100_0692

Comment

Comment by Walt Foreman on February 5, 2013 at 9:20am

I agree with Tony.  As someone who has spent more than any sane, non-wealthy person would on ponds and lakes he doesn't own, over the last three and a half years, trying to get the bluegill to world-class size in the hopes that anglers might come from all over to pay to fish those ponds, I can tell you that it's anything but a simple matter to get bluegill to the size they are now at Richmond Mill.  I believe I'll be able to do it in these ponds I'm working with, but I have fourteen years of pond management experience, and have been managing ponds on and off since 1987; and even with spending a small fortune on these ponds and lakes and constantly monitoring and making changes, everything from stocking hordes of largemouth to pike to muskie to blue catfish as predators, to stocking multiple kinds of forage such as grass shrimp, and fertilizing some of the ponds to amp up the natural food chain of invertebrates, there's no guarantee I'll be able to get them to where two-pounders are common.  I think I will; but it is worlds, worlds away from being easy.  

I hope to compete with Richmond Mill for bluegill anglers.  But make no mistake: what has been done with that lake is anything but routine; it is most definitely an accomplishment, and anyone who thinks otherwise has never tried to grow bluegill that big.

As to the notion that catching pellet-fed fish is like shooting fish in a barrel, this holds even less water than the idea that somehow a two-pounder grown on pellets is not legit.  I actually lost a client last summer when a 27-acre lake I was managing elected a new president for their lake committee, and though that person knew nothing about fisheries management, he was able to convince the committee to discontinue the feeding program (and my management) because he claimed it was making the fish harder to catch.  I would submit that the problem was that he was not that great of a fisherman; but his perception became the lake's reality.  

Getting a pond or lake to where there are numbers of bluegill over a pound requires achieving a low density of bluegill in the body of water, even if they're being fed; and when you reach that low density, that means they're well-fed and harder to find, and all of this translates to fish that are anything but a snap to catch.  The first time I fished my best pond last spring, I thought it had been wiped out completely, because I and the owner and his son fished for an hour and the owner was ready to quit because none of us got a single bite.  Turns out there were still some bluegill in that pond, some very big ones; they just weren't biting.  The last time I fished that pond, the first week of November, I and another very skilled bluegill fisherman fished it hard for three hours, and caught three bluegill.  We caught several small bass; but the bluegill were not in the mood to be shot in a barrel.

If you fish any body of water that has numbers of fish of a certain size, in the case of RM two-pound bluegill, just by virtue of basic probability you're going to have a much better chance of landing a two-pounder than if you fish a body of water that hasn't produced a bluegill that size in twenty years.  Catching a two-pound bluegill out of most lakes isn't skill; it's blind luck, because they're so rare that you have about as good of a chance of getting struck by lightning as you do catching one.  There are a handful of exceptions, mainly lakes in southern California that get pounded so heavily with fishing pressure that two-pounders have become uncommon even in some of those lakes where they used to be common.

Lake Barkley is a reservoir, not a natural lake; its water level is regularly manipulated by humans; it receives run-off from agricultural land that adds to its fertility and food chain; it has fish attractors that have been placed in it by TWRA, and also has daily limits.  (to be continued - word limit)

Comment by David, aka, "McScruff" on February 5, 2013 at 9:11am

Thanks, Robbie, for the viewpoint. For most anglers, guided trips at Richmond Mill (or most anywhere else) are a dream. At best, they are an occasional thing. However, it is always of value to learn how things work in such idyllic environments. I caught this particular line of thinking from your comments:

"I've spent 3 1/2 years learning to catch these 2 pound plus bluegills and they can be super tricky.  They travel and use the whole 120 acres.... So they are always on the move to eat. Pretty much all the 2 1/2lb-3lb. plus bluegills we have caught are in or near channels or off shore structure."

Thanks again for the insight. Im certain we can all take something useful from this, wherever we fish.

Comment by Robbie Everett on February 5, 2013 at 8:54am

Guys, One key factor to remember about fishing at Richmond Mill, is that the clients are fishing with some really really good guides.  I've spend 3 1/2 years learning to catch these 2 pound plus bluegills and they can be super tricky.  They travel and use the whole 120 acres.  Its totally not like fishing a fish hatchery.  These fish eat some of the fish pellets but eat tons of the natural food in the lake.  So they are always on the move to eat.  They're pretty amazing.  Last April and May, I think I guided 50 of 60 days for 2 pound plus bluegills.  All but one client got his 2 pd + bluegill(the one that didn't, got 9 bluegill that were 1lb.14oz.-1lb.15oz.).  Pretty much all the 2 1/2lb-3lb. plus bluegills we have caught are in or near channels or off shore structure.  So they are the hardest to figure out and catch.  Just my 10 cent's worth. 

Comment by LedHed on February 5, 2013 at 8:47am

Nice frisbee....

Comment by Tony Livingston on February 5, 2013 at 5:59am

I don't know about North Carolina, but here in Indiana a fish that is on an artificial feeding program is not eligible for record status. And that's fine with me, as I'm not chasing state records, I'm just having fun seeing how large the fish will get. I understand the viewpoint that declares a fed fish to not be "natural", but I admit to being just a little puzzled.

What aspect of feeding renders the fish unsuitable for serious pursuit by an angler? A trophy BG gets that size due to a handful of factors, including but not limited to: water quality, predator/prey relationship, genetics, and optimum forage availability. 

Notice I said forage, not food.....in the wild, a BG actively hunts and even pursues his dinner. That effort expends energy, which has to be balanced against the total energy available in the prey that he's after. In human terms, when we want to lose weight we need to burn more calories per day than we take in. For a fish to gain weight, we need the opposite to happen. So yes, artificial feed is high in nutrients necessary to increase the growth rate, but the fish also sees an advantage by not having to chase down his lunch....that pellet just sits there, waiting not escaping.

So, by that way of thinking, what happens if we replace the artificial pellets with slow moving, easy to catch prey items? What if we add grass shrimp every day instead of Aquamax? What if we could find a way to introduce all natural forage in such a manner that there was an insect hatch of some kind occuring every few days during the growing season...easy to catch food, right at the water's surface....it's not artificial, but the fish are going to grow a lot quicker and bigger that way than if they were left unattended. How does that scenario play out?

As I stated before, I understand and respect that line of thinking. But I've noticed on many occasions when someone uses the fish in a barrel analogy, that often they've never actually fished in such a barrel before themselves. Or perhaps we might envision a scenario where the state would undertake a project to implement a feeding program on a particular BOW as a trial program. Would the fact that it was done on a public lake make a difference? I'm betting it would.....I think that oftentimes, it's not the feeding program that draws the disdain, it's the fact that more often than not, it's done on private water...out of reach of many anglers.

Comment by Troy Dorman on February 4, 2013 at 8:27pm

I've always held the same beliefs as Jeff, it appears to be a wonderful BOW to fish but it's not natural...that just takes so much out of the accomplishment from my perspective. I'm going to Barkley Lake for a week around the second week of May and I would consider a 1 3/4-2lb shellcracker a true trophy from natural conditions that I would be ten times more proud of, just my opinion. If they're feeding these fish around the clock, then it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Would the state even honor a record fish out of this type of environment and should they is a better question?

Comment by dick tabbert on February 3, 2013 at 5:31pm

What a great looking fish.

Comment by Tony Livingston on February 3, 2013 at 4:26pm

Ooohh I've heard about Barrett! Would love to fish there! Catch and release only, no live bait allowed.

It's on the "list"....

Comment by Jeff Soto on February 3, 2013 at 4:17pm

Great comment Tony, and actually I have a lake very similar to Richmond Mill here in southern California, called Lake Barrett. 

Comment by Tony Livingston on February 3, 2013 at 4:05pm

I think it's like any other aspect of fishing. Where does one draw the line? Do we fish with horsehair, because that's natural, or do we spool with braid or floro? Do we take advantage of the spawn to concentrate the largest fish for us? Electronic fishfinders? Scents and attractants? Or should we limit ourselves to walking the shoreline with a sharpened stick in hand? What about the longer growing season in the warmer regions....those fish have a much greater chance to grow large when compared to regions of the country that experience cold winters....Shouldn't we expect to catch giant Coppernose quite regularly from these types of waters?

 

I understand this line of thought, and I do think it carries a certain merit. Still, just because a BOW holds a number of larger than usual BG, whether caused from an abundance of natural forage in a completely hands-off environment, or from eating artificial pellets in a managed lake.....it's still up to the skill of the angler to put them in the boat. I look at it likde this: Whenever I see or hear of an angler who catches an extraordinarily large Bluegill, I am of course happy and excited for the angler, and anxious to see the fish itself. But, in many instances those solitary large fish were actually caught by accident, or simple luck of the draw....many while fishing for another species entirely. While the fish itself is impressive, how does this reflect on the angler's abilities? By accident? Just lucky?

Yes, RM contains a higher than normal, (natural), amount of large BG. And those fish were able to achieve that condition through skill and dedication of another sort....that of the pond manager. And when an angler sets out to catch one of those fish, he or she does so with the mindset that giant BG are the goal...if one or two, or 23 are caught, it won't be by sheer chance or luck.....it will be due  to his/her abilities, as well as those of the guide.

And although I've never been there, I'm sure that 8-9" BG are in evidence. Different sizes of forage (BG) are necessary to support different size classes of LMB...the key is to properly balance the two, so that both achieve optimum growth. And take it from me, it ain't always as easy as it sounds.

Good observation Jeff and Tooty.....I know that more on here were probably wondering the same thing, and I think it's good to debate the various practices, disciplines, and ideas about what makes for good BG fishing.....everybody wins!

 

 

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page