Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations May TGG Update

My son was camping in the Keys in March. They have a bounty ($50, IIRC) on the iguanas.

ML:

Maybe the GG's aren't mature yet? Some of that excellent growth could be due to prolonged adolescence.

Let's realize this is a pond for kids, or GG, and we're back on the same page.

I don't want this kind of thread to minimize the consequences of introducing these fish into a predator pond. A mistake by a new member could cost them hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Seeing mixed opinions where spawning is stated as nonexistant, or a minor factor disturbs me. Pond Owners who desire predators should always stock forage species with superior genetic traits and high reproduction numbers. Stocking a forage fish that improves over time makes sense, stocking a forage fish for 1 generation that deteriorates over time doesn't. I new member to this forum should understand that these fish are for small ponds destined for a bottle of poison after several generations.

Anyone stocking any hybids as forage species is a very foolish person. I don't look at the GG as a forage species and neither should anyone else, because it isn't!

Did I miss something? Who said they were stocking GG for forage?

This is not a statement on the value of GG, but in my humble opinion, there is a profound difference between attempting to establish a sunfish pond and using a predator as an adjunct, vs. trying to establish a predator pond and using a lepomis species for forage. You can say any derogatory things you want about sunfish hybrids, but you can't say they aren't willing participants in the angling game. Therefore, if the goal is increasing CPUE, then achieving that goal is a slam dunk. If you feel a particular forum member isn't being scientific, then it would be advisable to produce your own scientific research to the contrary.

Pond Owners who desire predators should always stock forage species with superior genetic traits and high reproduction numbers. Stocking a forage fish that improves over time makes sense, stocking a forage fish for 1 generation that deteriorates over time doesn't.

Bruce, I believe this statement by Eastland makes an assumption that someone is advocating stocking GG in a predator pond for forage. Maybe I missed out on the meaning, but Eastland is a known non believer in any positives of HGB.

Thanks, burger...

I hope I'm being perfectly clear that I'm not making a statement on the value of hybrid sunfish and GG's in particular. I don't know enough about them to make an intelligent commentary (some would argue that I don't know enough about anything to make an intelligent commentary ). My point is that if a person wants to disagree, that's great--that's one of the things that makes this forum so appealing. But if they do so, they should endeavor to fully understand the argument being made by the opposition and also use decorum in making their disagreement. I've been on here long enough to know that threads that display different viewpoints are learning tools, until it gets personal. Then nobody learns because meanspirited comments take the place of objective argument. Everybody ends up looking bad and nobody learns anything.

There have been dozens of times in the last two years that people have disagreed with me, and even more times that it was pointed out that I was flat-out wrong. My first inclination was to get upset. My second inclination was to lash out. Once I even thought I'd just quit the forum. As it turns out, these were the threads that I learned the most from. Sometimes by being forced to change my thinking--other times by being prodded to crystalize my opinion into something more defensible. Either way, it was a good thing.

I enjoy spirited discussions with differing viewpoints. Like Bruce says, it is the only way to open my eyes regarding predetermined opinions; most of which, in my case, are not well thought out from all sides. I often don't have enough education or background in the subject to even ask the right questions. Thus, my logic is seldom the same as someone/anyone elses. Actually, some of my most brilliant ideas now look like a sieve due to holes being poked in them.

I prefer test results with conditions and constraints spelled out. I love questions regarding test criteria with both sides being open minded.

A Forum is, among other things, the place to report and discuss results. It is also a place to expect questions regarding the results. It's the only way we learn anything other than "do it yourself". If you think about it, 5 years ago, tilapia and HSB, according to Texas Parks and Wildlife and Texas A & M, were not considered acceptable as pond denizens.

All research is open to questions and disagreement. However, unless the reporter or questioner has ulterior motives or it is determined that they are trying to hustle a buck, they are not subject to personal attack. That constitutes rudeness which has no place here and is not to be tolerated.

Almost all of us deal with species both Lepomis and Micropterus; I think problems arise when we sometimes project our own goals on other PM's discussion points. And this is totally understandable - if you and I are talking and you leave some information out or I miss hearing something, I'm going to fill in the blanks with data from my own experience and apply that to our talk. But it may not be the correct info.

We talk about bass and bream, about goals and tools. But my hammer may be your nail. If a big bream, small pond enthusiast says that HBG can be a good thing, a big bass guy may well think "Is he crazy? HBG don't breed true or produce sufficient forage for bass!" And he's right - but through information transfer deficiencies which may be the fault of the speaker, the listener, or no one (it's very hard to transfer much of the info we take for granted in fact-to-face conversations via typed words!) he has mistaken the hammer and the nail.

From my experience here and elsewhere on the web, bream enthusiasts seem to be in the minority compared to fans of big bass or other fish. I have found more information on how to catch BG from catfishing sites (where BG are bait) than from any dedicated BG sites. So, big bass guys - try and remember some of us are after what appears to you to be a funny, deformed hammer. And bream guys - remember most of the world thinks differently. We should all try to speak and hear what the tools and goals are more clearly.

DD,

I'll never forget attending the first "Pond 101" conference in Athens about 6 years ago and several noted pond management speakers said exactly what you said...Tilapia are a "NO NO" because they will leave you with huge fish kills and cause your bass to get too large for your pond....yes, they actually said that..."cause your bass to get too large for your pond."

That's when and where I got the idea to stock Tilapia...I kind of wanted to see some LMB "get too large for my pond".

I haven't seen that yet, but am still hoping.

I happen to like all fish, do not consider any fish a "trash fish". Fish simply do what their genetics are programmed to do (no hidden agendas)...and in some cases, that programming isn't consistent with the PM's goals. That does not mean, however, that the same fish can not indeed be the fulfillment of another PM's goals.

The GG pond is, thus far, one terrific BG pond and is achieving one of my goals for my ponds...to provide a place where kids and kids at heart can experience fast paced exciting fishing that can turn into a lifetime love of a sport I cherish.

If it turns into a mess of stunted green sunfish, as some on here continue to say, it will still have been worth it to me. There is a little girl in Ash Grove, Missouri named Bethany that is now hooked for life on fishing and is trying to convice her classmates and teacher of the wonders of the TGG pond in Texas. Doesn't get much better than that, for me.

Watching my 84 year old Mother catch GGs on a cane pole one after another and smiling and laughing like a teenager again was my reward.

We should all keep in mind that there is a vast difference in the knowledge level and experience of the good folks who take the time to be forum members. Further, that there are many more pond enthusiasts here who come for help and to learn but who never become forum members. If you post you have an obligation to all of them to be as clear as possible.

There are many here who are outstanding in their ability , knowledge and pond management skills. Often such members are the ones who join in the discussions and help with the cutting edge info which benefits us all and who move the learning curve forward. Pond masters who fit in this category are not in danger of making a mistake without first being able to weigh the positive and negative aspects of an action. In short they know enough to protect themselves from risk they don't want to take.

But what about the others ? The ones who could make a serious mistake because they misunderstood what was said or what it meant or who chose the wrong tool to use because of a poorly written post. The ones who dearly love their pond but can't afford to make such a mistake. We have an obligation not to abandon them or cause harm through our writing.

Because of the thousands of different factors at work in any pond there is risk even with the most proven methods not to mention cutting edge ones. I often have to stop and recall Bill Cody's admonition " It all depends" before I make choices at the ponds. We should also write with that in mind.

Advocacy is different and bears a different burden. We each have a right to advocate but if you do be prepared on this forum to be questioned. It is part of the scientific process to test the theory. The process moves the knowledge base higher but remember that through the process there are as many failures as successes. Advocacy when combined with an economic interest is not allowed. Advocacy requires full disclosure with no hidden purpose or facts.

These failures are only a concern when they have been advocated and the unknowing choose them as the wrong tool. On the larger scale of life there are peer reviewed processes and then government regulations and then laws to protect unknowing people from unwise avocation. Those protections do not exist here for the unknowing but the damage done can be just as serious. To the unknowing the line between fact and advocacy is not clear. No bright line can be drawn even by those in the know because "it all depends". Think of how many times you have read a post and thought it clear only to have someone reply in a manner that makes you scratch you head. Understanding depends many times on the readers knowledge level. So if you want to advocate a position then you bear the obligation of writing so that the unknowing can clearly understand. Advocacy requires that you ask yourself " Do you want to be responsible for damage to someone else's pond".

Acting as a buffer for the vast number of the unknowing from uncertain advocacy is a noble goal. It is also a critical element in the continuing purpose of this forum. The forum is not here just for those of us who know enough to push the knowledge curve forward but is for the least of us also.

If what I am reading is correct almost everyone agrees that the GGs are not a forage species due to their reproductive and feeding characteristics. My question is why is that such a big deal? If you have a large and diverse forage species and are feeding what's the problem?

I don't live in Florida I live in Texas.

I think your right I have seen it all in Texas or at least I thought I had until the next day comes around.

IMHO, a vast majority of landowner ponds are just that, ponds. 2-3 acres down to 1/10 or less. Many if not most endeavor to a lunker bass piece of water. The facts are that most would be much better off to use the water to produce maximum enjoyment with minimum of work/headaches. That will usually be bream, catfish and bass, the bass to keep BG populations down and to hope to catch a decent bass occasionaaly.
It needs to be realized that many people are doing just that, managing their water that they can afford to capture, or keep. Managing it smartly for their and their loved ones' without being chastised by others.
I find it to be similar to public water fishers in large boats not respecting the folks in jon boats fishing for bluegills under a willow or cutting legally placed and tagged trotlines. To each their own.

I'm sorry I got a little upset with a couple of the posts and overreacted! I do beleive that the green sunfish hybrids(standard HBG) work well for a forage species up north where the bass grow slower and therefore reproduce less. But the GG doesn't reproduce in large enough numbers to be a good forage species( from what ML and Bill have stated). ML isn't using them as forage, I know that.I like the idea of HSB and GG, as a great fishing pond, though MI still won't allow HSB in the state I'm not thay great with words, just thought I should try and clearup the mess I made

ealong59, I dont think of your post as an over reaction, but that some folks didnt associate it closely enough with previous posts and digest them together.

ealong59 I missed your question early in this thread about HBG %s. There is a lot still unknown about HBG and a # of posts here discuss those matters. Studies on HBG are not in agreement on some issues. For example the male % of the cross BG x GSF ranges in studies from 66% to 98%. This is a large difference if you are counting on low recruitment rates. Some think that is partly a result of non-pure GSF stock. There is speculation and some info that suggests that there is a noticeable difference between a HBG from a mBG x fGSF and a HBG from a mGSF x fBG. There is data and conclusions wrt genetics that say which parental species is the male or female makes a difference in Centrarchid fishes. There is also serious question about whether a HBG can backcross with either parental species . There is proof that an Fx HBG can reproduce with its parentals (HBG) but at low success rates. Those factors alone are enough to make one scratch his head. There is almost no independent published info on GG from which to draw any unbiased conclusions.

I'll make one final statement, then abandon the GG threads until "new" posts arrive in months to follow.

I am opposed to those who stock HBG and GG. I feel those fish only achieve short term goals and have a very high risk factor associated with them. Each pond owner is responsible for what they send downstream when overflow conditions exist. I urge others not to stock degenerative fish when other options are available to meet your goals. If you want a bream pond, stock Coppernose, don't pollute downstream genetics with a hybrid.

Eastland, I have mixed emotions, philosophically, about your post. My first thought recalls an environmemtal saying I have heard that we all live downstream from someone. It mostly concerns pollution. We should all be considerate of others and it's sometimes hard to figure out where my rights end and your nose begins.

However, about 200 yds. below my main pond, a neighbor has a 1/10 acre pond that he stocks only with CC. He feeds them to satiation and doesn't want anything else in there. He fills it from a well and has named the fish. Due to their breeding habits, he wants no BG or other fish of any kind. However, I have stocked BG, RES, bass and CC. Green sunfish are also present. On the one time that I have ever overflowed, we found small BG and greenies below the dam and we know that they made it to his water. To his way of thinking, I have polluted his pond. If I stocked tilapia and had an over flow, it would understandably get him bent out of shape. In my arid area, with varying water levels, an upstream neighbor stocking tilapia could be ruinous to my biomass. Fortunately, my neighbor understands that I can and will do as I please on my land.

DD,

As I read your post I couldn’t help but extend your story and think about the neighbor that is directly below your "catfish neighbor". Theoretically speaking, what happened during the overflow event? Perhaps one of your neighbors catfish, lets call him Johnny, swam into the next pond down. Now the second neighbor may perceive he has trash fish Johnny in his pond. All kidding aside – we are all connected + one mans trash fish is another mans prize.

I have a similar situation. I have two or three ponds above me and an intermittent stream leading into my pond. There is about a 99% chance of greenies coming in that stream, IMO. So I plan for it. It’s a fact of pond life and something that I can manage (I hope) and deal with. They guy upstream from me may feel greenies are the best fish for his pond or simply lack the desire to raise anything else. I have no idea, but I will have greenies.

DD,

First, I'd like to say that on my place, there is absolutely no risk of inadvertant downstream stocking...unless you buy into the bird theory of transport and if you buy into that, then as Gator says, we are all connected, regardless. Likewise there is zero risk of my ponds ever receiving upstream fish...again unless you buy into the bird theory.

In spite of that, my first stocking (CNBG and fatheads) from a commercial fishery several years ago resulted in the unplanned addition of green sunfish in one pond. How do I know? I don't know for certain but there were no green sunfish before the commercial stocking, but I had them thereafter.

So, using what I consider the flawed logic of "protecting everyone from everyone else", the commercial stocking of fish should be disallowed.

Those who believe in "protection" should also scorn commercial fish stocking. It is far more likely, IMO, that one will get unintended stocking from a commercial source than from run-off. Of course, evey commercial operator will vehemently deny that he has any unwanted fish, but I have many data points that say otherwise. That is not a criticism of commercial fish sellers..it is a fact that they can not for absolute certain be 100% sure that they never deliver any unintended fish to a client.

One can avoid that circumstance or minimize it by buying individual fish, watching the selection process, and transporting them yourselves. This is what I do myself. But, should we outlaw all those that haul fish to the site? The "protection" logic would say yes....but I say no, that isn't practical or necessary.

Having said all that, what has been the result of that unplanned stocking...nothing, absolutely nothing. We very occasionally catch a green sunfish from that pond and it does not bother me in the least. Had it been a GG or HBG, the impact would have been even less because of their limited reproduction. Had it been a catfish, I'm not sure of the impact.

If you want protection and you are really concerned about the spread of unintended fish, you better not buy fish commercially and you should be campaigning for the ban of commercial fish sellers. I certainly do not support that cause.

You guys are making a good case to have a stock tank handy when the fish truck arrives. If you can take the time to visually inspect each fish instead of just dumping them in them in the pond then you can avoid some unwanted species being accidentally stocked. Overflow events from ponds upstream will always be much harder to control.

Shorty,

I agree with you in the general case and should have stated that way....in my case, which I was talking about, there is zero risk from upstream ponds, but proven risk from commercial fish stocking.

To use Gator's logic, which I agree with, in the general case an upstream pond could get stocked with unwanted fish from a commercial source and those fish could cause downstream implications in an overflow event. So, without even knowing it happened or certainly ever intending for it to happen, the upstream owner can and does sometimes cause downstream events simply by buying fish commercially.

We all can and should take reasonable precautions, IMO, but protecting everyone from everyone else by law or whatever just isn't going to happen.