Pond Boss Forums MANAGING AN EXISTING POND Evaluating and adjusting fish populations Male BG: Mature?

Maybe the post spawn/deflated belly I observed was just stretch marks

I thought the belly looked pretty deflated, too Ryan. Very strange.

I think it is very likely that the female had a "deflated belly" because it was skinny and under weight with no fat reserves i.e. below standard weight. This fish looks typical of a bluegill that is not getting enough to eat either due to not enough food items present or from too much competition from other similiar sized fish.

That may be the case Bill. I just started feeding again on April 12. The HBG and 2"-3" BG dominate the feeding area. The HBG look obese to me so I thought I was feeding enough. I'll get a pic of one if I can catch one.

I have green water where my fingers disappear when I get elbow deep. 225 BG stocked in Fall of 2003 and Spring '04. 25 HBG stocked Spring '04. I am feeding about 2 pounds of feed per day seasonally.

This one, I think is mature:


I caught him Friday night and extremely excited as he has the best set of shoulders I have seen come out of my pond. Another 7.5" BG I took at the same time only weighed 5 Oz. at cleaning; I think this guy was considerably heavier. The only fish I have been in a bigger hurry to return to the pond was our one and only HSB.

I'm glad I took the picture, or else this "Baby Bull" BG would have already grown to 10" in my memory! Now if I can just super-size him.

Theo, that is one hunk of a baby BG. Has Bruce been peddling his steroids?

Theo, This is an obvious male despite the pale body color. Note his numerous darkened nape scales and larger squarish opercle flap. I think his body color will darken as June spawning date gets closer. Where did you get your original stock of bgill; Jones' FH?

BC:

Yes, they were from Jones.

BM:

Don't ask, don't tell . And don't do like Barry Bonds and write a book.

These three pics are of a HBG, looks very male to me, flipped him over to let the experts see. He looks well fed to me.




On this standard though, it has a longer ear, none of the obvious black specks on the nape. I flipped it over and took the pic when my wife walked over and accused me of making fish porn. Hopefully this proves usefull to someone making an all male BG pond. I'll let the experts decide.



I think this is another female?

Great Pics, Ryan.

My takes are
1. Male HBG
2. Probably Female BG (least sure on this one, but hard to believe more secondary male characteristics like blackspotted scales wouldn't show up on a fish that size)
3. Female BG
but I'm interested in what the BC/CB1 fish Gynecologist types have to say.

Thanks Ryan for the pics and for adding the top one to the other thread on HBG !

1. Male HBG

2. Female BG but note the fin colors.

3. Female BG but note the fin colors.

Both the female BG and the one on pg 1 of thread (all from Ryan's pond) have yellow and dark tails/fins. Ours do not have this coloring (excluding pectorial fins). The PB articles on iding male/female BG (you really should read them if you have not) caution us about the need to look at a number of fish from a pond to pick up on local adaptations in color. This may be an example of those differences between Ryan's pond and mine ( yellow and dark tails/fins). Ours have the dark/gray/green colors of Theo's fish in this thread and no yellow on fins/tail.

1. HBG, can't tell the sex. Could it be carrying eggs?? Obviously the vast majority are males. This would be a very interesting fish to do a "procedure" to, in order to evaluate.

2. Male bluegill. Just give him about three more weeks and the colors will become obvious. Certainty rating: 95+ percent. Was the water stained at all that the fish came from?

3. Female bluegill. This isn't a slam dunk. I'd like to see the other side of the fish, but given the photo I'm thinking probably female. Certainty rating: 80 percent.

I basically agree with Bruce's comments. Although for Fish #2 I would not stock this into an all male pond. Too much room (even 5%) for doubt in my opinion. This fish is around 10" long and should by now have at least a couple dark nape scales. It should also have at least a little darkness in the gular area. I have sometimes seen some large female bgill (9"+) with fairly large gill flaps similar to that the No 2 fish. I would want to see some males from this pond before I put any money on if this fish is male or female. I like to be 100% when stocking all male bgill. That why I have no BG offspring so far in my all male BG pond.

The last (No.3) fish's coloration looks to me a little more like a female than fish No 2. However the gill flap is at an angle and not in a good view due to the gill being partially open.

Agreed. I'd be way too nervous to put the #2 fish into an all male pond. It's gotta be closer to 100% than that one is. I actually think I can see a dark fleck or two on the nape.

Bill is definitely correct that in the case of slowly maturing or non-dominant males it would be better to see this fish in the context of other fish from the same pond.

I have one pond that I put all of the ninety-five percenters in and haven't had an accident yet. It will happen eventually though.

Not exactly on the subject, stemming from the previous "deflated" BG, based on the above pictures do you think I am underfeeding or are the other fish outcompeting the BG?

Ryan, your BG & HBG are all stunted, underfed runts . It would be to your advantage, nay, it is your duty as Pondmeister to remove every last one of them ...

... and send them to me, because I would love to have sunfish like that in my pond.

Those are '04 stockers, right? If that's correct (or even if they're a little older than that), then their growth has IMHO been excellent. You have demonstrated both good fish managing and fish catching abilities, at least one of which is greatly in excess of my own. I have seen pictures of a few better looking BG (so don't pout, Dr. Frankenbruce!), but I think your bream rate an "A' or "A-" and are the kind of sunfish most of us would be happy to have. After another few years of growth like that, they should challenge big BG almost anywhere.

Those are '04 stockers, right? If that's correct (or even if they're a little older than that), then their growth has IMHO been excellent.

Theo, that's the confusing part to me. With that growth rate, and the deflated belly, this condition must have just occurred recently.

All the rest of the fish Ryan posted looked ok other than the one. Don't draw to many conclusions from one fish but it is as the male (?) BG and the females look close to the same and are all the same size and big.

BM:

My RW is high, according to the Gubmint. Now, if I don't eat for a while, my belly TELLS me it's deflated. If I don't eat for long enough, it actually would be. But it takes too darn long for my RW to drop.

So I agree any belly deflation would probably have been a recent occurence.

I am happy with the growth. There is a chance that some of the BG are from the October 2003 stocking. Spent yesterday evening with my 4 year old niece and 7 year old nephew. I took a pole but never got a cast in. They caught a toad, my sleeve, my niece's jacket, and several 3-4" trophies. I guess size is in the eye of the bluegill-holder

Bruce (and Bill Cody):

I just retrieved my March/April 2006 issue of Pond Boss from two talented coworkers that both read and fish, and have been looking at the pictures of Ryan's #2 wrt the 7 rules of sexing BG. Other than seeing a hint of black tipped scales, can you eleborate why you sex #2 as Male with 95% certainty?

To my untrained eye, the opercule appears kind of an intermediate length and coloration does not approach the urogenital pore very closely (although when judged for both these traits, I think it looks "more male" than Ryan's #3).

Sometimes when you've looked at thousands upon thousands upon thousands of bluegill, and cut open just about as many, you'll start to go a little beyond the rules and just "know" what a fish is. I know that's not terribly useful, but the second I saw that fish I just knew it was a male.

Here's my best description of why that I can quantify:

1. The breast color of a female like this will look yellower. Males that have yet to attain spawning color, or come from turbid waters have a hint of burgundy like this one does.

2. The ear tab on a female "drops" as soon as it heads posteriorly from the superior attachment. Male ear tabs head upwards or rearwards in the case of a non-dominant or immature fish. The female eartab looks like a crescent moon, while the males can be more of a lobe.

3. This fish meets the classic criteria of a fish that is not ready to be the top nesting dog in his pond, but you'd be surprised how quickly that tab will grow when his time comes. This fish's tab could look quite a bit different in a few weeks.

4. I think the best description of my certainty stems at least as much from the fact that this fish exhibits no female characteristics as it does from the fact that it looks like a male. Remember that males mimic females a lot more than females mimicing males.

5. The urogenital pore coloration could be currently absent for the same reason that the other colors are all washed out. It could be turbid water, immaturity or even an individual quirk that makes this fish so pale, but he looks truly healthy and with a lot of potential to be a trophy?

Does this help, or muddy the waters further?

BTW, on the third fish, the ear tab is either damaged or partially folded--that's why I wanted to see the other side.

Thanks for the expert explanation, Bruce.

I understand "feeling" that something is what it is, without having words much involved. I used to have a Program Manager who said that after ten years, he could smell the horse manure in any tech writing I had done.

Theo, The photos of immature males and mature females in Part II of Behemoth Bluegill may help "shed some more light" in what Bruce is saying about the features of the male in Ryan's fish #2. Again I agree with all of Bruce's comments. I can not add much else to Bruce's good explanation. Our experiences with male bgill are very similar. I guess that is why we are coauthors with Cecil on the male BG article.