info i needed to make sound decisions. and it gave me even more confidence and inspiration when i was able to see that a poor country boy like me with no pond experience and no fancy letters behind his name could against all odds make this thing work.

What is the best way to determine the males from the females? It's a dumb question but I'm a rookie to all of this. Do you just look for the fat ones?? My wife will kill me for that one if she hears it! Seriously, I have no idea so somebody please ckue me in.
Thanks,

here's a good start.

http://www.pondboss.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=209347#Post209347

if you're like me though and don't like probing fish with straws, the best thing to do is wait until the spawn i think. when you find a nest with one fish on it, that is almost always the male. if there are 2 fish, the smaller is usually the male. if both appear to be the same size, 9 times out of 10 the male will be the one that attacks your bait first. having a good pair of polarized sun glasses will really help you in finding and fishing the beds. hope that helps.

Cisco,

As a general rule the vent or scaleless urogenital opening in a male largemouth bass tends to be more circular in appearance while the opening in a female largemouth tends to be more elliptical. Having said this, however, I should hasten to note that few biologists or fisheries managers rely on this method of determining the sex of a fish, because even to the well trained eye it results too often in mis-identification.


It isn't real easy. Except around this time of year. The females will have a very large stomache and males should look fairly normal still. You can tell trust me. Very plump tummy full of eggs! They will look like they have a little football in their stomache. Other then the spawning time it is tough!

Hope that helps.

You know after reading all of this it kind of donned on me, yes I am slow, that most of the techniques have been considered no-nos if not downright heresy on this forum and according to articles written by the house experts. And many of the so called tips for growing big bass in samll ponds have been largely ignored. Interesting.

A really wise fisheries expert has always maintained successful Pond Management is 10% science and 90% experimentation...."it all depends" - and a huge advocate of "thinking outside the box". Here's a prime example of an approach that works supremely well for THIS pond...take another 2-3 acre pond and it may not hold true.

you know. these last 2 posts here are right on the money. when i started to work on this pond, i dove headlong into it and just did what made sense to me at the time. while i was doing it, i studied up on some things and found out how it was "supposed to be done". a big part of the deal with me is that i can be very stubborn and bull-headed. if something does not make sense or seem necessary to me, i just might not do it. or i might do something else that does make sense to me instead. sometimes i'm glad i bucked convention, sometimes i'm not. that's just my nature.

the other part was money. i just did not have a lot of money to pour into a pond that was not my own. and even if it had been, i still wouldn't have had the money. so i had to do things the cheapest way i could. using wild fish and wild forage, not fertilizing, and so on was not so much of a choice as a necessity.

and that's what i think the coolest part of the story has been for me. i was totally ignorant about pond management when i started. sometimes i couldn't get out of my own way. i didn't do things the "right way". i never knew when to leave well enough alone. and i was still able to achieve a degree of success beyond anything i imagined. i guess it could maybe even be said that i succeeded despite my tactics rather than because of them. i hope that if nothing else my story has encouraged someone who is new to pond management or a bit reluctant to just go for it and give it a try. you just never know. even when you ignore convention and blaze your own trail, it might end up o.k. or better than o.k. and trust me y'all, i am still learning to this day. i still have goals. i would like to grow another few double digit bass before i leave this world. i wanna figure out how to have multiple 6 - 9 pound fish in the pond at the same time rather than just the few i have now. but i will still have to stay on the cheapskate's path because while my fish have grown a lot, unfortunately my bank account has not.

that said, please understand this if you don't get anything else out of anything i've said. if you have the time and money, consult the experts. i'm definitely NOT one of them.

That's why this stuff is meat. Totally different than 'traditional' methods.
I must say, I've done this for 30+ years, have done all the traditional stuff, now I've been able to work on ponds and fish from coast to coast...with missions as varying as the ponds and owners themselves.
That's why this stuff is rock solid. Tradition is what it is...tried and true. But that doesn't mean it works. Think about it this way.
...If tried and true traditional management works so well, why do people go outside the box?... Because traditional doesn't always work.
I happen to think jignpig is on to something. I've done exactly what he is writing about, but not at attentively as he has. I'm telling you, think more deeply about his methods and don't even think about the fish.
If you guys can hear his words and read beyond the fish, you will become much better pond managers, even you guys who think you already know what you are doing.
Every one of us is limited by what we know. Everyone. That makes it imperative that we learn more and more. If we don't, we are doing everyone here a disservice, not to mention our own minds.
I challenge each one of you who are intrigued by this thread to look beyond the results. Think about the thought process which developed the method. Then, think about the method. If you will do that, you will soon push aside your own boxes.

Thanks guys for the answers. So if I'm reading this correctly, I should only transfer the females from my small pond to the big one(if I was going to do that sort of thing). I'm not too concerned with disease due to the smaller pond being mainly run off from the larger one. I should probably wait a year though because I'm planning on stocking some LMB fingerlings come June or as soon as Bob gets them in.
P.S. Didn't mean to highjack this thread, maybe a mod could move it to it's correct spot.
Thanks again!

If I was to label jignpig's methodology it would be "Pond Micromanagement for Lunker Female Largemouth Bass on a Limited Budget." He maximized his time, efforts and funds to achieve his goals through experimentation. A lot of it outside the normal thought process. Again, his results speak for themselves. But would it work in every pond? Of course not. Each pond has it's own personality, it's own ecosystem.

Although my goals are much different from jig and pig, I had similar experience. Only difference is 99% of my customers are barely if not at all interested in lunkers. They want a kid friendly fishing environment with lots of action. Lunkers just suck up too many resources to provide that. But working with HOA's, in fact almost anyone now in this economy, you have budget constraints.

One of the wildest what are you doing plans or experiments I ever tried was introducing a native disaster, creeping water primrose. You think people grown when they hear gsf, they just go not that stuff, when they hear that. Why? It's everywhere. It's invasive, it spreads like wildfire. However, it does fit my number one rule, if I don't like it, or it doesn't work I can get it out. And it happened by accident. I had another customer who wanted it removed from one shore. No chemicals, all manual. You can't really cut it, it spreads by cuttings. So I am manually pulling it by the root. And as I am doing this huge amounts of forage is falling out. I had never seen anything like it. And this was stuff that had not swam away when I started pulling it. When I looked into it, everything was there. Small fish, fry, baby crawdads, tadpoles and just loaded with smaller organisms.

So I manage another we can't spend much pond that has a dead shoreline on an embankment. You can look fifteen feet out and see nothing but clear water. No fish, no plants, no frogs, nothing. I had fished along this shore and had not even got a hit. So why not take this discard material and give it a try, I can get it out if it does not work or goes to another part of the pond.

It took about three years to get it established, on a pond that has an annual 8-9 foot drawdown. Nothing else will work there. I put it in one little area on the dead embankment. I called it the Frog zone. Pretty soon I have it pretty think there. Frogs, baby lmb, bg and gambusia are thick in it. Dragonflies hover over it constantly. And the biggest surprise of all, it had unknown benefits. Erosion control for the embankment. Weedblock. And that shoreline went from no fish to the best fishing on the entire pond. LMB just lived off of it waiting for easy meals to swim out. Even better, the entire ponds LMB average weight per fish went up. I created an entire forage area from nothing, for almost nothing.

After a few years I let it spread along that shoreline. Now that entire embankment is a giant forage ecosystem. Even a growout area for fry. If I get an occaisonal pop up somwhere else, I cull it. With ease. After 5 years it is done. Autopilot I just maintain or control it. This pond which was largely unfishable and so out of balance from other issues is now a gem.

Would it work in every pond? Of course not. Is it a potentially invasive species scorned by many? Yes. Is is an alien species? No, It's local, everywhere. Just like tulies, cattails and algae. I removed it entirely from one shoreline. It was gone for years. But the pond I put it in it just filled a large hole. A gap on the pond and in the pond's ecosystem. It even enhanced my plankton bloom. And cut down on algae.

Sometimes you just have to go for it. Giuve it a shot. But you also have to think, on a risk assessment level, what is the worst that could happen? Can I get this stuff out? Can I back out if it goes wrong? Since my fish population is fairly stacked I now experiment with natural forage cover and aquatic vegetation for the pond's fish feeding and fishing. I am pretty far outside the box here because I don't even think a box exists. The big focus is on planting, selective harvest, feeding, forage cover, forage and fertilization. Aquatic vegetation is close to an afterthought. It's there. But let me tell you, it's impact is huge. In my experience is can make a pond beautiful, the best fishing you can ask for, or crash it with a complete kill off. To me, I like to think of the pond as one complex ecosystem. I try to see the entire picture, and not miss the forest through the trees.

just an FYI I started check my fish we catch in the pond for marking are something to help I.D. fish from other fish. Bass do have very little diffrent marking but they do if you take real time and look at them. My bluegill have some real noted marking. Now I need to read and find a link that we'll help me note the diffrent on Male and female bass.
help