Printable View
This seems to be a popular topic around here, so I was just wondering what everyone's approach to pond thinning was.
I keep all bream I keep in the 5-6 inch slot. Anything bigger or smaller goes back. Since starting this, the average size bream in the pond has shot up. A few years ago, it was rare to catch one hand sized. Now, I consider a lot of them too big to keep, because they are the ones I'm trying to let grow into trophies.
Depending on the size of this pond, and the current population of resident fish (species & numbers) ... I don't think you can fish it dry of "bream". I'd be removing any bream under 6" ... whether you eat them or plow them under. You are, eventually, going to want to keep some of the "trophies" ;) ... but, just remove them BEFORE they've spawned.Quote:
Originally Posted by fly_freebird90
... luck2ya ... cp :cool:
I am sure it depends alot on the body of water. However, I just recently had a biologest tell me in reference to a 200 acre lake, he didn't care what we did, short of draining the lake, we were not going to significantly reduce the bream population.
Oscar
Should of mentioned, the ponds only 2.5 acres and has a good resident Bass population. Bass are the fish I'm concerned most with in the pond. I want them to stay healthy more than anything, which it why I leave the smaller ones in.
My steadfast approach to thinning a pond has always been the time honered system of putting back the largest MALES. They control the overall size of the bluegill.
With that being said, what you are doing is working.--- While working to improve the bass size, you are letting them keep the smallest gills thinned. If it's not broke--just keep up the good work. Mike