Pond Boss Magazine
https://www.pondboss.com/images/userfiles/image/20130301193901_6_150by50orangewhyshouldsubscribejpeg.jpg
Advertisment
Newest Members
Shotgun01, Dan H, Stipker, LunkerHunt23, Jeanjules
18,451 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums36
Topics40,899
Posts557,051
Members18,451
Most Online3,612
Jan 10th, 2023
Top Posters
esshup 28,407
ewest 21,474
Cecil Baird1 20,043
Bill Cody 15,110
Who's Online Now
6 members (catscratch, Brandon Larson, Layne, Dave Davidson1, Blestfarmpond, Angler8689), 638 guests, and 166 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 18
E
Lunker
OP Offline
Lunker
E
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 18
I sure would like some input !

Is anyone else out there in the process of rebalancing their pond ? In our 1956' pond, 1 & 1/2 acres, it's time to remove some LMB / bgill. There appears to be a good number of LMB 2+ lbs, with the largest nearing 8lbs. LMB of all sizes are all present, but the RW's tell the tale. The heaviest weights are coming in for the LMB in the 9 to 12 inch class. This is putting heavy pressure on the bgill in the 1-2 inch range resulting in a bgill dynamic of thousands of 3-5" fish. With a sturdy pole & worms, you can catch them faster than you can unhook. We have not seen this in the last few years, is there a ratio for culling this scenario ? (i.e 1 LMB to 25 Bgill ? ) This Pond also has 50 or so put & take crappie, and about 50 CC's in the 2.5 lb range.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
It is a constant in our ponds. The general rule in a balanced fertile southern BG/LMB pond is to take out 10lbs of BG for each lb. of LMB removed. If the pond is unbalanced or has different fish then this changes. If the average recommended LMB cull from such a pond is 7lbs of LMB then it is 70lbs. of BG. Together that is 77 lbs out of 400lbs of fish or about 20 % by weight. See link under Management and look at options and balance. http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/p1428.htm
















Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 18
E
Lunker
OP Offline
Lunker
E
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 18
Ewest, I really appreciate the advice from someone who's been there, thanks a lot. You have become a true leader on this forum...your advice is sincerely appreciated.

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 13,938
Likes: 268
Moderator
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Lunker
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 13,938
Likes: 268
Has anyone seen an article or table showing what size LMB eat what size BG? For example, what size bass would Eastland need to promulgate (there's always a chance I used that word correctly \:\) ) to help reduce numbers of 3" -5" BG?

I have half a notion that I have seen a post or article by Bob Lusk giving this kind of info.


"Live like you'll die tomorrow, but manage your grass like you'll live forever."
-S. M. Stirling
[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
Thanks Eastland. That's what the PB Forum is about - right. Theo I will find the info - here is the basic idea.

From the link below in reply to Frank's question about missing prey size.

http://www.pondboss.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=002970#000004

Frank I would be glad to do so. One of the tell-tale signs of an overcrowded LMB pond is the absence of 3-4in BG (or other species of the same size). This was and is the basic premise of the seine survey method developed by Dr. Homer Swingle ( a truly great scientist) in the 1940s. The concept is you can assess the predator population by the size and condition of the prey base. No 3-4 inch BG usually means to many LMB in the size range 3 to 4 times the prey size. No or few 3-4 in. BG means to many 10-12in. LMB.

The corollary to this principle is if you see in the seine surveys increasing numbers of 3-4 inch BG (and yoy BG and LMB) then the LMB population is changing to a more balanced status . Recall the prey are reflecting what is occurring in the predator population as well as their own.

Here is a link to the MSU Pond Mgt. Book. Look at the text and charts on pages 10-12 on population assessments.

http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/p1428.pdf

Maybe I can find a copy of the Swingle paper.
















Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 36
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 36
Thanks ewest, that should help with my culling program. After removing 238 LMB this year I have started thinning 5-8" BG down now. ;\)



Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,973
G
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
G
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,973
I'm super busy again but you guys have me nervous on your culling. What is goals Shorty if taking out that many bass then probably to grow bigger bass, right? If so you do not need to takeout any bluegill, none, nada.

Even for you Eastland confused what is Wr for your 10-12 inch bass? Should be super if you have tons of 3-5 inch bluegill. When I see tons of 3-5 inch bluegill then bass for most sizes are super fat, again if goal is bass then why take the bluegill?

The 10 lbs vs 1 lb bass is for a balanced fishery not a quality bass fishery, big diff as mentieond by Ewest. I will try to check back on your goals answer but hate to see you takeout bluegill. Just got in from selling 5,000 to client at a cost of $4,000 to help with his bass growth. Just trying to help sorry so quick to judge.


Greg Grimes
www.lakework.com
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 36
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 36
Greg, we have had a LMB heavy pond for over 15 years. There are always lots and lots of LMB under 15", very few above that and when they do get above that size they start to get skinny due to the lack of 3-5" BG. Historically BG between 1.5" and 9" have been absent from our pond. Part of the issue with our pond is with the heavy aquatic weed growth, year after year it allows for an unusully high survival rate of both YOY LMB and BG, they have lots of places to hide from predation. A balanced fishery to me is seeing lot's of size variabilty in both the LMB and BG. In the past fishing has been like catching one clone after another, both with the LMB and BG. Culling is something we do every other year after we start to see a strong rebound in the population and the clone syndrome starts to return. BTW - we cannot legally cull any LMB under 12" due to NE regulations and we have to wait until LMB are that size before they can be culled.



Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
Great point Greg. Guys those were very general guidelines for a fertile pond as noted with a goal of keeping in balance. They were not for a trophy LMB or BG pond or an out of balance pond. It is a question of goals and how to use the balance equation to identify and make changes to reach your goals.

Shorty and Eastland if you want to tell us what you have in mind or goals then we can go over how to use the guidelines. If you look at the http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/p1428.pdf charts on balance you can see how the factors fit together.

Shorty I can't think of a situation off hand where I would cull 5-8in BG for LMB purposes. Possible if goal was trophy BG of 9-12in or if there was no LMB recruitment because of to many BG (even then I would cull the 3in BG not the 8in ones). The last thing any of us want is for someone to take general guidelines from a post and use them and end up damaging their fish population.

Here is some info on length/gape effects on LMB prey. You can use it as follows. Measure the gape sizes of the LMB that you are seeing that you think there are to many of (or skinny ones) , then measure a few BG to get highth (width in study) then you should have the info needed to id the sizes to cull. This is another manipulation of the balance equation to reach specific goals. See below.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 1991;120:500–508
Experimental Analysis of Prey Selection by Largemouth Bass: Role of Predator Mouth Width and Prey Body Depth
K. DAVID HAMBRIGHT

Section of Ecology and Systematics and the Ecosystems Research Center, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA

Abstract.—Piscivorous fish are size-selective predators. Although sizes of prey selectively ingested by piscivores traditionally have been measured in terms of prey length relative to predator length, the relationship between prey body depth (measured dorsoventrally) and piscivore mouth gape may be a more appropriate measure of prey size selection. In 2-d feeding trials with three sizes of largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, I offered various sizes of shallow-bodied fathead minnows Pimephales promelas and deep-bodied pumpkinseeds Lepomis gibbosus in assemblages of one or both species. All sizes of predators preferred pumpkinseeds with body depths well below the maximum size ingestible. Small predators also preferred fathead minnows with body depths below the maximum size ingestible, whereas intermediate and large predators selectively ingested the largest fathead minnows offered. Largemouth bass never ingested prey of body depth greater than their own external mouth width. Although lengths of selectively ingested fathead minnows and pumpkinseeds differed, largemouth bass showed highest preferences for prey of similar body depths regardless of taxonomic identity. These results suggest that, in addition to setting constraints on maximum sizes of prey that can be ingested by piscivores, the relationship between prey body depth and piscivore mouth gape may also be important in selection of prey within the range of ingestible sizes. Therefore, body depth may be more useful than the traditional measure of prey length as a common measure for examining prey selection by gape-limited piscivores over a wide array of prey species.


Preador fish are gape-limited , consuming only prey they can swallow whole. Because prey are generally swallowed head- or tailfirst,their body depth (measured dorsoventrally) relative to the size of a piscivore's mouth determines whether they can be ingested . Thus, in any particular habitat preywith boidy depths greater than the largest piscivore gape are invulnerable to ingestion. The vulnerability of prey within the range of ingestible sizesis determined by other factors such as size distributions of piscivores and prey, prey encounter rates with piscivores, and predator-avoidance behaviorsof prey . Prey-selection behavior of piscivores also influences the vulnerability of prey. Optimal foraging theory postulates that predators maximize the ratiobetween the benefits gained and the costs incurred in obtaining prey. Obviously, the benefits gained increase as a function of prey size, but cost,in particular that due to handling time, also increases rapidly with prey size .

External mouth width (measured with mouth closed as the distance between the outer edges of the maxillary bones just beneath the eyes) was used because they were found that it was a good estimate of the distance between the cleithrum bones, which limit maximum sizes of prey consumed by largemouth bass. Prey body depth (BD, measured as the linear distance from the base of the pelvic girdle to the dorsal ridge)


















Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 36
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 36
ewest - prior to culling those LMB we had approximately 200 LMB per acre, that number should be closer to 175 LMB per acre now. Right now there are lots of 1-3" BG and 5-8" BG, there are still very few BG in the 3-5" range. That should change now that there are fewer 12-15" LMB. ;\)

Also keep in mind that we added 50 SMB and 100 CC to the pond in the last year. Simply adding more predators to your pond when your forage base is below carrying capicity is never a good idea.

The goal for the pond is to manage it for LMB fishing, so we are working on changing it from a LMB heavy pond to a more BG heavy pond and improving the odds of catching a LMB over 18". So far this year I have only seen one LMB over 18".



Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
Shorty I follow your 2 posts. My approach would be to replace or augment the missing/short BG year class by purchase (or net protected growout of 1-2in BG) rather than attempt to make room for 3-5in BG growth by culling 5-8in BG. You are forage short not growth restricted.

I say this because I think you are in the situation because of to many 12in LMB eating 3-5in BG rather than that size BG being growth inhibited by larger BG. In other words there is plenty for a population of 3-5in BG to eat to get bigger they just did not get the chance before they were eaten.

If you need to increase the LMB forage in the missing or short 3-5in BG year class then buy some (from Bruce \:D ) or grow them with pellets protected behind your net. I would not cull to many of the bigger 6-8in BG as they are your best source of additional forage and may have your best genetics. I prefer an approach that ends up with balance among year classes rather than removing my top year class so the smaller/younger classes have more to eat. That is provided the water is fertile enough to support that population of fish. If it is not then other steps can be considered ( lowering the population by culling some of all sizes of all species , except the SMB in your case). \:\)

This years class of BG and the current 1-3in ones will benefit from the LMB removal but you may see increased growth and survival of small 2-6 in LMB. BTW those 2-8in LMB are prime forage for larger 12-18in LMB.
















Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 36
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 36
 Quote:
lowering the population by culling some of all sizes of all species
Bingo! (except the SMB) ;\)

I do consider all BG under 5" to be part of the forage base, once they are in the 6-8" range there are not enough large LMB to prey on that size.

One other thing you should know ewest, the larger 9-3/4" to 10" BG in our pond are definately feeling the squeeze with the mid range numbers of BG going up, most of the BG that size are getting skinny and are in very poor body condition right now. My thoughts are that they have spent much of their life with very little competition. That has changed in the last two years and not all of them adjusting to it well, or they are sinmply nearing the end of their natural life span.

Last note on culling - all very good body condition fish go back in the water, a below average body condition fish might not. ;\)



Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,973
G
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
G
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,973
ewest thanks for post you beat me to it and stated it more clearly than I coudl have anyways. Shorty with those goals then I would not recommend removing the 5-8 inch bluegill. I feel they are now your spawners so leaving them will only increase chance of more bluegill recuritng to the desired 3-5 inches. Amazing you can not in your own pond harvest bass less than 12 inches. Good luck you are on the right track.


Greg Grimes
www.lakework.com
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
Keep in mind that if you pressure the 6-8 inch fish by angling, you might be allowing your big spawners enter the winter in better body condition due to decreased competition for available invertebrates. This will likely result in increased fecundity. If you're pond is going to ultimately have "x" pounds of bluegill it seems logical to manage for more YOY's because the LMB will be able to utilize these better. I'd cast my vote for some harvest of midsize bluegill, especially if they're in less than optimal body condition. Maybe the real key here is that Shorty might be able to discern wR's better than most people and can release a super-healthy 7-incher while keeping a few 8's that look like they're getting a little ragged looking. \:\)


Holding a redear sunfish is like running with scissors.
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 369
F
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
F
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 369
GREAT discussion folks. This is the Pond Boss at its best!

I for one have never understood why you should remove ANY bluegill if quality bass is the goal. It seems wrong to remove forage then pay to add shad, etc.

Thanks to all for the super information.

Frank


Book Owner and Magazine Subscriber 3 acre pond central GA
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,261
D
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
D
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,261
I agree wholeheartedly Frank.......

Dave,
Learning In El Dorado.......

(I hope Theo doesnt see this post)


GSF are people too!

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
No doubt that eyes on info in one who knows what to do is best (that's you Shorty \:D ).

Bruce I have not seen any data on the question of which will produce more yoy -- 10 great conditioned BG or 15 average conditioned BG or 20 fair/poor conditioned BG. Also if you needed to ramp up the #s of yoy BG to create LMB forage and adult BG food supply was a factor then crank up the feeder with high pro. pellets. I have not detected from Shorty's post that adult BG food supply was a limiting factor.

I would still rather put my money on augmenting the missing class with new fish in that class/size as opposed to trying to force more 1 year olds to grow to 3 year old size in one year by removing my bigger breeding adults. I have doubts that removing a lot of large breeders will result in more 3-5in fish given the possible/probable different diel feeding patterns of the 2 sizes. Reducing the # of 6-8in breeders may result in better condition in the remaining fish in that class but who knows if that will result in more overall yoy the next spring or ever result in replacing the missing class. I would point out that when that missing class is to the point where it is its time to be the big breeding adults you will have a gap/shortage which may cause problems of more missing year classes in future generations. Several studies have shown that selectively reducing the # of large breeding BG by fishing may, in northern waters, result in the spawning of the younger less mature BG and lead to slower growth, stunting and reduced genetic quality.

My approach is to deal directly with the matter of a missing/small class by replacing/adding to it rather than hope that fewer better conditioned adults can jump through hoops to replace a missing class 2 years past. Plus I get to select the new fish source and genetics (send me some 3-5in Condello BG) to add to the class \:\)

Frank no removal of BG can result in BG stunting which can lead to no LMB recruitment and not enough of the right size forage for bigger LMB.

Great discussion . Has Has anyone seen any info on or have thoughts about this matter?
















Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 369
F
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
F
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 369
ewest

Greg says no BG harvest if trophpy bass is the goal. You said "Good Point" and pointed out that the BG harvest would depend on the goal.

If the goal is trophy LMB, what BG harvest rate would you suggest? What size should be targeted for harvest in a trophy LMB setting?

Thanks - this is a thread I have to print and re-read!

Frank


Book Owner and Magazine Subscriber 3 acre pond central GA
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,261
D
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
D
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,261
i am just trying to apply all of the above to our neighbors ranch pond situation and my potential future situation.

the ranchers would like more emphasis on quality LMB. personally i like the stunted LMB/huge GSF affair. They’ve also welcomed some volunteer mgmt suggestions from me cause they know its LMB crowded.

in the ranch pond i have never seen or caught any BG (in our case GSF) less than about 8-inches. It is routine to catch 9-10 inch GSF w/ an occasional 11-12 incher…amazing fish. i realize the dynamic of GSF and BG breeding is very different……..what is it, fecundity?........... but the situation of the GSF and other young LMB being the only forage for the larger LMB, plus the clone syndrome in 8-12-inch LMB class sounds real analogous to what’s been discussed here.

This leads me to believe the proper mgmt strategy (summer culling) for that pond is remove every single LMB you can from between say 6 to 14 inches, as fast as you can, as much as you can………its a 5-acre deal never managed……….and remove absolutely no GSF, and leave smaller <6-inch bass for lunker forage. In this scenario, maybe all size classes of GSF would improve, and the few lunker >5 lb LMB left for better genetic breeding stock would stay focused on the 4-6-inch LMB?

I speculate the pond would benefit greatly from a large true BG stocking, but the ranchers wont pony up for stocking....but are open to managing the current situation as best it can to favor larger LMB. Or maybe its just not manageable without introduction of another type of forage fish?

My provincial thoughts from CA.


GSF are people too!

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 18
E
Lunker
OP Offline
Lunker
E
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 18
Wow, what a mess I started. I'll throw in a few details to make you think. First, it's Texas, the water is very warm, it's a cattle pond with high nutrients. The LMB don't "chase" lures anymore, they conserve their energy and gingerly inhale their food...weightless lures like plastic crawdads & frogs, drifting...these fish are not aggressive, they appear to be conserving energy and coping with the extreme temps.

Then there's the question : How many "trophy bass" can I have in 1 1/2 acre ? 8 lbs is pretty good, anything that big eats what it wants...I guessing there are 4-5 over 4 lbs. OK, what's next on the food chain for the smaller guys, let's say 2-4 lbs LMB, 15-20 exist I think. 1000's of bgill, everywhere 3+ inches with the average 4-6"...remember, with a worm, I can perch jerk all day long.

But what's left for the 8-12" LMB that are at the high end of the RW chart at 89% ? They appear to have grown and consumed their forage base... they need to be culled. Larger bass already have more food and smaller RW's ? The Texas summer isn't friendly this time of year. I see is no value carrying excessive 3-6" bgill as part of my capacity.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
Frank I make my decisions based on what is happening in the pond population. I monitor that by RW/age , seine surveys , creel surveys , visual surveys and on occasion shock surveys. Water quality is monitored and adjusted. We do not manage for trophy LMB even though a few are there.

I started to describe why I thought most small pond owners will not be satisfied with a trophy LMB pond. Very few fishermen want to spend hours trying to get one bite from a big bass with not much else.

If you really want a trophy LMB pond then manage for 1-2 large (10lb.) LMB per acre with most of the forage in the 5-10 inch range. Start with only a few LMB stockers (25 per acre) and a lot of forage. Take out no BG for 3 years and take out most of the LMB you catch after 1 year and all male LMB caught. You want as little LMB recruitment as possible while you grow the bulk of the forage to 5-10 in. At that point manage for little recruitment of either BG or LMB. You want very few LMB , a bunch of 5-10in forage and only a few small BG or LMB. Just manage the balance formula for those results. It may require trapping/seining of small BG and LMB and even partial rotenone of shallows after the spawn to get rid of small LMB and BG yoy. Feed pellets to the BG and LMB for the first 3 years and then continue feeding using only large pellets.

To answer your question I would take out no BG for 3 years and then every BG I could under 3 inches. I would use a separate forage pond to grow out BG and or other forage to 5 inches to add to the pond. Plus what I described above.

My comment to Greg was about not using recommendations for a balanced pond to meet different goals (trophy LMB or BG or for an unbalanced pond). It was not an endorsement of no BG culling as he did not say that.
















Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 369
F
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
F
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 369
Eric

Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately I do not have a separate forage pond.

Frank


Book Owner and Magazine Subscriber 3 acre pond central GA
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,261
D
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
D
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,261
well sorry to interupt you guys, i just thought my situation might be analagous to what all you were talking about, and you might have some pointers for me....i'll just keep listening, and learning.

cheers


GSF are people too!

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
Three other reasons to consider culling 6-8 inch bluegill.

1. These fish are the primary harassers of LMB bedding/reproduction. I've seen it with my own eyes (especially 6-inchers).

2. Reducing numbers of intermediate size bluegill leaves a forage niche for smaller bluegill (3-4 inchers) that, if healthy, might make a better snack for a growing LMB.

3. If you reduce 6-8 inch bluegill, it doesn't necessarily yield an equation of 20 fair conditioned bluegill vs. 10 great conditioned bluegill. If there are only so many prime nesting areas, then it may be 10 available nests. This would mean 10 great conditioned bluegill vs. 20 not so great/less fecund bluegill fighting for ten spots.

I'm not at all saying that I know for certain that culling helps, I'm only trying to play devil's advocate and present a contrary possibility. I really haven't read any research either way, so Dave Willis might have a little to add from personal experience on this issue.

Great information everybody. Thanks, ewest.


Holding a redear sunfish is like running with scissors.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,973
G
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
G
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,973
Frank I thought you wanted quality bass- lots of 3-5 lb bass with occasional 8-10 lb bass, if so I stick with recommendations do not remove bluegill. If trophy as Eric said then you will have few but large bass on most occasions it will not be fun to fish. In this case you do need to remove bluegill b/c a big bass needs big BG not lots of 3-5 inchers. Also needs gizzard shad not tons of 3 inch threadfin, but that is another topic.

BC…Yes bluegill harass LMB beds but Never have I seen them control bass. It is the other way around in most of the ponds we work on. Bass control the population dynamics. Here is an example just from yesterdays shock to see what my rec. are for this case. Most of my clients (90%) want quality bass 85% have too many bass.

LMB (inches)
4-8 - 21
8-10 - 27
10-12 - 18
12-14 - 4
14-18 - 0
>18 - 1
Wr 83%

BG/RE (inches)
<3 - numerous
3-5 - 2
5-7 - 8
7-9 - 9
>9 - 5
Wr 115%

I think BC you might like this for your good BG growth? This pond is 4 acre fertilized (not well) but has no supplement feeding. They want better bass growth but also do like catching some big BG and RES at times. Rec. setup 2 feeders, more consistent fertilization, remove 300 bass less than 12 inches ( 2nd year 200 with attempts to take just males), do not remove BG unless they want an occasional meal, stock threadfin shad add more fish habitats, if budget allows stock 800 intermediate bluegill.

Why.. I think we get way to takeout bass, how I figured number which is nothing more than an approx target goal is 30 lbs/acre divided by average size. Clients want numbers of bass not weights. If he catches out 300 easy I screwed up and needs to take more if he really struggles after 200 maybe a little too high but no biggie.

Why in this case would you remove bluegill, that is the question I guess. I do not see reason why. They are already very limited in scope and the big ones are very healthy as you would expect. Taking them is about the worse thing to do and the reason I jumped on this thread. They will with time replace the intermediate class. In will not take that long if enough bass are removed to speed up process stock more BG.

Again this is diff if you have other goals. Eastland, you say your big bass have low Wr, then yes you might be right about taking some BG, this is more complicated when middle size bass have good Wr and large ones do not. Again are you trying to grow big bass or more numbers of good size bass? I have a few reasons why this is, crappie might have something to do with it. Again if you have lots of 3-5 inch bluegill they are there b/c something is not utilizing them, I would even consider stocking some bass b/f just pulling out BG if bass is goal, again you are probably right harder to diagnosis compared typical client one above.

I hope this better explains my rec. This site is awesome and this shows why general guidelines are just that. You just need to understand your goals and the why of pond mgmt to figure out what you need to do in your case.


Greg Grimes
www.lakework.com
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Today's Birthdays
Bob Lusk, GaryK, GrizzFan, PhotographerDave
Recent Posts
Happy Birthday Bob Lusk!!
by Rainman - 03/28/24 02:53 AM
Relative weight charts in Excel ? Calculations?
by Mark Dyer - 03/27/24 10:18 PM
Reducing fish biomass
by esshup - 03/27/24 06:17 PM
New 2 acre pond stocking plan
by esshup - 03/27/24 06:05 PM
1 year after stocking question
by esshup - 03/27/24 06:02 PM
Questions and Feedback on SMB
by Donatello - 03/27/24 03:10 PM
Paper-shell crayfish and Japanese snails
by Bill Cody - 03/27/24 10:18 AM
Brooder Shiners and Fry, What to do??
by esshup - 03/27/24 08:47 AM
2024 North Texas Optimal BG food Group Buy
by Dave Davidson1 - 03/27/24 08:15 AM
Dewatering bags seeded to form berms?
by esshup - 03/26/24 10:00 PM
Freeze Danger? - Electric Diaphragm Pump
by esshup - 03/26/24 09:47 PM
Newly Uploaded Images
Eagles Over The Pond Yesterday
Eagles Over The Pond Yesterday
by Tbar, December 10
Deer at Theo's 2023
Deer at Theo's 2023
by Theo Gallus, November 13
Minnow identification
Minnow identification
by Mike Troyer, October 6
Sharing the Food
Sharing the Food
by FishinRod, September 9
Nice BGxRES
Nice BGxRES
by Theo Gallus, July 28
Snake Identification
Snake Identification
by Rangersedge, July 12

� 2014 POND BOSS INC. all rights reserved USA and Worldwide

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5