Bass pond with no other fish

[sarce]

Hey guys,

My friend and I were fishing a pond at the far headwaters of a trout stream in MD yesterday and experienced some pretty good bass fishing. I found it last year thinking it might hold brook trout. I've been back a few times and turns out it appears to hold largemouth bass, and ONLY largemouths. Like, no minnows, no bluegills, no other fish of any kind.

I've never seen a pond before with no sunfish species present. i know of stormwater ponds that are 2 years old and were never stocked and are not connected to a stream that have a variety of small panfish. What gives? Did the bass simply eat everything else? The bass are stunted, no doubt due to lack of fish forage. I didn't realize they could completely wipe out other fish, if that's what has happened. I don't understand why this place isn't loaded with panfish.

Thoughts?

 

[Dave_W]

sarce wrote:
Hey guys,
I've never seen a pond before with no sunfish species present. What gives? Thoughts?

I dunno - beats me.

Are you sure there are no other fishes?

I agree, if there is only bass, that this would be highly unusual. Considering that it is in a headwaters pond of a trout stream suggests to me that other fish would be present as they would migrate within the watershed: dace, crayfish, darters, shiners, chubs, etc. . .thay all ought to be prevalent to some degree. I'd think that redbreast or green sunfish would colonize this pond too.
Definitely strange.

 

[Mike]

Still another case against strictly C&R. More times than not bass ponds with little or no harvest produce single species, stunted populations at lengths at which they then can't be legally harvested.. The bass typically stunt between 9-11 inches. Yes, they eventually wipe out the bluegills, although prior to that the bluegill population is comprised of almost exclusively large fish. These ponds may have an occasional large bass, but " management" is strictly for a bass on bass population...cannibalism. It works, but provides boring fishing after a while.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I disagree.

The pond I grew up on we stocked with bluegill, sunfish, bass and crappie. After moving and not returning for about 10 years, the entire population of panfish were gone. What was left were bass in the 5-10lb range that were eating the small bass. Only after a new move in neighbor harvested those fish did the fishing get boring.
Because there was nothing left but small bass.

After some conversations with the guy has it now been restocked with panfish. It will take time to reach what it once was.
The agruement is not that C&R made it boring, in fact the opposite.
It needed forage fish not harvest.

Currently I have been fishing another pond here in Lancaster that has bass in the 5-7lb class and no panfish. Being a closed ecosystem other than being fed by storm water runoff from a sewer drain, my guess is the bass are getting big on frogs and grubs of some sort.
However, it does have carp of various species. It may be that they are eating young carp and carp eggs also.

It's very curious you posted this as it has been something I've been pondering all this season.

 

[SteveG]

Yeah, I think "blaming" that situation on c&r is flawed logic/ trying to make a result follow a thesis. The whole notion that human harvest is needed to have a population with varied sizes is laughable. Natural has built in predation via cannibalism, herons, etc. Plus, this is a farm pond, which are generally fairly small and a closed system, not a large lake or stream system.

 

[sarce]

Interesting replies guys. I appreciate the insight.

As for it being connected to a trout stream - in the area of the pond, the stream is a trickle and only holds dace. Ive seen a couple around the inflow to the pond. A few hundred feet below the dam, the stream goes underground for a bit, then resurfaces as a very small mountain brookie stream. The pond itself is at about 1500' elevation, basically on top of a mountain.

You can wade an entire bank and there are reeds in the water where you would expect to see the young of any other fish varieties. Only a handful of small bass will be along those grasses as well as a lot of newts. But no other fish

 

[Mike]

The problem that Sarce described is common within the variety of small pond fishery problems that exist in SE Pa and elsewhere. The the most common pond fish community, the bass-bluegill combo, gets out of balance because of too much harvest of one or the other species or not enough harvest. Maintaining balance is key.

In my experience those with the specific problem of a BG disappearance and an abundance of stunted bass have been C&R or not fished. No doubt that forage would be helpful, but by the time the ponds get to this state bass are usually abundant enough and hungry enough that a reproducing forage fish base can't be established. Many farm ponds have limited resemblances to natural systems.

I suggest reviewing info on proportional stock densities in bass-bluegill ponds.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

http://www.stat.wvu.edu/~gmerovic/WMAN445_files/WMAN445_BG-LMB_ponds.pdf

For anyone interested in PSD.
Without knowing the given situation it's entirely possible the pond was over harvested. See examples in study.

Being that ponds do not resemble natural ecosystems, not knowing the current situation of this pond and why you are seeing what you are seeing I would call it bad science to use this example to black eye C&R.
Each situation is unique. I find it funny that glory lake (really a pond) seems to have a very good mix of large /small bass, large/small prey fish and is all C&R.
At the end of the study it notes pond managers having success with supplemental prey stockings. This is how we managed our pond for 10 years. Worked great for us until they stopped. Then came the over harvest of bass and it killed the fishing.

Balance is key true but current regulations on harvest of panfish and bass are simpily not sustainable for small ponds.

 

[SteveG]

Wait, isn't limiting out every day "balance"?

 

[Wildbrowntrout]

I go to a cabin with a pond that contains bass, bluegill, and pumpkinseed. There are so many bass in the pond, and tons of bluegill and pumpkinseeds, but you never see any small panfish. A pond survey suggested the bass eat all of the panfish fry since they spawn after the bass. Suggested solution to grow bigger bass was to remove most of the bass under 10" and release the rest. Also not to remove any panfish. We now have many bass reported to be 3-4lbs and a lot small fish, but only big panfish. There are no other forage fish besides them, so eventually when the bass eat all of the panfish fry, and the older ones die, there should be none left. This could be a similar situation to what is happening here. We are now putting 12"+ bluegills in the 1-2 acre pond, that will make them fun to catch, just not good for the other fish. The inlet to this pond contains no fish and the outlet also has no fish, but it does run into a wild trout stream with brookies and brownies.

 

[geebee]

maybe the panfish are too small for you see or catch ?

bass have to live on something don't they ?

 

[sarce]

Nah, the water is super clear and it's unlikely that I am missing them. I think their main food is dragonfly nymphs and presumably crayfish though I haven't seen those in the pond either.

Sounds like they ate everything. I didn't think it was possible because sunfish are such prolific breeders. I always hear about how sunnies just tend to overpopulate wherever they live without harvest. The locals aren't necessarily of the C&R mindset, but I think the pond is remote enough to qualify as "never fished"

 

[henrydavid]

I fished a private pond with a fishing club quite a few years ago. The owner then told me they had put in cement blocks sideways all along the one side of the pond, and stocked fathead minnows. The bait fish were able to hide within the cement blocks and grow bigger.

The bass in this pond were huge, trophy sized, some large crappies as well. I don't recall any huge blue gills but it did have a population of them as well as perch.

I suppose that is an example of "supplemental prey stockings".

 

[RyanR]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
I disagree.

The pond I grew up on we stocked with bluegill, sunfish, bass and crappie. After moving and not returning for about 10 years, the entire population of panfish were gone. What was left were bass in the 5-10lb range that were eating the small bass. Only after a new move in neighbor harvested those fish did the fishing get boring.
Because there was nothing left but small bass.

After some conversations with the guy has it now been restocked with panfish. It will take time to reach what it once was.
The agruement is not that C&R made it boring, in fact the opposite.
It needed forage fish not harvest.

Currently I have been fishing another pond here in Lancaster that has bass in the 5-7lb class and no panfish. Being a closed ecosystem other than being fed by storm water runoff from a sewer drain, my guess is the bass are getting big on frogs and grubs of some sort.
However, it does have carp of various species. It may be that they are eating young carp and carp eggs also.

It's very curious you posted this as it has been something I've been pondering all this season.

Not sure what boring has to do with the health of a fishery but whether you realize it or not your story actually just proved his point. Your pond "just needed forage fish" because long before that the bass population became overpopulated and wiped out the previous forage base and then resorted to eating the smaller bass. Had their been some harvest of bass before that there likely would have been a healthy fishery with varying age classes of both bass and forage fish.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Well boring was Mikes term not mine.

Actually Mike is correct that in a pond harvest in a balancing fashion is needed to sustain a healthy fishery. However, Mike never said this or any of the such in his first post before I responded.
You are incorrect about the pond I was talking about. It never became over populated with bass. In fact it only had very large bass and carp in the end before they were harvested.
I

My point, though I guess I never made it, is that as a pond manager you do need to strike a balance to get a healthy fishery. You know what's going on and coming out. In the public arena though, there is no way for an angler to know what previous anglers have harvested. How do you strike that balance? If you are just gonna throw your arms up and say, "well my fisheries biologist said harvest on ponds makes them healthy and I shouldn't C&R", expect to have poor fishing and very quickly.

To use ponds as an example as to why a fisherman shouldn't be strictly C&R is bad science. All fisheries and fisherman a different, you can not make blanket statements. Perhaps the C&R crowd balances out the meat hunters but I doubt it.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Oh and I'd like to add that if you re read what I wrote we managed that pond very well. We didn't have to add bass Though, we only had to add panfish from time to time. The main reason for this was natural predators. That pond was full of snapping turtles and big ones at that. Seen quite a few take out sunfish there.
It was only after leaving it alone for nearly 10 years did the panfish population crash and large bass were left.
It was a real joy to fish before they harvested those fish. Not many places you find 28" largemouth bass in pa.

 

[RyanR]

Not even sure where to begin. Let me just point out you say you managed the pond very well, okay but you weren't there for 10yrs so you didn't manage it then at all. And what happened? For some reason all the other prey species disappeared and all that was left was large bass and they were then eating the small bass because the proper forage base had disappeared. That's my point about the pond becoming overpopulated with just them (perhaps I should've said ONLY populated with large bass.) In a case like that what has to happen to bring back some balance? Typically a forage base needs to be reintroduced and a good number of those large bass need to be harvested to allow the forage base to establish itself in order to sustain a healthy pond fishery with a balanced size & age class of each species.

Hard to say what caused the ponds imbalance and the loss of all the forage fish but it certainly could be attributed to not harvesting any of the bass to the point their numbers became too many for the available forage to still thrive and sustain the predators. It's a sound theory, one that has happened before on other water. Sometimes that's exactly what happens with strict adherence to C&R versus some type of selective harvest. Have a good one.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Understandable and I totally get it.

Now tell me, when a pond is open to the public like in greenfield here in Lancaster, that sees 15 anglers a weekend, do you think the one guy that is only C&R is upsetting the balance?
Doubtful. Likely he is making the fishing better for himself and the 14 others that harvested ever legal fish they catch.

Some people should C&R, I don't think you are acknowledging my point or are avoiding it. Public fishing arenas are far different than private ponds.

 

[RyanR]

Of course not but it's also irrelevant to what had actually been discussed.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Oh is it?

I was simpily replying to the notion of " Still another case against strictly C&R." It is not. See Mikes science on this subject is sound until you apply it to public fishing ponds, coupled with the fact that NOT everyone is C&R. I can't even tell you how many times I get looks when I release a good fish or I'm asked, why didn'tcha keep any?
So where is this strictly C&R coming from?
Read the link I sent earlier, over harvest could have been the culprit that sent scare's pond off balance but we are only discussing C&R?
No one knows what happened.

I don't know if you have been paying attention to the constant assault on C&R regs/special regs and anglers and it is only going to get worse in this state. Wait until the new commish gets in....
The phrase does not jive, "still ANOTHER case AGAINST strictly C&R."
C&R is a management tool. So where are C&R success stories? I have heard of none from Mike but there is plenty. I can name many but you will never hear about them from him. The fact is he hones in on only trying to change the 1%'s mind on the subject. I've even seen things people say on this message board be used as science in meetings about how a fishery should be managed. So yes please more against C&R? :roll:

Most people according to Thier own creel surveys on trout streams use C&R( data I believe to be skewed but ok). So why the constant resistance to it and why are you trying to change the 1%'s mind? To be fair to Mike most people here ARE too much about C&R and could open up to some harvest. It's not the end of the world to take some fish. So to his credit I understand this but still, why so negative to it all the time? Frankly we need the 1% releasing fish so there are legal size fish it seems. Especially in the warm water areas because I have witnessed nothing but creel away(aside from Susquehanna anglers.)

But thank you for reminding me that anyone not named salvelinusfontinalis can expand on other subjects on any thread.
Have a good one indeed.