Bass? Alberta?

[steelhead]

Just for future reference, bass do have teeth and are quite a voracious predator, much like a walleye.

They do have sandpaper teeth. And they do work. But in this province, and this province uniquely, they wouldnt be eating trout.




I dont see Bass rearing as expensive. Maybee for the electricity to warm the rearing ponds or tanks. Theres even lots of room in our hatcheries for this so there is no need for a new facility. get a pile from montana and go.

Once introduced, and have taken to a lake, they are self sufficient, self reproducing, and self managing (carnivores). Something are trout are not.

Our trout ponds and the program lack all that right now. Trout have to be stocked yearly, transport, and a couple of years of rearing.

Perch have invaded trout ponds. They are self sufficient, and self reproducing. Self managing i do not agree with, they go unchecked and stunt. The gov doesnt pay a cent to have perch in a pond now, but they will have to pay to get rid of them.


Bass would be simular to our perch in trout ponds. Bucket them in, let them breed. Watch them explode.

From my point of view, they would be dirt cheap to implement and care for. Much, much cheaper than our floundering and in a few instances, failing trout program. Thier introductions would have little to no concequences on our existing species if they escaped into fragile watersheds "if they escape" from the ponds and dugouts they were placed in.



Look at BC, they didnt have to pay a cent for thier bass fisheries!

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

First of all, using the precautionary principle is not a created theory; it is a well known principle of wildlife management. For further education, read this long [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#International_agreements_a nd_declarations"]Wikipedia article[/URL], with references, international agreements requiring its use and more.

And yes, there are those on this board who would prefer to put their head in the sand and argue their prejudices, but neglect to endorse the best scientific practices when they don't line up with those prejudices.




You are correct, you don't have to convince those of us who understand the issue. You DO have to convince the decision makers.

Those decision makers invariably will use the best known science, including the use of the precautionary principle, in making their conclusions.

Wikipedia is not a place i would use as a strong reference media its credibility is subjective.



ikipedia:General disclaimer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
General disclaimer – Content disclaimer – Legal disclaimer – Medical disclaimer – Risk disclaimer
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.
That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. Note that most other encyclopedias and reference works also have similar disclaimers.
No formal peer review
We are working on ways to select and highlight reliable versions of articles. Our active community of editors uses tools such as the Special:Recentchanges and Special:Newpages feeds to monitor new and changing content. However, Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever. Even articles that have been vetted by informal peer review or featured article processes may later have been edited inappropriately, just before you view them.
None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages.
No contract; limited license
Please make sure that you understand that the information provided here is being provided freely, and that no kind of agreement or contract is created between you and the owners or users of this site, the owners of the servers upon which it is housed, the individual Wikipedia contributors, any project administrators, sysops or anyone else who is in any way connected with this project or sister projects subject to your claims against them directly. You are being granted a limited license to copy anything from this site; it does not create or imply any contractual or extracontractual liability on the part of Wikipedia or any of its agents, members, organizers or other users.
There is no agreement or understanding between you and Wikipedia regarding your use or modification of this information beyond the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL); neither is anyone at Wikipedia responsible should someone change, edit, modify or remove any information that you may post on Wikipedia or any of its associated projects.
Trademarks
Any of the trademarks, service marks, collective marks, design rights or similar rights that are mentioned, used or cited in the articles of the Wikipedia encyclopedia are the property of their respective owners. Their use here does not imply that you may use them for any purpose other than for the same or a similar informational use as contemplated by the original authors of these Wikipedia articles under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licensing schemes. Unless otherwise stated Wikipedia and Wikimedia sites are neither endorsed by nor affiliated with any of the holders of any such rights and as such Wikipedia cannot grant any rights to use any otherwise protected materials. Your use of any such or similar incorporeal property is at your own risk.
Personality rights
Wikipedia contains material which may portray an identifiable person who is alive or deceased recently. The use of images of living or recently deceased individuals is, in some jurisdictions, restricted by laws pertaining to personality rights, independent from their copyright status. Before using these types of content, please ensure that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's personality rights.
Jurisdiction and legality of content
Publication of information found in Wikipedia may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information. The Wikipedia database is stored on a server in the State of Florida in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law. Laws in your country or jurisdiction may not protect or allow the same kinds of speech or distribution. Wikipedia does not encourage the violation of any laws; and cannot be responsible for any violations of such laws, should you link to this domain or use, reproduce, or republish the information contained herein.
Not professional advice
If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial, or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.
Categories: Wikipedia disclaimers
Log in / create accountProject pageDiscussionReadView sourceView history

Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages
Afrikaans
العربية
Български
বাংলা
Català
Cebuano
Česky
Dansk
Deutsch
Eʋegbe
Esperanto
Español
Ελληνικά
Eesti
Euskara
فارسی
Suomi
Français
Galego
हिन्दी
Magyar
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
日本語
한국어
ລາວ
Latviešu
Македонски
Монгол
मराठी
Bahasa Melayu
Malti
Mirandés
Nederlands
Norsk (bokmål)
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Sardu
Simple English
Slovenščina
Српски / Srpski
Svenska
ไทย
Tagalog
Türkçe
Tiếng Việt
ייִדיש
中文
This page was last modified on 12 July 2011 at 17:20.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Contact us

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

But it would be oh so challenging, and if you ever did land it, just think of the stories one could tell

The most valid statement you've made so far

Steelhead you are confusing me. A couple posts above you said largemouth wouldn't reproduce in Alberta and now in this post you are saying they would. What is it?

As for bass eating trout, they do everywhere else they coexist so I can't see why Alberta would be any different. In fact, small trout are a major part of the bass' diet in some systems at certain times of the year.

As for bass taking off like perch or taking off like they did in BC, I think you are missing a critical element. Perch are well suited to Alberta's cool waters......largemouth bass aren't. Perhaps we should import some milfoil while we're at it?

[steelhead]

One of your points i failed to adress.

As most species have closures and seasons, and some stocked trout ponds also have seasonal closures, Part of the year to fish bass is generous and simular to what we have in place for other species. We only get 4 months to fish river trout in most places. If bass got 6 months, there would be pressure taken off some other fisheries.

A closure and part time fishery would help a isolated bass population.

Originally Posted by steelhead

One of your points i failed to adress.

As most species have closures and seasons, and some stocked trout ponds also have seasonal closures, Part of the year to fish bass is generous and simular to what we have in place for other species. We only get 4 months to fish river trout in most places. If bass got 6 months, there would be pressure taken off some other fisheries.

A closure and part time fishery would help a isolated bass population.

LOL...I thought we were talking about put and take rainbows, the majority of which are open 12 months of the year....nice try though. Even if bass were open 12 months of the year, it would be a 6 month of the year fishery at best. Remember, they crawl in the mud in the winter....lol

[steelhead]

I said bass wouldnt spawn in trout waters where trout spawn in rivers. Rivers the key word. Of course, that example is in the case of escape to other watersheds.

I always said in ponds, the warm shallow ones where trout suffer in the heat, bass would spawn. Those ponds would warm enough to a suitable temp for spawning and at the right times. The rivers would never.

I never strayed from those points anywhere in any of my posts. * You were discussing rivers, and so was I*. "Which is it" he says. keep up now.




Like I said, IF they make it to a river, and IF they survive in the habitat of trout (which they are physically incapeable of doing) Then sure, a trout might get eaten. But with daceminnows, suckers, shiners, sculpins and whitefish on the list of easier prey to gorge on, trout might play second fiddle, IF bass were to take hold. IF.



Your correct, Bass arent suited to albertas waters, one reason why they would be harmless to other species. I'm glad you finally agree. But there are some waters where bass would thrive. Isolated and shallow Ponds and dugouts. And probably the ones the trout do crappy in due to summer heat and kills, low dissolved oxygen and turbidity. So, with your understanding, Bass wouldnt be harmfull at all in any watershed in alberta. But a few ponds they would thrive. Something I also mentioned waaaaay back.


Not everywhere, but ponds where trout do miserably.


Millfoil?, while were at it? How childish.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

Wikipedia is not a place i would use as a strong reference media its credibility is subjective.

There is some validity to that.

The article I linked has MANY links to references. It is not an opinion piece.

However, we know that you have a propensity to ignore good science dealing with wildlife and fish management, and any links which shows what good science is based on, you will ignore that also.

[steelhead]

"LOL...I thought we were talking about put and take rainbows"



Your wrong, were talking about bass. At least I am.




I dont know where your going with this flip flop and backpeddlin, but your attempts all seem to reek of failure. All your questions have been answered and adressed previously with valid points. Ones of which you keep brinnging up. Nice try though.



6 months is a generous bass fishery. Other states and provinces have the same seasons and lenghts of time for thier bass. Ontario is from mid june to November. So, other than under BC regs, bass is just a short season fish. Everywhere.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

There is some validity to that.

The article I linked has MANY links to references. It is not an opinion piece.

However, we know that you have a propensity to ignore good science dealing with wildlife and fish management, and any links which shows what good science is based on, you will ignore that also.

No actually I don't ignore reliable scientific information regarding wildlife,fish management or any other reliable source of information. Fortunate for me and possibly unfortunately for you the only reliable information you provided showed how well the Bass would be tolerated in Alberta and how they would have no affect on the food or spawning sites of the native species. IF you ever produce valid information I would be willing to consider. But it must be from a reliable source not just that you say it's fact so far sorry to say you have not shown that you have that kind of credibility.

[Tezma]

401th Post, Cool

SOme bass thread I made lol....

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by Tezma

401th Post, Cool

SOme bass thread I made lol....

It has always been a volatile subject and not one that will be settled one way or the other easily.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

No actually I don't ignore reliable scientific information regarding wildlife,fish management or any other reliable source of information. Fortunate for me and possibly unfortunately for you the only reliable information you provided showed how well the Bass would be tolerated in Alberta and how they would have no affect on the food or spawning sites of the native species. IF you ever produce valid information I would be willing to consider. But it must be from a reliable source not just that you say it's fact so far sorry to say you have not shown that you have that kind of credibility.

Let's keep this simple.

Do you or do you not subscribe to the precautionary principle? No explanations needed, just, YES you do, or NO, you do not.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

Let's keep this simple.

Do you or do you not subscribe to the precautionary principle? No explanations needed, just, YES you do, or NO, you do not.

Sorry will not just answer yes or no to the question apparently my mind is not as simple as your. I have a feeling you have no idea what you are talking about no one in their right mind would answer with out an explanation you have given no indication what you think the precautionary principle is. I have no idea who you normally converse with but i'm sorry I have a mind of my own and I use it. You should give it a try..........what an irrational concept.

[jesse34567]

All this talk about Bass in Alberta is exciting, they seem like they would do very well in pot hole lakes....

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by jesse34567

All this talk about Bass in Alberta is exciting, they seem like they would do very well in pot hole lakes....

[avb3]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

Sorry will not just answer yes or no to the question apparently my mind is not as simple as your. I have a feeling you have no idea what you are talking about no one in their right mind would answer with out an explanation you have given no indication what you think the precautionary principle is. I have no idea who you normally converse with but i'm sorry I have a mind of my own and I use it. You should give it a try..........what an irrational concept.

Horsetrader, I gave you a link in my post 386 which goes into a pretty good description of what the precautionary principle is.

You either refuse to accept it, refuse to read the link or just want to be obstinate.

I've made my points, you will not accept them, so be it.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by avb3

Let's keep this simple.

Do you or do you not subscribe to the precautionary principle? No explanations needed, just, YES you do, or NO, you do not.

I do...now that i changed sides and agree with you

I dont eat foods that are bad for me
Drink only spring water...no more Diet Pepsi
I pray 3 times a day
I triple wipe with a wild horse...cuz i dont want a tree cut down
No more driving my trucks
No more boating
I dont pee outside if there is mosquitos around.
I wear my floater suit everywhere...incase of a flash flood.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

Horsetrader, I gave you a link in my post 386 which goes into a pretty good description of what the precautionary principle is.

You either refuse to accept it, refuse to read the link or just want to be obstinate.

I've made my points, you will not accept them, so be it.

This is your source Wikipedia:General disclaimer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
General disclaimer – Content disclaimer – Legal disclaimer – Medical disclaimer – Risk disclaimer
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY


Even teenage school girls no longer use Wiki as a reference source

Ok now it my turn I will ask you this one more time if you refuse to answer then we will all just agree you have no proof and no foundation for your claim. BASS WAS ALREADY INTRODUCED IN TO ALBERTA SHOW US PROOF THAT THERE WAS ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT INTRODUCTION AND ANY NATIVE SPECIES.now put up or well if your so smart you should know the rest

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

This is your source Wikipedia:General disclaimer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
General disclaimer – Content disclaimer – Legal disclaimer – Medical disclaimer – Risk disclaimer
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY


Even teenage school girls no longer use Wiki as a reference source

Ok now it my turn I will ask you this one more time if you refuse to answer then we will all just agree you have no proof and no foundation for your claim. BASS WAS ALREADY INTRODUCED IN TO ALBERTA SHOW US PROOF THAT THERE WAS ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT INTRODUCTION AND ANY NATIVE SPECIES.now put up or well if your so smart you should know the rest

OH....OH......I know..I know..............SHUT UP

[chubbdarter]

while we wait for some concrete evidence......lets all post some interesting facts or articles that may scare the BAgeeBuss out of anyone leaving their homes or imagining of trying something outside the bubble.

Myths about Poison Ivy Rashes
Poison Ivy Cures, Help and Information
There are old wives tales out there saying that everything from bleach to oatmeal, nail polish to Vitamin C, can be a cure for poison ivy. Some do make it better - and some make the situation FAR worse.

Here are some things to be sure you NEVER try.

Scratching
Don't scratch! This is NOT because scratching spreads the rash. The only thing that causes the rash is the urushiol oil. If you have washed that all off your skin, then the rash cannot spread. The stuff inside those bubbles are white blood cells, not poisonous oil. However, scratching does form a break in your skin barrier. It is now super easy for infections to get into your blood stream. You could even get blood poisoning, if you put something on your skin and it gets in your system. You are having enough problems as it is - don't add to the problem by getting your entire body sick.

I've seen rememdies that involve lots of scrubbing, or covering the skin with a layer of towel or washcloth and then scrubbing. Don't scrub. You do not want to damage the skin. Anything that risks the skin opening up is asking for blood poisoning or infection. You need the skin to stay as intact and solid as possible. Your aim here is to have the skin be as healthy as possible, so it can solely focus on ending this rash.

Bleach
Don't use bleach! Sure, bleach burns off the top layer of skin and can provide temporary relief. But if bleach gets into any open sore, the blood poisoning you get can send you to the hospital. Use all of the other recommendations on the cures page to manage the itch - do NOT use bleach!

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

while we wait for some concrete evidence......lets all post some interesting facts or articles that may scare the BAgeeBuss out of anyone leaving their homes or imagining of trying something outside the bubble.

Myths about Poison Ivy Rashes
Poison Ivy Cures, Help and Information
There are old wives tales out there saying that everything from bleach to oatmeal, nail polish to Vitamin C, can be a cure for poison ivy. Some do make it better - and some make the situation FAR worse.

Here are some things to be sure you NEVER try.

Scratching
Don't scratch! This is NOT because scratching spreads the rash. The only thing that causes the rash is the urushiol oil. If you have washed that all off your skin, then the rash cannot spread. The stuff inside those bubbles are white blood cells, not poisonous oil. However, scratching does form a break in your skin barrier. It is now super easy for infections to get into your blood stream. You could even get blood poisoning, if you put something on your skin and it gets in your system. You are having enough problems as it is - don't add to the problem by getting your entire body sick.

I've seen rememdies that involve lots of scrubbing, or covering the skin with a layer of towel or washcloth and then scrubbing. Don't scrub. You do not want to damage the skin. Anything that risks the skin opening up is asking for blood poisoning or infection. You need the skin to stay as intact and solid as possible. Your aim here is to have the skin be as healthy as possible, so it can solely focus on ending this rash.

Bleach
Don't use bleach! Sure, bleach burns off the top layer of skin and can provide temporary relief. But if bleach gets into any open sore, the blood poisoning you get can send you to the hospital. Use all of the other recommendations on the cures page to manage the itch - do NOT use bleach!

I heard if you have a rash take the slime off a fish and spread it over the affected area the slime has natural antitoxins in it and will help cure most skin inflictions

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

I heard if you have a rash take the slime off a fish and spread it over the affected area the slime has natural antitoxins in it and will help cure most skin inflictions

I got a rash from something fishy and slimey in high school

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

BASS WAS ALREADY INTRODUCED IN TO ALBERTA SHOW US PROOF THAT THERE WAS ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT INTRODUCTION AND ANY NATIVE SPECIES.

I watched an airshow in Cold Lake one time and no planes crashed.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I watched an airshow in Cold Lake one time and no planes crashed.

Ahhh but they were stock numerous times..........

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

Ahhh but they were stock numerous times..........

Forward looking information involves significant known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Forward looking information involves significant known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated.

And if we fear to move ahead we have no where to go but back

Originally Posted by horsetrader

And if we fear to move ahead we have no where to go but back

LOL...status quo is an option as well.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

LOL...status quo is an option as well.

Its not really much of an option their music is not to many peoples liking

[avb3]

Apparently using a fully referenced Wikipedia is not enough to get some posters to understand what the precautionary principle is.

Then let's try a few others. Perhaps you may actually look at one or more of these and absorb some new knowledge on the Precautionary Principle (PP)


Non-Native Species in Aquaculture: Terminology, Potential Impacts,
and the Invasion Process- U.S. Department of Agriculture
-self explanatory

Assisted colonization is not a viable conservation strategy
-abstract of publication


The United Nations Educationa, Scientific and Cultural Organizaton "The Precautionary Principle"
-an indepth analysis of the application of the PP in various scenarios

Environmental Compliance Insider
-a laymans outline of how the PP may apply in various scenarios

Journal of International Biotechnology Law, "The Precautionary Principle: A New Legal Standard for a Technological Age"
-a legal perspective on how PP is used in as an emerging principle of international law

THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN ACTION A HANDBOOK
-self explanatory

If these are not enough to learn what the Precautionary Principle is, how it is applied and why it is important, let me know.