Smallmouth Bass As An Invasive Species?

[CTGalloway21]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.