Pond Boss Forums MANAGING AN EXISTING POND Evaluating and adjusting fish populations Help disprove the myth of a LMBass only lake?

As we continue to wait for the fish kill on my lake I find that I have to be able to disprove the myth of the LM Bass only fishery being a good option for a 10 acre 8-10ft. deep lake. I have to change the mind of a person who has this info from miwildlife.org/h-ponds.asp. Coach B said that had this same info and was convinced by the PB moderators that it was outdated. I have searched his posts and cannot find it.
The person who believes we should go this route prefers gov't. and university information, and has a lot of pull on what happens here.
The DNR guys is recommending LM, Bluegill, Channel Cats and FH Minnows, stocked at varying times after the fish kill. I do not want a LM only lake, and I believe people will stock their own fish if that takes place

Wow, LMB only? Realy? Where is this guy getting his info? My in laws have a pond that is LMB and CC (haven't been able to varify the CC) only and every single LMB caught is paper thin. They look like little stain glass windows. It's sad.

Just explain the food chain to this guy. Ask him what he thinks the LMB will eat. If he has grandchildren he will probably want BG because they are so easy and fun to catch.

Ask the guy what he thinks would happen if you filled a grass covered island with nothing but lions. Many of them would starve to death, they'd eventually have to start eating each other, they wouldn't be able to digest the grass.
Now add a bunch of gazelles, antelopes, buffalo or some other ruminant to the island. They could survive on the grass, the lions could survive on them and things would balance.
Same with LMB and BG.

It always depends on the goals for the pond. Most any body of water (BOW) can sustain a single species fish population, BUT it may not meet the goals of the managers. Single species populations just as multi-speices have to be MANAGED. Without proper management the population or fish community tends to get out of balance (based on original goals) as suggested in the MI Conservency Information page that stated ""In truth, the bass-bluegill combination is often a disaster after the first four or five years"". Keep in mind the MI conservency author was writing about ponds mostly 1 acre or less not larger bodies of water with "public exposure". For your homework, I would contact him for his advice about your lake's history and special situation. I think he will not recommend a single species fishery. Use that info for your background information.

Numerous fish stocking possibilities exist. However since your BOW has exposure to various types of anglers, don't plan on the fishery to stay single species for very long. Considering your lake's exposure, it is naive to think anglers will not stock their favorite species or casually dump a bait bucket. Even here at PBoss Forum, a few members are convinced that birds will add fish species to BOW. However IMO that is a very rare occurance and I have never experienced bird stocking in numerous single species ponds that I manage.

Decide on the basic and RESONABLE goals for the pond/lake then work toward those goals. That will be hard in your situation based on the number of interests involved. IMO a general usage lake needs a general type of fishery that requires the least amount of maintenance while producing the best chance of a quality fishery which is the one suggested by the MDNR.

Taken from:
LMB Only reference Dr. Patrick Rusz, Director of Wildlife Programs

The best warmwater fish species for most Michigan ponds is the largemouth bass. They grow well and reproduce readily in ponds that have some sand over shallow water. Largemouth bass do well even if they are the only fish species in the pond. A widespread myth is that pond owners must stock one or more prey species for the bass. The ones most often pushed are bluegill, sunfish and various minnows. In truth, the bass-bluegill combination is often a disaster after the first four or five years. The bluegills actually prey more effectively on the bass, gobbling up their eggs and fry, and effectively shutting-down bass reproduction. Bass are generally unable to eat enough of the right sizes of bluegills to keep down the bluegill population, so the result is a stunted population of bluegills and a gradually aging population of bass. Worst still, the overabundant small fish eat-up the pond’s supply of tiny water fleas (zooplankton). Without a good population of algae-eating zooplankton, the algae community grows unchecked, giving the water undesirable green blooms.

Fishing out the bluegills by hook-and-line is impractical, and even intensive seining and removal of the stunted sunfish seldom corrects the problem. Fathead minnows are a better choice for stocking as a prey species for bass, but they usually must be restocked periodically. Bass eat such a variety of prey, including small bass, crayfish, tadpoles, frogs, and insects, that providing a fish prey species is often not necessary. Bass can be stocked in combination with trout in deep ponds without such serious problems.

Channel catfish will survive in Michigan ponds, but usually will not reproduce well. Growth rates are slow in Northern Michigan. They are very vulnerable to predation by bass and so only larger sizes can be stocked where there is an existing bass population. Many pond owners keep a few large catfish in their ponds as a sort of novelty, while their main focus is on bass management.

Fish distributors often recommend hybrid sunfish, usually bluegills crossed with pumpkinseed or redear sunfish, for Michigan ponds. But claims that they will grow faster without the stunting problems that beset bluegill populations are not reliable because the commercial stocks are often contaminated with fertile sunfish. The more familiar kinds of panfish common in our state – including yellow perch, crappies, green sunfish and rock bass – hurt bass reproduction and stunt just a badly as do bluegills.

Walleyes will survive in many ponds, but won’t reproduce, and grow slowly. Like catfish and northern pike, a few may have some value as “novelties” in a pond, but the walleye is a poor choice as the primary species.

Contamination of ponds after initial stocking is a major problem throughout Michigan. Within 10 years of construction, most ponds have at least a half dozen fish species the landowner never stocked. This has often been blamed on entry of fertilized fish eggs which clung to the feet of ducks and other birds. However, in each case where such contamination has been thoroughly investigated, it was found that neighborhood children or well-meaning adults had added the new fish species. People apparently find it hard to resist dropping a few fish in another’s pond, regardless if they have permission of the landowner. Ponds located near cities and suburbs get periodic, unsolicited “plantings” of many varieties of goldfish and other unwanted species from aquariums. Maintaining a good population of large bass that will eat the newcomers is the best means of reducing related problems.

With the right combination of depths and bottom types, Michigan ponds can support a modes amount of fish harvest and/or some excellent catch-and-release fishing. Feeding the fish commercial pellets in not recommended in most ponds because it adds nutrients to the water and spurs excessive plant growth. Without such supplemental feeding most Michigan ponds can support 50-100 catchable-sized bass or trout per surface acre. Adding crayfish, frogs, mayflies and water fleas (microcrustaceans such as Daphnia), is not necessary. These will find their ways into the pond if there is suitable habitat. Adding structure such as rocks and brush provides cover for fish, and cover and attachment sites for their food organisms. It may also boost spawning success of bass as well as catfish. However, many ponds with “clean” structure-free bottoms support good sport fishing.


contact link

Maybe you can counter his "bass only" mentality by running some numbers to show how much $ he'd have to spend per year to stock FHM to feed the bass. Not to mention the possibilities of inadvertantly stocking undesirable fish along with the fatheads.

Thank you all you great guys:
He does not live on this lake, he is a volunteer. That is exactly the info he has, and actually I will be graduating the Lake Leader Institute at the MI Conservancy in Oct., wonder if I will get to meet the author of that text? There is not suitable habitat, and it is an unreasonable expectation that those living on this lake would support such a limited type fishery, no balance at all. However, I believe it is appealing, to "think" it would not have to be managed in the future. I love watching all the fish, am amazed at the minnows, how they have come back on their own, took a photo of them this a.m.
Just had a undercover police officer (CJ would like that)here with Ken Grand (vol. fire dept) fishing out BG, they got about 80, and Big Brando from PB Forum, got 72 last week, and they all made it. TODAY I LEARNED HOW TO TAKE THE FISH OFF THE HOOK.
In the stocking plan the DNR is coming up with, what would the expectation of the Channel Catfish be, in a fishery mix of the four?
Thank you again.

Great analogy, Bullhead.

2cat, I'm sure most of us here feel that BG/LMB being instrinsically unstable is a bunch of hooey. From what I've seen, the most common outcome from this combo if unmanaged is stunted bass/large BG - the exact opposite of what was warned about above.

However, anecdotal evidence from the internet may not sway the staucnhest of LMB-only advocates. Perhaps our professional fish squeezers or the forum library experts could provide references to recent professional papers stating otherwise - the closer to Michigan (in Latitude, at least), the better.

I once read that the best ranch mangers were actually grass farmers(forage). I have expanded that to believe that the best bass or other predator raisers are those that stock and manage the forage base. You have to pay attention to the predator/prey relationship to have a balanced ecosystem whether it is on land or water.

How many cows would you stock without grass?
How many coyotes would you stock without rabbits/mice, etc?
How many bass would you stock with limited or no bluegills?

A bass needs forage/prey that is 1/4 to 1/3 its body size. It's a matter of energy expended vs calories gained and a bass needs 10 pounds of forage to gain one pound. It needs 5 or so pounds to even maintain it's size. Minnows just don't cut it.

unbelievable that someone in that posisiton would take such a ridiculaous stance. he basically is anti-management. Sorry catmom but so dumb it is not even worth arguing againist. You could tackle about 10 points where he is way off base. I know things are diff up north but basic predator/prey biology does not change as mentioned by bullhead. Good luck you will need it fighting this.

Thanks again you guys:
As I am home very sick, but not too sick to lie on the paddleboat and watch the fish, I can't imagine having only one fish, it is just stupid. I actually saw the g.shad today swimming around in a frenzy by the drain, and saw the the usual bluegill and bass and minnows. They are mesmerizing to watch.
We have to have permits to restock this lake because we have an outflow. The DNR guy is helping us, although he doesn't have any jurisdiction on the lake as it private, just the permitting goes through him. And thanks to Cecil we went to an Aquaculture Conference in March and met the Senior Fishery Biologist of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, a PHD guy with all the credentials our HO Board Pres. drools over, while dismissing practical knowledge. This nice guy agrees with the stocking plan of the 4 fish. The worse part is, the HO Pres. thinks like this "We will just stock LM Bass only AND NOT TELL ANYONE." Not right.
If worse came to worse we could just get fish from the other lakes, but it should not be that way.
You guys are the best.

Well, if the Pres. thinks that the fisheries biologist will be there to monitor the stocking................

In a semi public pond such as yours, there is a higher risk of BG stunting. Often times, fisherman remove too many bass which is easy to do in a smaller lake/pond. This is often why the BG stunting takes place. In more private ponds, there is little bass harvest and this is how you end up with large BG and lots of small bass...

Hey CJ:
Our fish survey of last June did not say that the BG were actually stunted. We can find no records of any fish being stocked here since 1985, and the lake is void of vegetation and habitat for fish. Who knows how long the g. shad have been here. Since we can't swim in our lake much anymore, to deny the pleasure of the fishery to the residents just doesn't seem right.
I think we have to have a fishery mgmt plan in the future.
If the choice is a total fish kill with only LMB afterwards, then I would have to not support the total fish kill and support the low dose to get rid of the shad, and keep the other fish in here.
Since Mar. and I live on this lake, and the guy that wants the only LM fishery does not, it puts us in a hot seat, not him.

I guess I don't understand the full dynamics of your situation. I haven't been on the forum long enough to be here from the beginning. Is this pond/lake for swimming, fishing, views etc? If it is going to at least be partly for fishing, I do not understand the LMB only view?

It is one of 6 subdivision lakes (gravel pits) developed in the 1960's & 1970's, with this one being last in 1976, it got many more storm drains than the others, in fact 2 have no drains and are really great, under 10 acres. No motors, kayaks, sailboats, paddleboats, mostly swimming, fishing, viewing. Usually I am the only person on the lake when I am out there, it is highly developed, short lots to the lake compared to the others. History, no lake treatment for first 10-15 years, then they began treating them on a cookie cutter basis. HO Board is volunteer of 11. GF Lakechair is the only elected person in anyone's memory.
Original owners no longer care or use the lakes much, but as new people come in they will, like me, I have been here since 2000. Many will be moving on soon.
LM only view is appealing for (2) reasons, a study done in 1991 suggested the green hue to some of the lakes was the out of balance fishery with stunted BG - and (2) article cited above, makes it sound like no mgmt. would be needed in the future. Lake has been treated too late for 4 years with CLP taking over, lousy co. killed all other Chara with overtreatment of C. Sulfate, have new co. better approach, trying to get more clarity to get other aquatic veg. in here, have banned phos., have had drains cleaned by city, salt too high, trying to get a out of sub drain diverted, State Rep is due here at my house in 2 hours - just keep trying, but it is always a battle. I love the lake, I love the fish, I want it to be good again.

Not to be overly redundant, but the supposed expert who penned that nonsense disguised as scientific advice for Michigan pond owners, has no business doling out advice on anything to do with fisheries management. Just about everything in the entire article is absolute hooey, whether it be the flat-earth idea that a plankton bloom is bad (heaven forbid we let our fry and bluegill have something to eat), or the idea that pike or muskie can't bring an overpopulated pond under control - this last I have personally implemented in the past, and it was uncategorically successful as few plans ever are. But perhaps most laughable of all, as has been previously noted by Greg and Theo and others, is the preposterous, risible idea that LMB can get along just fine without a heavily-spawning prey fish as a forage base. Perhaps if your idea of thriving LMB is a bunch of five-year-old fish that average eight inches long - otherwise, not so much.

Just about any fish stocking combination can have benefits even largemouth only ponds. It all depends on the goals of the pondowner/s. If 10"-12" LMB are okay with the owner then the goal has been achieved.

Funny stuff, Bill. For a second there I was thinking," What?" Then I got to the punch line.

Yes BC you are right but who only wants 10-12 inch bass with nothing else to fish for. At least if the bass crowded in bluegll pond you got some monster bluegill to fish for. I do not know a single person out of thousands of clietns who would want just 10-12 inch bass and that is it, also the time to reach 10-12 inches would be much longer.