Bass? Alberta?

[Kim473]

Originally Posted by avb3

No one has posted any facts supporting an introduction of a non-native species that would show that there is no negative impact on native species.

There are some posters who have argued vociferously for non-native species introductions, attempting all sorts of rational, but somehow forgot that the precautionary principle is rule one in fisheries and wildlife management.

Selfish reasons were given-"I want to fish for XYZ right here in Alberta", red herrings thrown out like. "well down east they co-habitat well, why not here" all in an attempt to side track the issue.

Let me state it clearly.

Introduced species can and often do have negative impacts on native species. Fact, not opinion.

End of story.

It's not worth the danger and you can not even begin to suggest you support conservation if you can't accept that.

Smallies have been intriduced in a few lakes in Alberta, such as island lake north of smoky lake. I have seen a few caught out of there years back and im sure there are some still in there unless the whole lake has winter killed in the last few years. The water levels there have receaded so much tho that the whole lake may be dead now.

1984 was the last stocking in Island so it's unlikely any bass remain from the original stocking and there was no evidence of reproduction.

[steelhead]

Sheep wrote......


...........I'm not going to tell you any such thing....never said they'd make their way into the high mountains either. I said foothills and apparently I'm right.....

As for largemouth, it would be nothing more than an expensive put and take fishery with a very slow growing fish that only provides opportunity for half the year.

Regardless, bass in Alberta aren't going to happen any time soon so it really doesn't matter.....your imaginary line can remain in your imagination.









Priceless





STEELHEAD

[Jorg]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

1984 was the last stocking in Island so it's unlikely any bass remain from the original stocking and there was no evidence of reproduction.

I`m not sure what channel you get all your info from -- this is straight out of Fisheries and Oceans Canada`s report about Smallmouth bass dated 2009----

Smallmouth bass were introduced into Alberta in the early to mid 20th century by
individuals or managers acting on their own initiative; these fish did not survive (Scott
and Crossman 1973; Nelson and Paetz 1992). Some reproduction of a small
population introduced between 1977 and 1984 into Island Lake, north of the town of
Smoky Lake in south-eastern Alberta, has been observed. Remnants of this population
may still exist (Nelson and Paetz 1992).
Smallmouth bass were introduced into a number of small ponds and lakes in southeastern
Saskatchewan (Langhorne et al. 2001). They are found primarily in the
southern lakes region.

Also if Steelheads line doesn`t exist then why are there no Bass in the milk river in Alberta

Originally Posted by Jorg

I`m not sure what channel you get all your info from -- this is straight out of Fisheries and Oceans Canada`s report about Smallmouth bass dated 2009----

Smallmouth bass were introduced into Alberta in the early to mid 20th century by
individuals or managers acting on their own initiative; these fish did not survive (Scott
and Crossman 1973; Nelson and Paetz 1992). Some reproduction of a small
population introduced between 1977 and 1984 into Island Lake, north of the town of
Smoky Lake in south-eastern Alberta, has been observed. Remnants of this population
may still exist (Nelson and Paetz 1992).
Smallmouth bass were introduced into a number of small ponds and lakes in southeastern
Saskatchewan (Langhorne et al. 2001). They are found primarily in the
southern lakes region.

Also if Steelheads line doesn`t exist then why are there no Bass in the milk river in Alberta

My bad. You are correct that some spawning was observed as indicated in Fishes of Alberta (Nelson&Paetz) but according to Alberta bio Mike Sullivan in 1991 there was no evidence of their continued survival. Even according to the info you posted there was question as to whether a population still existed in 1992. My point is that it's doubtful that it still does and while a limited spawning occured , it was not deemed successful.

As for the Milk River, no idea. Habitat possibly, water turbidity, forage, I don't know but likely the same reason there are no pike or walleye or perch either. The point of the line was that there is no distinct line that trout live above and bass would live below. There would be a point in the middle where they would mix. That's proven in most of Alberta's large rivers with walleye and pike. Call it a zone if you like but there is definitely no distinct line where one would start and the other would end.

[Faststeel]

We have Bass in our lake in Manitoba that is above the 54th parralell that were stocked there 25 years ago and are doing very well, Great fighting fish and fine eating as well. Our lake is close to the Sask. border and is a shield body of water. Long drive to our cabin but darn good fishing once you arrive. FS

Originally Posted by Faststeel

We have Bass in our lake in Manitoba that is above the 54th parralell that were stocked there 25 years ago and are doing very well, Great fighting fish and fine eating as well. Our lake is close to the Sask. border and is a shield body of water. Long drive to our cabin but darn good fishing once you arrive. FS

Fished there a few times...definitely a strange place to find bass but they do seem to be thriving in that cold water.

[steelhead]

Sheep wrote......



...................I'm not going to tell you any such thing....never said they'd make their way into the high mountains either. I said foothills and apparently I'm right.....



Got an email today, appearently your wrong.


Oldman river walleyes stop well before the old man dam. Not the foothills.

Bow river, no walleyes past Bassano dam.

Red deer river. well before Sundre and sometimes at sundre. close to the edge, but not the foothills.

North sask, not sure, never fished it where the line is, and no info in e-mail. Can anyone add where the walleyes stop?

Atahabasca and Mcleod Just past Edson and a ways from foothills.

Wapiti river at GP and no where near the foothills.


I know the peace river gets walleyes close to the WAC bennet dam, but its a larger river far from the status of the rivers were dealing with. either way, they are not past the dam but in B.c.s foothills.


And all rivers north of that flow from muskeg.



Other than 2 months in the summer, the walleyes generally retreat well downstream to avoid the cold temps in the river and at times, cant even be found in thier typical summer ranges past november.

Heres another good point to add....

.......Also mentioned was that most of these rivers dont have a high enough nutrient base to support large populations of fish closer to the mountains and foothills. The line where walleyes stop is usually at a town or city where effluent enriches and warms the water, like the Bow in Calgary and its trout fishery.





I guess the spawning trout are safe from bass, IF they were to escape. Im starting to like these odds more and more as we go.



I think bass are a fantastic idea.




I did not gather this info. Thank you Bill for digging that up and sharing it with me and the rest of us. Nice to know someone in the GOV, likes to share




STEELHEAD

While the temptation to discuss the geographical boundaries of the foothills region exists, I'll resist.

Answer me this steelhead. Are there areas in the aforementioned rivers where both trout and walleye can be found at the same time? So much for the line.....

[steelhead]

Ah yah, all the rivers i mentioned have the intermingle of trout and walleyes.



But,



High mountains and foothills, nothing but trout and cold water species, no walleyes or warm water species.

Lower and prairie stretches, All cool and warm water species with no regular or no catches of trout.


Theres a line in there somewhere.It might be 4 km stretch of river, but its a line.


Unless you tell me that theres walleyes and goldeyes in the upper oldman to the divide, and Medicine Hat is a trout mecca with cutts and rocky whites. Then there is no line and I will retract everything.
Can you say that about those places?


Anyone else not getting this? Really.


Anyone out there ever catch a trout or catch trout on a regular basis in Med Hat?


Either way, bass are good, Be great to see a new angling excitement in this underfunded and suffering fishery in Alberta. Something new and relatively safe to try.


Seeing as this is the ONLY point out of the many you can argue about in a bass discussion, And have been doing it for a few posts now, I see no reason for me to continue responding as nothing has changed in my point of view and none of your responses carry weight.. You havent convinced me. Three tries was generous. Not convinced. I shouldnt be feeding the troll. He will go on for days if you feed him.



STEELHEAD



Bass are good

Originally Posted by steelhead

Ah yah, all the rivers i mentioned have the intermingle of trout and walleyes.

Thanks, I'm glad you finally get it!

[avb3]

Originally Posted by steelhead

Either way, bass are good, Be great to see a new angling excitement in this underfunded and suffering fishery in Alberta. Something new and relatively safe to try.



Bass are good

Read what you just typed.

No guarantees in other words. And if things go bad, who's going to clean up the mess?

It would be like trying to get of rabbits in Australia.

Steelhead, why not just try and work with the fish we already have here. Let's make the habitat for them the best we can.

Let's not introduce another non-native species that may mess up things even further.

[steelhead]

I get that your very confused. And from the PM's I'm getting, many agree. lol




I guess since no one is defending either of us on this point, were both wrong!!



AVB3


Saskatchewan took the plunge into bass and all the horror stories many speak of here havent materialized. After decades.

I believe nothing bad will happen, but then, everything in life, no matter what it is, whatever situation, whichever human, whatever,, ... Theres no such thing as 100 percent. Always a once percent chance of something happening.

Theres a one percent chance you, AVB3, will infect the world tomorrow with the mega plague with one morning handshake!

A one percent chance that you will be hit with a falling soviet sattelite.


One percent, i like those odds. Thats relatively enough for me.


Steelhead

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

Read what you just typed.

No guarantees in other words. And if things go bad, who's going to clean up the mess?

It would be like trying to get of rabbits in Australia.

Steelhead, why not just try and work with the fish we already have here. Let's make the habitat for them the best we can.

Let's not introduce another non-native species that may mess up things even further.

Who cleaned up the mess last time??????? NO ONE

WHY???? BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MESS

comparing the introduction of bass in Alberta to the introduction of rabbits in Australia is like the rest of you posts there is no foundation or validity.
The rabbits had no problem breeding,they had no natural predators and they had no boundaries . Incase you don't see the difference I will try to clarify.

(1) It has already been stated that bass either can't or have difficult time breeding here.
(2) Bass have natural predators in Alberta IE: WALLEYE,PIKE WILD BIRDS
(3)The Bass will have boundaries in regards to water temp. and the pot lake waters their introduced in to. Why do you insist on trying to be a fear monger and make posts with no substantial grounds.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

Who cleaned up the mess last time??????? NO ONE

WHY???? BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MESS
comparing the introduction of bass in Alberta to the introduction of rabbits in Australia is like the rest of you posts there is no foundation or validity.
The rabbits had no problem breeding,they had no natural predators and they had no boundaries . Incase you don't see the difference I will try to clarify.

(1) It has already been stated that bass either can't or have difficult time breeding here.
(2) Bass have natural predators in Alberta IE: WALLEYE,PIKE WILD BIRDS
(3)The Bass will have boundaries in regards to water temp. and the pot lake waters their introduced in to. Why do you insist on trying to be a fear monger and make posts with no substantial grounds.

Excuse me...do some research

These are examples of the last Alberta Bass disaster
A bass mated with a wild boar

A bass mated with a 95 year old senior citizen.

This pic i just liked not really to do with topic


The risks and costs are TOO high, I have reconsidered my stand.....but to be morally correct and true to my beliefs...i want cars and guns banned too

[xtreme hunter10]

I havent read a lot of recent posts... but did someone say they want steelhead in alberta? can someone explain to me how steelhead are gonna live in alberta?

[Tezma]

Originally Posted by xtreme hunter10

I havent read a lot of recent posts... but did someone say they want steelhead in alberta? can someone explain to me how steelhead are gonna live in alberta?

Round 325
!!!FIGHT!!!

[Tezma]

The rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is a species of salmonid native to tributaries of the Pacific Ocean in Asia and North America. The steelhead is a sea run rainbow trout (anadromous) usually returning to freshwater to spawn after 2 to 3 years at sea. In other words, rainbow trout and steelhead trout are the same species. The fish are often called salmon trout. Several other fish in the salmonid family are called trout, some are anadromous like salmon, whereas others are resident in freshwater only.

I don't see a SEA any where in Alberta!

[xtreme hunter10]

Originally Posted by Tezma

The rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is a species of salmonid native to tributaries of the Pacific Ocean in Asia and North America. The steelhead is a sea run rainbow trout (anadromous) usually returning to freshwater to spawn after 2 to 3 years at sea. In other words, rainbow trout and steelhead trout are the same species. The fish are often called salmon trout. Several other fish in the salmonid family are called trout, some are anadromous like salmon, whereas others are resident in freshwater only.

I don't see a SEA any where in Alberta!

thats what i was trying to get at as well. where is the salt water coming from? we importing that with the steelhead? I hope its a combo deal cause otherwise it would cost a lot more.....................

[steelhead]

OK, someone clued me in on where YOUR not getting it.





# The line is the intermingling zone.# Something I never denied as my examples of the line showed trout mix on both sides of the line. That intent was to show where walleyes stopped on the upstream side of the line Check my wapiti example.


Above that line And usually far above) lies the spawning grounds and nursery creeks that are home to nothing but trout and cold water fish. Cool water fish are not found and do not interfere with the trout and whitefish breeding and rearing. No pike, no perch, no walleyes no goldeyes.

Then theres the line,# the intermingling zone#. Both species can be found. Some in greater numbers than others. No big deal, they co-exist quite niceley with no harm to eithers spawning grounds or major habitat. And, if anything, it would be the trout, interfereing with the cool water species spawing grounds.
Trout would harm bass more than the latter.!!!! imagine that.


Then, below the line, no trout. Too warm. But perfect temps for cool water fish spawning and rearing.


Example. Bow river.
South of bassano, pike walleyes goldeyes perch.

Bearspaw to Bassano, trout, pike perch. Goldeyes have been reported and photoed caught at Lake magregor, so some have to be in this stretch of the river at one time.

The highwood river system from the high rocks to the bow river. Trout and whites. No perch, no pike and spawning grounds miles away from any major intereaction. Check electrofishing data for the highwood.


Elbow river north of glenmore. Pike and perch stay in lake with a few cruisers being caught upstream, but not that far. Spawning grounds for trout miles a way.





Even though we were all scolded that..... "Regardless, bass in Alberta aren't going to happen any time soon so it really doesn't matter"


I think it would be a mistake for the Gov. NOT to stock bass.


But who needs tourisim and nice places for people to visit when we got oil and gas money.




One thing I am very happy for. I'm glad the cajuns brought the crayfish. Cause now the Ontarians can bring the bass. Now if we can make banjo players out of these reform party votin stubble jumpin combine pilots, ,,,


well,


it would feel just like home.


End of rant. And I mean, the end!!LOL


STEELHEAD

Originally Posted by steelhead

# The line is the intermingling zone.# Something I never denied as my examples of the line showed trout mix on both sides of the line.

I'm glad you finally get it. That's what I've been saying from the onset, is that there would be an overlap in the ranges of the two fish in our major rivers. I'm glad you agree.

[Jorg]

Well we should all share a cup of wine, It has been a good debate with some valid points made by both sides.
Cheers


I'm still not sure why need to debate this over and over as it seems pretty clear to me.

Pick one

[mszomola]

bass isnt a walleye , and you dont see them eyes slamming on your precious trout in the river :P

how would a fish with no teeth ( bass ) be in any way similar ??

again stupid comparison , pointless defence and once again its of personal opinion not factual ...


you see the patterns ? theres a group here that will at all cost defend not introducing bass in some lakes over their own created theories and fears ....

in the end , its not even these folks you'd have to convince ...

[steelhead]

Largies are warmer than walleyes, our example specie.


Harmless or non-existent overlap with trout dominating with no encroachment by bass on trout spawning grounds. On the rivers in the south, NO overlap as the dams prevent a cross.


Still a winning combination!




I prefer the specie of bass in Jorgs post.

[xtreme hunter10]

Originally Posted by steelhead

Largies are warmer than walleyes, our example specie.


Harmless or non-existent overlap with trout dominating with no encroachment by bass on trout spawning grounds. On the rivers in the south, NO overlap as the dams prevent a cross.


Still a winning combination!




I prefer the specie of bass in Jorgs post.

walleye typically like deep cold water.Bass like warm water. not sure what you are trying to compare. Bass have teeth. not walleye like teeth, but they do have teeth.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by mszomola

you see the patterns ? theres a group here that will at all cost defend not introducing bass in some lakes over their own created theories and fears ....

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 Wikipedia article, 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.

in the end , its not even these folks you'd have to convince ..

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.

Originally Posted by mszomola

bass isnt a walleye , and you dont see them eyes slamming on your precious trout in the river :P

how would a fish with no teeth ( bass ) be in any way similar ??

again stupid comparison , pointless defence and once again its of personal opinion not factual ...


you see the patterns ? theres a group here that will at all cost defend not introducing bass in some lakes over their own created theories and fears ....

in the end , its not even these folks you'd have to convince ...

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

[steelhead]

Theres cold, cool, and warm water fish. Trout are cold, walleyes are cool, and largemouth bass are warm.

In a lake....

......... In summer you find walleyes in the shallow warm waters in a lake. In the winter, they are in deep warm waters. They find the warmest water in the lake to live. They do go out of thier zones to feed in eves and morns.

In a river it all depends on the water temps at various stretches. Walleyes dont like cold water. They would be in the upper stretches of our rivers if it were otherwise.

Walleyes do not like cold waters.

When you fish for lake trout, you dont catch walleyes. When you fish for walleyes, you dont catch lake trout. Cool and cold dont mix


As mentioned largemouths are warm water fish, not cool like walleyes, and would probably not tolerate the walleyes prefered cool temp range. Therefore, they would detest the trout temps and could not function or spawn. A safe bet.


Walleyes like cool water, but not water as cold as trout like.

Originally Posted by steelhead

Largies are warmer than walleyes, our example specie.


Harmless or non-existent overlap with trout dominating with no encroachment by bass on trout spawning grounds. On the rivers in the south, NO overlap as the dams prevent a cross.


Still a winning combination!




I prefer the specie of bass in Jorgs post.

Steelhead I agree that largemouth would present less risk to our native species but stocking largemouth would be a very expensive put and take fishery at best. They grow very slowly in cold water, wouldn't reproduce and provide angling opportunity for only half of the year. I just can't see the value of the investment but I agree jorg's bass is interesting but I doubt it would provide much opportunity for the average angler either...

BTW, there are trout below the dams on several southern rivers so to say there would be NO overlap just isn't true.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

.... I agree jorg's bass is interesting but I doubt it would provide much opportunity for the average angler either...

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