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

I wonder what type of bg we are talking about are in here? Makes quite a bit of difference. Are they Shellcrackers? Greenies? Some hybrid? I also wonder if all that vegetation comes into play. How large is the crappie population? The more I ponder this the more questions I have. I am very interested on the progress here. You know what you could do? Since you are harvesting maybe you could open up one of those not so empty bass and see what is in its gut?

Shellcracker are not bluegill, they're redear sunfish; green sunfish also are not bluegill. Skinnybass says his bass are thin, i.e. empty, rather than not so empty. Although I'm sure they're eating something, just not enough of it. I would guess they're eating some combination of the few small bluegill they can find, small bass, and in the early spring, YOY crappie.

Certainly it wouldn't hurt anything to do a stomach inventory, but it's not going to correct the problem since not enough is getting into their stomachs.

That's sort of my point, what if they are sunfish? From what I see in the thread we really have no idea what they are? And is it a mixed population? What would be native up there? That's my only requests, BG photo, are they all the same and a LMB gut check. What are the crappie eating that the bass are not?

Words of Caution. There are negative aspects to reducing too many "small" bass of a certain size group either by over fishing or by having larger predators eating young adult bass/predators.

Having numerous smaller bass does have positive points. 1. It puts heavy predation pressure on the youngest panfish which results in overall bigger panfish or better overall balance of fishes. 2. Larger panfish and numerous smaller adult bass (9"-15") provide lots of fun and fast catching for many anglers, especially younger or inexperienced anglers. For instance- Getting Hooked on Fishing. Mark Cornwell also explains the benefits of having numerous smaller bass in ponds in the Jan-Feb 2010 Pond Boss magazine pg 30 ("After Work Quantity").

IMO having too few small to medium sized bass increases the chances of producing too few large bass that are often hook smart and very hard for even experrienced anglers to catch. Sometimes they, the biggest ones, are never caught a second or third time. For more on this topic see "Conditioning Fish" by Steve Pennaz in North American Fisherman Feb 2010. Many anglers are very happy catching several 3-5 lb (17"-21") bass from the well managed pond vs only the occassional rare trophy 7-9 lb bass (23"-25") that can typicaly be produced per 1-2 acres of water.

Keep in mind that as top end predators such as Pike, musky, flathead and blue cats GROW LARGER they tend to eat larger and larger fish. The pre-planned selective removal then changes. This can mean, instead of removing 6"-9" bass, a regular loss of 11"-15" bass occurs that can easily lead to what I would call a skewed bass population and an overabundance of smallish type of panfish. Then the overall fishery potential often declines to result in a trend toward the opposite of the original goal. In that too few larger fish are present that are harder and harder to catch producing an increasing number of genetically and angler hook conditioned bass among a few hook wise top end predators. Top end predators become hook smart too. What happens if the top predator diversifies his diet with other species besides those planned fish (small bass)? This fish combination becomes even more complicated if other forage species such as shad and/or rough fish or other types of predators are present. Large predators are known to be selective feeders.

Also keep in mind that as one normally ascends up the predator population size structure, there are fewer and fewer fish in each larger size class. This means that a continually growing predator is not always removing the same initial or planned size or species of fish. Its meals often consist of larger and larger fish.

Granted there is a fairly wide medium ground (balance?) between too many small bass and too few bass. The goal or goals of the fishery manager are very important to the methods used for achieving the goals. I think it is often better to have more control of the fishery by not having unpredictable top end predators present compared to the manager having more control and deciding which fish to keep or remove. Remember that large bass do frequently eat smaller bass and sometimes that number can be significant and it can be quite adequate in many instances when the fishery is managed properly with good knowledge.

Be cautious and thoughtful when adding the top end predators such as pikes and larger catfishes to especially smaller waters (<2-3 ac, maybe even 5 ac). Yes they are exciting to catch, but IMO the more large predators or portions of predators (0.5/ac) that one has per acre the less control one has on what happens in the fishery. Large predators can easily remove too many of the wrong size or species of fish. Those predators live by their rules not yours. For more information about fish stocking plans gone awry see ewest's article "Unintended Consequences" in Pond Boss Mag Nov-Dec 2009 pg 58. This is a more common problem that one would think, even for state fishery agencies.

In smaller waters, it is sometimes in the end, more beneficial to have anglers in a controlled setting, selectively removing the unwanted bass while they have lots of fun catching numerous, aggressive, willing to bite a lure bass. IMO selfish desires of uninformed or naive people have ruined numerous, potentially very good fisheries.

The lake in question is 7.5 acres. In the studies, cited earlier in the thread, by state agencies in which pike or muskie had a profoundly positive effect on a body of water, no negative effects were found; in no instance was it found that the apex predators decreased the number of larger specimens of desirable species; in every study, they increased the number of larger specimens of other species.

My firsthand personal experience corroborates said studies, my experience having come with a three-acre pond. Pike are specifically recommended in a recent PB article for thinning overcrowded bass populations while maintaining high-quality (larger-than-average specimens that come with crowded bass populations) bluegill fisheries.

Pike and muskie both are present in many northern lakes; it happens that many of those same lakes feature unusually large LMB and BG both for northern climes; I don't think it's a coincidence. A prominent and well-respected (rightly so) member on here who owns a ten-acre pond in the very northern state of Michigan has caught largemouth to eight pounds, and bluegill to 10", from his lake that has northern pike. I think most pond owners in northern states would be pretty happy with a pond that would produce fish that size of both species without a feeding program - pretty remarkable if you ask me.

I personally think esox are a very underutilized pond management tool that can make a drastically positive difference in many ponds, especially ones in which large bass and bluegill both are desired; I can't understand the prejudice against them, mostly by people who have never stocked them in a pond.

Grandpa Gallus used to sing a song about the ultimate footwear item:

"I sell these socks at 5 a pair.
They never rip, they never tear.
The longer you wear them, the better they get.
You put 'em in water, they never get wet."

Pushing only the positive sides of an argument isn't very believable. Everything in this life has pros and cons.

Yeah, i wouldn't be able to identify the BG right off hand. I'll do my best while up there.

I do know the minnow species (as best as i can ID it) is a tiny, swarming minnow, the best ID i have (net caught and observed) is a yellowfin topminnow. I have seen with the fishcam through the ice that there is a larger minnow species, but I've never netted one, it could be the BG or LMB minnows that i am seeing.

Remember there are also rock bass in the lake too.

I've seen redear before, and I can fairly well say that the BG's are not redear. I actually think there are 2 species of BG, one has a bright yellow belly, the other does not. I do know they both have the blue coloration behind the gill plate (characteristic of a BG, not a Green Sunfish).

We're fishing with mainly large bait this weekend (roaches and shiners, as well as pork & jig spoons....we're out chasing Onezey, the mythical lake beast), but i'll throw a waxie in and see what i get.

Bill:
Thanks for the awesome post. Although I have read Walt's documentation and believe what he is saying is sound theory, I think that the HOA is more going to align with PondFrog's approach, mainly because of the caution you warn. To start we are just doing cover, and we'll be frying up any 10-12" we catch (or if there is no meat good enough for the cornmeal, we'll dice it up and chum the lake on friday night for good saturday morning fishing). My dad as well, in his upcoming retirement, has taken it on himself to cull as often as possible.

Thanks
Mike

But watching the musky argument is entertainment and informative. I was thinking why stop there. What about an Alligator. Maybe a Freshwater Crocodile. Tell the HA, keep those kids indoors. Lose a person here or there, well we sure improved the fishery.

Not aware of a common name for any topminnow as yellowfin but there are a couple species of topminnow native to the area.



You are correct that redear and BG are not the same species. Closely related, but very different in many ways. Redear can have a yellow belly as can several other sunfish species. One of the sunfish with a yellow belly that you may be seeing are pumpkinseed sunfish... When you say I think there are two species of BG, you may be seeing BG and pumpkinseeds or another sunfish species. Or, you may be seeing male and female BG which often have distinctly different coloration. Check out the sunfish archive and look at the pics for ideas as to what you are seeing... http://www.pondboss.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=92482#Post92482

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/warm_water_fishing/images/greensunfish.gif

http://www.ibnature.com/images/BLUEGILL.jpg

those look about right, actually.

There could be redear....but i just don't remember them. Pretty sure the pumpkindseed are definately out. I think i would recognize the spotted red coloration. Unless, like all species, it's markings vary that much.
http://www.ibnature.com/images/Redear_Sunfishweb.jpg
hmmm.... i really want to say no to this, but then i'll end up with my foot in my mouth when it is all thats in there, lol.

The method to my madness here is each species would have a different battle plan. It's sounds like you have BG, just male and female. But if you are going to approach the HA with a plan it would be nice to have your plan tailored to your fish population. That is one great thing about this forum species identification. I'm keeping my fingers crossed you don't have greenies.

greenies would be a problem, huh? cuz i think i have seen that neon green spotting on fish before.

I think the BG are much more dominant, but I don't think i am without a greenie or 2....

oh, and the majority of the plantlife is what i've seen other lake websites simply refer to as "cabbage".

There are a few reeds and grasses on the shallow end...particularly what is called the "driveway", where the quarry trucks used to enter and exit. I'm going to start a topo map this weekend too when i can test for depth, I'll upload the gif or jpeg to this forum somehow.

OH NO, HERE WE GO AGAIN!!!

If you have Green Sunfish, you have more than 1 or 2. Just a matter of time before they are the dominant species. At least in my experience. They are the poster fish for out of control stunted populations.

ok, i'll keep my eye out.

of course i'm bringing the handy dandy audobon ID guide, as well as the illinois freshwater scopes guide. I'll do my best to let you know what we find, and I'll be marking it on the topo too.

unfortunately, I just called it a rock bass.
accd to aa-fishing in the state of WI, rock bass is another name for green sunfish. I'm from wisconsin. oh crap.
http://www.aa-fishing.com/wi/wisconsin-panfish-fishing.html

I appreciate your dedication. Looking forward to all of your observations. Enjoy!

If he wants a trophy LMB pond, are GSF that much of an issue?

I've read more than a few posts on this forum trumpeting the pros of stocking threadfin shad for a trophy largemouth pond while claiming they have no negative effects on other species, and I have even been criticized when I tried to point out that many studies show that they do, and beyond that that I've personally witnessed very negative effects from stocking shad several times. Here again, it seems some on this board, as a new member was lambasted a few weeks ago for daring to even suggest, just like to argue, even if they have no experience with the method in question and those promoting it do. Pretty frustrating. It's even more baffling considering that the method currently being debated was recommended in Pond Boss magazine, for the exact scenario this lake owner has in his lake. If that's not just being contrary and arguing for the sake of arguing, I don't know what is.

To clarify one last time: the method I recommended, stocking tiger muskie to thin the overpopulated bass, has been recommended recently, in Pond Boss magazine, for this exact scenario:

http://www.bassresource.com/fish_biology/walleye-bass-perch.html

Skinnybass, I wish you well with your lake. But the links I posted were not theory, unproven in the field; they were facts, every one of them an instance in which a state game and fish agency had stocked pike or muskie to control an overpopulated species, which ranged from brook trout to suckers to panfish; in every instance, the esox stocked brought the overpopulated species under control, and resulted in larger average sizes of gamefish (bluegill, bass, trout) in the body of water. On the other hand, the post you refer to as making up your mind for you, cites no studies and lists no facts. It's theory; and probably the poster has never stocked pike in a pond, whereas I have.

Adding cover to your lake will do very little to nothing to improve your bass size. Unless you remove a hundred or more yearling bass from the lake, the average size of the bass is not going to change.

Good luck. I am done with this thread.

Finally, someone that understands our mission statement!!! ((Well except the stunted part). Catch a pound and quarter GSF and you'll be a believer. I corrected your quote to what I'm sure you meant to say.

Don't leave Walt. I have zero experience about Muskies and probably never will. But I enjoy reading your case studies and learning. I don;t think anyone is arguing, just a difference in opinion which makes a forum work, that is what we are here for I thought? I for one enjoy your discussion and thoughts.

I normally catch 100 2 inchers. I have a bunch of not so happy of ending mission statements with greenies, but don't want to hijack the thread.

I wholeheartedly agree with pond frog here..I really like the documented cases Walt brings in...it's great stuff.

The only thing i am arguing about this tiger muskie is whether or not the HOA will go for it. They are a temperamental bunch, and scared off of ideas easily (like a crappie on a jig that moves too fast).

It was my original thought, remember, that a few tiger muskie with their 25 yr lifespan would do the trick. Just the more an more i learn about the food chain, the more and more I think the HOA won't buy it.

And please don't be insulted by my use of the word theory. All science is theory. Gravity is just a theory, generally accepted as truth, but still just a theory. Who knows, maybe someday someone will better explain why apples fall from trees. By saying your theory was sound, I was trying to pay you a compliment.

Occasionally, I'll get a call, or a pm or an email about a thread. Honestly, I don't read all the threads...I just don't have time.
But, for this one, I got three phone calls, six pm's and five emails....from different people!
Geez, talk about passion.
So, I've just spent the last hour and a half reading through it.
First, I appreciate the input of everyone...and the quality of people who view and participate. This thread has had a lot of looks...I would like to think it's because of the information. But, alas, I know better.
Some saw it coming.
Gentle contention, I call it.
So, here I am....responding for two reasons. Reason 1 is to dispel several items of mis-information that were posted as fact. Second, is to remind everyone that being open to discussion leaves no room for the need for repetitive defensiveness.
Not one person on this site, or any other, knows enough to give some ultimate answer to another person that will fully define the success of their pond and its inhabitants.
Better, this site is full of thoughtful people willing to toss out their opinions, based somewhat on facts, that can be a piece to the pondmeister's puzzle...for the consumer to figure out.
If someone were to have definite answers to all these issues, we wouldn't need Pond Boss magazine or this forum. Someone would write up a pond management 'cookbook' and sell it and all our ponds would be perfect.
That ain't the way it works.
All of us need to be humble enough to recognize that we are limited by what we know and the experiences we've had. Just because we've done something that works over here doesn't automatically mean that it will work over there.
Nature laughs at us when we try to pull that stunt.
So...there's the admonishment of this thread.
Next, I want to address the biology advice. Some of the advice on this thread is seriously convoluted. Some of it is sound. Some of it is taken totally out of context and the use of it won't bring about the same results as it did in the original context.
First, let me help bring more order to the discussion.
This advice will transcend this thread...but since there is so much interest in this one, I'll focus on it, but, I want to write for people beyond the scope of the original post, way back at the beginning.
Always...always..start with goals. If you don't have a clear cut mission, you are more likely to fail. Chandler's first post didn't offer any goals, only the perceived status of the fishery.
We must know the goals.
Then, we evaluate the LAKE...not just its fishery. Odds are high that the existing fishery developed based on the stimulus provided by the lake, its environment, climate and habitat...Not as much because of the fish.
Changing the dynamics of the fishery by stocking more fish only changes it temporarily, unless a crucial species which can fill a distinct purpose is added. When a fishery is out of food, stocking more food doesn't solve the "problem."
Part of the evaluation focuses on studying the habitat. As goes the habitat, so goes what lives in it.
For JHAP, green sunfish habitat is important. For everyone else on the planet...maybe not so much (tongue in cheek).
Start with habitat. That's where Pond Frog's advice about adding cover is strong advice. But, be sure to think about all the different species of fish needed for that environment and be sure to provide habitat for each size class of each species to increase your odds of success.
Chandler plans to add Christmas trees. Good move, as long as they are placed to be the best habitat for their intended inhabitants.
I would say that most all pond "problems" begin with inadequate habitat. Often, there's too little habitat, sometimes there's too much, sometimes it's in the wrong places. Focus there, first.
Second, study the food chain. All living things need food, whether single cell, primitive algae or giant squid. The food chain combines into a food web. Most people don't understand the food web. Take Chandler's case, based on his original post. The bass are skinny, but the crappie are 'fat as pigs' and the bream are 'fairly nice sized.' That suggests the food chain for crappie may be thriving, but the hapless bass are...well, hapless. Crappie are feeding on a portion of the food web that interrupts the food chain before it can become significant to feed the bass. So, does that mean the bass are overcrowded? For that case, yes they are. But, if the crappie numbers were reduced, would there be more food for bass? I bet so. Focus on the food chain and the food web. Where predators are overeating the food chain, it's much, much better to reduce the number of predators than it is to try to money-whip a food chain. It goes back to the adage that if we cook the bag of beans we have a meal. But, if we plant the bag of beans to grow more, we'll have much, much more food. That's the principle behind harvesting predator fish. To build a fishery, you can't prop up a food chain for long without harvesting the fish which ultimately overeat it.
The third key principle to always remember is genetics. If you want big, fast growing fish, pay attention to genetics. That's not as important for this discussion thread, but it's still a key component.
Last, harvest is the backbone of good fisheries management. It's one thing we can control. Every pond, at some time in its life, has a bounty. Figure out how to identify the bounty and harvest it.

Next, I want to take a few recommendations on this thread and expound on them.

CJBS said to reduce the competition...That's good advice because as you reduce the numbers of predators, you reduce competition for food. That takes pressure off the food chain, allowing it to regain its productive dynamics. But, be careful to selectively harvest fish. If the goals are to have a balanced fishery, remove all bass with below-average relative weights and all crappie caught, regardless of size. In Chandler's case, the crappie are most likely the main culprit.

RC51 suggested not stocking fathead minnows. Sound advice. Stocking fathead minnows into this fishery is the same as giving my grandson a tootsie roll pop. He'd smile, say "thanks" suck it down and be done. Very inefficient and costly. It would cost about $100 to put a pound a game fish in that circumstance. He also suggested stocking larger bluegill. If the lake doesn't currently have adult bluegill, it needs some. If it has adequate numbers of adult bluegill, they simply need pressure removed from their offspring to be able to survive and thrive. A feeding program could sure be a good idea for bluegill. Assuming the bream are not bluegill, I recommend stocking at least 150 adults per surface acre. This would be a case where stocking is beneficial. Bluegill, in this situation, in Louisiana, are the backbone of the food chain.

esshup next suggests that if there are no baby bluegill, that's another indicator of overcrowded bass. Good thought...but don't discount the impact of the crappie. Plus, without knowing the species of bream, those panfish could also be culprits.

Omaha suggests angling could be a tough way to remove enough bass. Good thought there, too. But, we must ask "how many is 'enough' to take out?" In this case, start with 25 per acre...for 17 acres, that's 425. Is that too many? The pondmeister has to figure that out. And, most likely, 425 might not make a big enough dent.

Then Walt suggests threadfin shad. Good thought, as long as the habitat and food chain are managed for threadfin shad. Crystal clear water and overcrowded bass make for an immediate feeding frenzy, much like those fathead minnows. If threadfin make sense, prepare the lake and the fishery to successfully receive these. I've seen too many people stock threadfins, expecting them to be the golden bullet, only to find out the survival rate was lower than a kamikaze pilot's. So, as you think about threadfins, learn all you can about their needs and then supply those needs. Walt suggested gizzard shad could be an option later on. Maybe so, maybe no. I've seen gizzard shad so misapplied to actually cause the demise of a fishery. Right this minute, I'm talking with a man who hasn't caught a bass in two years in his 30 acre west Texas bass lake. He casually mentioned the lake has gizzard shad. I'll be electrofishing it as soon as the weather warms up. Gizzard shad give off a pheromone that, once the density is high enough, stops reproduction. That fact alone has been a cause for good bass lakes to go bad. On the other hand, I don't have a single, solitary trophy bass lake under management at this time that doesn't have gizzard shad. Used in the proper circumstances, where there are plenty of big mouths to eat those fast growing, slimy fat creatures, excellent results can be seen.

But, when Walt starts talking about threadfins affecting the growth rates of bluegill, he misfires. Some selective research and some ponds with minimal management can be affected by this combination. But, the overwhelming majority of southern ponds stocked with both threadfins and bluegill don't impact the growth rates of bluegill. His advice may be sound for a specific case, but my 30 year career professionally managing lakes and ponds has seen many, many more cases where those fish actually complement each other. I have numerous lakes under management with many, many large bluegill and threadfin filling a totally different niche. This combination actually increases the standing crop of largemouth bass, rather than diluting the food chain.

The next advice...to stock flathead catfish, is shortsighted. Don't do it. Flatheads are not selective eaters. As they grow large, they eat large. Plus, there's another fact about flathead catfish. They are territorial, taking the best cover, best habitat. And, they defend that territory. I've literally watched flathead catfish kill fish and not eat them, just to defend what's theirs. I've worked on many lakes with flatheads. Bass lose. Plus, flathead catfish are among the poorest food converters of the freshwater species. It takes lots of flesh to support even one flathead. Stocking flatheads or even blue catfish only trades problems over the long run.

Then, the debate over tiger muskie started. I use tiger muskie in select cases to accomplish several goals. One of those goals is to help control overcrowded bass. The second is to diversify the fishery. Still, for other lakes I manage, there are different species of Esox that are problematic. I'm very cautious about using these fish as a corrective measure. I've used tiger muskie in New York, Missouri and Illinois with inconsistent results. There's a delicate balance between the climate, habitat and food chain for these fish.

Then, Yolk Sac chimed in with good, practical advice, targeting more of the actual problem, assuming the main goal is to grow larger bass.

Rainman was right on with his advice. Let's say Chandler decided to "money-whip" the food chain and added 2,000 pounds of immediate food into the system. For the next period of time, the predators will grow like crazy. But, the lake's propensity to grow more forage fish on its own hasn't changed. Now, based on the 'ol 'it takes 10 pounds of forage fish to grow one pound of game fish' theory, that 2,000 pounds of food lasts for x-days, months, whatever. It will support an additional 200 pounds of game fish. Just for argument's sake, let's say that 17 acre lake carries 50 pounds of fish per acre right now. So, that's 850 pounds. Add 200 more pounds of predator mass and what do you have? Roughly 25% more mass, demanding that much more food that the lake wasn't producing successfully in the first place. At some point...such as right now...that body of water must be relieved of some predator fish, unless someone wants to prop up the food chain with a fat wallet.

Next, the thread takes a right turn when skinnybass seeks advice. The advice above will be helpful. Will tiger muskie be of service. Probably moreso for this lake that the hot climate of Louisiana, where a tiger muskie stands little chance of survival.

Pond Frog's advice centered around habitat...as mentioned earlier, that's the place to always start...always. The case study he talks about was remedied by providing habitat for the food chain, which responded nicely. While it worked there, it doesn't always work that way. Refer to his original comment, "The problem was multiple causation, all intertwined." That's the way to tackle pond management problems. Never assume one alteration will solve the "problem." Always assume the pond and its fishery will adjust to the changes you make...and those adjustments may not be something you want, i.e. flathead catfish. I've taken ponds overwhelmed with Eurasian watermilfoil, eradicated it, only to be followed by the biggest blue-green algae bloom I've ever seen. I just knew I had killed fish. Luckily, it didn't.

I would like to go on...completely through this thread, but just don't have the time. And, you probably wouldn't have time to read it anyway.

I don't like the contentious way it ended and the mixed advice only tends to be confusing.

Here's my parting thought. Follow the four fundamental, guiding principles I have outlined. That's the primary science behind the art of pond management. Keep in mind that we have some excellent advisors on our website. But, the bottom line is that you, the consumer, must do your due diligence and then make the best choices. Do your homework, think it through and then decide what's best for you and your pond situation.

Have a great adventure learning about your pond(s)

Fish on!

Oh, and if you haven't subscribed to the magazine, please join the family of Pond Boss subscribers. The magazine supports this website and the subscribers support the magazine. Many thanks.