Bass? Alberta?

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

they are non native....correct?
so how did it turn out bad?
Your against the non native introduction

I thought this thread was about bass. Again with the two wrongs making a right? Let's just stick to bass. Make a viable arguement for their introduction and I'm sure people will listen. Keep talking about all the other things we may have done wrong in the past justifying it and people are less likely to listen. What is the benefit of introducing bass...other than settling an internet discussion?

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by avb3

The introduced rainbow trout have contributed significantly to western cutthroats being listed as a result of competition and particularly hybridization. Anywhere introduced brook trout appeared, the western cutthroat declined significantly or disappeared.

Do we really want to see what effect bass may have?

well i apologize....i didnt know of any pothole stocked RBT that have migrated to the mountain streams....i do believe i said pothole

[avb3]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

im still waiting on the info about a brown/bull cross.

Then you must of missed the link on my post 104.

Your wait's over.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I thought this thread was about bass. Again with the two wrongs making a right? Let's just stick to bass. Make a viable arguement for their introduction and I'm sure people will listen. Keep talking about all the other things we may have done wrong in the past justifying it and people are less likely to listen. What is the benefit of introducing bass...other than settling an internet discussion?

once again....yes its about Bass. BUT you keep mentioning the Dangers and that we should learn from our mistakes. So im asking what are the dangers?

p.s. i dont think for the most part trout introdution was a mistake...its provided a fishery we did not have before.....and its benifits are huge.....hmmm maybe i want another option

[avb3]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

once again....yes its about Bass. BUT you keep mentioning the Dangers and that we should learn from our mistakes. So im asking what are the dangers?

p.s. i dont think for the most part trout introdution was a mistake...its provided a fishery we did not have before.....and its benifits are huge.....hmmm maybe i want another option

Do you not recognize that it had a negative impact on native species?

If you do, do you care or does it matter to you?

In other words, are you arguing that introduced species did not impact native ones, or are you arguing it doesn't matter?

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

once again....yes its about Bass. BUT you keep mentioning the Dangers and that we should learn from our mistakes. So im asking what are the dangers?

p.s. i dont think for the most part trout introdution was a mistake...its provided a fishery we did not have before.....and its benifits are huge.....hmmm maybe i want another option

Trout and bass are two very different species so I fail to see the point of a comparison. But, there are risks with introducing any non-native as has been proven with both rainbows and brookies if you break out of the confines of your little pond.

"I" want another option just doesn't seem reason enough to put Alberta's fisheries at risk and justify the costs. Give us something concrete and you'll likely get some support. As I said, I love to fish for bass but I'm not sure my desires should dictate fish management in the province. After being in New Zealand I love hunting for tahr and chamois as well but I'm not sure that's enough justification to introduce them to Alberta.

Chubb, we've made a lot of mistakes in the past and it's good to learn from them rather than use them as excuses to make more.

[chubbdarter]

Im fully aware some introductions have not turned out as desired.
BUT....many have turned out well. Some may not be as popular as a fishery per say such as the Golden trout which is non accessible to many. I still consider it a success and a option for AB anglers.

[chubbdarter]

If trout werent stocked in the thousands of pothole ponds in alberta.....what would be in them?

p.s. imdoing the best i can to keep up....i type with 2 fingers

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by Jayhad

$$$$
that's the issue. Bass typically spawn in febuary during the first full moon until the full moon in march..... when the water is 17c-20c. You guys must be smart enough to see a problem here, Febuary and 20c water
so the fishery wouldn't be sustainable, and need to be supplemented with hatchery fish....... hatchery fish. So the hatchery would need Bass specific biologists, the hatchery would need to be Bass specific.
And 95% of fisheries biologists now agree that hatchery produced fish are inferior and degrade the species.

Yes Browns & rainbows worked out in the bow, a 1 in 1,000,000 fluke. Just look at every creek that has stunted brookies. The bow could have possibly been one of the best cutthroat and bull fisheries in the world. Looking at a mistake made 90 years ago before we knew better that kind-of worked out is not a defense for bass.

Well if you and your will read we were talking a put and take system not a spawning system love when guy jump in 9 pages later

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

So then I assumed you didn't read the 61 page report I posted from Alberta? Being a bit selective, are we?

You were pretty selective yourself in the pages that you didnt post to read it gave the other four reasons besides the introduction on non native species for the decline of the bull trout

[avb3]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

You were pretty selective yourself in the pages that you didnt post to read it gave the other four reasons besides the introduction on non native species for the decline of the bull trout

My pointing out that hybridization caused by introduced species being a contributing factor stands as a fact.

I'm going to ask you the same questions I asked chubbdarter previously:

Do you not recognize that introduced species have a negative impact on native species?

If you do, do you care or does it matter to you?

In other words, are you arguing that introduced species do not impact native ones, or are you arguing it doesn't matter?

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

Then you must of missed the link on my post 104.

Your wait's over.

I would like you to show me where it talks about browns and bulls breeding

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

Do you not recognize that it had a negative impact on native species?

If you do, do you care or does it matter to you?

In other words, are you arguing that introduced species did not impact native ones, or are you arguing it doesn't matter?

I will ask you the same question i asked Sheep SHOW be were there was a negative impact the first time they introduced Bass in Alberta

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

My pointing out that hybridization caused by introduced species being a contributing factor stands as a fact.

I'm going to ask you the same questions I asked chubbdarter previously:

Do you not recognize that introduced species have a negative impact on native species?

If you do, do you care or does it matter to you?

In other words, are you arguing that introduced species do not impact native ones, or are you arguing it doesn't matter?

You were commenting on the hybridization of Browns and Bulls and when asked to produce proof you could not and now you keep trying to side step face it you were wrong

[Jorg]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

So it's okay to introduce another non-native species to Alberta knowing full well that it could severly impact another well established non-native species. You are starting to lose me chubb.

I still have not seen any proof that smallies could severly impact our native fish, Smallmouth bass co-exsist quite well in other parts of Canada with pike ,walleye ,perch ,burbot ,sturgeon ,whitefish etc.

Originally Posted by Jorg

I still have not seen any proof that smallies could severly impact our native fish, Smallmouth bass co-exsist quite well in other parts of Canada with pike ,walleye ,perch ,burbot ,sturgeon ,whitefish etc.

LOL...you might want to talk with the BC bios....they can give you thousands of examples. It's a bit different when an ecosystem develops naturally with a variety of species than when you throw a bunch into an eco system where they never existed. If you are really looking for proof....there's loads of it out there.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

I would like you to show me where it talks about browns and bulls breeding

I answered that in post 85

Your really good at asking questions, but not so good at answering them.

So, do you worry about potential negative impact of introduced species on native fish, or do you not care?

It's one of the two.

[chubbdarter]

Well success isnt always graded on what a bio has to say...the simple common folk are important too
http://www.best-in-british-columbia....kootenays.html

plus go to Creston.....which is a baseballs throw from World Famous Kootenay lake....Mawsons is full of Bass tackle...every flipping gas station sells rubber worms

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

Well success isnt always graded on what a bio has to say...the simple common folk are important too
http://www.best-in-british-columbia....kootenays.html

plus go to Creston.....which is a baseballs throw from World Famous Kootenay lake....Mawsons is full of Bass tackle...every flipping gas station sells rubber worms

Chub, I've fished dozens of bass waters in BC and there is unquestionably a loyal but very small following. Considering the quality of their bass fishery, it speaks volumes about how popular bass would be in Alberta. Just took a closer look at that link you posted...the guy doesn't even know what species are in what lakes. Ya, really important...lmao You best find a more credible link.

Who said anything about bios grading success anyhow. I said they could grade the impact of these interlopers.....likely better than the guys at the gas station anyhow.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Chub, I've fished dozens of bass waters in BC and there is unquestionably a loyal but very small following. Considering the quality of their bass fishery, it speaks volumes about how popular bass would be in Alberta. LMAo...just look closer at that link...the guy doesn't even know what species are in what lakes. Ya, really important...lmao You best find a more credible link.

Who said anything about bios grading success anyhow. I said they could grade the impact of these interlopers.....likely better than the guys at the gas station anyhow.

Well as youve said ask a kootenay regional bio his opinion on Bass.....which is fair.
But the ultimate grading of a fishery is the pleasure gotten by the tax paying public....and sure some enviromental things may suffer.
You can laugh at the link..its not up to your highly scientific mind..which is fair. I hang with a more common person crowd. I too fish many BC interior waters and see the huge benifit those anglers recieve from a diverse fishery.

In all fairness if you post a link from a so called highly regarded bio who has concrete proof that Bass cant survive and be a bonus to S. Alberta....i will bow down to you and admit my errors. Im on this side of the fence because im open minded...not because i know it all.

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

You can laugh at the link..its not up to your highly scientific mind..which is fair. I hang with a more common person crowd. .

It doesn't take a highly scientific mind to know the difference between a largemouth and smallmouth bass....I'm sure even the members of your common crowd know that. The link was a dud Chubb.

If you are really on the fence chub, take the time to give one of the bios a call.......it will likely make you fall right off. Or even type "effects of stocked bass on trout populations" into Google and brew up a pot of coffee because you'll be busy reading for the night. There's lots of info there if you really want to learn. As for bass surviving in Alberta, I've already said they would...that's been proven. What hasn't been proven is if they could spawn and I even said that is a possibility in the south, if you'd read my previous posts. Obviously there is no study on the internet about it because it's never been tried. The costs and associated risks are too great.

[greylynx]

Now let's bring the disease problem in.

Our trout popuations have Bacterial Kidney Disease within them.

As I recall the Jasper Hatchery was closed due to BKD, and the virii known as
IHN and IPN.

Then there are the parasites.......

Um, also, where are these fish going to be raised.

I remember the last batch of bass that went into Island Lake.

The hatchery truck from Calgary unloaded the air shipment in Edmonton, and went to Island Lake. This was a very expensive venture for the government.

[Jorg]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

LOL...you might want to talk with the BC bios....they can give you thousands of examples. It's a bit different when an ecosystem develops naturally with a variety of species than when you throw a bunch into an eco system where they never existed. If you are really looking for proof....there's loads of it out there.

BC is not the same kettle of fish - this is Alberta you can not compare our waters with those of BC. The top level native predator in most if not all of their waters that now have bass in them was a salmonoid this would not be the case in Alberta.

Originally Posted by Jorg

BC is not the same kettle of fish - this is Alberta you can not compare our waters with those of BC. The top level native predator in most if not all of their waters that now have bass in them was a salmonoid this would not be the case in Alberta.

Alberta has trout, a lot of trout, and there is a good possibility if bass were stocked that they could find their way into trout water, either naturally or with help as they have in BC. That is the same kettle of fish and one of the real risks. Also, as we know, Alberta's walleye and pike populations are precarious at best in many waters...do we really need another top predator competing for the same food sources?

[Jorg]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Alberta has trout, a lot of trout, and there is a good possibility if bass were stocked that they could find their way into trout water, either naturally or with help as they have in BC. That is the same kettle of fish and one of the real risks.

I don't buy that arguement-- first of all if they compete with non-native fish it's a saw-off, people that want Bass pay taxes and fee's just the same as people that prefer trout. I see no harm in stocking new or depleted man made lakes with Bass instead of Rainbows like they did in Crawling valley. I see no point in depriving honest people of a great recreational outdoor activity because there is a chance the bucket brigade might strike. It makes as much sense as banning guns because someone might break the law with one.

Originally Posted by Jorg

people that want Bass pay taxes and fee's just the same as people that prefer trout..

Absolutely and I'm sure when the powerful Bass Anglers of Alberta starts lobbying the government things will change.

If there was enough demand it may just happen but I haven't seen much demand. Large groups get the attention of the government. I don't see much of a large group or a group at all lobbying for this. There just isn't enough squeak from this wheel. What has been the government's reply to your lobbying attempts?

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

I answered that in post 85

Your really good at asking questions, but not so good at answering them.

So, do you worry about potential negative impact of introduced species on native fish, or do you not care?

It's one of the two.

You make me laugh your answer to were is your proof about browns and bulls breeding is my fingers are fat....geeeze just admit it you were wrong don't be afraid its not the first time it wont be your last.

Now as far as your question Do i worry about it no i'm i concerned with it yes i'm i paranoid about it like you no.Do i think Bass can be introduced in to Alberta with out a negative impact yes its already been done unless you can answer the question i asked you. Can you show me proof the the bass originally introduced in Alberta had a negative impact

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Absolutely and I'm sure when the powerful Bass Anglers of Alberta starts lobbying the government things will change.

If there was enough demand it may just happen but I haven't seen much demand. Large groups get the attention of the government. I don't see much of a large group or a group at all lobbying for this. There just isn't enough squeak from this wheel. What has been the government's reply to your lobbying attempts?

So after all your speeches about bass being an invasive species and the negative impact it will have .It still comes down to group pressure on the government so if enough people want it, it can happen At least it good to know there is a chance.

Originally Posted by horsetrader

[/COLOR]



So after all your speeches about bass being an invasive species and the negative impact it will have .It still comes down to group pressure on the government so if enough people want it, it can happen At least it good to know there is a chance.

As do most things in this province it seems. What's best for the resource often takes a backseat to political pressure and lobby. BTW, I never called bass an invasive species in Alberta. They currently aren't that I'm aware of. I never said they'd have a negative impact either. I used the word "risk".

[Jorg]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Absolutely and I'm sure when the powerful Bass Anglers of Alberta starts lobbying the government things will change.

If there was enough demand it may just happen but I haven't seen much demand. Large groups get the attention of the government. I don't see much of a large group or a group at all lobbying for this. There just isn't enough squeak from this wheel. What has been the government's reply to your lobbying attempts?

Here I agree with you 100 percent. I think TU holds all the cards They have strong support and a voice that the goverment listens too. They had the luxury of starting their group with trout already abundant in Alberta. I would think they would be against any plan by the goverment to change any of the stocking plans if it will affect trout rearing and distrubution.