Pond Boss Forums STOCKING A NEW POND Types of fish to choose Coppernose bluegill vs regular bluegill?

I tried looking for old posts because I know this question had to of been asked before, however I wasn't able to find anything. My pond is about 2 acres and is essentially in Austin, TX. It's intended to be a LMB /bluegill pond. No intentions of any other fish going in other than fathead minnows and a few red ears. We want the pond to be a high catch rate and will likely pull anything out once it's eating size. With that said, we have full intentions of catching and eating the bluegill too. My current mind set is if I'm going out of my way to stock a fast growing Florida strain bass, wouldn't I want the copper nose bluegill too? Is there any disadvantage to having only copper nose bluegills as my main forage fish? A buddy of mine proposed a counter argument that if were pulling the bass and not letting them exceed 5lbs, then the copper nose bluegills may grow too large too quickly and will be removing themselves from the food chain? Should I stock both regular and copper nose bluegills? Hopefully my question is coming across clearly, I found it difficult to express my thoughts on this one. A few other pond details, I have two fish feeders ready to be set up. Aeration was intended however we blew the budget on digging, right now the situation is complicated but I'm trying to figure out how to make it happen.

Thanks in advance.

Welcome to the forum Centex. I have both regular BG and copper nose in my pond . In my pond they both seem to get about the same size, and the regular bg seem prettier than the cnbg, but that’s me

Agree Pat.

You can just leave the CNBG there, you are South enough I think that you don't need Northern BG. They will grow fast on a good fish food too.

Ok, sounds like I might be making too much of a deal out of CNBG vs the regular. I have an existing stock pond on the property that has regular blue gill already in it. That pond will be drained in the future and turned into a catfish only pond. I may pull the bluegill out of there and toss them into the new pond once I have enough water to know I won't go dry. Then when I go to stock the tank I can just buy the CNBG so I'll have a bit of a mix.

CentexSaj,

CNBG are sure beautiful to look at. Overton's is so close so how could you not put a few in there?

I know you didn't ask this question, but I thought after reading your goals I would just throw this out there for yourself and others to bounce around. Could Northern LMB be better aligned with your goals of high catch rate and pull anything out once it's eating size? Most agree that the FLMB are more difficult to catch on artificial baits. So something to consider. Also given that you will harvest relatively early ages, the difference in growth may go unnoticed.

Stock whatever you want. Over time, they all adjust to the location. We're in NE TX, and I've had warm water CNBG stocked for 12 years, and they last through 8" of ice in the winters, and high 90's water temps in the summer.

Get PB mag for your answers. This is from about 5 years ago. I have had both for years with no issues.


THE CUTTING EDGE – SCIENCE REVIEW
By Eric West


Coppernose Bluegill vs. Regular Bluegill – which one for you?


A question we often get on the Pond Boss Forum is should I stock Regular Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus macrochirus or Coppernose Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus mystacalis also previously classified and referred to as Lepomis m. purpurescens . To answer that question we should look at the traits of both and use the one that will work best for the particular goals for the water in question. As we all know traits come from genetics. So what is the difference in the genetics of Coppernose vs. Regular Bluegill? Well it started a long time ago and it took a long time to get there. Here is the basic story. Millions of years ago peninsular Florida was, like it is today, connected to the mainland. Bluegill were present all over the eastern US. Sea level rose and peninsular Florida was cut off by the sea from the mainland creating two separate populations. Bluegill on both the mainland and on the peninsula continued to evolve separately each influenced by local conditions with a divergence time of roughly 2.3 million years. After a few million years of this separate path sea level fell and the two land masses were connected again. However the two bluegill sub-species were now a little different genetically. The rivers were connected and the two subspecies migrated and integrated in a zone along the deep southeast where the two sub-species mixed. If this sounds familiar it should – it’s the same story as the Florida Largemouth Bass and the Northern Largemouth Bass where the divergence time between Northern (M. salmoides) and Florida (M. floridanus) bass is approximately 2.8 million years. If you know one story you should have a fairly good idea of outcome of the other. Surely as a pond owner you have heard the bass story. Florida Bass get bigger under the proper circumstance and do not due well in cold climates. Yes Bluegill have a similar story.

Coppernose Bluegill get bigger under the right circumstance but do not flourish in colder climates. In fact Coppernose are susceptible to poor results and substantial winter kill in northern US regions as are Florida Largemouth Bass. So how do you tell Coppernose and Regular Bluegill apart. Take a look at the pictures included. The Coppernose has a copper band across its head/nose in adult males, has fewer and wider vertical bars, has orangish/red fin margins and tail coloration , 12 anal fin rays and often light/white fin edges most visible when young. The Regular Bluegill has 11 anal fin rays and none of the other traits mentioned.

So how do they compare? Here are some points from a study on the subject titled Performance Comparison between Coppernose and Native Texas Bluegill Populations by John A. Prentice and J. Warren Schlechte in the 2000 Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies , Vol. 54 at pgs 196-206 looking at growth (size at age) , survival and catchability.

Coppernose Bluegill were significantly larger than Native Bluegill in all scenarios tested with the largest observed difference being 19.2 mm total length (.756 inch) and 33.5 grams ( 1.18 ounces) over 2 years. At 3 years there was a 16 mm (.63 inch) difference on average and at 4 years 24 mm (.945 inch). With other fish species present there was no difference in angling vulnerability between the types. Spawning activity of the brooders began at the same time (last week of Feb in 1995 and first week of March in 1997) and produced the same size offspring for tagging at the same time each year ( mid-April) in what appeared to be similar numbers. Survival of young of the year Coppernose was substantially greater than for Native Bluegill.

Before you draw to many conclusions note this was in Texas where the weather is close to that of the Coppernose’s native range. That is a critical key to success with Coppernose. While there is an often cited study titled Cold Tolerance in Two Subspecies of Bluegill by , A. J. Sonski , K. E. Kulzer , and J. A. Prentice, in the 1988 Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies , Vol. 42 at pgs 120-127 , that states Coppernose and Native Bluegill have similar cold tolerances the key is the test was done on bluegill all from the same area (Texas). Its purpose was to determine if Coppernose could survive the Texas climate. There is substantial observed and anecdotal evidence that Coppernose do not do well in cold climates (roughly north of the north line of Arkansas/Tennessee extended) . In the far northern US Coppernose become subject to high winterkill rates. This would be consistent with their similar relationship to Florida Largemouth Bass which have repeatedly been tested to do poorly and die in cold climates. The study first cited above was also in ponds with no supplemental feeding. Reported scientific evidence is substantial that in ponds the most common cause of reduced growth is a shortage of food. It is not known how much, if any, of the early growth difference between the two sub-species was due to limited forage. The two sub species will integrate (inter-breed) with the offspring exhibiting mixed traits and no apparent negatives but there is very little published data on them.

So the answer to the question should I stock Coppernose Bluegill or Regular (native) Bluegill or both is – it depends. Your location (climate) and your goals are key factors. If you are in the Deep South or the Southwest (including Southern California) and not at high elevation (Appalachian, Rocky or Sierra Mountains) Coppernose should be considered. In short is your temperature profile similar to those areas? To some extent management practices and the existing bluegill population, if any, are also possible factors. Whichever type you choose keep in mind that the most important factor to growing nice bluegill is to be sure they have enough food to eat and not to much competition.

I agree with jpsdad in that for your goals of
""We want the pond to be a high catch rate and will likely pull anything out once it's eating size. With that said, we have full intentions of catching and eating the bluegill too. My current mind set is if I'm going out of my way to stock a fast growing Florida strain bass...."

Strongly consider stocking northern or regular LMB rather than Florida Strain LM. The FLMB do have a reputation for being more difficult to catch and over time in your pond the later bass generations could become even more difficult for anglers to catch due to anglers removing the most aggressive and dumber individuals and leaving behind the smarter LMB to annually produce a higher percentage of hook shy bass..

Plus the fact that you say:
"" A buddy of mine proposed a counter argument that if were pulling the bass and not letting them exceed 5lbs....." If your goal is to not grow and have larger numbers of LMB bigger than 5 lbs, IMO the northern strain bass will provide more catches per amount of angler effort compared to the FLMB. Thus --- what is the point of stocking FLMB that could be counter productive to your goals for the fishery?

Also note that northern LMB especially in southern areas with a longer growing season will very easily grow to 7-9lbs as very high quality bass if they are allowed to live 6 to 10 years and regularly or constantly get plenty of the proper size foods.

I do not know of any research that indicates that there is a difference of fecundity or production potential difference between regular BG versus CNBG. Thus either one or both will help you achieve your fishery goals for the pond.

Please periodically return to this thread to inform us as to the progress of your interesting fishery goals and pond adventures. If you and the anglers keep track or have a record of all fish removed each year from about the 2 acre pond this information will be VERY educational for everyone here at PB Forum. Few pond owners here do that. Thanks

Or you could add some of both strains of LMB.

Pond Boss Mag Sept-Oct 2018 - you need to get it !!!

THE CUTTING EDGE � SCIENCE REVIEW

Largemouth Bass genetic sub-species questions


��..

Another type of question relates to the mixing of Florida (FLMB) and Northern (NLMB) Largemouth Bass genes and how they relate to the catchability problem noted above.
Another recent study titled Subspecies Composition of Angled and Electrofished Largemouth Bass in Texas Reservoirs, Dijar J. Lutz-Carrillo, and Spencer Dumont in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife. Agencies 66:75�81, 2012 Proc.., addresses in part this type of question.

The study�s results provide biologists with a provocative concept that, in southern waters (natural integrated zone of FLMB and NLMB), FLMB likely are more difficult to angle than NLMB, but the phenotype (genetic trait) of reduced angler susceptibility (catchability) is mitigated (reduced) by introgression (genetic mixing), even at low levels of NLMB genes.

Even when there were roughly twice as many NLMB in the survey as FLMB the cross population showed almost 50% Florida genetics. In one instance where there was roughly 15 times the number of NLMB as FLMB the cross population showed 29% Florida genetics. The number of crosses in the tests far outnumbered either FLMB or NLMB. So under these conditions in Texas waters over time the FLMB genetics tend to dominate. This does not mean every FLMB trait is dominant. Note that when pure FLMB were removed from the dataset numbers (leaving only crosses with high levels of FLMB genetic influence) the trait of reduced catchability greatly dissipated. Stated differently the addition of only a small amount of NLMB genetics caused poor catchability to become much less pronounced.
In addition I recall TPWD data also showing many of the share-a-lunker fish were high FLMB percentage crosses. So at low rates the NLMB genes don�t seem to reduce growth and size in the crosses.

CentexSaj - After reading the informative LMB research provided by ewest, IMO and if it were my Texas pond I would first start with only northern LMB. This is because of your stated goals and my experience of angling for LMB especially if I had young anglers frequently fishing the pond. Catching any size bass frequently compared to catching them less often is much more fun and for keeping your interest for fishing better.

This noted FLMB genetic research once again shows the genetic tendency of FLMB for whatever amount for the hook shy tendency or ability. When I am fishing,,, I much rather be actively catching any size of fish rather than enjoying the IMO boring time on the water. Also the more active the anglers are at catching, sampling, monitoring, and harvesting the fish in your pond, the more likely they will be eager to do it. Thus as per your stated goals of "We want the pond to be a high catch rate...." any influence to the contrary is a negative IMO especially when youngsters or novice anglers are involved.

My advice is to initially leave out the FLMB and start with northern or standard LMB that when well fed,, will readily grow to 5lb, 6lb, 7lb, 8lb, and even 9lb. Who does not enthusiastically, jumping for joy of the fun of catching numerous 2 to 4 lb bass regardless of the genetic lineage?. Later - as the pond ages and anglers are wanting and benefiting from having bigger trophy class bass OR the goals for the pond change,,,,, then introduce some FLMB genetics.

As I read it from some of the recent articles in PBoss magazine,, just stocking FLMB genetics does not guarantee the pond will grow really big bass. Even when stocking FLMB they can become stunted and over crowded when not managed properly. That would be the "pits" of having a pond full of smallish overcrowded FLMB and they are hard to catch. There are other big influences important for growing big bass than having FL genetic lineage. FLMB is IMO over emphasized. and in many cases unnecessary to grow bass of 5lb, 6lb, 7lb, and 8lb sizes. If many of the right things are not done even FLMBass properly they can become stunted and over populated. Management, management, management.

Growing really big trophy bass involves the highest amount risk for failure. If one is not keenly interested in growing really big LMB why go to all the effort and added expense if that is not one's goal when if managed well northern LMB will perform very well in most instances? My question is what is wrong with having numerous 3 to 5 lb bass in a pond? Why want FLMB genetics?
via PBoss magazine Nov-Dec 2024 pg 38. Overcoming Risks Jeopardizing Trophy Largemouth Bass Fisheries. Dave Beasley.
Factors that determine success for the long term growth of big LMB are;
length of time it takes to grow them and keep them growing,
having too many to many smaller bass per acre
the bigger bass get in a pond the FEWER of them Nature's Law allows there to be present
knowing and using proactive management,
good and frequent data collection,
having angler creel data and routine electrofishing,
having a trained biologist to evaluate the accumulated data and point out the weak spots of the ecosystem,
good monitoring of water quality esp DO to always have "happy water",
continual availability and insuring an amount of proper forage fish,
having a good and optimum balance of the food chain,
amount and frequency of high water flows,
weather conditions,
high summer water temperatures,
impact of predatory birds and mammals.
All of the above factors are required to grow true trophy bass over the long term. There are lots of reasons for failure. Most pond owners are not up to the requirements and challenges.

Bluegills do grow fast enough and large enough that some are generally able to become less profitable or impossible prey for the largest LMB in a pond. It one reason why BG persist under the relentless predation of LMB. Anyways, when this happens, you can take the BG ... something you are anticipating doing. The BG will make more of themselves to feed the ravenous appetites of LMB so don't worry about them growing too large for the LMB. As long as there are always at least 40 pairs of 8" or larger BG, you won't have any trouble producing BG YOY ... that is ... unless you have too many pairs and other BG that are just too large to be profitable prey. If there are too many, there may not be enough BG YOY outgrowing predation by the larger BG.

I'll +1 everything Bill said and add this:

Centex, think more deeply about what you want. You have 60 to 80 lbs/acre that you can spread your LMB across. How many you need depends on what you want and how fast they can grow (as well as how big they can get) depends on how many are there. Pick any number for an average size. If they were to average 2 lbs, for example, you can have 30 to 40 LMB/acre. This is conducive to a balanced condition and if you maintain that number of LMB then you can expect an average size of ~2 lbs. Whatever your average is, some fish will grow larger. A good rule of thumb is about 2 times the average. So with 30 to 40 LMB/acre, you can grow examples of 4 lb LMB ... occasionally a little larger.

Catch rates will be proportional to the population. So if you were to have 70 LMB/acre you would be expecting the catch per unit effort to be around 2 times as much as if you had 35 LMB/acre. To double the catch rate, you would be sacrificing average size and top end size. One work around includes feeding the LMB directly ... but then ... some balance is lost in doing so. If good growth of your BG is a goal, then predators need to be thinning them down. Bounce this around in your head and think about how you want to distribute the 60-80 lbs/acre of LMB.

I want to stress what Bill said for another reason.

The science (the article quoted plus others note "Even when there were roughly twice as many NLMB in the survey as FLMB the cross population showed almost 50% Florida genetics." That percentage increases with genetic drift concepts where in a small population less dominate gene sequences tend to disappear and over time the majority genetics moves toward 100%. In the studies I have seen in southern regions the FLMB genes are dominate so the population moves to high % Fla genes. This has not affected catachability in the info I have seen but I would go with mostly NLMB and a few Fla LMB to give room for genetic drift.

Wow, lots of really good information here. So now that my pond actually has water in it and the "what to stock" question is becoming much more real, I have decided to do a mixed stocking of both regular and CNBG. My thoughts are that whichever species does best in our weather conditions will eventually start to thrive and become the dominant species. At the end of the day what we really want is just a thriving bluegill population. We had a pond on a previous property where I only stocked CNBG, I never actually saw or caught very large bluegills however there were a lot of issues with this pond, I also had no idea what I was doing. My concern with the CNBG at this point is our cold weather. My neighborhood use to be full of large citrus trees, mostly grapefruit, but after the 2020 freeze all of them have been wiped out and it seems like every year we are getting a very hard freeze that continues to wipe out people's citrus trees (and my olive trees). We definitely have the heat that the CNBG like through the summer and into most of the winter, but then we also seem to be getting some very non normal cold temps as well which could cause them stress and maybe kill a few of them.

I have also decided that bass will likely not be stocked until fall or even the following year. The only reason for stocking the Florida strain bass was the thought that if the bass could achieve 2-3lbs in 2 years then we could pull out more fish to eat. However this is the first time that I've heard about Florida strain bass being harder to catch, which is 100% the wrong direction. My kids are 4 and 1, so my assumptions are that it will likely be a while before we would want the dynamics to change to more of a trophy pond. I guess I also don't see the negatives to starting that way since from a genetics standpoint I can add in the Florida strain later and convert the pond over.

You are correct, fast drops in the water temperature could stress and kill a few of them.

However I think that Coppernose will thrive in your area. Look at some of them posted by JasonD near Wichita KS. I think they are up over a pound in less than 3 years.

More information in this thread https://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthre...Words=jason+D&Search=true#Post573647