Successful Lake Case Studies

Successful Lake Case Studies: Years ago, folks randomly caught fish from neighbors’ lakes, carried them to their pond in a bucket, cheerfully stocked them, and accepted what they caught.  Today’s management science promotes four key principles to achieve optimum water quality and fish development:

Habitat

Food Chain

Genetics

Harvest

Each phase provides a strong link to success. There are no shortcuts.   If one link is overlooked, the fishery will not reach potential.  That may sound like marketing hype, but it’s very true.  Maintaining a professional plan with above principles will create an amazing world beneath your lake’s surface and contribute to a model program.  Our firm does not boast or guarantee anglers will catch trophy fish every cast.  We do pledge to professionally implement the four principles.  If our staff and the lake owner faithfully execute them, we are rewarded with life-long memories.

Please note habitat is the first vital factor.  Without it, young fish don’t have safe havens to escape early predation and contribute future generations of forage.  Bass lack the desired cover for efficient feeding.  All inhabitants miss important features required to thrive.

Producing quality fish brings us to the second requirement–building an off-the-chart food chain for eye-popping growth. Maintaining healthy genetics and harvesting underperforming fish play a key role, but largemouth bass and bluegill only achieve quality status with the opportunity to eat–at will. Bass MUST consume approximately 10-pounds of forage to gain just one, single pound.  If you want to grow 8 to 10-pounders, they must eat 80 t0 100-pounds.  Success requires more than a casual effort.

While managing over 4,000-acres of private water, we have found all ponds behave differently. Consequently, it takes different tactics to maximize parameters. Once you get there, bass will respond. This strategy is designed to create a balanced bass and forage population; so fish sizes are distributed properly and bass relative weights remain healthy. We must establish balanced–healthy populations before proposing future steps that push lakes toward trophy status.

We hope you enjoy these case studies.  Don’t prematurely abandon management efforts before completing the comprehensive analysis.  You’ll be surprised at the potential.

Successful Lake Case Study 1: Water Quality – Habitat

ASF was contacted by a client with a 100-acre lake in Tennessee.  Multiple residents had a goal of excellent fishing. They had been working with a different firm but were not getting results. The first thing we noticed, alkalinity was well below the acceptable minimum of 20 ppm.  The plankton bloom was almost nonexistent.  When shocking the lake, we found relative weights averaged 76.  Bass were crowded at 10-inches and only 4 larger than 17-inches. We implemented a water quality management program with liming and fertilization to ensure visibility was maintained at 18-24 inches. In addition to improving water quality, we shifted forage stocking to bluegill and threadfin shad. After 4-years, relative weight reached 95 during the last survey.  We collected 35 bass over 17 inches.

We were not able to increase weights and lengths solely by improving water quality. However, by improving water quality and overall lake productivity, we turned this large lake around and reached clients’ goals.

 

Successful Lake Case Study 2: Habitat

In 2017, we shocked a very interesting 80-acre lake in Arkansas. This is the only lake we have ever seen where gizzard shad comprised the base of the forage chain. The lake was converted from several commercial catfish ponds. Therefore, water is extremely productive. During our visit, visibility was less than 4-inches. We shocked-up thousands of gizzard shad, but only 35 bluegills and 25 bass. We were amazed that bass relative weights averaged 103. Low numbers of bluegill and bass indicated low annual recruitment into each year’s class. Our theory, bluegill were being eaten immediately because there was no structure for them to hide. Bass were not successful because newly-hatched bass did not have enough small bluegill to eat. They would starve or get eaten by other bass. The typical recommendation for this situation, stock 1,000 bluegill to the acre. However, we knew a good percentage would be eaten before they could reproduce and make a valuable contribution to the population. Another factor, the client did not have the budget to stock 80,000 fish. Over the next two years, we installed bluegill structure. Material included over 200 Christmas trees, 300 pallets, and old farm equipment. Within 2-years, the bluegill population rebounded and bass numbers increased. Relative weights jumped to 107, including one bass that was 130.

 

Successful Lake Case Study 3: Forage

We designed a 65-acre all-female bass lake in Georgia. Initial stockers ranged from 0.3 pounds to 9 pounds. We had two major concerns starting a brand new pond with such large fish. They could decimate the population before it had enough time to reproduce and become established, and larger fish would not have enough large forage to grow at a maximum rate. To overcome these issues, we stocked a variety of fish species and sizes. We stocked 2,000 copper nose bluegill per acre, 1,500 large shiners per acre, and 6 loads of threadfin shad in the spring. We limed the lake, started a fertilization program, and installed 10 feeders.  The next winter, we started stocking bass. Each bass was weighed, measured, and pit tagged so we could track growth. We monitored forage and found only threadfin shad needed supplementing. Over the next year, bass were captured with electrofishing and rod and reel. Each fish was weighed and measured. Data was recorded based on the pit tag. While some did lose weight, a very high percentage, across all sizes, had grown exceptionally well. Many with stocker weights under 0.5 pounds had reached 2- pounds in 215-days. A 4.4-pound bass reached over 8-pounds in just 316-days. This extreme example shows the right amount–and size–of forage can help push bass maximum growth potential. It is also a reminder, even with a perfect environment, not all bass perform well. We saw bass stocked at 6.4 pounds drop to 4.8 pounds.

Numbers:

STRAIN	STOCKING WGT (lbs)	STOCKING Wr	DAYS IN LAKE	RECAP WGT (lbs)	RECAP Wr	WEIGHT GAIN (lbs)	% Growth
TIGER	0.242	N/A	215	1.628	89	1.386	572.7%
NORTHERN	0.814	90	215	1.65	81	0.836	102.7%
NORTHERN	0.374	N/A	215	1.738	86	1.364	364.7%
NORTHERN	0.352	N/A	215	1.804	87	1.452	412.5%
TIGER	0.506	N/A	258	1.804	122	1.298	256.5%
TIGER	0.33	N/A	215	1.87	114	1.54	466.7%
NORTHERN	0.902	115	215	1.892	93	0.99	109.8%
NORTHERN	0.462	N/A	215	1.892	93	1.43	309.5%
NORTHERN	0.462	92	215	1.892	93	1.43	309.5%
NORTHERN	0.33	N/A	215	1.914	94	1.584	480.0%
TIGER	0.44	N/A	258	1.958	97	1.518	345.0%
TIGER	0.418	N/A	243	1.958	97	1.54	368.4%
TIGER	0.198	N/A	215	1.98	108	1.782	900.0%
TIGER	0.396	N/A	243	2.002	99	1.606	405.6%
TIGER	0.484	96	243	2.002	122	1.518	313.6%
TIGER	0.616	102	243	2.046	91	1.43	232.1%
TIGER	0.374	N/A	243	2.09	103	1.716	458.8%
NORTHERN	1.54	94	263	2.112	94	0.572	37.1%
TIGER	0.33	102	215	2.112	94	1.782	540.0%
TIGER	0.264	N/A	215	2.112	104	1.848	700.0%
NORTHERN	1.012	99	263	2.178	97	1.166	115.2%
NORTHERN	0.77	99	215	2.2	98	1.43	185.7%
NORTHERN	1.342	102	263	2.2	108	0.858	63.9%
TIGER	0.308	N/A	258	2.2	108	1.892	614.3%
TIGER	0.462	N/A	258	2.2	120	1.738	376.2%
TIGER	0.55	90	243	2.266	92	1.716	312.0%
TIGER	0.374	N/A	258	2.266	101	1.892	505.9%
NORTHERN	0.616	91	215	2.288	84	1.672	271.4%
NORTHERN	0.792	101	215	2.288	92	1.496	188.9%
TIGER	0.528	106	258	2.31	103	1.782	337.5%
TIGER	0.88	98	215	2.354	86	1.474	167.5%
TIGER	0.506	102	258	2.376	106	1.87	369.6%
TIGER	0.55	110	258	2.398	97	1.848	336.0%
NORTHERN	0.792	101	215	2.464	99	1.672	211.1%
TIGER	0.528	106	258	2.464	99	1.936	366.7%
NORTHERN	2.178	97	215	2.552	85	0.374	17.2%
NORTHERN	1.738	95	263	2.552	103	0.814	46.8%
TIGER	0.902	132	258	2.552	113	1.65	182.9%
TIGER	0.242	N/A	288	2.552	126	2.31	954.5%
TIGER	1.122	110	258	2.574	94	1.452	129.4%
TIGER	0.968	124	258	2.574	104	1.606	165.9%
TIGER	0.638	94	243	2.574	104	1.936	303.4%
TIGER	1.364	151	258	2.64	106	1.276	93.5%
TIGER	0.616	102	258	2.64	117	2.024	328.6%
TIGER	0.374	N/A	258	2.64	117	2.266	605.9%
TIGER	0.396	N/A	258	2.662	107	2.266	572.2%
TIGER	0.594	97	258	2.706	109	2.112	355.6%
NORTHERN	0.792	101	215	2.728	100	1.936	244.4%
NORTHERN	1.826	112	263	2.75	111	0.924	50.6%
NORTHERN	0.66	97	215	2.794	102	2.134	323.3%
TIGER	0.726	107	288	2.816	114	2.09	287.9%
TIGER	0.704	90	258	2.838	104	2.134	303.1%
TIGER	0.704	103	258	2.86	115	2.156	306.3%
TIGER	0.726	107	243	2.904	117	2.178	300.0%
TIGER	0.484	79	258	2.948	108	2.464	509.1%
NORTHERN	1.144	98	215	2.992	110	1.848	161.5%
NORTHERN	2.046	125	263	3.08	113	1.034	50.5%
TIGER	0.77	113	258	3.124	114	2.354	305.7%
NORTHERN	1.65	101	263	3.146	105	1.496	90.7%
TIGER	0.99	110	258	3.168	106	2.178	220.0%
NORTHERN	1.804	98	263	3.344	102	1.54	85.4%
NORTHERN	2.156	118	263	3.872	118	1.716	79.6%
FLORIDA	4.246	119	243	4.092	97	-0.154	-3.6%
FLORIDA	4.268	101	243	4.752	103	0.484	11.3%
FLORIDA	4.114	106	243	4.84	98	0.726	17.6%
FLORIDA	6.402	103	277	4.862	84	-1.54	-24.1%
FLORIDA	4.73	95	277	5.038	102	0.308	6.5%
NORTHERN	2.442	108	263	5.104	131	2.662	109.0%
FLORIDA	4.07	82	316	5.126	96	1.056	25.9%
FLORIDA	4.18	84	277	5.258	91	1.078	25.8%
FLORIDA	4.114	90	277	5.61	105	1.496	36.4%
FLORIDA	5.698	99	267	5.742	99	0.044	0.8%
FLORIDA	4.796	97	277	5.83	101	1.034	21.6%
FLORIDA	5.918	111	243	5.852	101	-0.066	-1.1%
FLORIDA	3.938	93	194	5.984	121	2.046	52.0%
FLORIDA	3.652	94	243	6.006	121	2.354	64.5%
FLORIDA	3.652	94	243	6.028	113	2.376	65.1%
FLORIDA	5.126	89	316	6.072	98	0.946	18.5%
FLORIDA	4.18	84	277	6.072	98	1.892	45.3%
FLORIDA	3.938	93	184	6.204	116	2.266	57.5%
FLORIDA	4.972	86	267	6.424	111	1.452	29.2%
FLORIDA	4.73	88	316	6.468	104	1.738	36.7%
FLORIDA	4.488	106	277	7.062	122	2.574	57.4%
FLORIDA	4.488	78	267	7.238	101	2.75	61.3%
FLORIDA	4.444	90	277	7.26	117	2.816	63.4%
FLORIDA	6.446	104	316	7.48	112	1.034	16.0%
FLORIDA	4.488	84	267	7.656	115	3.168	70.6%
FLORIDA	4.422	96	316	8.052	121	3.63	82.1%
FLORIDA	7.128	107	243	8.448	118	1.32	18.5%
FLORIDA	5.258	85	267	8.778	115	3.52	66.9%

 

Conclusions

Furthermore, American Sport Fish has produced millions of sport fish and managed lakes for over 30-years. We have developed hundreds of management plans for a wide variety of lakes, but they all key on:

                          1)  Making sure that the lake has the right water quality.

                          2)  Proper habitat.

                          3)  Adequate forage.

Once a lake is balanced and bass are growing appropriately, we can:

                           1)  Increase the level of management.

                           2)  Consider stocking additional forage species.

                           3)  Improve bass genetics.

                           4)  Increase harvest to slide the scale toward trophy bass.

But, no matter what the overall goal, bass need:

                           1) 10-pounds of forage to add 1-pound of flesh.

                           2)  Balanced lake conditions outlined in case studies.    

One last example regarding vegetation.  A new customer had been quoted $15,000 to correct coontail issues that choked their 30-acre lake and prevented fishing.  In the past, this lake could not be fished after April 30. Within 30-days, we cleared the majority for $4,000 and left a few pockets as cover for newly-hatched fry.  Anglers enjoyed numerous, memorable outings from May through November.

In conclusion, if these case studies resemble conditions at your lake, let’s develop a plan to remedy them.  There are economical options.   Let’s turn your challenging conditions into a case study!

Sign up for our newsletter to receive more information monthly.