It sounds like the UC Davis study was focused entirely on growing large bass - if so, then that isn't in line with Duckdude's stated goals. If the goal of the study was to develop a balanced population of good-sized bluegill and bass both, it would seem odd to me that the results are much more in line with what pond managers in other areas of the country, specifically areas with long growing seasons as Duckdude states he has, recommend for misbalanced ponds geared solely toward trophy bass.
IMO that's the key, as Ewest mentions above - intentionally skewing the pond solely toward the optimal state for trophy bass, which is overpopulated bluegill, is very different from stocking numbers which have a better chance of resulting in a balanced population. If he stocks 1,000 sunfish per acre, the bass will never get the sunfish under control without a considerable poundage of sunfish being harvested by anglers each year; granted, you mention that the study was done with moderate to heavy harvest figured on, as well as high fertility. To me it just makes more sense not to put oneself behind the eight ball right off the bat in regards to one's goals, but rather to stock in a manner that gives one the best chance of realizing said goals. Just my $.02.
