Pond Boss Magazine
https://www.pondboss.com/images/userfiles/image/20130301193901_6_150by50orangewhyshouldsubscribejpeg.jpg
Advertisment
Newest Members
Shotgun01, Dan H, Stipker, LunkerHunt23, Jeanjules
18,451 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums36
Topics40,899
Posts557,082
Members18,451
Most Online3,612
Jan 10th, 2023
Top Posters
esshup 28,414
ewest 21,474
Cecil Baird1 20,043
Bill Cody 15,110
Who's Online Now
7 members (Justin W, Sunil, DenaTroyer, Freg, Donatello, jludwig, catscratch), 772 guests, and 205 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 13,687
Likes: 281
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Online Content
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 13,687
Likes: 281
I'm not sure about that comment saying 'feed is not required at all.'

At the very least, there is much context that needs to be considered.


Excerpt from Robert Crais' "The Monkey's Raincoat:"
"She took another microscopic bite of her sandwich, then pushed it away. Maybe she absorbed nutrients from her surroundings."

Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 68
Likes: 9
1
OP Offline
1
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 68
Likes: 9
BG spawned multiple times last Summer with fry visible in large quantites last year continuing to this Spring. I had been attributing the lack of LMB growth (for my small sample size this Spring) to a stunted population with little growth potential. I'll see how it plays out through this July and go from there.

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 13,687
Likes: 281
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Online Content
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 13,687
Likes: 281
Originally Posted by 1997pond
BG spawned multiple times last Summer with fry visible in large quantites last year continuing to this Spring. I had been attributing the lack of LMB growth (for my small sample size this Spring) to a stunted population with little growth potential. I'll see how it plays out through this July and go from there.


There is certainly much talk about the limited growth potential of LMB that are stunted.

On the flip side though, those same stunted LMB will reproduce, and the new YOY LMB hopefully have better forage conditions and could grow to full potential.

Considering that, aggressively culling of the stunted LMB will make better conditions for newly born LMB.


Excerpt from Robert Crais' "The Monkey's Raincoat:"
"She took another microscopic bite of her sandwich, then pushed it away. Maybe she absorbed nutrients from her surroundings."

Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 234
Likes: 17
D
Offline
D
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 234
Likes: 17
I've caught my largest feed-trained bass (18") and largest bluegill yet (11" and 1#4oz) and my apparently one surviving HSB (18") several times on the Bass Throw pellets, scored and secured with a tiny rubber band to a small hook. It floats the hook, so, I may free line it on the surface or have it float above a weight on the bottom. The hazard of this baiting is one of three large "pet" channel cats (one is 32 inches and 20#) is always ready for a fight. I also feed the two smaller sizes.


Dan McWhirter
DannyMac
2 members like this: anthropic, FishinRod
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,881
Likes: 278
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,881
Likes: 278
Originally Posted by FishinRod
jpsdad, (and everyone else)

I have seen lots of discussions about supplying forage that is the correct size for LMB. However, I have not seen the equivalent discussion for large BG.

What do you think the large BG are utilizing for their forage diet in this pond (or in any trophy BG pond)?

I think all BG have tiny mouths, so I do not have a good grasp on how gape size changes their feeding habits as they get larger. Do 3-4" BG eat essentially the same diet (species AND size) as 8"+ BG?

Fishing Rod, I think 8" BG can eat things that are larger than 4" BG. Just based on allometry the anticipated increase would be around 4 times the cross sectional area of the prey. I'm not sure allometry applies, however. I haven't taken the measurements but just looking at smaller BG their mouth size does look proportionately larger relative to length than mature BG. Just judging by casual viewing but not applying metrics.


We talk about LMB expending energy to catch their food. Is the diet of BG dumb, or do BG also expend significant energy to catch and consume their forage?

A BG's suction when taking a food item is remarkable and most smaller prey are unable to swim out of the flow. Near the surface you can hear an audible pop. It takes energy but BG feed all the time as they slowly move around. Minnows definitely take more energy as they have to get close to a creature that is already running away. But if they can get close enough and the minnow is small enough ... gets eaten. A minnow is significant food, highly significant food. Read Swingle's findings on BG with GAMs, for example.

All of which is relevant to my final question. If a good fertile pond is producing trophy BG, would supplemental feeding be unlikely to increase the size of the trophy BG?

The fertility of a pond actually has nothing to do with producing trophy BG. It is far easier to grow a trophy BG in an pond of good water clarity than it is to grow them in rich water. The reason is that BG and LMB benefit from clear water. It helps them find prey and the better water quality keeps them healthy with plenty of O2. All the major state and world records were caught in clear water lakes. So the water doesn't have to be fertile.

The question is too short sighted I think. Were I to venture a guess, it would under most circumstances increase the size of the largest fish already present. But if the feeding causes less clarity and if more BG are recruited than if unfed the demand for food increases substantially. What about those BG? How much feed is it going to take to make them trophies? I've caught a lot really nice BG in ponds that are not managed but rather simply have a natural population structure such that the numbers of BG are very limited. That's really all it takes and in this condition large BG can be grown year after year. This cannot be said long term where BG are too populated to grow without supplemental feeding. There is a breaking point and it isn't hard to find and experience it.


Even if all of your trophy BG are over 100% RW, would supplemental feeding increase the number of trophy BG or is that too dependent upon all of the other pond fishery variables?

Again, I think its questionable and kind of short sighted. A person can expect gain according to the weight of the feed that is fed. It depends on the number of fish eating the feed and how it is distributed. So yes it is possible in the short term to boost the weight of individual trophies with feed.

A person should look at feed/fertilization as a means to grow a greater biomass of fish than the pond could otherwise support. So in a lean pond, of course, feed will allow one to grow more large fish than it could otherwise grow. But in a eutrophic pond feed can cause many other problems so yes ... its a combination of fishery variables IMHO. In the end, whatever food a pond has, whether natural or artificial, the size that fish can achieve is not dependent on whether the food was natural or artificial. It depends on the number of mouths competing for that limited food.

Last edited by jpsdad; 04/13/22 04:59 PM.

It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers


1 member likes this: FishinRod
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,881
Likes: 278
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,881
Likes: 278
Originally Posted by 1997pond
BG spawned multiple times last Summer with fry visible in large quantites last year continuing to this Spring. I had been attributing the lack of LMB growth (for my small sample size this Spring) to a stunted population with little growth potential. I'll see how it plays out through this July and go from there.

I have personally witnessed stunted 8" to 10" LMB grow to 14" over winter when transplanted to a GSF pond where no other LMB were present. That's a quadrupling of weight from Fall to Spring in Northern OK. IMHO its the age that limits their ultimate potential. Those 8" to 10 LMB may have 6 years old so they don't have as much time to grow. IME they will grow if there is enough forage to go around.

Our member Bocomo started his harvest in late summer and fall. He recorded growth in his creel records the following spring. So why did he get results and you did not? The difference could be that your BOW has a very above average standing weight of LMB/acre with a much larger number of LMB/acre than an average pond. Keep in mind that your BOW had no BG and so the LMB partially filled that niche of insectivore.

For example, if your eutrophic pond could support 120 lbs of LMB then a reduction of 30 lbs would allow a 33% increase in the individual weights of the remaining LMB. For an average size of 9" that would be a 1" increase in length. If the LMB were very poor RW ... it is possible they wouldn't grow much at all in length but just fatten relative to their prior condition. It is spring and some fish have tended beds or spent eggs. Keep this in mind with respect to RW. I wouldn't worry a whole lot about RW right now. I'd track the lengths which when lengths start showing improvement you have meaningful evidence of growth.


It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers


Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,248
Likes: 584
F
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
F
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,248
Likes: 584
jpsdad,

Thanks for taking the time to type out all of that good information. [My post is referring to his BG post above. I see jpsdad was also typing out a LMB post while I was typing.]

Hopefully, the title hook (BG growing like crazy) from the OP will drive some traffic to this thread for other people to read up on big BG.

I remember your previous post about Swingle showing great BG weight gain on gams. I don't know how much of the diet of a large BG is minnows and how much is the available invertebrates in the pond. (Or even LMB fry, etc.) I just expected their gape might have some profound effect on their diet, because it seems so tiny compared to the other fish I commonly catch.

In a Swingle type experiment, if there were fewer gams but a great abundance of some small zooplankton would the BG have shown as much weight gain? (Correcting for the relative nutrition between fish protein and zooplankton protein.)

It sounds like a clear water pond is definitely your recommendation for big and/or "trophy" BG. In that circumstance, would you recommend periodic fertilization? The resulting algal bloom would hurt water clarity for a little while, but you would jumpstart all of the food chain items that directly feed BG as well as the indirect food chain that results in fat minnows to also feed the BG. After the bloom cleared, the BG should be able to slaughter the once again easily visible forage.

Supplemental floating food would be easy to find during the bloom and then you might be able to cut back during the post-bloom natural forage boom. It seems that would make it easier for management rookies (like me) to push the total weight of BG a little without significantly risking a crash from pushing the pond to carrying capacity ALL of the year.

Last edited by FishinRod; 04/13/22 05:53 PM. Reason: Added information for thread clarity.
1 member likes this: jpsdad
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,861
Likes: 298
A
Offline
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,861
Likes: 298
Originally Posted by Sunil
Originally Posted by 1997pond
BG spawned multiple times last Summer with fry visible in large quantites last year continuing to this Spring. I had been attributing the lack of LMB growth (for my small sample size this Spring) to a stunted population with little growth potential. I'll see how it plays out through this July and go from there.


There is certainly much talk about the limited growth potential of LMB that are stunted.

On the flip side though, those same stunted LMB will reproduce, and the new YOY LMB hopefully have better forage conditions and could grow to full potential.

Considering that, aggressively culling of the stunted LMB will make better conditions for newly born LMB.

Researchers have discovered that people who've experienced famine suffer epigenetic changes that make their descendants less healthy. I wonder if stunted fish have similar effects? If so, may be another reason to cull them quickly!


7ac 2015 CNBG RES FHM 2016 TP FLMB 2017 NLMB GSH L 2018 TP & 70 HSB PK 2019 TP RBT 2020 TFS TP 25 HSB 250 F1,L,RBT -206 2021 TFS TP GSH L,-312 2022 GSH TP CR TFS RBT -234, 2023 BG TP TFS NLMB, -160




Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 68
Likes: 9
1
OP Offline
1
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 68
Likes: 9
I'll keep an eye on length. My records from last year of a 159 LMB caught are:

Average Length of 8.84"
Median Length of 9.00"
Stand Dev of 1.5"

For most of us non stat nerds this means that almost everything was between 8 and 10 inches with the most of the remainder under 12" or above 6" What it felt like was catching the same LMB over and over again...

The RW for this same sample was an average of 93% and the standard deviation said that almost everything was between 80 and 100%. Anything over 100% was rare.

I'll report back in July based on length. This is a marathon not a sprint wink

On a related note, I'll build on one of jpsdad's point. I believe the 150 BG I stocked April 2021 filled an open niche in my pond's ecosystem. I think they showed up at Golden Coral when no one else was admitted. This accounts for their dramatic growth but the open question is what will be the pond's new equilibrium with this new variable.

This is the real fun part for me and invite all to speculate!

1 member likes this: jpsdad
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,881
Likes: 278
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,881
Likes: 278
Originally Posted by FishinRod
In a Swingle type experiment, if there were fewer gams but a great abundance of some small zooplankton would the BG have shown as much weight gain? (Correcting for the relative nutrition between fish protein and zooplankton protein.)

In Swingle's experiment he credited the sequestration of nutrients into the GAMs as the reason for the outperformance. So the BG were stocked at 2" and could not use all the nutrition that the fertilization was providing (they had a low standing weight). But the GAMs reproduced extensively and utilized the foods in the early going when there was insufficient weight of BG to fully consume them. The GAMs could not achieve sizes to evade predation so by the end of the season most of them were consumed by BG (the stocking rate was 1 lb GAMs and 1500 BG/acre). The difference was remarkable with an 87 percent increase in production. FHM performed similarly in combination with BG and LMB.

As to the differences between zooplankton and fish, there are notable differences. Seems like I have read that some of the protein (chitin) in invertebrates is not digestible by fish. Also the water content of most aquatic invertebrates tends to be higher than fish (less energy in a given volume). Fish are high in minerals relative to invertebrates and these are building blocks for skeletons, fins, and scales. Swingle could not get a similar performance from PK shrimp as he did minnow. In part, it may be the quality and/or density of the nutrition playing a role. I am not certain but this seems plausible. IMHO forage isn't just forage. I think some forage is better than others.


It sounds like a clear water pond is definitely your recommendation for big and/or "trophy" BG. In that circumstance, would you recommend periodic fertilization? The resulting algal bloom would hurt water clarity for a little while, but you would jumpstart all of the food chain items that directly feed BG as well as the indirect food chain that results in fat minnows to also feed the BG. After the bloom cleared, the BG should be able to slaughter the once again easily visible forage.

I like a compromise. Maybe oligotrophic water clarity is best for long life and maximum size. Given the many examples of record fish coming from such waters this may be the path to the largest fish. But I think I would personally sacrifice a world record fish to have more fish and better fishing. Seems a risky proposition to focus on very few very large fish. For example, what if you grew the world record fish but never caught it? Seems like a lot is lost in being too focused on individual weight.

One of the things I have learned is that doubling the phytoplankton standing weight does not lead to doubling of invertebrates and fish. When we push, we get less than 1 to 1 reward for the pushing. Here I am speaking solely about natural food chain even if artificially enhanced by fertilization. I am not sure why this is so but I suspect that it is water quality. So I think more oxygen, less pathogens, and better visibility help the consumers and so less bloom and double the secchi doesn't halve the carrying capacity. It takes it down by around 30% instead. Consequently, having 1.3 acres with half the bloom is equivalent to 1 acre.

I think a good compromise is to attempt to maintain meso-tropic water. This would include fertilizing or feeding in water leaner than that or sequestering nutrients through with species like TP that are harvested and removed from the water. Water >3' secchi is not risky water and rarely experience fish kills. A person doesn't have to give up much and the potential for longer lived fish is improved.


Supplemental floating food would be easy to find during the bloom and then you might be able to cut back during the post-bloom natural forage boom. It seems that would make it easier for management rookies (like me) to push the total weight of BG a little without significantly risking a crash from pushing the pond to carrying capacity ALL of the year.

I like a strategy that pushes when temps are forgiving and then eases when temps are not.

Last edited by jpsdad; 04/13/22 08:18 PM.

It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers


1 member likes this: FishinRod
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 13,687
Likes: 281
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Online Content
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 13,687
Likes: 281
anthropic, that is certainly worth factoring into '97's action plan. I do have to wonder on the available data set where humans who suffered from famine and extreme circumstances then procreated kids into non-similar circumstances. But the point is valid about stunted bass and their progeny.


1997, I think you've got to way, way increase your LMB culling efforts then. It seems you've got the bluegill population thriving, so you may be further along the path.


Excerpt from Robert Crais' "The Monkey's Raincoat:"
"She took another microscopic bite of her sandwich, then pushed it away. Maybe she absorbed nutrients from her surroundings."

Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,881
Likes: 278
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,881
Likes: 278
Originally Posted by anthropic
Originally Posted by Sunil
Originally Posted by 1997pond
BG spawned multiple times last Summer with fry visible in large quantites last year continuing to this Spring. I had been attributing the lack of LMB growth (for my small sample size this Spring) to a stunted population with little growth potential. I'll see how it plays out through this July and go from there.


There is certainly much talk about the limited growth potential of LMB that are stunted.

On the flip side though, those same stunted LMB will reproduce, and the new YOY LMB hopefully have better forage conditions and could grow to full potential.

Considering that, aggressively culling of the stunted LMB will make better conditions for newly born LMB.

Researchers have discovered that people who've experienced famine suffer epigenetic changes that make their descendants less healthy. I wonder if stunted fish have similar effects? If so, may be another reason to cull them quickly!

I am not aware of that study. But I am aware of a study conducted through generational records of a Scandinavian population that provided evidence of epigenetics and made it a science founded in hard to argue with evidence. (Until recently people who thought that environment did anything genetically beyond natural selection were considered cranks and kooks.) Anyways, in that study it was just the opposite. It wasn't times of scarcity that caused the problem. It was times of abundance when wheat crops succeeded very well. If this occurred during and through adolescence that generation had no ill effects but their offspring were susceptible to diabetes. So there is at least one example that having an abundance of food didn't lead to better health in subsequent generations. A difficult environment of scarcity may select the strongest genes where its easy to argue the opposite would allow inferior genes to survive.

Last edited by jpsdad; 04/13/22 09:20 PM.

It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers


Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,861
Likes: 298
A
Offline
A
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,861
Likes: 298
jpsdad, that's the study I was referring to. In my perhaps faulty recollection, children born during extreme food scarcity in a remote Scandinavian fishing town had elevated rates of diabetes & mortality. Even grandchildren felt the effects, though DNA was unchanged. Smoking also had epigenetic impacts on descendents.

This shocking result is one of many reasons why I discount phrases like "the science says" or "obey the science" or "the scientific consensus is." In a battle between experts & observational evidence, I prefer to go with the evidence.

The Overkalix study summarized in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96verkalix_study

Last edited by anthropic; 04/13/22 10:14 PM.

7ac 2015 CNBG RES FHM 2016 TP FLMB 2017 NLMB GSH L 2018 TP & 70 HSB PK 2019 TP RBT 2020 TFS TP 25 HSB 250 F1,L,RBT -206 2021 TFS TP GSH L,-312 2022 GSH TP CR TFS RBT -234, 2023 BG TP TFS NLMB, -160




Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,881
Likes: 278
J
Offline
J
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,881
Likes: 278
I glanced at the Wiki article. They reference the "slow growth period" which is a stage of the human life cycle that directly preceeds puberty. This is the formative period for epi-genetic influence of germ cells. I was wondering if you may have connected "slow growth period" with "times of scarcity"? Anyways, there is no evidence that I am aware of that confirms that the progeny of stunted LMB are epi-genetically inhibited to grow as large as the progeny of LMB that reproduced while continuing to grow. This is not to say it may not be the case ... only that it is conjectural. There are other ample arguments one could make (that would be just as reasonable) that the effect may actually be the opposite. For me this is an unknown and I remain agnostic with regard to it.

As it applies to 97, I think it is inconsequential. I can with no hesitation predict that the growth of his LMB will always be forage limited. I base this on ample evidence provided by 97 and other evidence I have observed. As 97 culls his LMB they will grow larger as fewer mouths share a limited supply of forage. This supply of forage and the number of LMB competing for it, as it evolves, will always be the limiting factor.

Last edited by jpsdad; 04/14/22 08:33 AM.

It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers


Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
Originally Posted by Augie
Originally Posted by Sunil
Regarding the feed, HSB will hit all sizes of feed, but they'll also grow quickly enough to hit the Aquamax Largemouth/Optimal Hand Throw which are all close to 1" diameter.

I'm glad that you mentioned this. I stocked 8"-10" HSB last fall and I've been wondering if they're ready for the Hand Throw pellets.
I sampled a few in the spring, and they were ranging 12"-14". I don't bother them when the water temp is above 75°F. From watching
them feed I'd guess that they're running 14"-18" now. Would that size fish be able to swallow the Hand Throw pellets, or do I wait
until next summer to start with that stuff?

I have 20 of them, and they will wipe out a pound of the Bass pellets in less than five minutes.


Break the big pellets in half and see if they eat them . If so then start throwing a few whole pellets.
















Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
PB mag has had several articles on Evolution vs Adaptation.

There is IMO a fine line between when adaptation becomes evolution.

The info (status of change) is constantly changing and there are no easy answers.

Here is the start on one article

On The Pond Boss Forum recently there have been discussions on adaptation vs. evolution. This conversation centered around how do fish change, what is the mechanism (environment or genetics) and how long does it take. In Science Class we all learned about Darwin’s theories regarding Evolution. We were taught that Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." Parts of Darwin's Theory of Evolution are now a theory in crisis in light of the recent tremendous advances in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics. Darwin’s prediction was right on a geological scale (Earth’s age) but it has since been shown that evolution of species can happen much faster. In bacteria and insects, single generation change is known to occur. In more advanced species (fish and larger creatures), it was thought that things are more gradual, but still, do occur in sudden bursts.


and a conclusion

The discovery of continuing adult brain neurogenesis in mammals demonstrates that adaptive processes continue to shape the brain well beyond embryonic development. Because fish exhibit extensive neurogenesis in the brain throughout life as compared to mammals it is more likely a life-long process for brain growth in fish. These developments in embryonic and whole life brain development in fish resulting from environmental conditions (adaptation) is proof that adaptive change (through phenotypic plasticity) is quicker , more powerful and far more prevalent than previously thought.

Last edited by ewest; 04/14/22 11:20 AM.















Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Today's Birthdays
Bob Lusk, GaryK, GrizzFan, PhotographerDave
Recent Posts
Happy Birthday Bob Lusk!!
by Sunil - 03/28/24 12:39 PM
New 2 acre pond stocking plan
by Sunil - 03/28/24 12:39 PM
1 year after stocking question
by esshup - 03/28/24 11:01 AM
Paper-shell crayfish and Japanese snails
by esshup - 03/28/24 10:39 AM
Brooder Shiners and Fry, What to do??
by Freg - 03/28/24 09:42 AM
Relative weight charts in Excel ? Calculations?
by esshup - 03/28/24 08:36 AM
Dewatering bags seeded to form berms?
by Justin W - 03/28/24 08:19 AM
Reducing fish biomass
by FishinRod - 03/28/24 08:18 AM
Questions and Feedback on SMB
by Donatello - 03/27/24 03:10 PM
2024 North Texas Optimal BG food Group Buy
by Dave Davidson1 - 03/27/24 08:15 AM
Freeze Danger? - Electric Diaphragm Pump
by esshup - 03/26/24 09:47 PM
Newly Uploaded Images
Eagles Over The Pond Yesterday
Eagles Over The Pond Yesterday
by Tbar, December 10
Deer at Theo's 2023
Deer at Theo's 2023
by Theo Gallus, November 13
Minnow identification
Minnow identification
by Mike Troyer, October 6
Sharing the Food
Sharing the Food
by FishinRod, September 9
Nice BGxRES
Nice BGxRES
by Theo Gallus, July 28
Snake Identification
Snake Identification
by Rangersedge, July 12

� 2014 POND BOSS INC. all rights reserved USA and Worldwide

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5