Pond Boss Forums MANAGING AN EXISTING POND Corrective stocking Skinny LMB in old pond

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