Can we build a better bluegill?

[HideHunter]

I've been reading everything I can get my hands on about bluegill "biology".

Through my obsevations in the field and what I've read, I'm convinced that the two major factors involved in creating trophy 'gills is 'balance' with predators (read that largemouth bass)and a strong population of large male bluegill.

I know Rick Z. and probably others have some views on this. I'd be interested in any scientific or anecdotal evidence any of you could offer.

Rick, in the past you have alluded to the theory that there are two strains of bluegills. Are you speaking of 'cuckolders' and their offspring?

I've been following the studies in IL and MN and am aware of those in Nebraska and SD (though I haven't found much about them) I'd be interested in any information on other studies.

thnx..g

[Rick Z]

What I read was mostly in the "In-Fisherman" magazine. They just alluded to the two strains and did not really name them.

In the ponds where I have let the largest gills return to the water the size of the gills is going up. Not sure this is scientific proof, but it works for me.

Balance seems to come when 10 lbs of panfish are taken out for every pound of top line predator.

Rick



[This message has been edited by Rick Z (edited 28 December 2005).]

[HideHunter]

Rick, here's a scenario. When I 'start' on a pond and find it 'polluted' with stunted 'gills' I introduce a number of large 'gills (especially bulls). I refer to this as "stirring the genetics". I also introduce largemouth of various sizes.

The bass normally grow very well for several years. But, it seems anyway I go it takes about 4 years to turn a pond around on bluegill.

Have you experimented with 'feeding'?

[beadleech]

My son is currently "working" with a large pond owner - almost a small lake - in an attempt to improve the balance of the water. Currently the pond has "lots" of small bass, "millions" of stunted bluegills, and apparently, not much else. He's been asked to remove all the small bass he can each spring - up to about 3 #'s. He's to ignore the BG. This is supposed have been laid out by "someone at the state". In this state [Indiana] I think the pond management information is put out by the dept of agriculture. However, this advice would seem to go counter to all I've ever read about balancing a pond.

I do know that the best pond I ever had access to had very simple rules - 1.) it was accessed by "permit" only; 2.) you were required to ALWAYS remove ALL bluegill and crappie caught; 2.) you were NEVER permitted to remove any LMB. Each spring the owner took a rake thingy he had made and drug it thru the crappie and bluegill beds to disrupt their spawning. The crappie averaged 11-12". the BG 8-9"+, and I caught many 6# LMB. This was a small pond and is the only instance where I saw crappie successfully introduced into the mix. This was down near the Ohio River [where crappie is a very popular fish] and it seemed all the builder "lakes" in the subdivisions were all stocked with crappie which in a year or two resulted in 5" and 6" fish.

The state also had a program back in the 60's and 70's that produced hybrid bluegills. I don't remember which panfish they were crossed with but apparently it produced mainly sterile offspring that tended to be quite large. I fished one lake in the mid 70's that was a "test case" for the program and caught about 18 or so 1#+ bluegills on one summer.

Donald

[lee s]

Heck BL,
That sounds like what happens locally by nature of the pond users. Doesn't work here. Seems everything suffers size-wise in the pond. We even heard one person to say he believed that you HAD to harvest fish from a pond to make it good......?
I think Rick is the most on, so far. Non-expert and unscientific opinion only on our part, though. Only logic.
Seems water will produce ONLY so many pounds of life and fish. ONLY nature can keep "real" balance. We can choose whether we want 100# of fish to be 10# each and 10 fish or 1# each and 100 fish. But we can neither eliminate a type of fish nor change total production with a rod.
Seems we (people) are better at ruining balance than creating balance. Though, I SURELY opt for a pond with an unbalanced # of large fish.
NOT to be taken as extremist in any way.
.....lee s.

[This message has been edited by lee s (edited 28 December 2005).]

[HideHunter]

I agree with lee in that it's generally recognized that one acre of water will only support so many pounds of fish of each species. It depends largely on the the water - what kind of cover it has and it's fertility.

To understand why a pond supports big bluegill we have to understand predator/prey relationship and the spawning rituals of the bluegill. A number of kinds of predators have been studied in maintaining a good p/p relationship including LM bass, SM bass, pike and catfish. Though all will take bluegill readily, it's largely accepted that because of it's mouth, body shape and 'hunting' tactics the LM Bass is by far the superior predator for bluegill. Smallmouth prefer to feed on minnows and crawfish and pike on longer, soft rayed fish. For a pond that is managed for big bluegill the optimum size for the "majority" of LM is 12-15". (CO amd MO St. Fish and Wildlife)(My personal experience is this would 'better' be 14-17")

So this part of management can be, to some extent, regulated by fishng pressure. Let me give you a quick example of how fast a pond balance can be ruined. A friend of mine had a very small pond that he had socked with a good population of bass up to 22". One night on an evening bite he and I caught 21 bass. That winter the pond froze out and when it thawed we found a total of 29 bass floating. Had we kept all those fish we would have effectively wiped out the bass population in one evening.

A far as the bluegill spawn, fairly recent studies have found that large male bluegill (8" and up) 'control' the spawn. They seek out and defend the best spawning areas. Without these fish small bluegill males become sexually mature and begin to spawn. Once a make spawns his growth rate slows dramatically. (Females tend to grow through out their lifetime) These smaller males also tend to have smaller offspring possibly leading to stunting.

In addition the biggest females also tend to seek out the best locations and thus the biggest males.

To further complicate matters there is a process called "cuckolding" where small male bluegills slip into a nest while the big gills are spawning and deposit sperm on the eggs. Intestingly enough a large (parental) male cannot tell which eggs have been fertilized by the cuckold. But, it is possible that if a large number of the subsequent offspring are cuckolds the male may abandon the nest. Ahhh, Mother Nature.

So without a doubt, returning large bluegill (especially males) to the water will lead to better genetics.

BeadLeech the hybrids were possibly bluegill/green sunfish cross and do tend to grow fast. The two problems I've found with them is that unless fed, they tend to have a large frame but be less "meaty" than a 'gill. And more importantly, the ones that *do* spawn revert back to the green sunfish and can quickly take over a pond. IMHO anyone who stocks these should remove them as soon as they get big enough to eat.

Anyway - didn't mean to write a book, but the water is to thin to walk on and too thick to throw a fly through.

Oh, and introducing crappie to a farmpond can change the whole equation.

[PanFisher]

I have to say the best and largest Bluegill fishery I have ever fished was a lake out of San Diego. I believe the food factor was the major key. The lake was just plain loaded with scud.

We would fish the evening wading in the shallows catching numerous very large Bluegills (10+ inches). When we left the water our waders would be covered with small scud.

I believe it was this food source that helped the Bluegills grow quickly. I never saw a small Bluegill come out of that lake ? they were all huge.

I may make the drive back down there next year. The thought makes me salivate!


------------------
--------
Let No One Walk Alone
><))))'>------<'((((><
Bill

[Rick Z]

I think I might diagree with you Lee on what poundage of fish a pond can hold. I think as the bass get larger they feed on the small fish and that means that there can still be the pounds of small fish, but the pounds of the big fish is higher.
Does this make sense?

Rick

[beadleech]

There is a group of small lakes in NW Ohio that is managed for large bluegill by state biologists. Thru a check-in/check-out system they control all aspects of the fishery and adjust it week-to-week for max return [in their view]. The # of fishermen allowed on the lakes is controled, the # of fish that can be kept is controled, and the SIZE of the fish is recorded and controled. If, after June 20th for example, their records show enough large gills have been removed only 8" and under may be kept for balance of the year [and you may well be "required" to keep all of them]. All others must be returned. And when enough [number wise] have been harvested they will close down the lakes for the rest of the year. These lakes do not, in my experience, produce large bass. And I don't know if they actually produce BIGGER gills. They do seem produce a larger PERCENTAGE of over 8" fish, tho. I think that goes back to lee's comment that x-water acres will produce x-biomass. That biomass can be large numbers of small fish or small numbers of large fish. I do disagree that you can't affect the balance of a pond or small lake with a rod, tho. I've seen it happen too often to doubt it. And on small rivers I've seen the smallmouth bass numbers utterly destroyed by a few meat fishermen hitting it over and over and over.

All-in-all it seems to me that the small waters that have a reasonable balance fairly long term that I've fished have a "remove the panfish, leave the bass" management system. For this to work, however, requires that ALL panfish be removed. If it's too small to clean and eat toss it up over the bank. I personally don't think returning the really large BGs to the water hurts a lot - there simply isn't that many of them to return in most instances.

I fish a lot of 100a-200a lakes and I don't keep a lot of fish - maybe a dozen a week or so. Consider this - from early Sept to the second week of Nov [this year] I fished 3-4 times a week. I caught 30 to 50 fish each trip. Do the math. [It's hard work, but someone has to do it!] <G>

Well, you can certainly tell "tis the season...."! Everybody has LOTS of time on their hands! LOL

Donald

[Meadowlark]

Interesting topic. I have several ponds and years of experience trying to get them to meet objectives. Its all about your objectives.

I have found that if you want to raise really large BG, you need a good distribution of LMB and especially large LMB. I never remove BG from my ponds, never. If a pond has too many BG, I increase the number of predators and vice versa. We are able to routinely raise 10 inch BG and some up to 12 inches. We are currently experimenting with a hybrid BG in a special pond in hopes of seeing fish push beyond the 10 to 12 inch threshold.

Public waters are very difficult to manage for objectives because of the lack of control. Some people like LMB, some like BG, etc. It is very difficult for small waters to be all things to all people.

We are also about to embark on an experiment with crappie in a small pond...which many experts say can not be done without stunted crappie resulting. Again, I believe it is all about objectives and that a pond managed for crappie, i.e. without any BG, with lots of predators(hybrid striped bass), and with very clear water will indeed produce a satisfactory crappie pond. Ponds are great fun and can provide fishing "like it used to be".

Thanks for the interesting post.