Smallmouth Bass As An Invasive Species? 2024
CTGalloway21 reply :
Say there was a popular creek in the south that was full of spotted bass, redeye bass, and largemouth. What would happen if smallmouth were found, although previous stocking attempts failed. Would they destroy the ecosystem? Would redeye bass be no longer?
flyfisher reply :
You would have to ask a fisheries biologist as each river and eco system is different. Also, other than a few drainages smallmouth were invasive species everywhere at one time or another and the same goes for pretty much every fish you mentioned.
Fishing Rhino reply :
I can tell you what happened to a small local pond across the street from our home.
Years ago it was a smallmouth pond, and it produced significant numbers and sizes of smallmouth. My dad won a fishing derby where he worked with a seven pound, fourteen ounce smallmouth caught in this pond. It also had significant and sizeable populations of chain pickerel, crappie, white perch, yellow perch, bluegills and crawfish.
There were zero largemouth bass in this pond. A tank truck was going to stock largemouth bass in a pond just a quarter mile to the west, and broke down. The driver went to a local farmhouse to see about getting some help. The farmer got on his tractor and towed the tank truck to the smallmouth pond where the largemouth bass got dumped.
That was over twenty years ago. Today, there is not a single smallmouth in the pond. The pond where the tank truck was headed has smallmouth and largemouth bass, as do several other ponds in this area. I doubt you have to be concerned about smallmouth doing any damage to a population of largemouth bass. If this pond is any indication, when smallmouth and largemouth cannot co-exist, the largemouth win.
roadwarrior reply :
Same can be said for spots, they have taken over several reservoirs in the Southeast.
I don't actually eat them, but we keep all legal fish and find someone that will.
iceintheveins reply :
Bass rarely do harm. "Invasive species" are generally a boogeyman and overblown threat because fishery managers like to have as much control as they can.
Scott F reply :
An invasive species has invaded the lower reaches of Fossil Creek, threatening the premier stream for endangered native fish in Arizona.
http://www.paysonrou...e-fossil-creek/
mikey5string reply :
On 5/16/2014 at 11:34 AM, iceintheveins said:Bass rarely do harm. "Invasive species" are generally a boogeyman and overblown threat because fishery managers like to have as much control as they can.
Which invasive species do you consider an overblown threat?
iceintheveins reply :
On 5/26/2014 at 4:03 AM, mikey5string said:Which invasive species do you consider an overblown threat?
When they are sport fish generally. Here in Colorado the powers that be don't like nonnative fish because they would rather have chubs, suckers, and squawfish (non game fish) in our rivers, and the primary reason for the decline in those species are dams and diversions in the river, NOT our sportfish. In Colorado the public DEMANDS these sport fish but in some locals the state and feds actively kill them, including large and smallmouth bass.
iceintheveins reply :
On 5/17/2014 at 8:33 AM, Scott F said:
An invasive species has invaded the lower reaches of Fossil Creek, threatening the premier stream for endangered native fish in Arizona.
http://www.paysonrou...e-fossil-creek/
Chubs, suckers, and squawfish are very low down the preference list for the general public. They are endangered due to dams and diversions on streams, NOT nonnative species. The environments are so altered these species generally cannot be recovered. Sport fish trump rough fish in my mind and the public's mind. A long time ago, the same government trying to save these rough fish once tried to get rid of them, back when they followed the demands of the public rather than their own agenda.
einscodek reply :
I wish they would invade my lake
They dont seem to stand a chance against LMB in small lakes
Years ago in my fav small lake there were smallmouths and now they are nowhere to be seen
Alls I ever catch now are LMB and a few spots and even they are getting rare.
speed craw reply :
Lake allatoona in ga was once flourishing with largemouth . Now its a 70 - 30 or better and Now the army corp of engineers has began stocking largemouth for the next 4 years ... But I wouldn't hold my breath .
Mainebass1984 reply :
Invasive species, no matter what they are, are a huge threat ecosystems everywhere. Invasive species change ecosystems forever and have unforeseen effects on the ecosystems that they were introduced into. Fisheries Biologists have a pretty good idea what they are doing. They have much more knowledge on the subject then most people.
WVbassin87 reply :
As for your question about redeyes being gone, not a chance. my fav smallie spot also has an abundance of redeyes. i have literally caught smallies and redeyes on consecutive casts. redeye are resilient. one of my other fav spots has big redeyes, spotted bass, and largemouth.
SirSnookalot reply :
In south Florida peacock bass were introduced in the 1980's, they are not native to Florida. I don't know if they have affected the LMB, but I do know they are fun to catch and I'm happy to have them here.
iceintheveins reply :
On 6/8/2014 at 1:45 AM, Mainebass1984 said:Invasive species, no matter what they are, are a huge threat ecosystems everywhere. Invasive species change ecosystems forever and have unforeseen effects on the ecosystems that they were introduced into. Fisheries Biologists have a pretty good idea what they are doing. They have much more knowledge on the subject then most people.
I don't trust the fishery biologists in my state, they would rather have chubs, suckers, and squawfish than bass. It's not about science and facts with lots of biologists in many states, it's about politics and agenda and what the high ups want, and to hell with the anglers. Invasive species are an overblown threat in many cases. Species like Asian Carp are truly horrible though, and Snakeheads could be too.
In short, can invasive fish be harmful? YES. But are they harmful in all cases? No. Are biologists always right and truthful? HELL NO!
flyfisher reply :
On 7/15/2014 at 2:13 PM, iceintheveins said:I don't trust the fishery biologists in my state, they would rather have chubs, suckers, and squawfish than bass. It's not about science and facts with lots of biologists in many states, it's about politics and agenda and what the high ups want, and to hell with the anglers. Invasive species are an overblown threat in many cases. Species like Asian Carp are truly horrible though, and Snakeheads could be too.
In short, can invasive fish be harmful? YES. But are they harmful in all cases? No. Are biologists always right and truthful? HELL NO!
So really it is more that you don't agree with them and want bass? Just because anglers want something to fish for doesn't mean it should be done at the expensive of what you consider to be trash fish. I am all for protecting a native fish population even if it isn't one that i target because it is still part of the ecosystem and there are plenty of things that have been screwed up because nobody was thinking it will be an impact. If they want to keep the "trash" fish then so be it and I will log find somewhere else to fish.
iceintheveins reply :
On 7/15/2014 at 8:43 PM, flyfisher said:So really it is more that you don't agree with them and want bass? Just because anglers want something to fish for doesn't mean it should be done at the expensive of what you consider to be trash fish. I am all for protecting a native fish population even if it isn't one that i target because it is still part of the ecosystem and there are plenty of things that have been screwed up because nobody was thinking it will be an impact. If they want to keep the "trash" fish then so be it and I will log find somewhere else to fish.
You have to remember, some areas have no native sportfish. Not all of us can afford to travel either. Also, I've yet to see bass damage populations of rough fish. The real reason for native fish decline is habitat alteration and not nonnative sportfish,
flyfisher reply :
On 7/16/2014 at 11:12 AM, iceintheveins said:You have to remember, some areas have no native sportfish. Not all of us can afford to travel either. Also, I've yet to see bass damage populations of rough fish. The real reason for native fish decline is habitat alteration and not nonnative sportfish,
Like i said, it is because you want to fish for something that isn't there. Do you have studies to show that native fish decline is not from non-native sport fish? I do realize that habit alteration is a big component but non-native fish scan also contribute to the habitat changing. I know of a few examples like in the sierras they brought in brook trout and they all but wiped out the native species do to their prolific breeding and aggressive nature. Unfortunately where you live in Colorado bass fishing is not as good but you sure live near some outstanding trout fishing.
Mainebass1984 reply :
On 7/15/2014 at 2:13 PM, iceintheveins said:I don't trust the fishery biologists in my state, they would rather have chubs, suckers, and squawfish than bass. It's not about science and facts with lots of biologists in many states, it's about politics and agenda and what the high ups want, and to hell with the anglers. Invasive species are an overblown threat in many cases. Species like Asian Carp are truly horrible though, and Snakeheads could be too.
In short, can invasive fish be harmful? YES. But are they harmful in all cases? No. Are biologists always right and truthful? HELL NO!
It sounds like you have had a bad experience with a biologist ?
Biologists certainly know what they are doing. It takes a Masters Degree and multiple years of experience in the field to even be considered for a state biologist position. I think studying fish for 6 years and multiple years of experience in the field gives someone an idea of what they are doing ?
You are entitled to your opinion. I also am entitled to mine. I like facts and science not opinions, accusations, bs talkers and people who have no idea what they are talking about.
You mentioned it is not about science and facts. I would argue and say that is exactly what it is about. What science and facts are you talking about in particular ? What invasive species has no impact on native populations ?
For example the Colorado River basin is home to 4 fish that occur NOWHERE else in the world. Sure they are chubs and suckers but that isn't the point. In my opinion and most likely the opinion of the biologists every measure should be taken to preserve endangered species including killing invasive species bass or not. Once a species is introduced into a body of water that species spreads through out the entire watershed.
Bass when introduced to ecosystems that have never had them change them forever. They alter the entire balance of the ecosystem. They take away finite resources from other fish species even if they don't directly prey on that particular fish species.
Fisheries Biologists aren't merely employed to appease what an angler wants. Sure it is part of the job description. They are there to manage lakes, ponds, rivers and ecosystems. It isn't so simple as I want smallmouth bass in this river so lets put them there. Every aspect of that introduction is taken into consideration.
Does every biologist know exactly what they are doing ? No. I am sure they have pretty good idea though. I wont tell him how to do his job though.
I also wont tell a painter how to paint, or an engineer how to build a bridge or a trucker how to drive a truck.
iceintheveins reply :
I'll have to respectfully disagree boys. It's about politics in many cases and not science. There are many studies they came out with before that showed little damage from introduced sportfish, and that the rough fish species were basically unrecoverable due to extensive habitat alteration. The public is at least 4 to 1 against killing any gamefish to save fish we consider undesirable and the science says likely unrecoverable. To me, ecological purism is revile.
Plus, mechanically removing an introduced species is nearly a total waste of time and effort. Thousands and thousands of bass have been killed in one of my rivers and it still rivals the quality of many eastern smallmouth streams. Our biologists in Colorado and out west might be smart, but they are some of the most dishonest individuals I have ever met with very little integrity. We consider them our subordinates due to the fact we pay their salaries. The only ones who care about these fish are ecological extremists.
There are lots of endangered fish out there, and not a single one has ever been completely removed from the endangered species list. It's a lost cause. So why promote a trash fish over amazing sportfish?
Their own science has shown NO increase in squawfish, suckers, and chubs since they started killing our sportfish about 12 years ago. That speaks volumes in of itself. They continue it for political and monetary (government jobs) reasons, NOT science. So yes, I have a healthy skepticism of fishery biologists because they work for the government, and government cannot be blindly trusted.
SirSnookalot reply :
If money is involved there will always be biased reports as well as the possibility of corruption, whether privately of publicly funded.
I tend to have more faith in data furnished by scientists that are educated and have worked in their respective fields for many years. Even scientific studies are not right 100% of the time, but a far better track record than opinions based on little or no data.
We have no smallmouth or trout here in south Florida but we have both invasive and introduced species, they are heck of a lot fun to catch, even more so than some of the so called sportfish. There is a lionfish problem, as I understand it no natural predators. I have read that commercial fishing may help to control their numbers as well as being a new food source.
Mainebass1984 reply :
On 7/18/2014 at 1:35 PM, iceintheveins said:I'll have to respectfully disagree boys. It's about politics in many cases and not science. There are many studies they came out with before that showed little damage from introduced sportfish, and that the rough fish species were basically unrecoverable due to extensive habitat alteration. The public is at least 4 to 1 against killing any gamefish to save fish we consider undesirable and the science says likely unrecoverable. To me, ecological purism is revile.
Plus, mechanically removing an introduced species is nearly a total waste of time and effort. Thousands and thousands of bass have been killed in one of my rivers and it still rivals the quality of many eastern smallmouth streams. Our biologists in Colorado and out west might be smart, but they are some of the most dishonest individuals I have ever met with very little integrity. We consider them our subordinates due to the fact we pay their salaries. The only ones who care about these fish are ecological extremists.
There are lots of endangered fish out there, and not a single one has ever been completely removed from the endangered species list. It's a lost cause. So why promote a trash fish over amazing sportfish?
Their own science has shown NO increase in squawfish, suckers, and chubs since they started killing our sportfish about 12 years ago. That speaks volumes in of itself. They continue it for political and monetary (government jobs) reasons, NOT science. So yes, I have a healthy skepticism of fishery biologists because they work for the government, and government cannot be blindly trusted.
You are entitled to your OPINION which you clearly stated above.
Where are the facts ? Where are these studies ? Where is the science ?
What invasive species has had no impact when introduced ?
Clearly with your vast knowledge you could do a much better job managing the fisheries then they could. Then you would be a " subordinate dishonest individual with little integrity " as you so put it. I am sure though you would never want such a job or be willing to educate the public in fisheries management, techniques or policies. The position is as you stated beneath your knowledge and understanding of the subject.
BrianinMD reply :
Every body of water will be different in how it responds to the addition of other species. Cover, food, depth, and other factors play a role. Two bodies of water close to each other can be opposites in what survives.
Here in Maryland the invasive species in the news is always snakeheads, but there are other species like some catfish which are also invasive and changing the ecosystem but do not draw near as much attention.
iceintheveins reply :
On 7/18/2014 at 7:46 PM, Mainebass1984 said:You are entitled to your OPINION which you clearly stated above.
Where are the facts ? Where are these studies ? Where is the science ?
What invasive species has had no impact when introduced ?
Clearly with your vast knowledge you could do a much better job managing the fisheries then they could. Then you would be a " subordinate dishonest individual with little integrity " as you so put it. I am sure though you would never want such a job or be willing to educate the public in fisheries management, techniques or policies. The position is as you stated beneath your knowledge and understanding of the subject.
I do have vast knowledge and college biology credits in fisheries. Many veteran anglers I've met know more than biologists about fisheries management and the like. When I say "the science says" nonnative fish removal isn't helping native trash fish, I am going by THEIR OWN science. GOOGLE IT. Again, in many cases science isn't about facts anymore, it's about politics and agenda, and whatever gets more money flowing in. In Colorado's case, the Colorado River trash fish program is a source of federal dollars. Peer reviewed doesn't mean jack either, because in most cases they get to pick who reviews their data, and peer review assumes studies are done honestly and it's not a process designed to detect fraud. If you don't think fraud and corruption is rampant in fisheries management, you are mistaken. Also, when the same people doing the removals get to evaluate their own job performance, you have a MAJOR conflict of interest, especially when the public HATES the project and is going to react to the removals by illegally spreading more gamefish around. It creates a lose/lose for everyone.
Again, not trying to be controversial or say most fishery biologists are dishonest and corrupt. I'm just saying there are enough of them that are in most places to mess things up at times. Do your own research is my motto, and don't trust what government says without verifying it.
iceintheveins reply :
I also believe government is supposed to do what the people say. When the science says (AGAIN GOOGLE IT), that the removal of nonnative fish hasn't increased numbers of native trash fish, is HUGELY expensive, and VERY unpopular, the government SHOULD stop.
flyfisher reply :
So just because something is a wasted cause you should forget about it and introduce new species to a non-native area? Seems selfish to me. I would still like to see some of the data or studies your are talking about or how there is proof that they are corrupt....sounds like a lot of conspiracy type information and that they are not doing what you want so you disagree with them. The role of the fisheries is not to do what the constituents want in all cases it is to find the balance between making the public happy and not trashing a native fishery.
Like I said earlier, you are in the wrong part of the country for smallies. The work Colorado has done in the trout realm is outstanding and of course they are going to put their efforts towards a native fish population rather than introducing a non-native species, hoping it doesn't cause an impact elsewhere and then managing that population as well.
Mainebass1984 reply :
Where is the data that supports your claims ?
As I have said several times invasive species impact the entire ecosystem and change everything forever.
I find it humorous that people think they know how to manage fisheries better then the people that have spent many years in college obtaining a degree and have years of experience in the field. This is a common problem everywhere across the country. In my experience most people aren't educated on the subject or understand it fully.
Under most cases I wouldn't point out the fact that I have BS in fisheries biology, a BS in Aquaculture, and years of experience working as a fisheries biologist in Illinois, Florida, Maine, Alaska, and Vermont.
Saving endangered species or at the very least attempting to do so is something that we must do. We are responsible for almost eradicating an entire species. Everything must be done to preserve any endangered species population even if it isn't very popular with the public.
flyfisher reply :
On 7/21/2014 at 11:00 PM, Mainebass1984 said:Where is the data that supports your claims ?
As I have said several times invasive species impact the entire ecosystem and change everything forever.
I find it humorous that people think they know how to manage fisheries better then the people that have spent many years in college obtaining a degree and have years of experience in the field. This is a common everywhere across the country. In my experience most people aren't educated on the subject or understand it fully.
Under most cases I wouldn't point out the fact that I have BS in fisheries biology, a BS in Aquaculture, and years of experience working as a fisheries biologist in Illinois, Florida, Maine, Alaska, and Vermont.
Saving endangered species or at the very least attempting to do so is something that we must do. We are responsible for almost eradicating an entire species. Everything must be done to preserve any endangered species population even if it isn't very popular with the public.
Agreed....
Personally if i live in colorado i am chasing trout instead of smallies anyways.
iceintheveins reply :
Again like I've said. GOOGLE it and you will find that according to their own studies, killing bass hasn't helped numbers of native fish. I STRONGLY disagree with your position. But you are entitled to it.
Mainebass1984 reply :
Lets stock every fish every angler wants every where they want them. Lets just forget about endangered species and let them all die out. Screw it, who cares. No harm can come from it. Its all a conspiracy anyways. Invasive species don't do any harm.
Smiths.R reply :
LMB will out compete at SMB for food every single time. If you put SMB in a body of water with LMB, the LMB win. Not to say they can't co-habitate, but the LMB will win.
gulfcaptain reply :
Some agree with biologists, some don't. Some are smarter then others. Here in S.Cal, I can tell you some of the Marine Biologists are idiots, having seen them try and catch rockfish to do surveys and want to suvey muddy bottoms they serveyed to close the rockfish as they felt it was overfished. And one wonders when they say "look there still isn't any rockfish here".....no sh#t, they don't live in the mud, that's why they are called rockfish not mudfish, but they went to school to tell us what's best. This example is of the ones that have more booksmarts then common sense and like their nice degree hanging on the wall. Now others that truly love the outdoors, fish and hunt themselves, as well as manage the fisheries I have all respect for as they both have the classroom knowledge but also know how to apply that knowledge to what they do and the habitats they manage. Rough fish are just as important to a fishery as gamefish. Without those fish the systems can crash...no forage base, no gamefish. If the bass eat all the rough fish that are native, you either have to thin out their population and replenish and protect the rough fish, or have to stock some other non-native fish to fill in the gap. Smallmouth have a certain lake condition that they prefer, and here in S Cal you have to head up to the mountains or northern part of the state to find them as they don't seem to take to well to some of the lakes that our LM love so much.
Driftb reply :
Smallmouth bass, Rainbow and Brown trout were all stocked by NY state into the Delaware river in the 1870's. Largemouth, walleye and musky later. I don't know if there is any record of the species that they displaced. The main Delaware has always been too warm in Summer to supprt native brook trout. American shad have been spawning in the Delaware river for millions of years. Brown and rainbow inhabit the coldwater upper reaches of the river. Smallmouth and walleye like current and live in the coolwater zone a little south of there all the way south to the lower river. Largemouth don't compete with smallies here on the Upper river at all. Largemouth start moving downstream as soon as they get into the river, and a lot of them don't stop til they get to the salt line.
. My guess is that unless there is a good supply of cool water that the spots will hold their own. I have heard spots are stocked in water that is too warm, turbid or fertile for smallies to thrive. Each of these species will usually find it's own favorite ecological niche especially in the bigger bodies of water with varied conditions . Largemouth favor still water. Spots can tolerate a variety of conditions. Smallies are considered a coolwater species. In the bigger bodies of water
everythingthatswims reply :
No worries on smallmouth taking over, I wish it were the other way around, but largemouth always win. Watching it happen currently in my local river/stream. River is changing because of upstream development and the smallmouth aren't doing too well. Largemouth can live in a mud pit but smallies have higher living standards.
related Smallmouth Bass Fishing topic
© 2024 - fishing.qciss.net. All Rights Reserved.