Bob Lusk

Here's my opinion. Bass are sight feeders. Clear water aids their ability to see to eat. When a lake/pond is fertilized, visibility is dramatically reduced and bass can't see nearly as well. Since bass don't have the ability to think or reason, they depend on instinct and conditioning to survive...a Pavlov's dogs situation. When their conditioning is altered, they need time to adjust their conditioning. Hunger often dictates the time frame it takes for them to adjust to water with less clarity. That's why the bite is off for a few days. Bass can't see and can't figure out why. At some point, hunger overtakes the change in conditioning and their other senses kick in...bass can detect movement through their lateral lines. When they sense a vibration in the water, they'll move toward it, until they can see. Then, they attack. When water clarity is reduced, use baits that make noise...buzz baits, crankbaits with ball bearing, spinnerbaits, etc and you'll likely have a change in bass behavior and get more bites.

Good move. I work on private lake fisheries all over the nation. Recently (in May), a brand new client called, unhappy about their inability to catch fish. That lake, about 35 acres, had been over-stocked with feed-trained largemouth bass and all the associated forage fish several years ago by a different consultant. The fishery wasn't developing as they thought it should. The lake had all the normal "bells and whistles" with aeration, good feeders and popular fish food. It had been stocked with bluegill, redear sunfish, threadfin shad...on top of an existing native fish population. When I electrofished the lake in May, I found several bass with symptoms similar to the one shown in the photo at the beginning of this thread. I told the guys how to medicate the feed, assuming the sores and red spots were columnaris or possibly aeromonas, two different bacteria which commonly afflict fish in crowded conditions. Rarely do I see this in ponds and lakes where the fish population concentration is "normal". The ranch manager medicated the feed for ten days, enough time to stop the bacteria and allow the fish to begin healing. Then, I got a call in July from the ranch manager. They were having a fish dieoff of bass only. That signaled to me there is a disease issue rather than a water quality problem. If water were the problem, different species would be dying at the same time. I had them collect two fish (that's all they could catch) and contact their local veternarian to ship the fish to a fish diagnostic lab. The fish were immediately shipped. They still had symptoms as the fish in the photo at the beginning of the thread. The fish were diagnosed at Mississippi State University and the veternarian/pathologist there said he found no aeromonas or columnaris, but did find LMBV. I was a bit shocked and didn't believe the analysis. I went to that ranch in September, electrofished, found several fish with the same symptoms and had them shipped overnight and analyzed again in the same lab. I specifically told the vet to check for external parasites such as epistylis and the different bacteria which cause such external sores, lesions and redness. The vet at Miss St. found a few internal parasites, no external parasites and bacterial cultures were negative. He did identify LMBV for the second time. It was the same diagnosis. That's where I came up with the advice in my first post of this thread. Pure science, no opinion. My opinion is this...state biologists should take notice and not blow this off. If they, in fact, have LMBV, they probably can't do anything about it. But, I can't tell you how often I come across people who legally take fish from a public lake and transport to stock in a private pond. The citizenry should know the truth. In my professional opinion, those fish with that type of affliction should be properly diagnosed.

That looks like symptoms of protozoan parasites, but it could be something worse. If that fish came from a public reservoir, state biologists definitely need to know about it (they probably already do). If it is a private reservoir, the landowner needs to know. If it were my fish, I would want it analyzed by a fish diagnostic lab to find out exactly what it is. I've seen similar symptoms diagnosed as largemouth bass virus disease.

RoLo--Since you asked.... Freshwater, warmwater blue-green algae is, in fact, in the cyano-bacteria class. That makes it a bacteria. It is actually classified an algae, though. Blue-green algae is photosynthetic which means they can produce their own food. Blue-greens have chlorophyl-A-the same as plants have- and phycocyanin which captures sunlight. And, they are aquatic, which puts them in the "algae" class...although they have no relationship to all other freshwater algaes. It's not really a plankton eating organism. But, it will take advantage of the nutrients released from dead plankton. It's typically found in eutrophic waters (older ponds loaded with nutrients) and makes its living mostly off phosphorus, especially in urban areas or where there's runoff from streets, lawns and such. However, it doesn't depend on that food source since it is one species that can fix atmospheric nitrogen that naturally dissolves in water. That way, it can make its own food. The eutrophic conditions just give it a jump start to outcompete the better algaes and plankton. We see blue-green algae blooms this time of year, after ponds have stratified and are warm. Then, the die off is often triggered by a heavy rain or just the bloom overgrowing itself and nature makes a correction with a dieoff. The fish kills are mostly attributed to oxygen-depravation. But, another way it "normally" happens is that blue-green algae grows in the water column and as it runs its course, rises to the surface to seek more sunlight to photosynthesize to make more food to continue its life. As it dies, the gasses inside that give it its bouyancy break the cell walls and release the "innards" of the algae/bacteria. Depending on the species, this release can be toxic to fish. It also is a big cause of "swimmer's itch". These toxins irritate human skin and in sizable concentrations, can cause problems for animals that drink the water. I think the case in Moore, Oklahoma is a direct result of oxygen depletion due to rapid dieoff and decomposition of the blue-green algae bloom. I see it way too often...but it is still a rare occurence. I happen to be in the sort of business where people call when bad things like this happen, so I get to see it. Still makes me sick to my stomach, especially since it could have been easy to prevent. That's way more than any of us wanted to know, I'm sure, but you asked! Live and learn!

Let me help out, too. There's some solid information in this thread, some speculative information and some stuff that isn't exactly right. Here's what happened to that pond. The fish died because a blue-green algae bloom crashed. Blue-green algae are commonly found all over the nation. Most of the time, blue-green algae are dominated by other, more healthy plants. In this case (which I see way too often nowadays, although in the grand scheme is rare), the blue-green dominated the plankton bloom. The algae bloom ran out of food and died and/or was killed by a rain event. Alive, algae produces oxygen during the day and uses it up at night. But, when it dies, it uses oxygen to decompose. As it decomposes, it gives off a toxin. When the blue-green is dense, as it was in this pond, the toxin is concentrated enough to assist killing fish. So, between an oxygen depletion and just enough toxin to affect some of the fish, there was a fish kill. The long term solution is to move the water using aeration. Ponds, especially urban ponds, struggle with "Nature". The grass around is mowed. It's probably fertilized, too. People manage their yards with all kinds of products from pre-emergents to a variety of fertilizers. All this stuff, when it rains, affects an urban pond. There is no natural filtering system where water runs through wetland plants or filters through shoreline vegetation. So, there's not much that's "Natural" about an urban pond. So, I never count on Nature to take care of it. Fountains are pretty, but they don't aerate a pond. All they do is move the top three feet. In order to keep a blue-green algae bloom from doing what it did in this pond one of several things must happen. Someone who understands and knows how to "read" a bloom must watch it and know when to use an algaecide to treat it. Or, when it rains (which is what probably triggered the blue green die off in this case), a manager knows it best to drain stagnant water off the bottom, Or if the pond is property aerated in the spring and summer the bloom would have probably not happened and the fish would be alive and healthy today.

BassFishinMagician, I'm in my 30th year as a private fisheries biologist and lake management consultant. Most of those years have been spent helping people design, build, stock and manage private fishing lakes. All of those years have been spent learning. For me, it is a driving passion, something I think about incessantly, yearning to learn and to be the best I can possibly be. But, the essence of what I do is to help people become the best stewards of their land and water as they can possibly be. At the same time, I get to help be the architect to mold land and water resources to improve them ecologically and environmentally for the next five or six generations to come. That's a pretty big deal. For you, follow your passion. The money will come, if you are the best you can be. I would definitely go to college. While I don't necessarily think a college education makes a great biologist, I definitely think that a person who can work their way through a major university, go to class, make good grades and come out the other end with a diploma is someone who has enough discipline and self control to go be whatever they choose to. But, the biggest thing you will get from college is the ability to learn. That sheepskin is a ticket to go out and learn. If your passion is fish, fishing, fisheries biology or something similar, chase it. The biggest problem with college, in my humble opinion, is that most of them are out of tune with the reality of this business in the private sector. They tend to crank out students and send them into the public sector. The model for that is low pay, safe job, good benefits. Those of us on the private side are paid well, no benefits unless we buy them and weird hours. But, our side is exceptionally rewarding. One thing to be aware of, though...if your mission is to make a lot of money, don't be a biologist. It took me almost 20 years to get to the point to make more than a comfortable living. That's not a price most people of your generation are willing to pay. If you wish to take a breath into my world, go to www.pondboss.com and click on "Ask the Boss". Like this great forum, ours is focused on managing lakes and ponds and you can get some outstanding information from our forum members about that topic. Plus, there are a number of fisheries biologists who monitor that site every day and they are willing to chime in and offer you some advice about that career choice. All the best, Bob Lusk

I was asked to chime in on this topic, so here goes. Strictly answering the question....I think about several things, in this order. Morally...if that bass were larger than 2 1/2 pounds, I wouldn't eat it. I would release it. Large fish have large ways and carry the genes of large fish. They are a proven commodity and deserve to live longer. Ethically...sight fishing is sometimes the only way some people stand a chance to catch big fish predictably. Biologically...you can eat every bass you catch off a nest and it won't make a difference about reproduction. Remember this, each pair of fish is just trying to replace themselves when they spawn. It's a physical improbability to catch every bass off every nest in any given body of water. If one pair of bass successfully reproduces, there's enough young of the year to replenish an entire system. Keep in mind that most public lakes carry as little as 25 pounds of bass per acre and some carry as much as 60, maybe 70 pounds of bass per acre. That's not many fish. One spawn from an 8 pound female could statistically yield 30,000 baby bass, enough to restock 600 acres of water from scratch. Here's my bottom line about this question. Biologically, the answer is it makes no difference about reproduction. The biggest biological difference is the time, effort and food chain a big fish needed to grow to larger sizes. The answer, in my book, is ethical and moral, rather than biological. That makes the answers controversial and lends to such a fun thread as this. My answer is simple. If that fish were smaller than 2.5 pounds, I would be pleased to eat it.

53 acres is a nice lake. You will probably harvest 1,000-1,500 bass before you see a change in growth patterns...so go fishing! Threadfin shad are a good idea, but you are a little too far north for them to be of much help. They die at 42 degrees and it takes at least 60 days of warm weather for babies to grow large enough to become significant for food for larger bass. And, stocking them right now, into an overcrowded bass lake probably won't work because they become more of a snack than a reproducing source of forage fish. I still think you should spend effort on reducing bass numbers and increasing bluegill populations. American pondweed is outstanding in a lake such as this. You may have to get creative to get it to grow....maybe put up a small cage and plant some inside. The cage will keep out the critters which like to eat aquatic plants...fish, turtles, some kinds of birds. I think you have a good plan and it will work. If you get a minute, spend some time on the discussion forum at pondboss.com and you can get some good ideas of other things you can do.

Catch and release is a tool that fisheries biologists use to allow fish to grow. It is only a temporary tool. For example, catch and release is used where populations of fish are under heavy fishing pressure, especially young lakes. Catch and release is only used to protect fish to allow them to continue to grow. But, each lake eventually reaches a point where catch and release is detrimental. I've personally seen hundreds of private lakes ruined by practicing catch and release. Here's what I mean. A lake is similar to a garden. It fills with water, we stock it and the fish grow. At some point, there's a bounty. The biologist's job is to figure out what the bounty is and begin harvest. That's where "slot limits" come into play. If a lake isn't properly harvested, certain size ranges of fish become overpopulated and begin to run out of food. When that happens, their growth rates plummet and they begin to lose weight. So, here's your answer. Catch and release is a great tool for new lakes or for fish populations that need to be protected for a given amount of time. Catch and release, if practiced too long, can ruin a fishery. Every fishery is dynamic. It ebbs and flows, fish spawn, grow, are eaten and eat each other. When the predator base grows too large, the dynamics cease. When that happens, the fishery produces fish that no one wants.

Keep doing what you are doing. The best thing for smaller waters like that is to remove the small fish. The reason you aren't catching 2-4 pound bass is because the population is "stuck" at the small sizes. There are too many mouths to feed. Once you remove enough bass, the remaining ones will begin to grow larger. At that point, the bluegill will have better survival of young and their young will more significant meals. Here's a point. When a baby fish is first hatched, especially bass and other sunfish such as bluegill and crappie, they weigh about 12,000 per pound. If they can live as long as 50 days, they grow to weigh about 30 per pound. Right now, when a fish is first hatched and dares come off a nest, it is immediately eaten by small fish. Reducing the numbers of 10-12" bass improves the odds of survival of ALL young fish, replenishing the population and feeding the whole lake. The reason you see large fish is because you have figured out how to congregate them from open water. And, think about what those big fish have to eat. They have the entire population of fish to choose from. A four pound (or larger) bass can eat almost any fish in that lake. It makes its living from the small bass. You are doing the right thing. You asked what else you can do to improve the lake. If your goal is to grow large bass, here are a few ideas. 1) Keep a fishing log. Weigh and measure and record every fish you catch, along with the date. If you're really into it, log those numbers into an Excell spreadsheet and look at them on an x-y graph. As the numbers of fish begin to come in line with "balance", you will see it on the graph. The weights will become heavier as the numbers drop into the right population size for the food chain. Also, look at the numbers of fish you catch during a given period of time. As the numbers of small bass are reduced, you can study a bar graph. The bar graph should be a bell curve. Right now, it's not. As you manage the lake by harvesting fish, you will begin to see a bell curve when the fishery comes into balance. After the bell curve is formed, you will begin to see it move to the right, as the entire population of fish stays balanced and begins to grow "normally." 2) Keep adding structure/cover to the lake, but be thoughtful how you do it. Fish need travel paths, they need "funnels" and don't forget about your forage fish, either. Bluegill need dense cover in which to hide, something like thick aquatic plants peripherally or cedar trees in a pile, maybe 6 feet by 6 feet in water 8 feet deep. 3) Remove non-target fish such as crappie. You don't mention how large this lake is, but if it is smaller than about 25 acres, the crappie are part of the food chain problem. 4) Consider feeding the bluegill sunfish. Bluegill respond well to fish food. When fed, they grow larger and produce more eggs. More eggs means more babies. More babies means more bass. Keep it up, you are on the right track

Hey guys, my email address is pondboss@texoma.net if you want to send a message. Regarding fish for Connecticut, first contact the DNR and see if there are any hatcheries in the state and to find out what the laws are. I know two people not too far away. One is Glenn Sullivan with Allied Biological. Try www.alliedbiological.com. They are in New Jersey. Another one is Virginia Lake Management. They, too have a website.

Guys, once a female bass finishes spawning, her ovaries shrink and she immediately begins to develop eggs for the next year. It takes months for eggs to grow and develop. It's common, even expected, to see ovaries with tiny eggs in it not long after the spawn.

Set your goals first. Build the food chain for your game fish by stocking the appropriate forage fish...for bass, those forage fish are bluegill and fathead minnows for a new pond. Stock bluegill at a rate you can afford. Money is time, time is money. If you have more time than money, stock fewer forage fish and wait longer to stock bass. If you have a fast food mindset, stock heavy with the forage fish this fall and then stock your bass next spring. If you get a minute, head to www.pondboss.com and spend some time on the forum. Also, click on the home page and listen to our first podcast and you will get some good hints about where to start. You've spent the money to move the dirt, so don't sell your pond short by improperly stocking it. Study, do your due diligence and it will pay big dividends over the long haul.

The only positive way to be sure is to have a fish pathologist look at the fish. The first time I saw it, there were little bumps all over 4" bluegills in a fish hatchery. They tried to sell me the fish, but there was no way. They had the fish tested, found out what it was and destroyed the entire pond's inventory. If anyone catches a fish like that and you want to have it tested, put it on ice and make some phone calls. If there is a university with a fisheries department in your state, call them and find out where the nearest fish pathologist is. Follow their instruction. For everyone else, if you catch a fish with "tumors" on it, remove it from the system. At the very least, you will do no harm to the fishery. At best, you keep a virus from spreading. FYI, that virus doesn't affect humans.

That does look like Lymphocystis. They are tumors caused by a contagious virus. The virus normally attacks a fish from the outside, entering through a lesion or break in the skin. The virus infects the fish and the tumors form. Then, they burst and the virus is released into the water, to infect more fish and spread the virus. It was a good call to remove that fish.