Can we build a better bluegill?

Fishing Warm water Forum
1

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

2

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).]

3

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’?

4

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

5

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).]

6

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.

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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.

11

Great post Meadowlark - just what I’d hoped for.

You say you “never remove BG from my ponds, never”. Does that mean you’re strictly C&R on 'gills? What’s the biggest 'gill you’ve been able to ‘raise’? I assume in TX the potential is there for some real monsters.

I see your state record for private waters is 3.25#. Ours (IA) is similar but a ‘true’ pound and a half is rare.

In your quest for bigger 'gills are you using supplemental feeding?

To keep a population of big crappie I think you’re right - you’ll need a population of “large” predators. Crappie tend to grow quickly to a size that it takes a big fish to handle. We’ve had much better luck here with Black Crappie in small waters. I’d also consider supplementing with baitfish.

Beadleech, here’s an example of a “creel survey” that is recommended for managing for panfish.

“One of the most important statistics from a creel card is size distribution of the species caught. Add up all the fish, harvested and released, of the same species. Go back and add up all the fish of the species that were in a particular size group (for example, largemouth bass 8 to 12 inches). Calculate the percent of the total number that particular size group accounted for. Do the same for other size groups and other species. Percentages for each species will add up to 100. If one size group makes up a large percentage of the catch, other size group percentages will be low.
For ponds under panfish management, largemouth bass 8 to 12 inches should make up 55 percent to 85 percent of the catch, with bass of 12 to 15 inches being 20 percent to 40 percent of the largemouth bass caught. Up to 15 percent of the largemouth bass caught will be large enough (15 inches) to be harvested. Bluegill 8 to 10 inches should make up 30 percent to 40 percent of the catch with 5 percent of the bluegills caught larger that 10 inches. Bluegill 3 to 6 inches and 6 to 8 inches should make up equal percentages of 25 percent to 35 percent of the bluegill catch.”

Good responses…thnx

12

Hmmmm?
Rick, I think you may then have 70-1# (small) fish and 3-10# (big) fish…keeping the production constant (100#)…thus this balance.
In nature everything is merely a protien gatherer. And all protien gatherers of two parents, is made to be expendable by nature, EXCEPT two. Thus that “balance”…?
Another thought is that, the smaller the pond (smaller envirioment) the more and quicker impact we can have, whether detrimental or beneficial.
Sometimes nature re-balances by “winter freeze” or by “summer-kill”…maybe?
Just sorta…
Beedleech, I was being very careful to NOT say that “we could not impact a fishery with our rods”. I tried to state that we could not ELIMINATE a type fish nor change the total biomass production. We can somewhat change some fisheries for better or worse though.
I don’t say well with my fingers (or my mouth, according to my bride) what my mind says.

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

13

lee - I’m sure, in fact, your ‘holistic’ observation is correct. Habitat of any kind will only support so much live matter. We can start at microplankton and go to the Blue Heron.

But to illustrate our point - considering the ‘food chain’ and that bluegill are ‘largely’ zoo plankton and ‘bug’ eaters and bass are largely ‘fish’ and ‘crustacean’ eaters - I feel we can say an acre of water will support only ‘so many pounds of bluegill’ and ‘so many pounds’ of bass.

I do agree that it makes no difference what number of fish we are talking about. So, guess I’m arguing semantics.

14

I am 59 years old & have fished ponds almost exclusively since my grade school days. I read that the average pond will support 200 pounds of fish per acre…extremely fertile ponds more. I agree with Lee on the balance issue. The worst ponds I have fished have been ones where the pond owners/neighbors kept many bass. Relieving the pond of predators just CANNOT be conducive to a continued good fishery! I also was raised with the “take 7 pounds of gills for every pound of bass” philosophy, & IMHO, it works. I will not argue the philosophy of releasing large gills, but add that I DO believe that releasing the large gills & keeping OR disposing of small gills WILL help a pond. I also release all bass, regardless of size.
Mike

This site’s about sharing!

15

PanFisher - wish I lived close enough to split gas with you for that trip back to that pond in San Dago! <G>

I think a lot of us are saying about the same thing. IMO for “pond management rules” to work - especially when there are multiple users - they must be simple and not allow for “lawyering”. There are still people out there who will slap a 9 or 10" LMB on a stringer! “Remove no bass” makes it simple. Likewise, what may be a large BG to some people may be a tiddler to me [or the pond owner]. Therefore, “remove all panfish” is also simple.

I don’t fish as many ponds as I gather many of yo’all do now. My fishery is mainly smallish natural lakes. The few ponds I do fish are mainly used in the spring when they’ll warm up much quicker then the larger lakes. However, before I moved to this area my fishing was almost completely a mix of ponds and strip pits and “builder lakes”. A lot of these were “new waters” that let you quickly see what worked and what didn’t.

lee - sorry I misunderstood your position on altering a fishery with a rod!

Of course, all the above just my opinion - which may or may not be worthwhile. <G>

Donald

16

I definitely agree on ‘multple user’ lakes, no-kill on bass is the wy to go.

Actually most small waters are probably under utilized as far as fish harvest. Unfortunately by taking the ‘wrong’ fish problems are created.

Here’s what the MN DNR says.

“For each acre of pond, where the fish population is not being fed, Davis said, the recommended harvest each year is 15 pounds of bass, 100-200 pounds of bluegill, and 50 pounds of channel catfish.”

You figure in a 2.5 to 3 acre pond that’s a tremendous amount of fish.

17

HideHunter,
This is a topic where a pat answer is not really possible. There are too many variables to consider to make a blanket statement that applies to all ponds. As a fisheries biologist, I have attempted in the past to manage several ponds of various sizes to maintain a “quality” fishery.

A great variety of parameters needs to be evaluated to establish and maintain a quality fishery. As you and others have mentioned, the predator-prey relationship is critical. Additionally, fertility is important. I often fertilized the ponds I managed to produce more pounds of fish per acre. The latitude of the pond must also be considered - ponds further south have longer growing seasons, thus usually faster growing fish. On the other hand, fish from northern areas are usually longer-lived than their Rebel brethren.

Habitat is another key. How much suitable spawning area is available to bluegill and bass? How much ambush habitat is available to the predators? Speaking of predators, one of the best predators on bluegill and crappie is the flathead catfish. I have often stocked adult flatheads to help control stunted bluegill and crappie populations.

Genetics play a role in this equation as well. Lots of folks are now playing with all sorts of hybrids in the pond arena. Hybrids and/or intergrades of a number of species are being used, such as bass, bluegill, redear sunfish, green sunfish, both white and black crappie, and channel and blue catfish.

Control of harvest is important to maintaining balanced populations. I have experimented with a number of fishing regulations to restrict harvest of predators and increase harvest of bluegill.

Years ago I saw something very interesting at some experimental ponds at Auburn University. They had one pond heavily stocked with largemouth bass which were about 10 inches long. They also had bluegill in this pond. Almost every bluegill I saw angled from this pond was at least 9 inches long; several were over 12 inches long! The catch rate was about 15 largemouth bass for every bluegill caught. As an aside, Dr. Swingle (now passed away) of Auburn devised pond balance formulas many years ago which are used by many southeastern staes as the basis of their pond management programs.

As a final note, nothing can really be written in granite concerning pond management, consideriing all the possible variables. For example, crappie are typically frowned on by management agencies for waters less than 500 acres. However, I heard of a pond in Kansas that contianed black crappie only, not even any minnows for prey. However, these crappie were in excellent condition and exhibited outstanding growth rates. Food habits analysis revealed these fish were feeding on zooplankton! Again, never say never.

18

Excellent post Gary. I was hoping to draw someone with your qualifications out of the woodwork.

You are right, of course, that there is no ‘pat’ answer. I am presently fishing two ponds that were both drained and refurbished within days of each other. Both were stocked on the same day. Each received channel catfish, bluegill and bass - all stocked at the same time (wouldn’t necessarily be my choice). The catfish in pond #1 grew to 5# within three years (and are now about 8 to 10). The bass grew to 15" and largely stopped right there. The bluegill (we had total control over the pond and returned all large males) are gorgeous. 9 inch fish are commonplace with bigger fish being caught often.

A stone’s throw away, in the other pond, the channels seemed to grow more slowly (about 3# in the same time) while the bass reached 20" and better before they peaked. The 'gills are nice but with many more 7 to 8 inch 'gills caught.

While I tend to shoot for a ‘balance’(that’s what most landowners want) I’ll tell you, when I get a pond that is polluted with small 'gills I pour the bass to it and for about 5 or 6 years it can be a ‘trophy bass pond deluxe’. On the other hand, I’m working on a pond now that hasn’t had anything but bass in it for 20 years. All the fish look like they have been poured out of a mold at 12 to 13 inches. I have now put a mixture of 200 'gills in it up to 9 inches and plan to add another 100. Then I’m going to let it sit for a couple years. I expect (hope) to see some monsters in this pond in the next 4 to 5 years. I think the spawn will be practically non-existant for several years. (it is deep, clear with a rock bottom)

I considered flathead catfish as a predator. In fact have stocked a few into ponds. My concern was that they may grow large enough, fast enough to be hard on the bass. The only one I’ve known that was caught grew to about 8# (from 4) in about 3 years. If you figure that flatheads easily take prey up to 20% of their body weight a 10 pound fish could be preying on you biggest gills and bass up to a couple pounds.

Anyway, not a problem as you’ve seen it?

I have heard about fertilizing ponds. In Iowa, generally that is not a problem. But one thing I have wondered about is ph factors in ponds. Is there an optimum in that regard?

Thanks and good fishing…g

[This message has been edited by HideHunter (edited 29 December 2005).]

19

As a kid I remeber a pond that had only bass and catfish in it. The bass were as you say, cookie cutter 12"-14" fish…but you simply could NOT toss a daredevil into the pond and not connect. Pretty important to a youngster. Never did catch any catfish from the pond…but never tried either.
When it is stated by an agency that
“recommended harvest” is…does that mean you SHOULD take out that many fish OR if you have to accept harvesting, that is the limit. I would think the later. Some otherwise.

20

Another thought is the difference between the weight of fish that a pond can maintain versus the weight of fish that it can produce. It takes less food to maintain fish at their current size than to stimulate growth, especially rapid growth. Available food for fish to grow quickly requires either high fertility or added nutrients in relation to the amount (mass) of fish involved. Straight feeding of the fish is the most efficient way to do this, at least in the short term. (Ignoring the potential for long term consequences.)

Have any of y’all used cheap, dry dog food to feed fish and fertilze ponds? Have you ever heard of that? A part of the idea is that uneaten dog food will feed algae etc…

Another factor is the timing of the availability of feed. If you have 100 pounds of mayflies hatch that can be a boon to the fish. But if they all hatch on the same afternoon, then the fish in a pond might not be able eat all of the spinner fall. The same applies to fruit fall (mulberries etc…) and so forth. The ultimate expression of this might be in the forage fish themselves. As they grow too large to be eaten, they become a part of the problem as they consume food that other, more desirable species might have eaten.

When we think of fish predators, don’t forget that there are a lot more than just other fish. Where I live, there are great blue herons everywhere. Even the little creek that runs alongside my yard will often be visited. One otter will take quite a few fish, and otters are social animals. Mink will take fish. Water snakes and turtles will take fish. Osprey and bald eagles take fish. Ducks and geese will take fish. The list could go on.

It’s all part of a wonderful balancing act. A small pond is a microcosm that is within the grasp of comprehension of most people and provides a good example of why we cannot blunder about blindly, having our way with the world and expecting no consequences.

Ed