Bass? Alberta?

[Elk Chaser]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Nothing wrong with a road trip to BC or other destinations for bass. Alberta doesnt need every species that swims.

Alberta needs MACKERAL

[avb3]

Originally Posted by whitetail Junkie

So what fish in Alberta are'nt Native? I know that bull trout are a Native fish,but what species are'nt native?

Neither rainbow trout (with the exception of the threatened Athabasca rainbow trout) or brown trout are native.

As a result the western cutthroat and the Athabasca rainbow trout are both now either endangered or threatened. They just can't compete with the introduced species.

Guys, we're suppose to be conservationists. If you want to play whack 'em and stack 'em, go play in Texas.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

They have been stocking put and take trout waters for years maybe its about time to stock put and take with Bass as there is already natural trout waters why do we also need them in put and take some dy the old boys club has to wake up and realize there is more to fish then trout and people want to try them

You just don't get it do you?

You don't (and no one else does either) know what negative effects an introduced species will have on native ones.

Crested wheat was thought to be a wonderful solution to erosion. Now try and get rid of it in the prairie landscape.

Purple loose strife looked so pretty for gardens. Trouble is, it has horrible impacts on wetlands because it's only predator is a little insect that lives in Europe. And no, we don't want it here.

Look at the damage feral horses are doing in the eastern slopes (there are whole threads on that).

Introduced species have unintended consequences.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

You just don't get it do you?

You don't (and no one else does either) know what negative effects an introduced species will have on native ones.

Crested wheat was thought to be a wonderful solution to erosion. Now try and get rid of it in the prairie landscape.

Purple loose strife looked so pretty for gardens. Trouble is, it has horrible impacts on wetlands because it's only predator is a little insect that lives in Europe. And no, we don't want it here.

Look at the damage feral horses are doing in the eastern slopes (there are whole threads on that).

Introduced species have unintended consequences.

So according to you only native species should be allowed in alberta that would cut down on the number of food that can be grown or raised in alberta it would cut down on the number of fish and animal species available here.
If you were to read my posts you would also see where i indicated that introducing Bass would be most effective and be best served as a put and take stock in ponds or it could go as a closed lake system.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

So according to you only native species should be allowed in alberta

Yes.

Any fisheries or wildlife scientist will agree with me.

that would cut down on the number of food that can be grown or raised in alberta it would cut down on the number of fish and animal species available here.

Seeing we have twice the number of cattle as people already, I think we will be OK. Besides, for the most part, cattle replaced the buffalo in the prairie ecosystem.

If you were to read my posts you would also see where i indicated that introducing Bass would be most effective and be best served as a put and take stock in ponds or it could go as a closed lake system.

And you can *guarantee* there will be no escapement? Accidentally or on purpose? No eggs transmitted by birds? You can *guarantee* that?

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

Yes.

Any fisheries or wildlife scientist will agree with me.

I don't completely agree with that

Seeing we have twice the number of cattle as people already, I think we will be OK. Besides, for the most part, cattle replaced the buffalo in the prairie ecosystem.
Man can not survive on beef alone
And even if he could our domestic cattle come from europe

And you can *guarantee* there will be no escapement? Accidentally or on purpose? No eggs transmitted by birds? You can *guarantee* that?

There is no guarantee at anytime whether they introduced bass or not that there will not be a transfer of fish, eggs , accidentally or on purpose. Just as there is no guarantee of no transfer of any animal or plant at anytime. If you think there is a way to guarantee this then you do not live in the real world

[chubbdarter]

With the current state of many of our fisheries
Starving big headed sunken belly bull trout, eating whatever cutties are left.
Regs that MAKE us kill mature spawning fish
just for example

I dont have much faith in the whole fishery management system.....bios, scientists or the like.

No one can deny it has its risks, but without risk there is no glory. Example the Great Lakes salmon fishery.......the missouri breaks incredible fishery.....the Bow rivers huge success as a world class fishery and the enormous economic benifit its been.

We are a province with a additude to lead the country and many times the world....lets step up.

I believe the southern part of the province has the potential to rear Bass....warm chinooks may be enough.
If its a oxygen issue...well we already give trout ponds CPR

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

With the current state of many of our fisheries
Starving big headed sunken belly bull trout, eating whatever cutties are left.
Regs that MAKE us kill mature spawning fish
just for example

I dont have much faith in the whole fishery management system.....bios, scientists or the like.

No one can deny it has its risks, but without risk there is no glory. Example the Great Lakes salmon fishery.......the missouri breaks incredible fishery.....the Bow rivers huge success as a world class fishery and the enormous economic benifit its been.

We are a province with a additude to lead the country and many times the world....lets step up.

I believe the southern part of the province has the potential to rear Bass....warm chinooks may be enough.
If its a oxygen issue...well we already give trout ponds CPR

It is what can happen when people risk a little for the right cause.

if it was not for risk we would all be sitting in our caves afraid of fire sitting in front of our MacRock computers

[avb3]

Originally Posted by avb3

Any fisheries or wildlife scientist will agree with me.

I don't completely agree with that

Other then one retired F&W biologist (who retired over a decade ago), there is not ONE person who is a scientist with F&W, the ACA or the UofA that would want to see a non-indigenous introduced species purposely brought to Alberta. I don't know many at the UoC, but I can almost guarantee you they would feel the same.

Originally Posted by horsetrader

There is no guarantee at anytime whether they introduced bass or not that there will not be a transfer of fish, eggs , accidentally or on purpose. Just as there is no guarantee of no transfer of any animal or plant at anytime. If you think there is a way to guarantee this then you do not live in the real world

Exactly. I know one can't guarantee escapement, so why would one want to play with fire? You and I don't know what negative effects introducing bass to Alberta may bring.

So why would we want to play with that?

If you think introduction of new species is a good idea, ask the Australians what they think of rabbits.

[chubbdarter]

Tell me how the introduction of Brown Trout to the Bow river is/was a bad thing......should it be reversed?

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

Other then one retired F&W biologist (who retired over a decade ago), there is not ONE person who is a scientist with F&W, the ACA or the UofA that would want to see a non-indigenous introduced species purposely brought to Alberta. I don't know many at the UoC, but I can almost guarantee you they would feel the same.

Im sorry but i don't think you have the right to speak for anyone but your self


Exactly. I know one can't guarantee escapement, so why would one want to play with fire? You and I don't know what negative effects introducing bass to Alberta may bring.

So why would we want to play with that?

If you think introduction of new species is a good idea, ask the Australians what they think of rabbits.

If you had read my statement it was NO ONE can guarantee that even at this time with no Bass so it is a moot point

[avb3]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

Tell me how the introduction of Brown Trout to the Bow river is/was a bad thing......should it be reversed?

Tell me how many bull trout exist in the Bow now?

Yes, it's a great fishery, but it had a huge negative impact on the indigenous fish. As did the brown trout, which cause some hybridization of the Bull Trout.

Imagine what a great fishery on bull trout and perhaps western cutthroat we could have had if these introduce species were not there?

[mikeo2]

Originally Posted by avb3

Tell me how many bull trout exist in the Bow now?

Yes, it's a great fishery, but it had a huge negative impact on the indigenous fish. As did the brown trout, which cause some hybridization of the Bull Trout.

Imagine what a great fishery on bull trout and perhaps western cutthroat we could have had if these introduce species were not there?

So you're saying brown trout and bull trout breed and create what? Is this where sturgeon come from?

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by avb3

Tell me how many bull trout exist in the Bow now?

Yes, it's a great fishery, but it had a huge negative impact on the indigenous fish. As did the brown trout, which cause some hybridization of the Bull Trout.

Imagine what a great fishery on bull trout and perhaps western cutthroat we could have had if these introduce species were not there?

The Brown trout is a species with high tolerences to pollution unlike many trout species.

Now your trying to turn back time and ask 1million people to leave Calgary to get back the Bow to spring creek water qualities to allow cutties and bulliesto exsit

With a magic wand you can elimiate the Browns and stock BILLIONS of cutties and bullies into the Bow.......i'd be intrested to hear what scientist will say that would be success.....without deporting the million people from Cowtown.

We differ of opinion......whether by luck or the grace of God the introduction of a non native species like the Brown to the Bow has been a tremendous success........without them we would have a much lesser fishery.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by mikeo2

So you're saying brown trout and bull trout breed and create what? Is this where sturgeon come from?

You know, anything I have posted is fact, and not speculation.

If you view yourself as having a conservation ethic, it may help to listen and learn.

This link is not from Alberta, but Montana. We have exactly the same situation here.

Read, learn, and try to understand that introduction of non-indigenous species do have negative consequences.

We made mistakes in the past. Most we can't reverse.

So be it.

Does that mean we should knowingly make similar mistakes again?

That's like saying, "Hey, let's give pregnant women Thalomide because it can cure morning sickness!

We know better now in both cases.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

You know, anything I have posted is fact, and not speculation.

If you view yourself as having a conservation ethic, it may help to listen and learn.

This link is not from Alberta, but Montana. We have exactly the same situation here.

Read, learn, and try to understand that introduction of non-indigenous species do have negative consequences.

We made mistakes in the past. Most we can't reverse.

So be it.

Does that mean we should knowingly make similar mistakes again?

That's like saying, "Hey, let's give pregnant women Thalomide because it can cure morning sickness!

We know better now in both cases.

Well if we in fact have the situation as Montana as you say then we have nothing to worry about because as your link shows there is NO hybrid linked between a brown trout and a bull trout.A brown trout spawns in the fall and a bull spawns in the summer.

Not only but Montana is a member of the Bass Federation they have a fantastic small mouth and large mouth population but still have a great trout fishery.So I guess that means were good to go thanks for all your help

[xtreme hunter10]

Originally Posted by avb3

Yes.

Any fisheries or wildlife scientist will agree with me.



Seeing we have twice the number of cattle as people already, I think we will be OK. Besides, for the most part, cattle replaced the buffalo in the prairie ecosystem.



And you can *guarantee* there will be no escapement? Accidentally or on purpose? No eggs transmitted by birds? You can *guarantee* that?

Here are the facts... there are only a few native fish found in alberta. rest were introduced. athabasca rainbow, bull trout and lake sturgeon. I am not sure about northern pike. so, if you you wanted to go fishing those would be your choices. kinda seems boring. Im glad they have the different species they do.

[huntsfurfish]

yup we have very limited amounts of water bodies in Alberta so lets introduce more species so we can divide it up further.

maybe it works out maybe it doesnt. I dont think its worth the risk. Dont have to travel that far to get to them anyway. And it makes for a nice trip!

PS - I like fishing for them also!

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

They have been stocking put and take trout waters for years maybe its about time to stock put and take with Bass as there is already natural trout waters why do we also need them in put and take some dy the old boys club has to wake up and realize there is more to fish then trout and people want to try them

You really dont get it.

What they did by importing species in the 1920's or there abouts does NOT justify what they have learned since then! (and if they didnt stock them back then, they likely would'nt start now either)

horse you can always go back to Ontario.

to fish

PS horstrader if you dont like what I have to say put me on ignore!

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

You really dont get it.

What they did by importing species in the 1920's or there abouts does NOT justify what they have learned since then! (and if they didnt stock them back then, they likely would'nt start now either)

At that time they introduced them as a self sustained species now we would be looking at them as a put and take program.




horse you can always go back to Ontario.

to fish

No I can't not allowed back there



PS horstrader if you dont like what I have to say put me on ignore!

NO I don't put people on ignore this is an information forum If I can't except what people will post then I should not respond in the first place

[Jorg]

I'm curious does anyone have a link to any studies done by Alberta biologists that explain any real risks that introduced Bass may cause in Alberta waters ?

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

yup we have very limited amounts of water bodies in Alberta so lets introduce more species so we can divide it up further.

maybe it works out maybe it doesnt. I dont think its worth the risk. Dont have to travel that far to get to them anyway. And it makes for a nice trip!

PS - I like fishing for them also!

The idea would be to take a put and take water and change it from one put and take species to another. The amount of fishable waters dose not change the amount of fish that are available dose not change. The only thing that changes is you have a new species to fish.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by xtreme hunter10

Here are the facts... there are only a few native fish found in alberta. rest were introduced. athabasca rainbow, bull trout and lake sturgeon. I am not sure about northern pike. so, if you you wanted to go fishing those would be your choices. kinda seems boring. Im glad they have the different species they do.

Pike , walleye, perch, western cutthroat are all indigenous, as well as the 3 you mentioned.

I've fished in Ontario, and I was amazed at the variety of indigenous fish they have there. Anyone coming from there is spoiled and I am jealous of the quality you have.

That still does not justify introducing new and competing species to Alberta ecosystems.

[mikeo2]

Originally Posted by avb3

You know, anything I have posted is fact, and not speculation.

If you view yourself as having a conservation ethic, it may help to listen and learn.

This link is not from Alberta, but Montana. We have exactly the same situation here.

Read, learn, and try to understand that introduction of non-indigenous species do have negative consequences.

We made mistakes in the past. Most we can't reverse.

So be it.

Does that mean we should knowingly make similar mistakes again?

That's like saying, "Hey, let's give pregnant women Thalomide because it can cure morning sickness!

We know better now in both cases.

You havent showed me what or if a bull trout and brown trout can hybridize, the link you provided shows the only thing crossing with a brown is a brook trout which creates a tiger trout....

[avb3]

Originally Posted by mikeo2

You havent showed me what or if a bull trout and brown trout can hybridize, the link you provided shows the only thing crossing with a brown is a brook trout which creates a tiger trout....

Your right, I meant brook, not brown on the hybridization. Fat fingers you know

Brown do however, compete for habitat. Other then having a world class fishery (which is a human benefit), I am not aware of any ecological benefit an introduced species like browns have created.

Do you?

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by Jorg

I'm curious does anyone have a link to any studies done by Alberta biologists that explain any real risks that introduced Bass may cause in Alberta waters ?

You will have to request documents and studies under the FOI rules from SRD.

Some documents are confidential.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Jorg

I'm curious does anyone have a link to any studies done by Alberta biologists that explain any real risks that introduced Bass may cause in Alberta waters ?

It is not just the issue of Bass; it is an issue of ANY introduced species.

We just don't know what the consequences are.

Why would you want to experiment with that?

Look the facts are that in many cases where there were introduced species, they have unintended consequences. Sometimes to the detriment of indigenous species.

Why are we so bent to insist on this experimentation?

Why not concentrate on what we have, and insure that the habitat is protected or enhanced, and work towards its well being?

In the end, it benefits all, including us anglers.

[greylynx]

Bass stockings have failed to succeed in Alberta, and yet there are calls to stock the fish.

Why don't you fish experts take a course in Limnology, and then we can argue.

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by xtreme hunter10

Here are the facts... there are only a few native fish found in alberta. rest were introduced. athabasca rainbow, bull trout and lake sturgeon. I am not sure about northern pike. so, if you you wanted to go fishing those would be your choices. kinda seems boring. Im glad they have the different species they do.

lol.... funniest post of the year son. those are the facts........ lol.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

It is not just the issue of Bass; it is an issue of ANY introduced species.

We just don't know what the consequences are.

Why would you want to experiment with that?

Look the facts are that in many cases where there were introduced species, they have unintended consequences. Sometimes to the detriment of indigenous species.

Why are we so bent to insist on this experimentation?

Why not concentrate on what we have, and insure that the habitat is protected or enhanced, and work towards its well being?

In the end, it benefits all, including us anglers.

It is a good thing that not all people in the world do not have your mind set.
If we always had to know the consequences of an action before we tried something we would be still living in the dark ages. No one will ever know what the total outcome of a situation will be but that does not mean we just stop. All we can do is keep the risks to a minimum.