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.

From my experiences, this is probably one of several possible things. You mentioned five fish. Are there more that aren't thin? It is probably a dynamics problem between predator fish and the lack of prey. It probably won't go away unless something changes...such as harvest of the thin fish and a focused effort to increase and improve the food chain. If these five fish are a fraction of what you caught and the rest are healthy looking, then there is a different problem. It could be these individual fish have lost their food chain. Here's what I mean. Some bass are conditioned to certain areas of a lake or pond and the food sources which live there. Bass don't have the ability to think or reason...they respond to their instincts and conditioning. If, for example, several bass feed primarily on medium size bluegill and they run out of food, they can lose weight rather than leave to hunt. At the same time, other bass are accustomed to hunting and chasing. The third case could be some kind of obstruction in the digestive system of those individual fish. In any of these cases, it is best to remove extremely thin bass from the system. The odds of them recovering are staggering against them. And, if they do, they've lost months, maybe years of growth potential that they can't regain.

Well, since I am the Pond Boss, permit me to chime into this philosophical question...tongue planted firmly in cheek. If the body of water is 3 acres or larger and it's mine, it's a lake. If it's yours, it's a pond. But, if I am buying land with a body of water 3 acres or smaller, it's a pond. If selling same land, it's a lake. Fish on!

I have seen bass grow from fry to 12 inches in 8 months. I have also watched take 7 years to get to 12 inches. Here's the deal...a fish grows as fast as can, based on the amount of food it has, its aggressive nature and its genetic propensity to grow fast. The more food it has, the faster it grows. Here's something you might find interesting. I have managed private lakes all over the south, southeast and the northeast. Believe it or not, lakes and ponds in upstate New York have the same number of "perfect" bass growing days as Texas has. New York has 115-120 "perfect" days. So does Texas. New York's time is compacted into the months of late May until late September. In Texas, those "perfect" days are spread from early March to late November. A "perfect" day is when water temperatures are between 53 and 83 degrees. That's when largemouth bass operate best. The big difference is forage fish availability. New York has many fewer forage fish producing days in a year than lakes and ponds in the south. While we expect a "shorter" growing season prevents bass from having faster growth rates, the truth is that it's all about the forage fish. Thus, in the north, largemouth bass grow much more slowly. As goes the forage fish and food chain, so goes the growth of a bass.

A bass which looks like that did not lose weight due to the spawn. The weight a female bass loses from spawn is just the eggs which she laid. The males lose a little because they don't feed while they defend the nest. This fish has lost flesh due to the need to metabolize it. That means the fish is undernourished or starving. Here's where it gets complicated. It might be starving due to blockage or injury to its digestive system. I've seen fish such as described above, where soft plastics blocked the intestines. I've seen hooks imbedded in the gullet, blocking the throat. I've seen hooks become lodged at the beginning of the intestines, minimizing the route food can take further. It might be old age. Once a bass reaches its maximum age, it deteriorates and starves to death. It could be a disease, although not likely. I have actually seen tumors that I suspect were malignant in the gut of bass. It could be parasites, although not likely. Maybe four or five times in 30 years I have figured out there to be so many roundworms and intestinal parasites in a bass that the parasites actually digested more of the food than the fish did. The other, most common, problem is lack of sufficient food. Fish don't lose that much weight quickly. It can take weeks or months to lose that much body mass as flesh. The bottom line is this...when you see a fish so seriously underweight, that fish is usually dead and doesn't know it. Can it regain its weight? Sure, but something would have to drastically change. The "problem" would need to be quickly corrected for that individual fish to stand a chance to recover and thrive.

Hey Red! I've done quite a bit of work in upstate New York, from west of Rochester to Syracuse and a few points east and south of there. He does need to check in with the NY D.E.C. for suppliers of fish and possible permits for the fish he wishes to stock. Largemouth bass grow exceptionally slowly in upstate NY, mainly because it takes half the growing season to grow the forage fish which feed bass. Because of that little fact, bluegill have gotten a bad name. Bluegill actually grow faster than bass in that part of the world. At the same time, I am of the opinion that he needs bluegill with the fathead minnows to be the backbone of the food chain for his bass. Also, I think he should stock only 50 bass...and stock the larger ones. Another option he has is to buy feed-trained largemouth bass. That way, his fish won't totally depend on forage fish for their entire food chain. He can feed them a high quality fish food and hedge his bets. One quality supplier of feed trained bass is Hickling's Fish Farm near Edmiston, NY.

The advice you are being given is right on. First, assess the pond. Consider bringing in a pro...you can learn a lot from someone who does it for a living. What are your goals? That helps to decide if the pond will do what you want it to. The first thing I always look at is habitat...always. As goes the habitat, so goes what lives in it. At the same time, I look at the structural integrity of the dam and determine if it needs help or is fine as it is. Then, I look at the fishery via electrofishing or angling records. I want to know what species exist and what kind of shape they are in. I also want to know the ratios of young fish to older fish. At the same time, I am evaluating things such as water quality, plant communities and how much shallow water there is. After that, we talk and figure out what to do. More often than not, we aren't stocking fish into an existing pond to make sure it has fish. We often stock it to add missing size classes or to adjust the genetics. Greg Grimes is an excellent choice to help you in your neck of the woods.

Fellas, There are several principles at play here. First, anyone who takes 100-200 fish from any lake at any one time needs a spanking. 'That's an ethical problem. It's greed. For this principle, lake size doesn't matter. Secondly, a lake so large as 200 acres will have a bounty of fish at some point. A fishery tries to be dynamic, changing all the time. Proper harvest of the bounty allows the dynamics to change in a positive way. For example, a 200 acre lake can easily produce 5-10,000 crappie ranging from 9-15" plus all the young of the year. If some adult crappie aren't harvested, the bounty becomes their young. The most extreme example I have seen was a 40 acre lake which had an estimated 170,000 white crappie, average length 4", average age 7 years. That's not the dynamics we want. So, the 200 acre lake definitely benefits from harvesting a reasonable number of crappie, bass and bream. What needs to be determined is what does "reasonable" mean? I suspect a well designed 200 acre lake with plenty of habitat for all species could yield 2,000-4,000 crappie yearly without being overfished. The third principle at play is for the HOA to define their fisheries goals. If their goals are focused on producing quantities of fish for the masses to catch, expect the lake to be overfished and most of the fish will be small. If their goals are to have a balanced fishery, then their harvest regulations need to be monitored and enforced. In my experience with private lakes, game wardens come when they are invited rather than when they are needed. In that case, it's up to the HOA to make and enforce the rules. Most don't have the infrastructure or the backbone to enforce their own rules when it comes to fishing. The fourth principle to understand in this case is what Nature does when a lake is overfished. Let's stay with the deliquent who continues to take 100-200 large crappie, sunfish and bass each trip in the spring. He is catching those fish, especially crappie and sunfish, when they are concentrated to spawn. His window is short, maybe three weeks. But, a handful of people fishing this way can deplete the majority of fish this size during such a short period. However, they won't catch all the fish. The remaining fish will reproduce and try to replenish the missing population to fill the gaps caused by overfishing. Bottom line is this...it may take two or three years for the fishery to respond and become as it was, but with crappie, it can happen. With bass, they are less likely to be overharvested because they tend to not concentrate the same way as crappie and sunfish. Believe it or not, in 200 acres, small bass are usually not overfished. Big ones? Yes. Not small ones. They grow so fast and are so resilient they can replace themselves fairly quickly. Here's my "take home points" for this scenario. If I were the biologist for this HOA, I would fight for the fishery to protect it against greedy anglers and do whatever I could. I would even confront the fishermen myself to explain to them the ethical issues. Second, I would learn that fishery and define its bounty and allow proper harvest to take place. Third, I would focus on the goals of the people and compare those goals to what the lake allows in terms of fish production. Then, we could have a game plan.

Hey guys, had a few minutes this morning and was reading through your thread. First, that catfish is a bullhead. (In Arkansas they're also called mudcat.) In the North, they are considered a spring time delicacy. In the South, they are considered a trash fish. They reproduce prolifically and the young can be one source of forage for overcrowded bass. What are your goals? Do you want a "quantity" fishery, where you can catch lots of bass fast? Do you want a "balanced" pond, where all species of fish are able to thrive? The pond is small, so I wouldn't focus on trying to grow big bass. The next question I would ask is what kind of budget you might have to spend and then I would guide you a little bit as how to plan to spend it. (Send me a pm and I'll respond) Depending on your goals, there are elements you need that you may not have, and vice versa. I will tell you this. Every minnow you toss in will be money wasted. Here's why. The fish which eat minnows in a pond are predator fish. Minnows are 80% water. That means minnows are converted 10 to 1. That means ten pounds of minnows grows one pound of bass. If you pay $30 for 1,000 minnnows which probably weigh about 6 pounds, that means you paid $5 per pound (My guess is that 1,000 minnows in Conway, Arkansas is more like $8-10 per pound from a bait dealer). If you pay $5 per pound for the minnows, it takes $50 worth of minnows for bass to gain a pound. That's like buying a Tootsie Roll Pop and giving it to my 3 yr old grandson. He'll like it, I'll feel like his grandad. We both feel pretty good but that little hunk of candy doesn't do a thing for him. If the minnows were able to grow and reproduce and become selfsustaining, it would be a different story. But, the likelihood of you having overcrowded bass is high. With too many mouths to feed, the minnows would be gone in no time. I suspect you know that, since you are thinking about stocking them every month. I think your idea is logical, there's just a better way. For that same $30 a month, you could pay for a high end feeder and have it paid off in 24 months. And for $1.50 a day, you could feed a high end feed to your bluegill and bullheads and triple that pond's ability to grow bigger and more bluegill (which will develop more eggs and have more babies to feed your bass) and tastier bullheads (they taste like what they eat). Feeding fish with a great feed like Aquamax is a much better way to go, dollar-wise.

I did...when you get a minute, check your email. I sent him one, he responded. If you want his phone number, drop me an email and I'll send it to you.

No apology necessary. It's absolutely easier to make a case to target removal of a particular size class of fish than it is to make general harvest rules, especially minimum length limits, such as the 15 inch one you are dealing with. No fishery is static. They are dynamic. That means a dynamic management strategy is a good idea. There does need to be more information to make the decision to open a temporary season to selectively harvest a size class of fish, but it would be cutting edge thinking and the results would be something to share with the rest of the nation. I think the biggest problem with selective harvest in public lakes is selective enforcement. Game wardens have plenty to do and don't need to deal with different rules for different lakes. So, I bet the fisheries decisions there are rendered more out the practicality of enforcement more than for the biology of that fishery.