Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations RW data compiling and graphic chart program?

Is there any source for a software program I can locate or purchase for managing my lake?

I would like to find a better system than manually recording data, and calculating and writing down RW fiqures...very time consuming.

It would be great to have a program where I could simply type in the length and weight of a bass caught and the program would then give me RW of all fish, average RW, number of fish in certain size ranges and RW of those in size ranges and then also show all the data in a chart for an easy viewing.

Help.

Thanks!!

Dave

Funny you should ask. I just asked my business manager, Mike Loewen, to find out that very question. So far, he has found several state agencies which have software but are unwilling to share it, considering it "proprietary." Scratching my head on that one. What we do here, though, is to create a spreadsheet, create columns for length and weight, another for date, and another for miscellaneous notes. We log each fish, the create an x-y graph. Computer savvy people can add the Wr 100 tables for specific species, for comparisons. But, we are looking for something user friendly we can provide landowners.

I'm a wannabe pondmeister but I do have a background in programming.

So just to clarify, the user would input weight, length, species and date. The sampling is compared to a standard table. The output would be an x-y graph with x representing ???? and y representing ????. Can you post or email an example of the output from the spreadsheet?

I like 'x' to represent length and 'y' to represent weight. Date allows you to look at different data sets, for comparison over long periods of time.
Here's a standard chart for largemouth bass
10" bass should weigh 10 oz.
12" should weigh 12 oz
14" is 1 lb 7 oz.
16" is 2 lb 4 oz.
18" is 3 lb 4 oz.
Plot these numbers as your standard curve, and compare your fish to these.

Do relative weights change from area to area? Does a 18" LMB from the north have the same relative weight as one from the south?

What would be the best type of recording device to leave at the lake for everyone to use?

I know RW is a significant indicator but how do you determine age class and then correlate? It seems that this will always be the missing variable. It may also be the real issue regarding healthy growth.

For example, I am 6 ft. tall, 205 lbs and 62 years old. A teenager of the same size may or may not be healthier than me. Is that meaningful in fish?

Norm, from what I've read about your pond (I'm jealous by the way) a lot of the fishing is off your docks? I have seen hunting areas with laminated sheets and grease pencils at ingress and egress areas for recording small game harvests. I would suppose you could post them in strategic areas around your dock or other favorite fishing spots. If you wanted to get really into it, you could equip these "stations" with a tape measure (stick, ruler, etc) and a scale to highly encourage recording.

Dave,

Interesting point about relative weights vs. age. That's not commonly considered when looking at Wr's for a population. A common approach is just to look at average Wr's for each inch-group.

Your analogy gets the point across, but it is flawed in that fish have indeterminant growth, whereas we humans have determinant growth (at least when you talk about upward growth )

But again, your point is important. Relative weights and growth are components you want to know about a bass population to successfully manage it. The way I do it is to age 1 to 3 bass per inch group and determine average length at age for a population. The results from aging 20 bass might be: (Age 1 - 8.4", Age 2 - 11. 3", Age 3 - 12.9", Age 4 - 13.5", Age 5 - 14.1") I then compare these growth rates to expected growth rates from the region I'm sampling. This would tell me if the fish are growing slower or faster than "expected".

Generally, fish that are growing slower than expected will have low relative weights, often as low as 70-80. It's pretty obvious from this that there is a correlation between slow growth and low relative weights.

If one wanted to look at relative weights classified by age group, all one would have to do is age all of the fish one is weighing and measuring. Since aging requires sacrificing the fish (at least in southern climes, fish scales don't work here AT ALL), most folks won't want to do this.

Wouldn't prespawn LMB produce different Wr values from postspawn or males?

Is it true that Wr's should be kept intentionally low for LMB if the pond owner desires large panfish?

I'd be really interested in a simple program that would allow me to input length and weight values for bluegill, striped bass hybrids and black crappie.

Fishman, unless the fish are sacrificed, I consider the word relative to be the most important consideration in the equation. The whole analysis is important but there are an awful lot of unknowns unless you are doing true statistical sampling with predetermined control groups. Most members of the wildlife fraternity slow down in length gain as they age and just put on more weight. That is, up to the point where they start declining. However, I doubt if there is any better tool for the individual small pond owner(emphasis on small). It would be nice to have you or Lusk come by and electroshock twice a year but I can't afford it. Given that, I believe that we are comparing trend data on the dumbest or most catchable fish.

Dave,

You are right, 1-3 bass per inch group is woefully inadequate to obtain statistically defensible length at age information. In fact the new recommendation by the Texas Parks and Wildlife to its fisheries biologists is 10 fish per centimeter group, or about 25 fish per inch. That's a lot of fish to sacrifice to get the appropriate confidence interval, and way too much for most private lakes. That doesn't make the data any less useful to the pondowner, particularly if the data show extremes one way or the other. If your 5 year old bass are 12" long and you live in Texas, something is wrong. This is a common scenario in my experience.

However, with relative weights, I do think the private pondowner can get statistically meaningful results from an unbiased sampling gear, such as electrofishing. Even angling would be better than nothing, although you are correct that it is not an unbiased sampling gear. Also, as pointed out, Wr's obtained prespawn are not as useful as postspawn or (even better) fall samples. That said, as long as you keep the time of year in mind when looking at the data, they will all work just fine.

It's important to note, in reference to your idea on control groups, that relative weights are derived by comparing your sample to a standard weight table. The standard weight table wasn't created in a vacuum. It was developed by averaging the weights of thousands and thousands of fish from hundreds of collections from all over the United States for each length increment, thus creating a standard weight for that length increment. So in effect, one does have a control group.

There's nothing wrong with trend data, particularly if it is backed up with an occasional hard data point.

In my opinion, electrofishing twice a year is way overkill. I recommend no more than once per year, and once every two years is just fine. In fact, many people get an initial evaluation, then continue on their own.

Great stuff!

Is aging by counting the rings on a largemouth bass's scale a reliable method?

Dave

In my experience, no. Certainly not in the southern tier of states. I would imagine the situation would be the same in CA . . . not enough cold weather to reliably create an annulus (line formed due to reduced growth rate) on a scale.

Great thread. Fishman well worded information. Dave D you're right about age correlation, but it is not necessary info for healthy bass growth. While Wr is trend data it tells great information. I guess what I'm saying is if you folow Wr over the years and have increased Wr the bass are growing propotional to their length.

Like Fishman said a fish is diff. They continue to grow right up to just before death. It is not so much age that matters as it is proper food items per length.

EX. In other words why do many bass stunt as 10-12". There are numerous 1-2 inch bluegill that allow good grwoth of 6-10 inch bass. AFter this a 12 bass needs to eat (to have enough energy to grow) a 4 inch bluegill. They are missing. So you have several year classes of bass at 12 inches in the lake. Now if you catch a 18 inch bass he is probbaly helathy b/c he can eat those big bluegil and the smaller bass. So Wr indicates the 12 inch bass has a low Wr and removal is necessary. SO why worry about his age?

There are several other statisical analysis we run on fish but few work as well indicating growth problems with target species.

Norm as stated the standard Wr chart was developed from bass from across the country. So in some portions of the country you might shoot for 90% Wr and consider this good.

Someone asked if diff in prespawn, post spawn etc. Yes this is why you should monitor throughout the year. OR perfrom electroshock at at about the sametime every year. BTW Fishman agree 2 shocks in a year is crazy but some anal clietns want it done so guess what I do?

Dave B hard to determine age with southern scales preferred method is otolith (ear bone).

Thanks for jumping in on this Greg. I've been a little scarce posting on the site for a while but I have been enjoying things from the sidelines. Just too darn busy. It looks like good advice has been in plentiful supply though.

As far as clients wanting two surveys a year, I would expect you to tell them that they only need one per year and you won't do any more than that. :p

Fishman now that got me laughing. I do say two is not necessary, but after a few request I finally give in and take the money.

I go in cycles on the board. I go two weeks with out looking in. Then I have the time to check it every day. It seems most of the questions I used to chime in on are well answered and I can hang back most of the time.