My wife's grandfather dug a 17-acre pond back in 1955. Over the years, the pond has filled in somewhat and has been reduced in size, but the thing that puzzles me is the abundance of skinny bass.

The black crappie are as fat as pigs and the bream are fairly nice-sized, but the bass are pathetic. I just had the levee re-done and my pier restored and allowed the folks who were working on the pond to fish it for a few days. They reported to me that even the young bass look skinny.

The guy who did the levee work said the pond apparently has little structure where the forage fish can hide, so I visited the local Home Depot and collected three truck loads of Christmas trees that did not sell.

I plan to sink them in the old pond and stuck a few in our new 2-acre pond that was just stocked for the first time last month.

From all my research, I believe that adding fathead minnows would be non-productive since they would disappear in a little while, but I need input to confirm my idea.

Any suggestions? The guy who worked on restoring my levee pushed several trees into the pond, so I hope that helps some.

It sounds like from the information provided, you have the classic crowded bass issue... If you want to grow fatter bass you need to reduce competition between the bass by removing them, as you make progress you can start adding additional forage(BG, GSH, TFS). Also, I would keep every crappie caught out of the pond regardless of the size they are.

I have the same problem with the skinny bass. David D. told me the same thing as CJ is telling you keep all the ones you catch. In a 17 acre pond you may have 100's and 100's of them. I believe David told me anything 12 inches and smaller get rid of. And CJ is right I would start keeping some of those crappie as they are also competing for your forage fish. Your right about the FHM they would only be a very temp fix. If your not catching any BG or SF out of your pond in the sping I would load that baby up with a bunch of 3 to 4 inch BG big enough so they don't get eaten and let them baby's spawn, spawn, spawn! From what the guys have told be on this site BG will spawn up to 4 to 5 times in a summer. If you do all of this your bass will start to faten up. Course I am no expert so when I say a bunch of BG I am not sure how many you would need in a 17 acre pond. I will leave that to the experts here.

Chandler, I'll bet that you aren't catching any small BG, correct? If that's the case, then that's another indicator of a LMB heavy pond - they are eating themselves out of house and home.

Man, out of a 17 acre pond, he's going to have a hard time making a dent by rod and reel in that LMB population.

You can help the bass by stocking threadfin shad, assuming that's legal in your state. Then a couple years from now when you have more bass in the 18"-plus size range you could stock gizzard shad to help the big bass get even bigger. Only stock shad if you don't care at all about bluegill size; but if bass are your passion, shad will help. Along with threadfins now, you could stock a handful - emphasis on handful, no more than five or six I would say - of flathead catfish, if you can get them a couple pounds or better each in size; it would take them a little while perhaps to get to the functional size (probably five pounds or better), but once they hit the size where they could eat the smaller largemouth, they would thin them out quickly, and keep them thinned. They probably won't spawn successfully in a pond (you don't want them to anyway); but they will get huge, and eat a lot of fish; I would never recommend them in a pond much smaller than yours. Although I have fished a couple times a small (maybe two acres) pond near me that has a few flatheads in it, and the second time I fished it I caught a LMB that would've gone between four and five pounds. The bass are anything but crowded in that pond. If you can't get flatheads, there are a few hatcheries that sell blue catfish, but make sure to buy ones at least a couple pounds in size.

I don't know if they would make it in LA, but if you were a little further north you could stock a few tiger muskie, which get big but not as big as a flathead and also only live four or five years since they're a hybrid, and are sterile.

Howdy, Chandler, sounds like a nice place you've got. As CJ wrote, it certainly sounds like you've got "Green carp syndrome", in which the bass have basically eaten themselves out of their food supply. The overcrowding of small bass results in very intense depredation upon the BG and crappie, leading to excellent panfish sizes, but few BG or crappie are reaching sizes to be prefered forage for larger bass.

You are truly blessed to have a body of water of this magnitude, but its size also makes corrective action difficult.

In my experience, the most imperative management priority at present is to remove as many bass as possible, pronto, by whatever means you can divise/afford. Fishing tournament with friends? Church group[s]? Boy Scouts? Shocking? A few days off work in the spring, with a couple buckets of minnows and you could make a big dent yourself, I would guess. Whatever it takes to remove several hundred of these eating machines.

Once you get the bass numbers down, you can work on increasing the forage base-but it'll be hard to make much progress without getting the bass numbers down. As Walt noted, shad can make a big difference, but the bass you've got will really hammer them at the size typically stocked, and they're not cheap.

Chandler, adding forage won't help much till the small LMB population is greatly reduced. Adding a high production forage species, even tilapia, would just delay the inevitable. Sooner or later, a LOT of LMB will need to be removed.

I have the same problem at my parent's 7.5 acre pond in mchenry county IL.

The homeowner's association flat out refuses to do selective harvest. My dad has taken it on his own, and is just dumping stunted bass in the woods behind his house when nobody's looking, but he can't make a big enough dent by himself.

What about a tiger muskie?
2 of those in a 7 acre pond? sound about right? i know i have to keep the biomass down, but they are sterile, right? they'll knock the bass population down long enough for big bass to grow, then they will die out, and the big bass will solve the problem.

anything wrong with my math here?

Hello skinnybass and welcome to Pond Boss. Thanks for jumping in and posting, that's what makes this site work... well besides all the sofware, hardware, moderators, site sponsors, Bob Lusk, Mike Otto... jeez I should have stopped while I was ahead.

Anyhoo, hang on for an expert opinion.

Hey, thanks for the warm welcome.
I've got a little experience in biology and hydrology, maybe i can give a little more detail. plenty of vegetation, ~7acre surface area, most of the lake is at 12 ft deep, with a few wells (one is 40 ft deep, but only about 10ft around, a black chasm that goes straight down).
Solid limestone underneath the dirt & gravel, makes for crystal clear water (and slow fish growth, from what i understand...)
The bass and BG are plentiful, BG have been getting bigger and bigger. Calico Crappie as well, although not numerous. They actually get pretty big.
As far as i can tell from my samples, the minnow spieceies are yelowfin topminnows (thank you handy dandy audubon ID book...) there may be more species as well. They stocked a few sterile carp a few years back to manage the algae, i think there is only one left alive.
Have also caught a rock bass in there, although i doubt the population is strong. One of the neighbors apparently caught a 35" northern in Fox Lake and carted it home, it was last spotted this summer, identified by its one eye (the mythical lake beast, Onezey).
There is a natural spring underneath the deep wells that brings in more water, and maintains the temp at the bottom of the lake at about 50 degrees year round. Plentiful rotting biomass for o2 in the form of cottonwood leaves covering shorelines, and few pieces of cover (pallets and wire spools) have been added to complement the natural cover of weeds and creekbeds.
the bass, though, just get smaller and smaller every year. I talked to the H. Association, totally against my fairly ambitious goal of taking 95lbs of bass biomass out each year until the population stabilizes with more bigger fish. They were slightly receptive to the idea of tiger muskie, although they are afraid it will destroy the population of their lake.
so that's all i have

I got called in on a pond similar to this, not as large. The problem was multiple causation, that all intertwined. I think the foundation or base problem was a lack of cover for the forage fish. I noticed there were very few small anything. No small bg's, no small bass. No cover for them. At first I tried adding forage fish. This was a temporary fix at best, I was just feeding the starving population. I then started over and began establishing forage fish cover. Aquatic plants along the shore, submerged brush and rock piles, And I started adding more forage, crawdads, bullfrogs and lots of bluegill. It took a few years but I finally crossed the cannabalization point, where small bass and bluegill began to survive a season. I did not have to remove one single bass and the average catch weight and girth went up immediately after that. Now I have fat bass, a lot of them and forage fish everywhere. It would not hurt to thin them out, I would just cringe throwing them out in a field to rot. I don't thin, I put more food in.

Pond Frog:
Thanks for the response. While I agree that more cover is good cover, I think that the plentiful weeds have that mainly covered (no pun intended). A lot of the bottom of the lake is thick with weeds, especially in the heat of the summer. I'm actually going up to ice-fish thursday, and i'll get a good look at the bottom with a fishcam to confirm that they are still there in winter too.

And the bass are tiny. That's the big problem. The biggest ones have HUGE heads and tiny bodies. Caught one on the ice last year on a tip-up and a roach, it's head was big enough to rob 3 roaches from a line of tip-ups, with all of the minnows still in his gullet....the body, though, was skinny at best, anorexic at worst.

The minnows are really small species, and they swarm the shorelines, there are millions of them. Would bringing a bigger minnow species in help?

I still think that the end-all is going to be the homeowner's association buying a tiger muskie from a hatchery, and allowing it and Onezey to do their dirty work on the tiny bass for a few years.

Any thoughts? Thanks for the feedback!

I do think, though, That this weekend I'll take the opportunity to put a few stumps under the ice to saturate and sink before spring. More structure is good structure, that is true.

Tiger musky may help. I would only use tiger musky and not northern pike though. Northern pike may reproduce and you don't want that...

If you stock tiger musky, keep it around 1 fish per acre. So you'd want about 7. Make sure the fish you stock are at least 12" long to avoid being eaten by the bass. There is a likelihood that lone northern in there already may eat your tigers before they get much size to them. Let's hope not...

The reason you crappie are doing so well if that the small abundant bass are keeping their numbers in check. As the bass population thins out, you can expect the crappie population and other panfish numbers to grow but not get as big as before. More competition between panfish means decreased growth rates. So if you are looking for improved bass fishing, then add the tigers. If you're more focus on the panfish, leave them out. Take a look at this link: http://www.bassresource.com/fish_biology/pike.html Just substitute tiger musky for northern pike as they essentially act the same way in ponds...

Also, be sure of the legality of stocking the tiger musky.

If you decided to add tiger musky, after 3 or 4 years they should really start to do a number to the smaller bass. As the bass numbers decline, you can expect their growth rates to increase. At this point you can consider adding an additional forage fish to the mix like golden shiners. However, getting golden shiners or any other soft rayed foraged fish to take hold in a well established pond is VERY difficult.

Along these thought lines, I was really surprised, from reading the latest PondBoss, how quickly those stumps and trees get soaked up and sink.

Awesome! Thanks.

do you think that Onezey the pike is helping out at all? Or is the lake too big for him to make an impact?

From the pic i saw he is massive, and cubby too...obviously been feeding well.

Thanks
Mike

Read the link I posted... In a 3 acre pond, 4 NP literally cleaned it dry of fish... I am sure that NP is eating a lot of bass, but probably not enough to make a dent in 7 acres.

The pond I am speaking of had the same bottom weed problem. Some knucklehead then dumped some Eur Milfoil in and that just infested the entire pond bottom to top, side to side. But with all those crappy weeds it still did not provide cover for my forage. I had to wipe all that out as a first step. The bass actually utilized the bottom weeds as ambush points and ate everything up. Same symptom on LMB also, big head, little body, skinny as Olive Oil. Plus I think with Crappie they are competing with the LMB for the same nonexistant food source. My biggest gain was putting marginals in. Plants right along the edges. Bass could not get there and it created a safe haven for all of the little guys. It took me 3-4 years to see appreciable results. I could never introduce a pike, muskie or anything like that out here. Good luck either way, sounds like a project for sure.

hmmmmmmmmmmm. Now that is interesting. Same weeds, same swarming minnows.

Ok, i'm throwing cover in the lake deep and shallow this weekend, and I'll tell my dad to sink his xmas tree under his dock. Most of the shore is taken up with property, so the plantlife lining the shore might not be an option. But i'll see what i can do. You mean like reeds and cat tails, right?

Some pond managers on here that regularly stock pike or muskie recommend two to four per acre; I would say with a lake that size, you would need to stock at least two 12" or larger tiger muskie per acre, taking into account the good possibility that at least a couple will get eaten by the big pike, for them to make a dent.

Years ago I stocked 20 - yes, 20 - 12" northern pike into a pond that might be three acres total in size, and which at the time was morbidly overpopulated with green sunfish; I stocked 40 yearling LMB that same year, and a year later 75 6" walleye (the pond has lots of water over 20' feet deep, some holes over 30'). The pond is an old phosphate pit and thus very fertile, so it probably carries more fish per acre than the average pond; but the pike didn't decimate the population of the pond, anything but; within three or four years the pond had some of the best LMB fishing, and bluegill fishing, of any pond I've ever fished, very large specimens of both species, and several of them. A 36" NP was caught somewhere around that time, and a couple years after that a nine-pound walleye was caught from the pond. I wish I could fish that pond now.

Stumps are great they take decades to decompose. Christmas trees, maybe gone except for trunk which then lays flat after a couple of seasons. I uses a lot of stumps, and rockpiles deep. On the marginals I use creeping primrose, rushes and grasses. I take cattails out, I never put them in. Most of the forage fish I see now are in the shallows. Before there were none. If you have a lot of stumps pile them and decrease depths. To the point where some might stick out of water. The only thing I have to be careful of is willows. They have to be completely dead as every part of them contains rooting hormones. I had a 4 inch branch float up and root on my embankment. Won't make that mistake again. I also use old 15 gallon black nursery pots, with bottoms cut out, in clusters of three at different depths. I anchor them down by filling them with a couple of inches of mud or rocks. They last forever.

------------------------------------------------
Look at the archive on structure.
http://www.pondboss.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=92463#Post92463

I'm going to have to be creative, most things will have to fit through a 10" hole in the ice.

I'm making something right now out of concrete posts and pvc. It will be long and narrow, but will provide plenty of shelter for forage. I'll put 10 of them throughout the lake.

I'll also come back up in spring to put some bigger structures in with some 5g allon buckets, bottoms cut out and 3 or 4 fitted together, with spikes of 1/2 inch pvc sticking out in bunches (like big, plastic hedgehogs) off the sides. Just have to find a way to cap off the pvc...since little kids swim this lake, i'd hate to see someone get impaled. Maybe a slat of cedar around it to bing it all together would work.

Also....there are a few pallets down there already, i could drop in cinderblock constructions on and around those.

see what you did? now you got my carpenter mind on. Looks like i'll be hammering away between chasing tip[-ups this weekend.

Thanks guys!

Welcome aboard Skinnybass!

While most people have been giving suggestions on how to improve your bass, keep in mind that a few folks here would actually LIKE to have your problem. By stockpiling bass, you get yourself a trophy BG and crappie pond and easy to catch (though small) bass. It's actually the one good way you can pull off a successful crappie pond, because crappie tend to overpopulate and stunt when the owner is managing for big bass, which generally means too few bass to control the crappie as a rule.

With that in mind, if you enjoy fishing for panfish and like to catch lots of fish, your problem is actually a blessing. Those overcrowded, skinny bass are giving you the gift of great panfish due to the predatory control from the bass as well as lots of bass fishing action because they are always hungry.

Bass crowded ponds can be a blast to fish, and with the size of your pond, it might be worth keeping the goals in line with what has happenned all on it's own. In your situation, assuming I was going to continue the pond down the bass heavy road, I would probably consider stocking yellow perch and redear sunfish for additional fun angling options.

Skinnybass (funny username...hope you get to have that changed in a couple years ;)), the last issue of PondBoss mag had a short illustration and article about a creative way of setting tree structure over ice. Basically you have your hole, your tree, a rope, and this weight. You plunge the weight, using rebar, into the pond bottom, set it and the anchored rope will keep the tree in place when the ice melts, and until it settles to the bottom, almost exactly where you placed it. Pretty cool idea. Check it out.

I think that the majority of the homeowners prefer the bass fishing to the crappie & bluegill. That is why i think this is a problem.

Personally, stick me on a lake with no bites and i'd still be happy.

Although I don't do the conservation science, it is an intruiguing thing to get into. You have all been exceedingly nice and helpful, I appreciate the warm welcome and all of the assistance!
Mike

Kinda funny, but it is all perspective. Some people would be thrilled with what you have. It's not an exact science but you can alter the classes of your fish. If you don't want to take bass out, but want unskinny bass you have to feed em. You need to establish ready to eat forage. With a pond/lake that size you must have a cove or isolated area. Can you load up on baitfish? Net off an area and start your own hatchery? Make a seperate pond? Something self sustaining no tilipia up there in the snow.

skinnybass,
Sorry, I got the original poster and your posts confused. I thought they were all from you. The crappie comments probably don't make much sense to you. hehe

Well, it is fairly round, almost circular. It was a limesone quarry back in the early 1900's (hence the high lime volume, slow fish growth, tons of weeds at the bottom etc). so no, no alcoves, although i could portion off part of the space around my dad's dock.

The quarry hit a spring, in 2 places actually, stopped production, mchenry county stocked it in the 1930's and left it alone. In the late 70's they started building houses around it.

Aside from the couple of carp and the dumb kid across the pond who breaks h.Association rules and brings fish from other lakes in the chain of lakes, nothing goes in...and nothing comes out.

I plan on a fish fry on fri and saturday night, to see what the homeowners Association feels about that. It isn't in the bylaws, but they are pretty stickler for catch & release.

Unfortunately....Im not. Again, a little conservation/biology/hydrology education, and i know better. you can't not cull to population of the predator species. there has to be a control. that, apparently, is me or the alternative, starvation.

I think after all of this i am going to shy away from tiger muskie. Also talked to one of my old professors i still fish with, and he let me in on something, replace the apex predator with a big hungry muskie, and he won't only eat the bass, but the crappie as well. then the yellowfin topminoow population gets out of control...then low o2 levels, etc etc etc and you may have screwed the balance up worse than it was before. In this situation, we'll let onezey do his business, and otherwise i'll try selective harvest when i am there (4 or 5 times a year), combined with the construction project i started today.....should see at least some impact.

Your professor fishing buddy sounds like a great resource, and I kind of agree with him. That has a potential to end badly. It is not a direct cull of only one kind of fish you can do yourself. Homeowner's associations can be borderline facists. But normally they are clueless and have no idea what you are doing anyway. Does not sound like you can set up a segregated bait area. You have to cull, sad but a fact. That will also give a better opportunity for your projects to have an effect. I'd start catching and not releasing 8-10 inches or totally emaciated. So the limestone quarry had vertical water movement rendering it useless, who would have thunk?

who knows why they abandoned it, just fact is that they did. Maybe the company went out of biz. In the process, though, they hit 2 springs, the 2 deep wells on the property, and it filled up the old quarry (not entirely, from what i understand, a lot of the houses are built within the old quarry too, so just the deepest part).

If you are hatching talapia, i'd imagine you are much farther south...if you get the chance, head up to the chain of lakes NW of illinois. simply beautiful, and great fishing there too (if you're into that sort of thing).

Thanks for your help, i'll check back in periodically with my progress. if i catch Onezey this weekend, i'll post a pic so it's not just a bad fish story.

If your professor told you muskie would lead to low O2, that's not very sound scientifically, not even remotely so; if anything the levels would improve from a more balanced (less overall density) population. And, multiple state game and fish agencies have used muskie to correct imbalanced fish populations, so he's a little off-base IMO. I have personally stocked northern pike to correct a pond that had overpopulated green sunfish, and it completely transformed the pond, with no negative effects.

There's a member on here who has pike in his ten-acre lake; the lake has always had them; and he has caught largemouth to eight pounds and bluegill to 10" from his ten-acre lake, which is in Michigan. Not too many lakes in Michigan that could duplicate that size of both species in one small BOW.

Good luck with your lake.

Skinny, as stated, the bass are starving and HOA's are usually cheapskates. They have overeaten their forage base.

A couple of things to mention to the HOA.

A healthy, balanced pond will generally support about 100 pounds of predators per acre assuming an appropriate forage base.

A bass needs 10 pounds of forage to gain one pound.

A bass prefers forage/food about 1/4 to 1/3 it's size.

In no case will minnows suffice. It's a matter of calories gained vs energy expended. Thinking of the common fathead minnow here. They GENERALLY run, in my area, about 400 to the pound. So, EACH 12 to 13 or 14 inch skinny bass would have to be able to get about 400 minnows.

The numbers always add up. Either spend $ adding forage or reduce predators. The reduction of predators has to be an ongoing practice. To keep the lake balanced, I would also add tilapia and certainly spawning size bluegill.

Dave:
You're talking about optimal foraging theory, and I completely agree. If all that is left are tiny minnows for the bass to eat, then they have to spend more energy than they make to get a meal, and that meal isn't worth enough. I think Pond Frog's idea of crayfish, gizzard shad and more cover for forage might be a good idea, I'll throw that to the HA just to see what happens. (actually I'll throw all the ideas to the HA and see what happens, one thing i know they will approve of is cover, so i'm starting that, you guys should see this device i made to fit through the ice..pvc pieces strung together, with 3 4" concrete blocks as anchors, it unfolds into a straight, 14' pole to fit through the auger hole, lowers down on a hemp twine, where the anchors naturally fall to the bottom and make it take its desired shape, and there is a "kill switch" line, that if it doesn't unfold correctly i can pull it back out of the ice by straightening one end...if you can't tell i'm proud of this one...).
Will talapia hold up in a lake that freezes to 13" ice every year?

Walt:
the lowering o2 levels is just one of many possible results of drastically reducing all of the predator species of the topminnows. A tiger muskie is not a picky eater, and will prey on the crappie, BG, rock bass, and largemouth all at once (all of the species that prey on the topminnow). Now...the possibility exists (again by optimal foraging) that a sudden bloom of topminnows just means easy pickin's for these species (this is actually the greater possibility), but the possibility also exists that they will grow out of control. from what i understand, species of like size and biology to the topminnow (in case i have the ID wrong) consume buckets of o2 to survive and reproduce. On the other hand...a bloom in topminnows would mean a decrease in the phytoplanton and insect species that control the plant cover, so it might end in more o2 as well. Just the fact is that i'm not a professional, the HOA isn't hiring a professional (i wish they would) and my professor is a mammologist, and i only took 2 classes on hydrology and aquatic ecology (lol). so we have to understand all of the possible ramifications to be prepared with every possible outcome to present to the HOA.

So far from my experience, as soon as things get really complicated, they say no and get scared off. chemistry, i don't think is really something they are going to handle well. When I present the idea, what do you think i should tell them to keep them from being scared off of this route? do you think the tiger Muskie is the best method?

See this thread on structure. If you have a pic and or description post it and we will put it in the structure archive.


http://www.pondboss.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=92463#Post92463

IMO some of the advice on this thread is not well thought out for the situation. Take a look at 2Catmom's thread on the re-do of their subdivision pond for problems with GShad. There are lots of threads here on how to deal with overcrowded LMB.

I wish I could post some of my structure photos but I just can't figure out how. A lot of great ideas in that thread, I may use a few.

You say some ideas are not well though out. What are your ideas?

I'll toss mine out there. And in order.

First, put as much forage cover in as possible. It has close to no downside, and to get the right sized forage in there, a sustained population, you will need it.

Two, start culling out the stunted and emaciated LMB. On a pond/lake like that, you should be able to catch them all day long. Culling the slot bass. Very good story in this month's Pond Boss mag titled After Work Quantity.

Three, start a mid sized forage fish planting program. Some will say tilapia, but I don't think they would be self sustaining there. I'm thinking more BG. Many, many more.

I work with a few HA's and in this economy they all have one thing in common, little or no money. And an ongoing huge aversion to risk. If I make structure, it has to be inexpensive. Or leftovers from another project. But it is important to do one and two first, because 3 is going to cost you unless you have a local pond ready to donate a lot of BG to you. If you start planting them before the slot bass are thinned and especially before they have cover you will just be feeding the bass. Sadly I have done that. Good Luck to you. If you were not a zillion miles away I would volunteer to catch those bass and remove them.

Here's an article that states that the Utah DNR is using tiger muskie "effectively" to control overpopulated panfish and rough fish populations in the state's reservoirs - it mentions specifically one lake in which the perch were overpopulated and averaged 5-7" before the introduction of the muskie, and now average 9-11":

http://www.utahoutdoors.com/pages/tigerfacts.htm

This article from the NY DNR mentions that pike help control smaller fish species:

http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7034.html

This article from a muskie club mentions how muskie help control rough and stunted fish populations, and also cites studies by the MI and WI DNRs that I couldn't read (this computer doesn't have Adobe so I could only read the first page, as HTML) that found positive effects on all other species in every lake studied that had muskie:

http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7034.html

Here's an article that cites a study in Idaho in which muskie were successfully used to thin overpopulated brook trout, and the remaining brook trout grew larger - the article repeatedly states that muskie are being used effectively to thin overpopulated fish populations:

http://www.hilakers.org/pages/issues1.html

Here's an article about a lake (Deadman's Basin, several lakes are mentioned in the document) in Montana into which muskie were stocked to thin overpopulated suckers - it notes that the rainbow trout in the lake have benefitted greatly, having increased "significantly" in size:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cach...r3yla5Xh2dip7vQ


A member of this forum mentioned to me a few months ago that he used to fish a public lake years ago that was badly overpopulated with green sunfish; the state DNR stocked muskie, and it transformed the lake such that anglers began catching good-sized bass, trout, and bluegill. I had very much the same experience when I stocked northern pike into a three-acre pond. I would just tell your HOA that several state DNRs regularly
stock muskie and pike to thin overpopulated fish species ranging from trout to rough fish to panfish to bass. If they like small bass, encourage them to leave the lake the way it is; if they prefer catching larger ones, you're going to have to do something to thin them out. That means either catching and removing at least 150 lbs. of bass a year, every year, or dealing with the problem in some other way. The major benefit of stocking muskie over just harvesting bass is that it has been shown (and even cited in PB magazine) that quality bluegill size can be maintained with the stocking of pike or muskie to thin small bass, whereas just harvesting the bass will invariably result in overpopulated bluegill (especially where you live) which means much smaller bluegill.

Not even considering the great pike/muskie debate as there is no way I could ever get one of those into California, I must respectfully disagree with your closing statement of culling the bass will lead to BG overpopulation and stunting. Invariably? I hate to say this but my goal is balance of those two populations. And if I achieve this balance I do not have skinny bass or overpopulated stunted bluegill.

Ok...so I think my lake ideas have divided into a few ideas
1) improve cover.
-will help sustain forage population, creating more food for the starving bass. won't adversely effect any of the populations.
2) Selective harvest of bass
-my calculations based on the research i found online were shoot for 95lbs of within slot fish per year. Here, everyone suggests more...I'll agree with that.
3) stock a bass-vaccum like a pike or tiger.
-tigers sterile, probably a better solution. Some claim 1 per acre, some claim 2 per acre. The problem is that they also feed on other species, so it is not a controlled harvest.
4) stock larger forage.
-feed the bass, let it work itself out naturally.
5) leave it alone and enjoy the crappie fishing.
6) combination of the methods above.

Personally I think #1 is what they will initially agree to, it's cheap. very cheap, and you don't have to kill anything or disrupt the biodiversity levels. while I vote a combo of #1 and #2.

What does everyone else vote for?

Walt:
I really appreciate your use of documentation, btw. I like that. Thanks for the articles, again, stuff i can use for the HOA this spring.

6, or 1,2 and 4.

With reasons in above post. Plus, I think you have money constraints and dealing with a HA.

1, 2, and kind of 5. Enjoy the crappie fishing and fast action while you're working on improving the quality.

My comments inside the quote in red.



Here is a thread - http://www.pondboss.com/forums/ubbthread...true#Post169568

Some more thoughts

In designing and managing a stocking program what are things that should be considered but are often not adequately considered or planned for ?

Natural morts including predation and also excluding predation. High variability of results. For very small fish going into cold winters (north country) natural morts excluding predation can be very high. On the other hand if you stock for that and you get low morts you have to many predators of one size. On bigger fish not nearly as high or even low. Predation absent habituation can also be a big factor when small fish are stocked into a fishery with multiple adult species. IMO those carry higher risk in small ponds than in big lakes where most of our data on first year survival come from.

Population dynamics 1 2 and 3 years out. What will spawn and when and success of recruitment to adulthood. Then competition for food.

Risk of unintended consequences. Stocking failure , spawning failure , time considerations upon population dynamics , the fill the pond effect with new ponds (fish attempt to fill the space [carrying capacity] with their own kind ASAP). All of these are risk factors. See the unintended consequences article in the next PB mag issue.

Risk Management. Last but certainly not least the cost of being wrong added to the further cost of not being able to find the right fish to fix the first error or having to start over.

Ha, I shot him a PM with my email too so I could do that for him. I want to see those pics!

If its in the archives I don't think anyone but Bob or the mods can post. You can post them and we can move it.

Oh, I was just offering to post them here in this thread for him.

If bass are removed in numbers significant enough to improve their average size, the only way the average size of the bluegill will not suffer is if large numbers of bluegill are harvested - for a lake that size, several hundred pounds of bluegill would have to be removed each year, especially considering it's in a northern state where bluegill have been shown to be much more prone to overpopulation in the first place. Bluegill never, ever are not going to be prolific; if the numbers of predators are significantly reduced and counterbalancing measures, i.e. aggressive, sustained harvest or the addition of another predator, are not employed, the bluegill are going to overpopulate. That's pretty incontrovertible.

But if bluegill are harvested (a bunch, every year), I agree that a balanced lake could be maintained. Although even then, the angler or anglers doing the harvest would have to agree to harvest only intermediate and smaller bluegill or else the size structure would still be negatively impacted: if only the larger bluegill were harvested each year, it could easily and would most likely lead to genetic deterioration due to cuckolding, a phenomenon that has been discussed more at length in PB magazine and other places. The state of Illinois has also recently done studies on the importance of protecting the larger bluegill in a population for maintaining a good average size. Muskie or pike, short of fish of state-record size, are not going to eat as many 9"+ bluegill as they will smaller specimens because of the body shape of the bigger specimens and the difficulty of swallowing them; but fishermen would much rather keep a large bluegill than a small one. But, assuming very cooperative and conscientious fishermen in the HOA who are willing to take the time to catch and remove thousands of smaller bluegill each year, harvesting could work.

haha... ZING! that's a good one.

Glad you caught my irony

In the short term we're just going to work on cover and structure. I'll be doing some this weekend.

But come spring I will present other strategy to the HOA, I'll keep you all posted.

Thanks for all of your assistance and support!
Mike

I wonder what type of bg we are talking about are in here? Makes quite a bit of difference. Are they Shellcrackers? Greenies? Some hybrid? I also wonder if all that vegetation comes into play. How large is the crappie population? The more I ponder this the more questions I have. I am very interested on the progress here. You know what you could do? Since you are harvesting maybe you could open up one of those not so empty bass and see what is in its gut?

Shellcracker are not bluegill, they're redear sunfish; green sunfish also are not bluegill. Skinnybass says his bass are thin, i.e. empty, rather than not so empty. Although I'm sure they're eating something, just not enough of it. I would guess they're eating some combination of the few small bluegill they can find, small bass, and in the early spring, YOY crappie.

Certainly it wouldn't hurt anything to do a stomach inventory, but it's not going to correct the problem since not enough is getting into their stomachs.

That's sort of my point, what if they are sunfish? From what I see in the thread we really have no idea what they are? And is it a mixed population? What would be native up there? That's my only requests, BG photo, are they all the same and a LMB gut check. What are the crappie eating that the bass are not?

Words of Caution. There are negative aspects to reducing too many "small" bass of a certain size group either by over fishing or by having larger predators eating young adult bass/predators.

Having numerous smaller bass does have positive points. 1. It puts heavy predation pressure on the youngest panfish which results in overall bigger panfish or better overall balance of fishes. 2. Larger panfish and numerous smaller adult bass (9"-15") provide lots of fun and fast catching for many anglers, especially younger or inexperienced anglers. For instance- Getting Hooked on Fishing. Mark Cornwell also explains the benefits of having numerous smaller bass in ponds in the Jan-Feb 2010 Pond Boss magazine pg 30 ("After Work Quantity").

IMO having too few small to medium sized bass increases the chances of producing too few large bass that are often hook smart and very hard for even experrienced anglers to catch. Sometimes they, the biggest ones, are never caught a second or third time. For more on this topic see "Conditioning Fish" by Steve Pennaz in North American Fisherman Feb 2010. Many anglers are very happy catching several 3-5 lb (17"-21") bass from the well managed pond vs only the occassional rare trophy 7-9 lb bass (23"-25") that can typicaly be produced per 1-2 acres of water.

Keep in mind that as top end predators such as Pike, musky, flathead and blue cats GROW LARGER they tend to eat larger and larger fish. The pre-planned selective removal then changes. This can mean, instead of removing 6"-9" bass, a regular loss of 11"-15" bass occurs that can easily lead to what I would call a skewed bass population and an overabundance of smallish type of panfish. Then the overall fishery potential often declines to result in a trend toward the opposite of the original goal. In that too few larger fish are present that are harder and harder to catch producing an increasing number of genetically and angler hook conditioned bass among a few hook wise top end predators. Top end predators become hook smart too. What happens if the top predator diversifies his diet with other species besides those planned fish (small bass)? This fish combination becomes even more complicated if other forage species such as shad and/or rough fish or other types of predators are present. Large predators are known to be selective feeders.

Also keep in mind that as one normally ascends up the predator population size structure, there are fewer and fewer fish in each larger size class. This means that a continually growing predator is not always removing the same initial or planned size or species of fish. Its meals often consist of larger and larger fish.

Granted there is a fairly wide medium ground (balance?) between too many small bass and too few bass. The goal or goals of the fishery manager are very important to the methods used for achieving the goals. I think it is often better to have more control of the fishery by not having unpredictable top end predators present compared to the manager having more control and deciding which fish to keep or remove. Remember that large bass do frequently eat smaller bass and sometimes that number can be significant and it can be quite adequate in many instances when the fishery is managed properly with good knowledge.

Be cautious and thoughtful when adding the top end predators such as pikes and larger catfishes to especially smaller waters (<2-3 ac, maybe even 5 ac). Yes they are exciting to catch, but IMO the more large predators or portions of predators (0.5/ac) that one has per acre the less control one has on what happens in the fishery. Large predators can easily remove too many of the wrong size or species of fish. Those predators live by their rules not yours. For more information about fish stocking plans gone awry see ewest's article "Unintended Consequences" in Pond Boss Mag Nov-Dec 2009 pg 58. This is a more common problem that one would think, even for state fishery agencies.

In smaller waters, it is sometimes in the end, more beneficial to have anglers in a controlled setting, selectively removing the unwanted bass while they have lots of fun catching numerous, aggressive, willing to bite a lure bass. IMO selfish desires of uninformed or naive people have ruined numerous, potentially very good fisheries.

The lake in question is 7.5 acres. In the studies, cited earlier in the thread, by state agencies in which pike or muskie had a profoundly positive effect on a body of water, no negative effects were found; in no instance was it found that the apex predators decreased the number of larger specimens of desirable species; in every study, they increased the number of larger specimens of other species.

My firsthand personal experience corroborates said studies, my experience having come with a three-acre pond. Pike are specifically recommended in a recent PB article for thinning overcrowded bass populations while maintaining high-quality (larger-than-average specimens that come with crowded bass populations) bluegill fisheries.

Pike and muskie both are present in many northern lakes; it happens that many of those same lakes feature unusually large LMB and BG both for northern climes; I don't think it's a coincidence. A prominent and well-respected (rightly so) member on here who owns a ten-acre pond in the very northern state of Michigan has caught largemouth to eight pounds, and bluegill to 10", from his lake that has northern pike. I think most pond owners in northern states would be pretty happy with a pond that would produce fish that size of both species without a feeding program - pretty remarkable if you ask me.

I personally think esox are a very underutilized pond management tool that can make a drastically positive difference in many ponds, especially ones in which large bass and bluegill both are desired; I can't understand the prejudice against them, mostly by people who have never stocked them in a pond.

Grandpa Gallus used to sing a song about the ultimate footwear item:

"I sell these socks at 5 a pair.
They never rip, they never tear.
The longer you wear them, the better they get.
You put 'em in water, they never get wet."

Pushing only the positive sides of an argument isn't very believable. Everything in this life has pros and cons.

Yeah, i wouldn't be able to identify the BG right off hand. I'll do my best while up there.

I do know the minnow species (as best as i can ID it) is a tiny, swarming minnow, the best ID i have (net caught and observed) is a yellowfin topminnow. I have seen with the fishcam through the ice that there is a larger minnow species, but I've never netted one, it could be the BG or LMB minnows that i am seeing.

Remember there are also rock bass in the lake too.

I've seen redear before, and I can fairly well say that the BG's are not redear. I actually think there are 2 species of BG, one has a bright yellow belly, the other does not. I do know they both have the blue coloration behind the gill plate (characteristic of a BG, not a Green Sunfish).

We're fishing with mainly large bait this weekend (roaches and shiners, as well as pork & jig spoons....we're out chasing Onezey, the mythical lake beast), but i'll throw a waxie in and see what i get.

Bill:
Thanks for the awesome post. Although I have read Walt's documentation and believe what he is saying is sound theory, I think that the HOA is more going to align with PondFrog's approach, mainly because of the caution you warn. To start we are just doing cover, and we'll be frying up any 10-12" we catch (or if there is no meat good enough for the cornmeal, we'll dice it up and chum the lake on friday night for good saturday morning fishing). My dad as well, in his upcoming retirement, has taken it on himself to cull as often as possible.

Thanks
Mike

But watching the musky argument is entertainment and informative. I was thinking why stop there. What about an Alligator. Maybe a Freshwater Crocodile. Tell the HA, keep those kids indoors. Lose a person here or there, well we sure improved the fishery.

Not aware of a common name for any topminnow as yellowfin but there are a couple species of topminnow native to the area.



You are correct that redear and BG are not the same species. Closely related, but very different in many ways. Redear can have a yellow belly as can several other sunfish species. One of the sunfish with a yellow belly that you may be seeing are pumpkinseed sunfish... When you say I think there are two species of BG, you may be seeing BG and pumpkinseeds or another sunfish species. Or, you may be seeing male and female BG which often have distinctly different coloration. Check out the sunfish archive and look at the pics for ideas as to what you are seeing... http://www.pondboss.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=92482#Post92482

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/warm_water_fishing/images/greensunfish.gif

http://www.ibnature.com/images/BLUEGILL.jpg

those look about right, actually.

There could be redear....but i just don't remember them. Pretty sure the pumpkindseed are definately out. I think i would recognize the spotted red coloration. Unless, like all species, it's markings vary that much.
http://www.ibnature.com/images/Redear_Sunfishweb.jpg
hmmm.... i really want to say no to this, but then i'll end up with my foot in my mouth when it is all thats in there, lol.

The method to my madness here is each species would have a different battle plan. It's sounds like you have BG, just male and female. But if you are going to approach the HA with a plan it would be nice to have your plan tailored to your fish population. That is one great thing about this forum species identification. I'm keeping my fingers crossed you don't have greenies.

greenies would be a problem, huh? cuz i think i have seen that neon green spotting on fish before.

I think the BG are much more dominant, but I don't think i am without a greenie or 2....

oh, and the majority of the plantlife is what i've seen other lake websites simply refer to as "cabbage".

There are a few reeds and grasses on the shallow end...particularly what is called the "driveway", where the quarry trucks used to enter and exit. I'm going to start a topo map this weekend too when i can test for depth, I'll upload the gif or jpeg to this forum somehow.

OH NO, HERE WE GO AGAIN!!!

If you have Green Sunfish, you have more than 1 or 2. Just a matter of time before they are the dominant species. At least in my experience. They are the poster fish for out of control stunted populations.

ok, i'll keep my eye out.

of course i'm bringing the handy dandy audobon ID guide, as well as the illinois freshwater scopes guide. I'll do my best to let you know what we find, and I'll be marking it on the topo too.

unfortunately, I just called it a rock bass.
accd to aa-fishing in the state of WI, rock bass is another name for green sunfish. I'm from wisconsin. oh crap.
http://www.aa-fishing.com/wi/wisconsin-panfish-fishing.html

I appreciate your dedication. Looking forward to all of your observations. Enjoy!

If he wants a trophy LMB pond, are GSF that much of an issue?

I've read more than a few posts on this forum trumpeting the pros of stocking threadfin shad for a trophy largemouth pond while claiming they have no negative effects on other species, and I have even been criticized when I tried to point out that many studies show that they do, and beyond that that I've personally witnessed very negative effects from stocking shad several times. Here again, it seems some on this board, as a new member was lambasted a few weeks ago for daring to even suggest, just like to argue, even if they have no experience with the method in question and those promoting it do. Pretty frustrating. It's even more baffling considering that the method currently being debated was recommended in Pond Boss magazine, for the exact scenario this lake owner has in his lake. If that's not just being contrary and arguing for the sake of arguing, I don't know what is.

To clarify one last time: the method I recommended, stocking tiger muskie to thin the overpopulated bass, has been recommended recently, in Pond Boss magazine, for this exact scenario:

http://www.bassresource.com/fish_biology/walleye-bass-perch.html

Skinnybass, I wish you well with your lake. But the links I posted were not theory, unproven in the field; they were facts, every one of them an instance in which a state game and fish agency had stocked pike or muskie to control an overpopulated species, which ranged from brook trout to suckers to panfish; in every instance, the esox stocked brought the overpopulated species under control, and resulted in larger average sizes of gamefish (bluegill, bass, trout) in the body of water. On the other hand, the post you refer to as making up your mind for you, cites no studies and lists no facts. It's theory; and probably the poster has never stocked pike in a pond, whereas I have.

Adding cover to your lake will do very little to nothing to improve your bass size. Unless you remove a hundred or more yearling bass from the lake, the average size of the bass is not going to change.

Good luck. I am done with this thread.

Finally, someone that understands our mission statement!!! ((Well except the stunted part). Catch a pound and quarter GSF and you'll be a believer. I corrected your quote to what I'm sure you meant to say.

Don't leave Walt. I have zero experience about Muskies and probably never will. But I enjoy reading your case studies and learning. I don;t think anyone is arguing, just a difference in opinion which makes a forum work, that is what we are here for I thought? I for one enjoy your discussion and thoughts.

I normally catch 100 2 inchers. I have a bunch of not so happy of ending mission statements with greenies, but don't want to hijack the thread.

I wholeheartedly agree with pond frog here..I really like the documented cases Walt brings in...it's great stuff.

The only thing i am arguing about this tiger muskie is whether or not the HOA will go for it. They are a temperamental bunch, and scared off of ideas easily (like a crappie on a jig that moves too fast).

It was my original thought, remember, that a few tiger muskie with their 25 yr lifespan would do the trick. Just the more an more i learn about the food chain, the more and more I think the HOA won't buy it.

And please don't be insulted by my use of the word theory. All science is theory. Gravity is just a theory, generally accepted as truth, but still just a theory. Who knows, maybe someday someone will better explain why apples fall from trees. By saying your theory was sound, I was trying to pay you a compliment.

Occasionally, I'll get a call, or a pm or an email about a thread. Honestly, I don't read all the threads...I just don't have time.
But, for this one, I got three phone calls, six pm's and five emails....from different people!
Geez, talk about passion.
So, I've just spent the last hour and a half reading through it.
First, I appreciate the input of everyone...and the quality of people who view and participate. This thread has had a lot of looks...I would like to think it's because of the information. But, alas, I know better.
Some saw it coming.
Gentle contention, I call it.
So, here I am....responding for two reasons. Reason 1 is to dispel several items of mis-information that were posted as fact. Second, is to remind everyone that being open to discussion leaves no room for the need for repetitive defensiveness.
Not one person on this site, or any other, knows enough to give some ultimate answer to another person that will fully define the success of their pond and its inhabitants.
Better, this site is full of thoughtful people willing to toss out their opinions, based somewhat on facts, that can be a piece to the pondmeister's puzzle...for the consumer to figure out.
If someone were to have definite answers to all these issues, we wouldn't need Pond Boss magazine or this forum. Someone would write up a pond management 'cookbook' and sell it and all our ponds would be perfect.
That ain't the way it works.
All of us need to be humble enough to recognize that we are limited by what we know and the experiences we've had. Just because we've done something that works over here doesn't automatically mean that it will work over there.
Nature laughs at us when we try to pull that stunt.
So...there's the admonishment of this thread.
Next, I want to address the biology advice. Some of the advice on this thread is seriously convoluted. Some of it is sound. Some of it is taken totally out of context and the use of it won't bring about the same results as it did in the original context.
First, let me help bring more order to the discussion.
This advice will transcend this thread...but since there is so much interest in this one, I'll focus on it, but, I want to write for people beyond the scope of the original post, way back at the beginning.
Always...always..start with goals. If you don't have a clear cut mission, you are more likely to fail. Chandler's first post didn't offer any goals, only the perceived status of the fishery.
We must know the goals.
Then, we evaluate the LAKE...not just its fishery. Odds are high that the existing fishery developed based on the stimulus provided by the lake, its environment, climate and habitat...Not as much because of the fish.
Changing the dynamics of the fishery by stocking more fish only changes it temporarily, unless a crucial species which can fill a distinct purpose is added. When a fishery is out of food, stocking more food doesn't solve the "problem."
Part of the evaluation focuses on studying the habitat. As goes the habitat, so goes what lives in it.
For JHAP, green sunfish habitat is important. For everyone else on the planet...maybe not so much (tongue in cheek).
Start with habitat. That's where Pond Frog's advice about adding cover is strong advice. But, be sure to think about all the different species of fish needed for that environment and be sure to provide habitat for each size class of each species to increase your odds of success.
Chandler plans to add Christmas trees. Good move, as long as they are placed to be the best habitat for their intended inhabitants.
I would say that most all pond "problems" begin with inadequate habitat. Often, there's too little habitat, sometimes there's too much, sometimes it's in the wrong places. Focus there, first.
Second, study the food chain. All living things need food, whether single cell, primitive algae or giant squid. The food chain combines into a food web. Most people don't understand the food web. Take Chandler's case, based on his original post. The bass are skinny, but the crappie are 'fat as pigs' and the bream are 'fairly nice sized.' That suggests the food chain for crappie may be thriving, but the hapless bass are...well, hapless. Crappie are feeding on a portion of the food web that interrupts the food chain before it can become significant to feed the bass. So, does that mean the bass are overcrowded? For that case, yes they are. But, if the crappie numbers were reduced, would there be more food for bass? I bet so. Focus on the food chain and the food web. Where predators are overeating the food chain, it's much, much better to reduce the number of predators than it is to try to money-whip a food chain. It goes back to the adage that if we cook the bag of beans we have a meal. But, if we plant the bag of beans to grow more, we'll have much, much more food. That's the principle behind harvesting predator fish. To build a fishery, you can't prop up a food chain for long without harvesting the fish which ultimately overeat it.
The third key principle to always remember is genetics. If you want big, fast growing fish, pay attention to genetics. That's not as important for this discussion thread, but it's still a key component.
Last, harvest is the backbone of good fisheries management. It's one thing we can control. Every pond, at some time in its life, has a bounty. Figure out how to identify the bounty and harvest it.

Next, I want to take a few recommendations on this thread and expound on them.

CJBS said to reduce the competition...That's good advice because as you reduce the numbers of predators, you reduce competition for food. That takes pressure off the food chain, allowing it to regain its productive dynamics. But, be careful to selectively harvest fish. If the goals are to have a balanced fishery, remove all bass with below-average relative weights and all crappie caught, regardless of size. In Chandler's case, the crappie are most likely the main culprit.

RC51 suggested not stocking fathead minnows. Sound advice. Stocking fathead minnows into this fishery is the same as giving my grandson a tootsie roll pop. He'd smile, say "thanks" suck it down and be done. Very inefficient and costly. It would cost about $100 to put a pound a game fish in that circumstance. He also suggested stocking larger bluegill. If the lake doesn't currently have adult bluegill, it needs some. If it has adequate numbers of adult bluegill, they simply need pressure removed from their offspring to be able to survive and thrive. A feeding program could sure be a good idea for bluegill. Assuming the bream are not bluegill, I recommend stocking at least 150 adults per surface acre. This would be a case where stocking is beneficial. Bluegill, in this situation, in Louisiana, are the backbone of the food chain.

esshup next suggests that if there are no baby bluegill, that's another indicator of overcrowded bass. Good thought...but don't discount the impact of the crappie. Plus, without knowing the species of bream, those panfish could also be culprits.

Omaha suggests angling could be a tough way to remove enough bass. Good thought there, too. But, we must ask "how many is 'enough' to take out?" In this case, start with 25 per acre...for 17 acres, that's 425. Is that too many? The pondmeister has to figure that out. And, most likely, 425 might not make a big enough dent.

Then Walt suggests threadfin shad. Good thought, as long as the habitat and food chain are managed for threadfin shad. Crystal clear water and overcrowded bass make for an immediate feeding frenzy, much like those fathead minnows. If threadfin make sense, prepare the lake and the fishery to successfully receive these. I've seen too many people stock threadfins, expecting them to be the golden bullet, only to find out the survival rate was lower than a kamikaze pilot's. So, as you think about threadfins, learn all you can about their needs and then supply those needs. Walt suggested gizzard shad could be an option later on. Maybe so, maybe no. I've seen gizzard shad so misapplied to actually cause the demise of a fishery. Right this minute, I'm talking with a man who hasn't caught a bass in two years in his 30 acre west Texas bass lake. He casually mentioned the lake has gizzard shad. I'll be electrofishing it as soon as the weather warms up. Gizzard shad give off a pheromone that, once the density is high enough, stops reproduction. That fact alone has been a cause for good bass lakes to go bad. On the other hand, I don't have a single, solitary trophy bass lake under management at this time that doesn't have gizzard shad. Used in the proper circumstances, where there are plenty of big mouths to eat those fast growing, slimy fat creatures, excellent results can be seen.

But, when Walt starts talking about threadfins affecting the growth rates of bluegill, he misfires. Some selective research and some ponds with minimal management can be affected by this combination. But, the overwhelming majority of southern ponds stocked with both threadfins and bluegill don't impact the growth rates of bluegill. His advice may be sound for a specific case, but my 30 year career professionally managing lakes and ponds has seen many, many more cases where those fish actually complement each other. I have numerous lakes under management with many, many large bluegill and threadfin filling a totally different niche. This combination actually increases the standing crop of largemouth bass, rather than diluting the food chain.

The next advice...to stock flathead catfish, is shortsighted. Don't do it. Flatheads are not selective eaters. As they grow large, they eat large. Plus, there's another fact about flathead catfish. They are territorial, taking the best cover, best habitat. And, they defend that territory. I've literally watched flathead catfish kill fish and not eat them, just to defend what's theirs. I've worked on many lakes with flatheads. Bass lose. Plus, flathead catfish are among the poorest food converters of the freshwater species. It takes lots of flesh to support even one flathead. Stocking flatheads or even blue catfish only trades problems over the long run.

Then, the debate over tiger muskie started. I use tiger muskie in select cases to accomplish several goals. One of those goals is to help control overcrowded bass. The second is to diversify the fishery. Still, for other lakes I manage, there are different species of Esox that are problematic. I'm very cautious about using these fish as a corrective measure. I've used tiger muskie in New York, Missouri and Illinois with inconsistent results. There's a delicate balance between the climate, habitat and food chain for these fish.

Then, Yolk Sac chimed in with good, practical advice, targeting more of the actual problem, assuming the main goal is to grow larger bass.

Rainman was right on with his advice. Let's say Chandler decided to "money-whip" the food chain and added 2,000 pounds of immediate food into the system. For the next period of time, the predators will grow like crazy. But, the lake's propensity to grow more forage fish on its own hasn't changed. Now, based on the 'ol 'it takes 10 pounds of forage fish to grow one pound of game fish' theory, that 2,000 pounds of food lasts for x-days, months, whatever. It will support an additional 200 pounds of game fish. Just for argument's sake, let's say that 17 acre lake carries 50 pounds of fish per acre right now. So, that's 850 pounds. Add 200 more pounds of predator mass and what do you have? Roughly 25% more mass, demanding that much more food that the lake wasn't producing successfully in the first place. At some point...such as right now...that body of water must be relieved of some predator fish, unless someone wants to prop up the food chain with a fat wallet.

Next, the thread takes a right turn when skinnybass seeks advice. The advice above will be helpful. Will tiger muskie be of service. Probably moreso for this lake that the hot climate of Louisiana, where a tiger muskie stands little chance of survival.

Pond Frog's advice centered around habitat...as mentioned earlier, that's the place to always start...always. The case study he talks about was remedied by providing habitat for the food chain, which responded nicely. While it worked there, it doesn't always work that way. Refer to his original comment, "The problem was multiple causation, all intertwined." That's the way to tackle pond management problems. Never assume one alteration will solve the "problem." Always assume the pond and its fishery will adjust to the changes you make...and those adjustments may not be something you want, i.e. flathead catfish. I've taken ponds overwhelmed with Eurasian watermilfoil, eradicated it, only to be followed by the biggest blue-green algae bloom I've ever seen. I just knew I had killed fish. Luckily, it didn't.

I would like to go on...completely through this thread, but just don't have the time. And, you probably wouldn't have time to read it anyway.

I don't like the contentious way it ended and the mixed advice only tends to be confusing.

Here's my parting thought. Follow the four fundamental, guiding principles I have outlined. That's the primary science behind the art of pond management. Keep in mind that we have some excellent advisors on our website. But, the bottom line is that you, the consumer, must do your due diligence and then make the best choices. Do your homework, think it through and then decide what's best for you and your pond situation.

Have a great adventure learning about your pond(s)

Fish on!

Oh, and if you haven't subscribed to the magazine, please join the family of Pond Boss subscribers. The magazine supports this website and the subscribers support the magazine. Many thanks.

Thanks Lusk.

Thank you very much for chiming in!
As I stated, for my problem, the first stage will definitely be the construction of cover.

I'll continue to post here with progress.

Thanks for the great site!

Now we know why Bob Lusk is THE Pond Boss...

Between reading Bob's words in this thread and the informative posts in the "carrying capacity" thread I have come to the stark realization that if my fish are relying on my knowledge and experience to manage my pond they are doomed.

I'm beginning to think that I did not have a fish kill back in 2007.

I think it was a mass fish suicide.

Well sounds like skinny bass has a battle plan, now we wait for results. Although I always ask what is your intent, or try to get clearly stated goals, I just assumed what was desired here, fatter bass. Little different throwing around opinions or advice over the internet then standing next to a pond discussing it with it's owner. Made note to self.

Eldorado Jeff. I hate to see you carry the burden of guilt, mass suicide like lemmings jumping off a cliff. There are horse whisperers, dog whisperers, even pizza whisperers. Well I am a fish whisperer. And being I have a couple ponds in that area my fish whispered to me in 2007, we have never seen a drought like this. It's very hot, the water temp is too warm and we can barely breathe. I reassured them in a soft calming whisper everything is going to be ok.

On a slightly more serious note. For fishing and pond management I keep a working journal on ponds. When I visit I record surface water temp, water temp 3 feet under the surface and water level. Other brief observations. 2007 was the first year of a three year drought. I had all time highs in water temps and lowest water level to that date. 2008 was even worse. I've seen worse. 1976-77. Those years were complete die offs, like no fish left. Once that water temp hit a certain point, everything floated up. In one pond I had 30 bass five pounds and larger float up in one day. It's twue it's twue.

Always good to get a reality check and basic principal reminder like Bob gave. There is no silver bullet, no quick fix, and each pond is a ecosystem in itself. What works at one may fail miserably at another. Great learning thread.

This has been interesting reading for a number of reasons.

I think the most important piece of advice that I've seen on here in the past year is "it depends". That perfectly fits into what we do, and try to achieve.

Near my pond, there are 2 other much smaller ponds within 200' on my neighbors property. Each pond is completely different from the other, and it would be a disaster if each pond was treated the same. Even spaced that close together, each is its' own little ecosystem.

Jeez, I probably should have listened to DIED.

He told me that leaning over in the boat, sticking my head underwater and shouting "GROW OR DIE" into the water wasn't going to work.

You know I probably should listen to DIED more often.

Of course, one never knows with green sunfish. And I, for one, would treasure the mental image of JHAP trying to staunch the bleeding from a tongue lacerated by swarms of voracious GSF. The old GSF-induced "Purple nurple" would pale by comparison.

Pong Frog,
I am intersted in your format for capturing data on the ponds. Since I am only beginning this quest for creating a pond on the home place and if you don't mind sharing, I would be greatful.
If anyone else is willing to share their valuable tool, I am receptive...
Couppedeville@aol.com

Well, I can only tell you some pretty basic what I do things. But better than nothing I suppose. Since my ponds are non moving water most of the season I have a thermocline, or stratified water. I try to take two readings, one at surface, one in the thermocline. I don't go to bottom and I have several depths. If I really was to be a perfectionist, I would do all three. It helps me find fish to some extent, and also when feed is on or off. I have a floater and then attach a weight with a marked rope and float. I do take a couple of reading when inflow is there, but they are fairly consistent throughout the pond, generally.

Next if you were to do it professionally is clarity. Secchi disk is the way to go for clarity, turbidity. I don't go that far, I jot down what I see, murky, crystal clear, plankton bloom, whatever I see. I keep it brief but try to be descriptive. All of this goes in my little black journal book, and I have one for every pond I regularly visit.

At the end I add fish catch totals, average size, species and what caught them. Sometimes temp, but I can look that up and it varies throught the day. Wind and clouds are a bit more important to me.

It is something that really helps long term. I could take it to an extreme, or just say why bother. I try to get a middle ground, keep it concise and brief. Might take 10 minutes of my time if that. It sure does help as far as season to season variances. And I hope I helped you.

Sure did Pond Frog, thanks for the info. I do like details and think this will give me a good start.

Please read the portion of Pond Frog's quote above and keep it in mind. There is a lot there to make note of and one I want to specifically point out.

The concept of "It Depends" is a critical principal. You guys are great and collectively we help a lot of people with questions. New and interesting ideas are discussed as well as long trusted concepts. In most cases we try this without ever seeing the pond in question – that is a tough assignment.

With regard to the above I want to emphasize one axiom and one rule.

The axiom - every person has the right to do or try what he wants with his pond (hopefully on an informed basis) ...

The rule - we have an obligation to unknowing pond owners including lurkers not to give them bad unproven advice without disclaimer or limits that may harm their ponds.

This is not hard to do. Qualify your information and state it is experimental , based on limited results or just a brainstorm idea. There is nothing wrong with providing information which is not fully tested and proved. Include warnings so those with very limited experience can make good fully informed choices.

With that said lets now go out and solve every pond question we can - inquiring minds want to know !

update:
on the third day of ice fishing today.

So far: 15 largemouth, only 3 have been emaciated like we saw last year and what my dad has b een reporting. Not too many above 16 inches, but all had full bellies.

and It looks like tiger muskie won't be an issue, I've gotten 3 baby pike. 15" 13" and 19". My guess is they are 2 years old.

Crappie are, in fact, huge. one even came in at just under 3 lbs, lol.

Skinny bass, were they baby pike or chain pickerel?

That is one big crappie!

Does not sound that bad after all. I'd still put in forage cover. I think you may have a lot of fish competing for the same forage, and the bass are last in line. Did you get any bg? Any photos of those pike? Sounds like you had fun, I have never ice fished in my entire life. That is a very large crappie. They have to be eating well to get that size. Are you keeping everything or c and r?

yes, took a pic of the bluegill we caught. Got a closeup of 2 or 3 of them, I'll get them posted on here somehow.

C&R mostly, but kept about 10 little, skinny bass & had a fish fry @ the end of the day sunday.

My friend nathan got a walleye on sunday afternoon. Who'd a thunk it.

This is the 3rd annual year of what we've dubbed the "viking fishing escapade" (we all grow out our beards, apparently, before we go), and it was by far the most diverse catch of the 3.

In the summers we've never seen this much variety either. Never seen a pike or walleye in the lake, just skinny bass and fat gills.

How would i tell the difference between chain and pickerel? Very dark green, spotted pattern (spots seemed small and sparse, honestly, compared to pike i've caught farther north).

Will work on the topo map and uploading the pics on here tomorrow.

http://www.ibnature.com/images/BLUEGILL.jpg

that is very accurate. That's the species.

i'll still work on getting my pics online.

How to Post Photos

ok....to put the trip in perspective as far as the species present goes....

by far more bass than anything else. A total of about 40 by the time the trip was done. 1/4 of them were emaciated. Removed them, released the ones that had been eating well, longest was 19", caught around midnight on Saturday night on a tip-up with a thick night crawler, the rest were caught on roaches....night ice-fishing is fun, seriously..all you folks in the southlands might not understand.

caught dozens of panfish, more BG's than crappie, and the BG's were as a general rule smaller, the crappie were enormous. Small shiner minnows were the bait of choice for the crappie.

Caught a total of 6 pike, the largest being 21" long. I'm guessing the age for all of them, based strictly on size, at 2 years. it coincides with the addition of Onezey to the lake...either there were 2 introduced, or the larger one is making an impact on the fish that would normally predate on the pike minnows, allowing them to get of size.

There are more, tip-ups would flag constantly, and a fish would be on (using massive roaches as bait, and the spools would spin out of control, very fast moving fish), set the hook and the fish would let it go...the minnows inspected afterward had the classic pattern of perpendicular attack like a pike does...deep teethmarks, many chewed in half, but obviously the pike are small, by the size of their bites (and the fact that they could bite into a big minnow and not get the hook).

Walleye....there is at least one, and it is fair sized, which means there are many smaller ones in there.

Weeds are still thick on the bottom of the lake, and after talking with my dad, this year they actually did 20% less of the weed control that they have in previous years (the lake committee was trying to save $$, to make the homeowners have to pay less...he says that the lake committee, part of the HOA, has a distrust for the consultants they have hired, because they cost so much and seem to do so little....honestly from the reports i have heard i think they might be getting scammed. You guys seem to take a much more in-depth look at a lake than the people the HOA hired for the past few years...I think they test for bacteria to make sure it is safe for swimming, try to control the weeds, and that is it).

Found a few pieces of artificial cover in the lake using the aqua view camera. One stack of pallets, one big wire spool, a few piles of rip-rap. I don't think it will be much of an issue to convince the HOA to do more of that, especially if I can stay away from pvc or anything that could potentially harm a swimmer. I made a few smaller ones out of stumps, logs and wooden slats (anchored in a bit of concrete) and left them on the ice near my dad's property. One thing i did notice were new retaining walls instead of natural shorelines. It may be difficult to convince homeowners to plant grasses and reeds.

Now...the goal still is to improve the fishery, and maintain a healthy population of the bass, crappie (and i guess pike...although the amount of flags that went up and showed evidence of pike makes me think there are too many....there should be 2 per surface acre, right? that means 14...i know that we caught 6 distinctly different ones and there must be more...plus one very large one at least...)

any thoughts?

Pike or Chain Pickerel ?

http://www.cnr.vt.edu/efish/families/chainpick.html

http://www.cnr.vt.edu/efish/families/nopike.html

pike. definitely.

oh, and my crazy collapsible pvc invention didn't work. Way to complicated, it got all tangled up in itself going through the hole in the ice, and even the lines i had to straighten it back out couldn't untangle the mess, actually they made it worse. Good theory, bad design.

there's a giant pile of pvc and concrete feet at the bottom of the lake now.

-mike

Are the pike fat or not? You realize that your discovery changes most of the thoughts in this thread.

ewest:
Absolutely. when we caught the first one, a measly 15", it was the first one we caught on friday...on the first tip up we set up, before my buddy was done constructing the shanty, and before i had the third tip-up in the water. My stomach dropped and I thought oh crap....better call Walt, he knows what's going on

All opinions i had are out the window at this point, except that we still need cover.

Yes, they had been eating well. Not so much the small ones, but the 19" and the 21" both had good weight on them.

Absolutely. I'm changing my rec to 2000#/acre 2" green sunfish.

Seriously, though, this does have interesting implications, however. I wonder if the crappies are so fat because they're predominantly preying on very small BG, below the size of interest for the bass and NP, and also because their own numbers are effectively thinned by the same predators.

ok......so are the greenies a joke? am i missing something subtle that goes on between fishery managers? I sense that i could cut the tension on that one with a knife....

the small BG's could be seasonal...sluggish predators in the winter might not be knocking down the lil BG population.

Also, a stomach survey of the emaciated bass showed tiny minnows as what they were feeding on, and minnows of like size were the bait of choice for the crappie, while wax worms worked as well (waxies were bait of choice for the bluegill).

And i've never seen a crayfish stack in the lake. I'm thinking a medium forage species must exist for there to have grown a walleye of that size, but i've never seen them.

I would say this - how much help have those pike been at solving the skinny LMB situation.

GSF were a joke by Yolk.

I think this proves without any doubt the critical importance of knowing the facts (what is there) before a plan is hatched or implemented.

Sorry Skinny!!

No tension on the GSF. I wouldn't get within a mile of any esox species, however.


Truer words were never spoken. It's hard to plonk down the several hundred bucks it takes to have a good shock survey done, but the info can be critical, as the above case illustrates.

Besides, it'd be a huge waste [and quite embarressing] if your 8" tigers were EATEN by other predators!

mmmm.......how much help have they been.

all year round, including last winter and this thanksgiving, there are generally skinny bass.

All of a sudden we have thicker bass (some still really skinny...took those out) with the appearance of 2 y.o. pike.

I've been fishing this pond @ least twice a year for 5 years, and never seen a pike, or bass as healthy as the ones i just caught.
Plus....the bass should be hungrier, in the winter, since they chase food less often...but here it is, plenty of thick bass, and plenty of small bluegill to feed them.

I'd say for now, the pike are helping. But what i am afraid of is @ 2y.o., a 15" pike has no predators in that lake with the exception of the elusive "5lb" bass that supposedly exists, and the walleye.....or the mythical lake beast Onezey.

That is unlikely. So that 15" pike will be a 20" pike next year, and all of a sudden competition for those BG's exists. Then the year after that he's a little bigger and so on and so forth, until eventually he is taking down bass on his own.

So as the bass population (and sadly, the crappie and bluegill population) keep dropping, and the pike population keeps rising, won't we just have the same problem again, just with skinny, stunted pike instead?

Not only then will i have to change my username, but the fishing for the kids is pretty ruined (kids don't like things with teeth, last i checked...)

I however, am thrilled, since i love catching pike. Unfortunately i don't live there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_shiner
honestly, I think this is what we were using as bait, we call them roaches, though.

Both the bass and pike gobble these up. What would happen if we stocked these "golden shiners" (the acronym escapes me, I thought GS was gizzard shad....) after the construction of some more artificial cover?

Thanks
SB (is that one taken?)

GSH = Golden Shiner

Roaches are a European Shiner that looks quite similar to GSH, but IIRC gets a little larger.

Dr. Willis has reported that there are some self supporting roach populations (up his way) established via bait bucket releases.

No way to know the age of those pike without scale , spine or otolith info . They could be 6-7 just as easy. I have seen LMB at 10 inches that were 5 years old and 8 mths old and BG 4 inches at 3 years and at 6 mths.

More likely that both the LMB and pike are stunted.

ok, at this point this thread should probably exist in evaluating existing populations, not corrective stocking, but just as well....

So the 3 options on why there are now pike in the lake, assuming that the most likely (they always were, and are just as stunted as the bass), is the answer still improve cover and remove bass?

or given that the bass looked in better shape now, should it just be let go to see what happens? (aside from making cover)

ok....I think i am going to do the forum managers a favor and just start a new thread over in evaluating and managing existing populations. Thanks to everyone who has been so helpful in the past few days, I really appreciate your time and advice.

Thanks
skinny

Skinny,

This is just my rookie opinion but sounds to me like you have way to many types of predetor fish in your pond! Bass, Pike, Walleye, Crappie dangit man I wish I had a bait store next to this pond!!! Just kidding. But if your going to keep all them type of fish in there your always going to be adjusting in some sort of way!

Yeah....I know....The sad part is that people never take any out. It's "icky" to most of them. As far as i understand it my semi-retired dad is the only one okay with that, the rest are soccer moms and such. He's been talking about a fish fry since he moved there 5 years ago, and they all look at him funny when he does. yuppies, I guess...nobody spent enough time in the boyscouts.

The walleye Have only been seen on 2 occasions that i know of. Someone spotted one near a dock, and we got one ice fishing, a big monster too.

The pike....well, they were unheard of until a few years ago, when someone dumped Onezey in the lake, now this year they popped up. As people on this forum have pointed out, there could be lots of reasons for this. Personally i think that either a) nobody knew they were there because the bass bit so heavily that they were just missed by angling or b) onezey ate a bunch of bass, plus some of the bass might have died off by other means...and the pike finally are making it past minnow-sized with the pressure off a lil so we are now seeing them hit lures (or in the ice-fishing cases, roaches).

The BG...man they are fat. There was a pond by a hotel in Indiana i went to once that had freakishly large BG, but other than that, and the ones i see on bruce's site, i've never seen BG to compare.

The crappie, although there aren't many that you catch from dad's pier or from the paddleboat, they are fatties as well.

In fact, it is the big, top predators that nobody sees big ones..the pike, the bass etc. Just lil guys, like i said in another thread, skeletor fish.

I'd love to hook into a massive pike in that lake. So far i have the record for biggest fish in weight, a grass carp, but the neighbor chuck (south of dad's house) is the only one who hooked onezey after it got dumped in. And even the fuzzy kodak disposable pic they have of that...man...i would love to wrestle that thing in.