Native vs. Introduced Species

[Buzzbaiter]

After looking through a recent thread about Alabama Bass, I felt motivated to start my own thread about invasives, natives, and introduced species. The question today is: how do you guys feel about introduced gamefish?

 

Given that this is a bass fishing forum, many of the people who use this site probably enjoy fishing for introduced fish. It should be no surprise that bass can be very detrimental to native species. I’m interested in what you guys think about the impacts of facilitating the propagation of fish in systems where they never used to exist. Is it worth putting extra pressure on native organisms just to sustain recreational fisheries? What if it’s just bugs and minnows that go extinct as a result of introducing foreign gamefish?

 

Speaking for myself, I don’t think it’s worth drastically changing native ecosystems to accommodate introduced gamefish. For instance, being from Maryland, I would much rather have our tailwater systems managed exclusively for native brook trout than rainbows, browns, or cutthroats. It doesn’t make sense to me why anyone would introduce these foreign species of trout when we have a perfectly good gamefish that has existed in the state’s waterways for millennia. I’d even go so far as to say I’d rather catch giant fallfish out of the Potomac than smallmouth (and I love smallmouth). I can’t help but wonder what Maryland’s waters would look like just a few hundred years ago when we didn’t throw a bunch of foreign fish into them. I am of the opinion that, wherever you go, there’s probably a really cool native gamefish, which makes introducing new fish nonsensical. Sure, Lake Biwa might have huge bass. But I can catch Florida Bass anywhere in the southeast; where else can I catch a Biwa Trout? Still, I don’t think native organisms need to have sporting potential to be work protecting. I think there’s value in simply having native species, even if they are “just bugs and minnows.”
 

That being said, the earth isn’t what it used to be. Places that once supported sensitive species are no longer capable of doing so. Dams and pollution have turned some fisheries into perfect habitat for introduced species. In that sense, I can totally understand introducing gamefish where the land has been changed nearly irreparably. However, I don’t think we should ever sacrifice our native ecosystems for imported fisheries. What do you all think?

[TnRiver46]

Here’s a case study from my area 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254304876_Angler_Conflicts_in_Fisheries_Management_A_Case_Study_of_the_Striped_Bass_Controversy_at_Norris_Reservoir_Tennessee

[Captain Phil]

I believe the answer depends upon who's doing the stocking and the fishing. Back when I lived in South Florida, the introduction of Peacock Bass was greeted with great enthusiasm.  South Florida fresh water fishing has always been diverse due to land locked Snook and Tarpon swimming in from the coast.  Many anglers find native bass harder to catch. At the time, I worried that black bass would become Peacock bass food.  Thankfully, this did not happen as Peacocks can't live much further north than Palm Beach. A bigger problem is non native fish introduced by uninformed individuals. Today, there are canals in South Florida where the Oscars (cichlids) are so thick that's all you catch.  What scares me are snake heads. It would be a tragedy if our great bass fishing turned into a "snake head hunt". 

 

Here in Central Florida, game officials have stocked hybrid strippers.  Some people love them. I find them boring.  They do coexist well with Florida bass and I don't find them harmful to the local bass population.  Years ago, I read about a program that was attempting to "dumb down" Florida bass to make them easier to catch.  I don't know what happened to it or how they would have gauged their results. Perhaps they gave the bass IQ tests?  I think they should have tested the people who thought up that idea.  ?

[king fisher]

In my opinion, introducing non native species of fish, in general is not a good idea.  That said, the two places I have fished for bass, WA and Mexico, both have bass populations that are not native.  Next time I catch a DD bass, I doubt if I will be feeling guilty from my hypocrisy.

      The most common and damaging introduction of non native species is not done by fisherman, or state agencies.  Gold fish are introduced by loving parents, that don't have the heart to flush them down the toilet when they no longer are able to keep them.  They take the kids to the local lake and watch them swim away.  Then a few years later the lake has to be treated with rotenone, and all the fish killed off in order to be stocked again with what ever game fish is preferred in that lake.  This happens all the time in the Northwest trout lakes.

       Another example I personally experienced was the introduction of northern pike into the Matanuska, Susitna region of Alaska.  While pike are native to most of Alaska, the region, south and west of the Alaska range did not have them.  Someone illegally put a few pike in a lake that flowed in to the Yentna River.  In a few short years pike spread throughout the entire drainage.  In this same region, there were numerous small rivers with very little current that had king salmon runs.  Most places in the state these types of streams did not have king salmon runs.  The reason is now very clear.  The pike adapted well to the small stream habitat, and decimated the King runs in this type of stream.  One steam had many lodges, and was one of the first to get a king run in the spring.  Now this stream is not even open for catch and release king salmon fishing.  Yes there are still King salmon runs in the swifter rivers in this region, and people do enjoy fishing for pike, but the loss of the native king runs in numerous streams is a tragedy, that can never be reversed.

     Many species have been introduced that in most anglers minds are a big improvement to the local fisheries, and others have been there so long, no one even knows what it was like before they were introduced.  Common carp and numerous catfish species are common examples of this.

      Before a foreign species is introduced, there should be scientific study combined with debate from all people that could be effected in the region.  A single bucket biologist with his favorite game fish, ready to dump in to a public waterway is not only breaking the law, but a very selfish individual.

    Again my hypocrisy is showing, because my favorite bass lake in Mexico was stocked by an unknown bucket biologist.  The local commercial tilapia fisherman are not happy the bass are there, but I sure am.  I guess I have to admit when it comes to bass I am selfish.

 

[greentrout]

Smart Bass? Dumb Bass? | The Ultimate Bass Fishing Resource Guide® LLC (bassresource.com)

[gim]

I am not familiar with stripers or spotted bass, as we have neither one here in the Upper Midwest.

 

Brown trout are stocked in some of our streams here.  They seem to do a little better than the native brook trout because they are more tolerant of lower oxygen levels and more pollution in the water.  I don't trout fish, so I can't comment on the feeling amongst trout anglers here.

 

Muskies, both hybrids/tigers, and pure strain have been stocked in lakes here.  At very low density.  Like almost unmeasurable amounts.  It is not a numbers game, it is a trophy hunt for a rare fish here.  They have done well because there is a strong catch and release ethic amongst muskie anglers, but some uneducated meat-hunting folks don't like them.  They think that muskies eat all their keeper sized walleyes and slab crappies - the exact type of fish that the meat-hunting anglers themselves are after.  This is pure speculation backed by no data whatsoever.  The only species decimating the walleyes and crappies are the anglers, the very ones complaining about the muskies.

 

That being said, we have data out there to call upon when looking to introduce a new species and that should be consulted before doing so.  Just releasing or introducing a new non-native species can cause catastrophic problems in the future and should never be done.  Aka the bucket-biologist that @king fisher speaks of in his post above.

[MN Fisher]

56 minutes ago, gimruis said:

Brown trout are stocked in some of our streams here.  They seem to do a little better than the native brook trout because they are more tolerant of lower oxygen levels and more pollution in the water.  I don't trout fish, so I can't comment on the feeling amongst trout anglers here.

At least Brook, Cuthroat, and Rainbows are native to North America - Browns were brought over from Europe so can be considered an 'invasive species'. They are more aggressive than the others and have a habit of taking over streams from the other species.

[king fisher]

Another consideration that fisheries managers must take in to consideration before introducing foreign species is weather or not the species can reproduce in the new habitat, and if so, can they spread to other locations.

       Many lakes in the northwest are planted with rainbow trout which are not a native species.   The lakes do not have a river system for the trout to spawn in so they grow to spawning age then die without reproducing.  It is a very easy fish population to mange because they will not reproduce, and if fisheries managers, want to limit the amount of trout in the lake, they simply plant fewer trout or completely stop planintng them.  These lakes are planted with far more trout than could be sustained by the food source in the lake, if they were to live very long, but since anglers are encouraged to harvest a limit, and thousands of anglers do, the food source in these lakes do not get depleted.  For this reason the lakes are called put and take lakes.  This put and take method of managing trout was also what was responsible for the numbers of giant bass in CA lakes.  If a lake has a naturally sustainable number of rainbow trout, there are far to few trout to be a major food source of bass, and the trout can at times, essentially be a competing predictor to the bass.  By planting thousands more small trout than what would occur naturally, the bass benefitted by having an abundant food source literally dumped into their dinning room.  In this example both species of non native fish thrived, and both trout and bass anglers were very happy.  The only complaint would be the cost of stocking so many trout to end up in bass stomachs, but the cost was offset by license sales from trout anglers wanting to take home a limit to eat.

        The trout were dependent on constant stockings, but the bass once established survived on their own.

        Tiger Musky cannot reproduce and can be planted in lakes that may be able to accommodate another large predator, but biologists are not sure how many are needed, and they want to be able to return a natural population in the future if that is what is warranted.  

       It is far safer to introduce a species that wont or can't reproduce in to a new waters, especially ones connected by rivers to other extensive water systems in one or more states.  These species can be managed simply by stocking more or less of them.

        Species such as carp, which reproduce in almost any ecosystem, and are almost impossible to eradicate. Should not be introduced without extensive study and debate.

         One persons favorite sportfish, may be hated by others, and some species are far more difficult to manage than others.  We live in a democracy where all peoples concerns should be heard and evaluated before any species of fish are introduced. 

        

[WVU-SCPA]

Technically speaking large mouth are not native to my watershed (Chesapeake), but were introduced so long ago they are viewed as native by most people.

 

The human history of moving fish is quite extensive.

[casts_by_fly]

at this point in time, I think the species that are where they are should more or less stay.  Its well and good to say that brown trout or largemouth are not native to where they are now.  But they aren't going anywhere.  Things happen.  Unless you have a way for a total fish kill (like in a lake drain down and dryup), you're not going to erradicate non natives or even invasives once they get into a place.  

 

I don't think we should be putting new fish in new places.  What's there is there.  Don't make the situation worse.  The only mild exception for me would be put and take trout fisheries in warmwater lakes.  The majority are caught be fishermen and birds.  The rest are fish food or die in the summer heat.  Sure its not sustainable but that's the point.  If you stop, they will cease to exist.  

[Bankc]

In Oklahoma, our lakes aren't even native "species".  All of our lakes are man-made.  They destroyed whatever native habitat existed by making the lakes.  And our rivers tend to run dry or nearly dry for parts of the year, again probably due to all of the dams making all of the lakes.  So at best, they're only part time habitats for fish.  So does it matter what gets stocked in such an artificial, natural environment?  

 

I mean, you don't want to get too crazy with it, as what lives in these waters will make their way both upstream and downstream.  But I'm not worried about invasive species in our lakes, because on some level, they're all invasive species.  

[Will Ketchum]

Smallmouth bass were introduced into the Susquehanna and have become the premier species in the river with no notable side effects to my knowledge.

 

Rock bass were once plentiful in the river but are scarce now and I suspect muskie stocking is responsible for that. I would like to catch a few rock bass every outing than 1 muskie every few years if at all.

 

On the other side of the coin, the once native American eel used to migrate annually up the river to spawn, but several dams downstream put an end to that.

[Tennessee Boy]

5 hours ago, Buzzbaiter said:

The question today is: how do you guys feel about introduced gamefish?

It’s a very complicated question.   It depends on the gamefish and the body of water.   If there are any pristine streams or lakes left then I think it’s a good idea to try to keep them that way.  The Duck River in Tennessee is special and should be protected as much as possible.  The Tennessee River is nothing like it was 200 years ago and has had many different species introduced intentionally and accidentally.   Adding some more stripped bass to the countless number that have already been added is not a risk to the ecosystem.   Adding something new is obviously a risk.  Adding something that has been shown to be detrimental is stupid.

[WRB]

California doesn’t have any native fresh water bass species, every bass are non native including Strip bass.

Tom

[Woody B]

I haven't commented in the Spotted/Alabama bass thread because I haven't watched the video yet.   The "tale" is a few fishermen caught spotted bass in Lake Keowee and took them to Lake Norman.  Lake Norman is literally full of Spotted bass.  I don't believe a few live wells full of fish started this in a lake that's over 30,000 acres.  Every lake on the Catawba river chain has a decent population of Spots.   I think either they migrated there naturally (doubtful) or at some point the State stocked them.    

 

Man messing with nature probably isn't a good thing in most cases but I believe most of the "invasive species" horror stories are unwarranted.   Tom has a good example with all of the HUGE Bass caught in California, but none are native there.   

 

I won't be transporting any fish from one body of water to another.   

[gim]

On 9/29/2023 at 3:54 PM, Will Ketchum said:

I would like to catch a few rock bass every outing

Why. They’re junk fish. The ugly no good distant cousin of the bass family that no one cares for.

[MN Fisher]

40 minutes ago, gimruis said:

Why. They’re junk fish. The ugly no good distant cousin of the bass family that no one cares for.

I dunno - I found them pretty good eating when I lived up in Bemidji...even my mom liked them and specifically asked if I could catch a few.

 

Dad and my sister don't do fish....just like my wife (MINE....ALL MINE!)

[Further North]

I've not seen the "Alabama Bass" topic, and a search turns up nothing useful.

Can someone provide a link?

[AlabamaSpothunter]

13 minutes ago, Further North said:

I've not seen the "Alabama Bass" topic, and a search turns up nothing useful.

Can someone provide a link?

Prepare to meet the modern boogeyman.....enter at your own risk ?

 

 

[Further North]

3 hours ago, gimruis said:

Why. They’re junk fish. The ugly no good distant cousin of the bass family that no one cares for.

Rock bass are fun, and pound-for-pound, aggressive,  hard fighting fish.

 

If they made it five pounds...even three...anglers wouldn't be able to get enough of them. 

 

I'm happy to catch them any time they eat what I'm chucking, flies or gear...they make me smile. 

[MassBass]

I don't think it's always bad actors spreading fish, what if fish have ways of spreading on their own, through high water events and floods, travel through brackish or even salt water, birds, fish just migrating on their own? 

 

For example Northern Pike. Who is to say it is all these bad actors, 'bucket biologists' spreading Pike, when really in most cases it just seems to be an expansion of its natural range? Systems change, climate changes, maybe some expansions or contractions of species is natural. For example brook trout. A close relative of the Arctic Char, they need cold, clear water. If the climate changes this species will naturally contract, and a more warm water specie like smallmouth bass will quickly fill the habitat if given a chance.

[thediscochef]

On 9/29/2023 at 12:28 PM, king fisher said:

In my opinion, introducing non native species of fish, in general is not a good idea.  That said, the two places I have fished for bass, WA and Mexico, both have bass populations that are not native.  Next time I catch a DD bass, I doubt if I will be feeling guilty from my hypocrisy.

      The most common and damaging introduction of non native species is not done by fisherman, or state agencies.  Gold fish are introduced by loving parents, that don't have the heart to flush them down the toilet when they no longer are able to keep them.  They take the kids to the local lake and watch them swim away.  Then a few years later the lake has to be treated with rotenone, and all the fish killed off in order to be stocked again with what ever game fish is preferred in that lake.  This happens all the time in the Northwest trout lakes.

       Another example I personally experienced was the introduction of northern pike into the Matanuska, Susitna region of Alaska.  While pike are native to most of Alaska, the region, south and west of the Alaska range did not have them.  Someone illegally put a few pike in a lake that flowed in to the Yentna River.  In a few short years pike spread throughout the entire drainage.  In this same region, there were numerous small rivers with very little current that had king salmon runs.  Most places in the state these types of streams did not have king salmon runs.  The reason is now very clear.  The pike adapted well to the small stream habitat, and decimated the King runs in this type of stream.  One steam had many lodges, and was one of the first to get a king run in the spring.  Now this stream is not even open for catch and release king salmon fishing.  Yes there are still King salmon runs in the swifter rivers in this region, and people do enjoy fishing for pike, but the loss of the native king runs in numerous streams is a tragedy, that can never be reversed.

     Many species have been introduced that in most anglers minds are a big improvement to the local fisheries, and others have been there so long, no one even knows what it was like before they were introduced.  Common carp and numerous catfish species are common examples of this.

      Before a foreign species is introduced, there should be scientific study combined with debate from all people that could be effected in the region.  A single bucket biologist with his favorite game fish, ready to dump in to a public waterway is not only breaking the law, but a very selfish individual.

    Again my hypocrisy is showing, because my favorite bass lake in Mexico was stocked by an unknown bucket biologist.  The local commercial tilapia fisherman are not happy the bass are there, but I sure am.  I guess I have to admit when it comes to bass I am selfish.

 

This and king fishers post that followed it are the correct takes in my opinion. I didn't realize there were pike in the Susitna when I was there like 15 years ago. Makes the dismal king fishing in the streams make a lot more sense...and all this time I thought we had fished a bad spot...

 

The hard part about it is that without man-made lakes stocked with introduced species, I would probably not have much water to fish at all. There are native black bass in my area, mostly spotted bass and some northern strain LM. Those native spotted bass have no size limits at most of the lakes I fish. I love catching big Florida bass, but it is an unnatural existence here. 

I also have A/C, and watch videos on what basically amounts to controlled lightning. Very little of modern existence is in congruence with the earth around us, we are in many ways monuments to our own arrogance and pride

[flyfisher]

Reading this thread highlights one large piece that people mostly don't consider.  They are looking at it from the angle of an angler and not an ecosystem. Anytime a non-native is introduced it has an impact, how large is only speculation until they actually do it.  Case in point here in Virginia was that Blue Catfish and Flatheads were introduced to the James river in the 70's to create another sportfish to target.  It has become a world class fishery but the smallmouth fishing has decreased in that area.  

 

We also see it a ton with the snakehead that people complain about yet in all the studies I have seen, they have done a great service to help the bass population.   Then I see a ton of people who say if you catch a bowfin or gar they are trash fish and should be killed and thrown on the shore because they are hurting the bass fishing yet they are native and been here since the time of the dinosaurs basically.

 

Bottom line to me is I am not moving any fish to any body of water unless it was my own private one and nobody else should either.  I'll leave that up to the experts and just go fishing for what is near me.

[you]

I enjoy fishing for native and introduced species alike. The problem is that some ecosystems are so far removed from their natural state that it's hard to know what effective species management should look like.

 

I'd rather see management and regulatory priorities focused on keeping waterways clean. So many watersheds have been affected by over-development, fertilizer runoff, chemical pollution, etc. Protecting the water first is a key step to maintaining healthy native fish populations. Even if the native fish populations are already disrupted, protecting the water first protects humans who eat the fish or drink the water. Strong water protections can also eliminate certain sources of species invasions.

 

Also, I wonder how all the fish felt when the humans started showing up ?

[MassBass]

If the state stocks something, then you can say yeah, it was introduced. Like European (Common) carp. It is not even originally from Europe, it was native only to Asia but was widespread in Europe by the time of classical Greece. This fish was stocked by the US government as a food source during the Great Depression, never caught on as table fare but did a thorough job rooting up everything in the rivers and probably totally and permanently changing the system.

 

So who is the guy that stocked a foundational sized population of Pike in the Columbia river basin, or did it in the Alaskan bush, or even did it up in Maine. Did they ever catch him, anyone ever come forward and claim their fame?