Pond Boss Forums MANAGING AN EXISTING POND Evaluating and adjusting fish populations Trophy BG and WE Lake

In 2021 I stocked #30 shiners, #30 fathead, 1000 RES, 2000 HBG, and 300 WE (5-6") in a new 3 acre lake in IL. I installed (1) fish feeder. Some spawning of HBG is occurring and populations appeared prolific in 2023. In fall of 2023, I stocked another 200 WE (7-9") to assist with managing breeding fish. There are NO LMG or catfish in the lake. It's now early 2024, and I'm catching +9" HBG, 7-8" RES, and a very occasional 12-16" WE. I am currently pulling out any fish I catch under 8.5", except WE. I've been told the WE will be difficult to catch with all the food in the lake. I realize the WE can't spawn in my area and I'm not opposed to stocking another 200 WE this fall. My goal is a lake with +20" WE and +10" BG/RES. Any thoughts/recommendations?

How do you feel about the potential WE growth from 5/6" to 12-16" over 3-ish years?

I don't know if that's good or bad, but it sounds like you put a good amount of regenerating forage into the pond.

With the current stocking, and assuming no WE reproduction, you're at around 150-166 WE/acre in your pond. With a goal of more growth for the WE, I'm not sure if add more would help right now or not.

First, walleye are not good predators of sunfish like LMB are. WAE tend to consume GSH more than sunfish species, they will eat them but usually don't explode growth-wise on them.
Once WAE get into and past 15" they don't utilize the FHM much unless they have nothing else.
If you want Walleye to grow at faster rates, stock YP.
I believe the HBG are taking advantage of the FHM and GSH (assume GSH)
500 WAE in 3 acres is a tremendously high stocking rate.
esshup is more familiar with your area, but there is another option for controlling masses of BG and turning that into the same Taste with better growth in a Percid.
EDIT: I see I posted on your other question in another thread. Lots of small WAE will control small BG to some degree but I don't think you will achieve the 20" mark. Your growth rates stated above back that up.

I agree with Snipe, the 166 Walleye/acre is pretty durn high. For each one of them to gain a pound a year, they'd have to eat between 208,000 and 500,000 2.5"-3.5" bluegill annually. (approximately)

500 WE need to eat roughly 5,000# of of forage fish to gain a pound each per year.

That's roughly 1,666# of HBG/RES PER ACRE which your pond cannot produce.

Were the HBG you stocked BGxGSF or BGxRES?

jaytmann,

You've received some good comments about the predator density. The density of adult panfish may also be limiting or slowing growth. Give some consideration to thinning some them. I think you should have plenty of predators. Provided the condition is not poor, I might let them ride to do recruitment control and use average RW as a guide for harvest. Keep good records, the response gives you a baseline to help you to better plan subsequently.

I’m not opposed to sticking YP to manage BG and fatten WE . I’ve also considered SMB to help manage BG. My ultimate goal is big BG and I really don’t want LMB or catfish.

I forgot about the comment about only catching...."very occasional 12-16" WE."

That catch rate seems way low if you were around 150-166 WE/acre.

YP will not manage BG, SMB will not manage BG.
Not trying to be controversial , just stating from experience.
I strongly believe there are way too many WAE stocked as it is, 50-70 per acre would be ok if you have GSH, YP, etc.
If you catch a walleye, weigh and measure as accurately as possible and report that. I'm guessing RW is 75-80 at best.

Might be a dumb question.. what is RW?

RW stands for relative weight of the fish. RW is a fishery evaluation method that provides a good indication of the body weight of the fish as it compares to lots of fish that have been weighed and measured from all over the USA. RW is also commonly known as plumpness of your fish compared to many other same specie of fish.
As his well experienced information and as indicated by Snipe RW for a walleye at 75-80 RW this means the fish is on the skinny side and is indicating the fish was not really getting enough of the PROPER foods to allow them to feed well and be plump. This is also an indication that the food amount, type of food, and sizes of food are not right for this fish to be growing well. A fish needs to have a certain amount of plumpness to continue to grow. Skinny fish are not growing and likely loosing weight but not losing length. IMO good RW for a healthy WE and many other sport fish is 90-100 which indicates they are GROWING. Gravid WE close to spawning I think have a RW of around 120-130 or more; very fat looking fish.
You can calculate RW by looking up the standard weight and dividing your fish's weight into the standard weight of that length of fish - then multiplying the answer by 100.
Example - You catch a 17" WE, ,,, it weighs 1.5 lbs; the standard wt for it is 1.87 lbs. 1.5/1.87= 0.80 X 100 =RW of 0.80 X 100 = 80

Read and study this PB Forum link to relative weight (RW).
https://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=468638#Post468638

In the link the Weight - Length estimator charts provided by esshup have weights that are about 1-2 ounces difference than Standard Weights of numerous fish species.
Because the Wt-Lgn charts in the above link start for WE at 15" here are Std Wts for smaller walleye
16 oz = 1 pound
Standart Weight Walleye
12" = 0.62 lbs or 9.9oz
13" = 0.79 lbs or 12.6oz
14" = 1.01 lbs or 16.1oz
Note
15" = 1.1 lbs or 17.6 oz Wt-Lgn Link chart for 15" is 1.25lbs.
20" = 3.13 lbs and the Wt -Lgn in the charts of the link above is 20" = 2.8lbs.

With regard to WAE standard weights, some time ago I regressed the chart at InFisherman. For any who may be interested in a formula for use in a spreadsheet please find below.

For pounds and inch units.

W= .000232643 * L^3.174

For grams and mm units

W= .000003671 * L^3.174

See if any of this makes sense for Alpha and Beta...this is for mm and grams.
Alpha (column D) =10^ (-5.453 + 3.18 *LOG10(B3))
Beta (column E) =C3/D3

WAE tables have not changed for many years although LMB, YP and SMB have all changed in the last 5 years.

Yes, this is essentially the same formula but it is expressed in log form. See below

W = .000003671 * L ^3.174

Take LOG10 of both sides

LOG(W) = LOG (.000003671) + 3.174 * LOG(L)

Since LOG(.000003671) = -5.435 by substitution:

LOG(W) = -5.435 + 3.174* LOG (L) (This is essentially what you are doing in your spreadsheet but taking the antilog of both sides to convert to decimal. Either way works the same. It's just whatever one may prefer most. The factors do not differ much either. About 1 part in 500 difference. Won't be a difference worth noting. So just whichever works for whomever )