I can see how frustrating that is. A lot of the blame goes to the old fashioned teaching and training to the past and present biology, fisheries, and DNR students that the best thing possible anyone could stock in your pond is LMB, BG (or HBG) and CC.
I would be in the same boat myself were it not for members on this forum as my MI DNR suggested that in northern ponds only these 3 fish would thrive. Although the DNR is well aware of RES in SW MI, and the flourishing pumpkinseed in more northern lower MI lakes, they were not suggested. YP was NOT on their list since YP will not 'do well' in a pond of 12' or less. Despite their experience doing their job, they did not seem to want to disclose the hassles of balancing catfish with the other fish. They also thought LMB/BG somehow balanced each other out well.
The mystery to me is that these are the same officers who sample all the local lakes and find the same story over and over, hundreds of skinny 11-12" LMB and thousands of tiny bluegill with gigantic eyes typical of hungry bluegill. Every lake, same story.
Why do they think this combo will be easier to manage in a homeowner's pond?
Have you ever seen a self-balancing LMB/BG lake anywhere where bluegill are naturally large and healthy and where LMB continue to maintain healthy weights up beyond 14 and 15"?
Maybe it is a unique problem in northern ponds where we have no other forage. We have no natural shad, no natural GSH or other shiners, no threadfins, it sounds like stocking some other forage species in all the public lakes would be the wiser way to go.
I'd love to see them introduce YP in all the public lakes in MI. Perhaps even try lake chubsuckers or better yet common or spotfin shiners!!
