Bass? Alberta?

[steelhead]

Pic Pat wrote........



............i agree that the foothills and mountians are safe, its the rest of the province that im concerned with. this isnt just about trout, its the competition with other species should bass take hold and be self sustaining that concerns me. in a fertile system i think it may be safe. in a more fragile system, bass may push out native populations of fish by eating the limited amount of prey species. competition in an already tight food chain may throw everything out of whack.


In many other provinces, bass are both a excellent predator and a suitible forage. In the east, they are more likely to get pushed out as they spawn in hot summer months and when the feedbag is on for all the other species, bass dont eat while protecting thier nests and are easy forage for large predators. They compliment lake ecosystems more than they harm, unless the lake they inhabit was designed to hold stocked trout. Then theres problems.


More information just search the Sir Sandford Fleming site. They do the research on the kawartha lakes in ontario. Lots of wicked information on those lakes and how bass are a bonus for any of those lakes. I have been in on a few of those research projects.


STEELHEAD

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

thats because theres no such thing as ALBERTA BASS.......

Are you sure your not picky pat
Nothing on there about Alberta, Bass introduction just refers back to My Wild Alberta

either way you write it there's nothing there

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

Are you sure your not picky pat
Nothing on there about Alberta, Bass introduction just refers back to My Wild Alberta

either way you write it there's nothing there

yes, im sure horseturder. lol

[mszomola]

Theres no way bass would take on the bow if thats what your referring to. They wont spawn , they wont thrive, they would fizzle out .


i searched "Effects of stocked smallmouth on trout in rivers" and theres nothing damaging coming up ...

If your referring to bass in California and how they slaughtered trout , then let me also point out the warm climate they have there and largemouth in particular will thrive in warm water. BUT please remember that the bass in California and Florida , and all those southern states have bass that exceed 10 - 15 pounds ....


not alot of 5 lb bass in invermere and they aren't touching trout , last i check sqauwfish are owning all populations in that lake by a preposterous number..



state record for smallmouth in montana is 6lbs , thats it.. the bass destroying trout fisheres again just personal opinions , no ones actually shown damage within our region for bass. If people are afraid of bucket brigades then why arent there bass all over the province by now ? must be an illusion albertans have created .....

honestly , you guys have no case ... theres no reason to be so up tight about the subject , YOU DONT KNOW everything , and honestly , do what steel says , Google is your friend ... right now you guys are explaining to an east sider how bass behave and how damaging they are and maybe you havent even caught a bass in your life ...


again it would be a miracle to have even 1 thriving lake with bass in alberta ,
let alone start some kind of viral spread like asian carp ... it just wont happen ....

[mszomola]

im pretty certain after what the 100th thread about bass , that the majority of albertans have no clue of bass as a species and are quick to jump to conclusions .....

this isnt Australia and your release frogs , this is Canada , and believe it or not diverse northern fish coexist all over the place ... they aren't exotic ....

exotic is asian carp and thats showing the true damage of a fish that doesn't belong from an entirely different eco system ... were talking about bass which exists left and right of us ...

walleye , bass , pike , trout , salmon, muskie , perch etc etc etc all exist throughout canada in the same bodies of water and NOTHING has changed , its just stubborn old ways and people without actual knowledge of the species .... and possibly even people whom take advice from the same mnr people who gill net samples of walleye .... its like watching a 12 year old try to drive a car ....

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

yes, im sure horseturder. lol

touché ........lol

[avb3]

Isn't it strange that most of the posters who are promoting bass introduction are referencing THEIR experiences in other ecosystems, predominately in Eastern Canada.

Most lakes in Alberta are eutrophic lakes, whereas in eastern Canada they are oligotrophic or mesotrophic.

For a detailed describition of habitat preferences, breeding requirements and interaction with other species, perhaps our eastern brethren should look at this website from the University of Wisconsin. No, it is not Canadian, but it has a lot of information easily understood in one place. And it has credibility, and not voicing opinion or hearsay.

Look at interspecies relationship dynamics. It is clear that smallmouth are a top predator, and will compete with walleye and pike.

Is this what we want? And no, although some of the juveniles are predated upon by walleye and pike, the obverse is also true. Do we really want another predator to impact forage fish and game fish like perch?

If you look at the natural range map, it is clear that we are so far out of its natural, or even extended range, that why would we want to spend rare dollars, even IF there was not negative impact?

Why does that not make sense to those who insist on an non-native introduction?

Great chart steelhead but I couldn't help notice the word "prefered" in front of temperature. I think you are taking it too literally. I know of several rivers in Alberta where pike and walleye are found alongside trout so obviously those fish will move out of their prefered range. I have no reason to believe that bass wouldn't either. Especially to eat one of their favoured foods.....young salmonids.

[Jorg]

Here is some info on salmonid and smallmouth bass interaction

Bull trout and Dolly Varden are considered to be cold-water fishes, while smallmouth
bass is a cool-warm water fish. There are physiological differences between the native
chars and smallmouth bass that might limit their spatial overlap, thus reducing the
potential for interaction. Bull trout, brook trout and bass do overlap in the Kootenay
River. At the southern margins of their range bull trout are considered to be in serious
decline (McPhail 2007b).
Smallmouth bass clearly prey on juvenile migrating salmonids (Warner 1972; Weidel et
al. 2000; Fritts and Pearsons 2006) and trout (Tabor and Wurtsbaugh 1991). However,
the degree to which this affects salmonid abundance is not so clear. Scientific literature
for the lower, un-impounded Columbia and Willamette Rivers supports the conclusion
that juvenile salmonids are typically not a major part of adult smallmouth bass diet
(Zimmerman 1999, Summers and Daily 2001). However, predation on migrating
salmonids by smallmouth bass is apparently high during spring and early summer,
when fry and sub-yearling chinook salmon of suitable size are abundant and when their
habitat overlaps with that of smallmouth bass (Tabor et al. 1993).
Fletcher (1991) examined ten case studies of smallmouth bass and salmonid interaction
in the northwestern U.S. He concluded that in five cases after smallmouth bass became
established there was an indication of increased survival rates of salmonid species and
in no cases were there clear indications of reduced salmonid survival. It must be noted
that two of these case studies involved a series of upper Columbia River reservoirs
where the release of large hatchery-reared trout juveniles dominated.
John Day Reservoir, mid-Columbia River, hosts large populations of smallmouth bass,
and predation on salmonids is well documented (Rieman et al. 1991; Beamsderfer and
Rieman 1991). Fletcher (1991) questioned what portion of the salmon smolts noted in
predator fish stomachs were ingested live, and which were dam-injured. He also noted
that smallmouth bass were not the main consumer of salmon smolts. He indicated that
smallmouth bass consumed 6.95 smolts/yr compared to 23.14 smolts/yr by walleye and
24.68 smolts/yr by northern pikeminnow.
Smallmouth bass predation was also examined on three rivers. Fletcher (1991)
questioned the sources of information that reported the reductions in sucker,
pikeminnow, and chiselmouth populations by smallmouth bass in Owyhee River,
Oregon. He felt that consumption of anadromous salmonids was not an issue on the
John Day River, Oregon, as no juvenile salmon were found in bass stomachs. Fletcher
noted that steelhead, spring chinook salmon and coho salmon returns have remained
fairly constant since smallmouth bass were introduced into the Umpqua River, Oregon.
However, these salmonid populations are supplemented with hatchery fish.
Two case studies of bass predation in lakes were examined by the same author. Fall
chinook salmon and coho salmon smolts are annually released into Lake Sammamish,
Washington. Fletcher (1991) felt that survival rates of chinook increased following bass
introduction, and the slight reduction in coho survival was not significant. Lake Osoyoos,
in British Columbia and Washington, contains a population of smallmouth bass and
supports a sockeye salmon run. Fletcher (1991) compared sockeye productivity in Lake
Osoyoos to neighbouring Lake Wenatchee (sockeye but no smallmouth bass) and felt
that if bass predation were a significant problem, Lake Osoyoos should have lower
survival rates.
A study by Bennett et al. (1991) examined bass predation on out-migrating salmonids in
Lake Sammamish, Washington. Chinook and coho salmon smolts migrate through the
littoral areas in April and May and are preyed upon by both large and smallmouth bass
(Pflug 1981; Pflug and Pauley 1984). In Lake Sammamish, largemouth bass consumed
more salmonids than did smallmouth bass (Pflug 1981). Bennett et al. (1991)
speculated that bass predation on juvenile salmonids was generally low.
In the Columbia River, the dominant fish prey species for smallmouth bass in spring
were migrating salmon juveniles (Bennett et al. 1991). No salmonids were observed in
bass diet during the summer and autumn. Bass prey on salmon and steelhead smolts
immediately downstream of dams and throughout the reservoirs, which makes bass a
less desirable sport fish. Salmonids contributed the most to overall total weight of food
items observed in bass stomachs (28.2%), although their contribution to total numbers
was less than 1%.
Smallmouth bass are considered to be the least important of four major salmonid
predators in the Columbia River system (Poe et al. 1987, 1991; Rieman et al. 1991;
Vigg et al. 1991), although they were estimated to account for 9% of the total fish
mortality of chinook salmon in John Day Reservoir (Beamesderfer and Rieman 1991).
Studies conducted throughout the lower Columbia and Snake Rivers by Zimmerman
(1999) support the earlier diet information. Salmonids comprised about 6% of
smallmouth bass diet, 11% of walleye diet, and 41% of northern pike-minnow diet.
However, in 2006, Fritts and Pearson found that the length of the predator seemed to
influence diet. They found that smallmouth bass salmonid predation was negatively
correlated to the length of the bass. In that study, Fritts and Pearson showed that most
of the smallmouth bass that were eating salmonids had a fork length (FL) of less than
250 mm. Smallmouth bass of this size were the most abundant in the Yakima River
and were more likely to prey on salmonids. This is in contrast to the Northern
pikeminnow diet of salmonids in the Columbia River, which was positively correlated to
an increase in length; northern pikeminnow were not found to be highly predaceous on
salmonids until they reached a fork length of 250 mm (Poe et al. 1991; Vigg et al. 1991).
Studies by Tabor et al. (1993) indicated seasonally higher rates of consumption of
migrating salmonids than indicated in earlier studies. In the Columbia River, piscivorous
fish were sampled over a 6-km stretch of river from May to mid-June. Juvenile
salmonids represented 59% of the smallmouth bass diet by weight and were present in
65% of the stomachs. Northern pikeminnow consumed from 0.34 to 0.55 salmonids per
predator daily. Smallmouth bass were estimated to consume from 1.0 to 1.4 salmonids
daily; they consumed mostly sub-yearling chinook salmon (Tabor et al. 1993). Bennett
et al. (1991) concluded that predation on sub-yearling chinook salmon is known to be
significant in the Columbia River and the size of juvenile salmonid may influence
predation. He suggested that predation on Snake River fall chinook was potentially
deleterious. Rieman et al. (1991) felt that sub-yearling chinook salmon may be more
susceptible to predation because of their small size and later out-migration. Fayram
and Sibley (2000) reported that 28% to 38% of the smallmouth bass diet in Lake
Washington consisted of out-migrating juvenile sockeye. They concluded that
smallmouth bass predation was likely not the reason for the observed decline in
sockeye salmon survival in recent years.
The timing of juvenile salmon runs as well as spatial habitat overlap are important in
establishing the rate of salmonid consumption by bass. For bass and salmonids in Lake
Washington, overlap was minimal because sockeye and coho salmon juveniles had
passed through Lake Washington prior to warming of the littoral zone (Eggers et al.
1978; Fayram 1996; Fayram and Sibley 2000; Kurt et al. 2003). Bass remain inactive
until temperature rises in spring. If migrating salmon can move through water bodies containingsmallmouth bass when water temperatures are still low, they may avoid
heavy predation. This argument is well presented in the literature. Fletcher (1991)
reported that 23% of the smallmouth bass stomachs taken from the John Day River in
Oregon when water temperatures were below 15°C were empty. Predation on subyearling
salmon that remain to rear rather than migrate through bass-dominated areas
may be much higher (Fishman Environmental Services 2001).

[horsetrader]

here is your link AVB3

Water quality, food availability, and the presence or absence of competing species are among the most important variables that dictate the degree to which a freshwater environment qualifies as suitable habitat for smallmouth bass. Hypothetically, the ideal habitat for these fish would boast a rich and plentiful supply of forage; ample locations that offer the space, safety, and geologic elements necessary to carry out a successful spawning period; clear to lightly-stained water that allows the smallmouth bass to maximize its vision as an advantage in hunting prey; relatively cool water temperatures that promote sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen; and the virtual absence of competing fish populations that require similar conditions for their own species to survive. Of course, a natural freshwater ecosystem that meets all of these criteria is extremely rare. Therefore, while the smallmouth bass would surely flourish under these conditions, its lifestyle has been adapted for general success in a variety of less-than-optimum habitats.

So they seem to be able to adapt to their habitat.



In reality, the smallmouth bass must make the most out of the resources at its disposal. Those lakes, rivers, and reservoirs that offer the best overall combination of the aforementioned criteria, all within a relatively close range to each other, are most likely to have smallmouth bass inhabiting them. Generally, smallmouth bass are not present in habitats that require them to travel long distances to find and utilize resources, even if all of them are present. If a competing species, such as walleye or largemouth bass, has exercised dominance over the best areas to feed or spawn, the smallmouth often has no choice but to settle for the next-best options. In this way, and contrary to popular belief, smallmouth habitat is defined less by preference than one might assume.


Apparently when up against a dominate species WALLEYE and i'm sure PIKE they DO NOT compete for the prime food source or spawning areas.





Prior to human interference, the prevalence of smallmouth bass was almost exclusively limited to the mid-north to northeastern quadrant of what is now the continental United States: east to west from Minnesota to the edge of Vermont, and north to south from parts of Canada to portions of Arkansas and Alabama. In general, its native range primarily included the Great Lakes; the upper Mississippi, St. Lawrence, Ohio, and Tennessee Rivers; and the extensively branched drainage systems associated with these water bodies. Since the arrival of American settlers, this species has become extensively introduced in lakes, rivers, and reservoirs throughout North America. The expansion of smallmouth bass ran largely parallel with the construction of railroads in the 1800s, by which these fish were first shipped to various locations across the nation. While the aforementioned areas remain home for the majority of smallmouth bass,widespread introduction of smallmouth bass into new bodies of water has extended its distribution greatly via human stocking efforts. As of today, successful smallmouth bass fisheries exist in almost every U.S. state,


the introduced small mouth fisheries appear to be doing well



although they remain few and far between in the western and southernmost areas of the country. Attempts have been made to introduce self-sustaining populations in Europe and Africa as well, but results have been mixed at best.



The smallmouth bass generally inhabits streams and rivers with relatively clear water and swift currents, along with many clear-water lakes with gravel or rocky shoreline structure. In regards to its habitat range, there are a number of broad characteristics that these water bodies have in common. The geologic age of a particular water body is perhaps the most important factor in determining what species of fish are present, and in what proportions. All lakes (along with rivers and reservoirs) undergo the natural process of eutrophication, which is normally gradual but can be accelerated by anthropogenic interference. The geological age of a natural lake can be broken down into oligotrophic, mesotrophic, and eutrophic stages. Oligotrophic lakes are the youngest in geological terms: they are usually deeper; full of colder and clearer water; contain high amounts of dissolved oxygen in deep water; very sparse vegetation; and contain rather low nutrient levels. Their shorelines tend to be steeper, rougher, more rock-based, and surrounded mostly by evergreen trees. Consequently, these infertile conditions largely limit the growth of most fish populations. In most of central and eastern Canada, along with the northernmost regions of the Midwest and eastern United States, oligotrophic lakes are most prevalent. In such waters, lake trout tend to be the dominant species.

A lake in the late oligotrophic stage may carry smallmouth bass near shallow water structure, rock basins, or steep drop-offs;meanwhile, more oligophilic species (like lake trout) tend to reign over the deeper, more wide open areas.

So even though the bass will live in the same waters as trout the areas of the water they reside in is different. Again they are not competing




As eutrophification progresses, conditions slowly arise that make a lake more fertile in terms of bearing a greater number of fish species: water temperatures experience a gradual thermocline; the amount of vegetation increases, especially in shallower areas; nutrient levels, and therefore water turbidity, increase; complex changes result in softer and shallower lake structure, with more gradual shorelines and a basin comprised mostly of gravel and sand. When a lake has reached this middle-aged status, it is deemed mesotrophic, of which walleyes are the prototypical fish species.

Generally, smallmouth bass are most prevalent in lakes which have recently transitioned from oligotrophic to mesotrophic conditions: these adolescent waters offer a surplus of environmental moderation: water is cool rather than cold or warm; dissolved oxygen levels are sufficient enough; vegetation may be present but not overbearing; decent water clarity allows vision to be heavily utilized for predation; and perhaps most importantly, conditions are not as favorable for comparable fish species that prefer strictly oligotrophic (lake trout) or eutrophic (largemouth) habitat. In early mesotrophic lakes, smallmouth bass are able to occupy more numerous and diverse locations; in older mesotrophic lakes, walleye and largemouth bass populations may limit the extent to which smallmouth are free to venture and expand their resources.


So the smallmouths are not free to venture and expand their resources



As eutrophification proceeds in a late mesotrophic lake, water temperatures change from cool to warm; aquatic vegetation becomes very prominent, with heavily-weeded shallow areas; nutrient levels are relatively high; water changes from semi-stained to dark and murky; the lake basin is composed mostly of mud and clay; flattened shorelines often blend in with the lake’s less-defined outer edges. When this geologically old lake has maintained such conditions for an indefinite period of time, it is classified as eutrophic. Smallmouth bass are virtually nonexistent in eutrophic waters, which are the most prevalent lake type in nearly all portions of the United States located south of the Wisconsin border. Instead,
largemouth bass are usually the dominant eutrophic lake-dwellers. Eutrophic lakes are generally most prevalent in all areas of the United States south of Wisconsin.


Did you not say that Alberta lakes are eutrophic lakes, So where are the largemouth.





Eventually, when a lake reaches the dire end of the geological age continuum, it essentially becomes a bowl of soup. The water is too warm, shallow, oxygen-deprived, and overcrowded with vegetation to be considered hospitable for almost any fish species; bullheads and carp are among the only exceptions. While no two lakes are identical, seasonal weather and overall climate changes also affect the location of smallmouth bass within a given body of water, which can vary substantially depending on the time of year. Generally, they occupy shallow water during the springtime spawn, medium depths in the summer, and deepwater drop-offs in the winter.
While they endure a geological aging process that is similar to that of natural lakes, different portions of the same rivers and streams may simultaneously exhibit much different geological conditions. Frankly, this means that rivers and streams are often home to much more complex and multi-faceted ecosystems. The environmental conditions that make for quality smallmouth habitat in a natural lake, which include water temperature, clarity, depth, and vegetation, broadly apply to those in rivers as well. Younger segments of a river are typically those that are deeper, run through rough and rocky gorges, and are characterized by cold and clear water with a strong and fast-flowing current; such conditions are most suitable for trout species. Current velocity is determined primarily by water level and slope, which can vary from one location to another just a half-mile downstream. Middle-aged river segments have more moderate depths and currents, along with sparse vegetation and a smoother, semi-soft bottom; walleye and sauger tend to inhabit these areas. Older river areas tend to be shallower, more vegetated, have muddier bottoms, and exhibit more laidback currents; these areas provide a good place for largemouth bass. Much like lake-dwelling smallmouth, river smallmouth are best suited for occupying a transitional space between young and middle-aged river environments. Interspecies competition amongst fish is often a lesser issue in rivers, because younger, middle-aged, and old geological attributes are often present within differing segments of the same river. Therefore, different species tend to congregate within those areas that best match their profile. When considering the complexity of a river, and its potential to harness an astounding level of ecological diversity, look no further than the nearby Mississippi River, which flows along the border between Wisconsin and Minnesota. Smallmouth, walleye, sauger, largemouth, and even catfish are well-supported and abundant, living happily together within the same river system, yet unevenly distributed amongst various segments that best meet their individual habitat needs.

Unlike in lakes, river bass must adaptively cope with the ever-present strains of water current. In general, smallmouth in a river must consume a far greater amount of food than those in lakes or reservoirs in order to compensate for the energy spent swimming though currents. As a result, river bass are comparably stronger and more muscular than the lazy lake-dwellers. As a means of both conserving energy and obtaining a predatory advantage, river smallmouth like to remain close to structural features that create breaks in the current, such as submerged boulders or logs. The slack water found alongside these objects can create practical points from which to ambush and attack unfortunate prey items that may be carried toward the bass via the current.
Along with certain lakes and rivers, some reservoirs have created quality smallmouth habitats as well, although the conditions from which reservoir smallmouth bass benefit are sometimes more artificial than natural. These water bodies are the products of anthropogenic (manmade) impoundment, whereby dam water has been held back for purposes of flooding a terrestrial landscape. Reservoirs with strong smallmouth bass populations are typically derivatives of highland landscapes found in the southern United States, with moderate depths and clear water. In the northern United States, reservoirs of similar construction usually hold walleye. Because they are manmade, reservoirs may hold the greatest potential for bearing dominant smallmouth populations, as conditions can more or less be decided upon to favor against the likes of competing fish species. It is worth noting, however, that the artificiality of such favorable smallmouth conditions might be subject to criticism from an intensely naturalist perspective. Having said that, the largest smallmouth bass ever caught, weighing a world-record 11 lbs. 15 oz., came from Dale Hollow Lake, which is actually a reservoir. Extremely shallow reservoirs filled with lots of weeds or timber are more conducive for largemouth and pike relative to smallmouth, whereas extremely deep reservoirs with underwater canyons and plateaus are too deep and cold to be hospitable for anything more than trout.

Having learned about the various characteristics of lakes, rivers, and reservoirs that provide habitat for smallmouth bass and other fish, perhaps you would like to learn more about how the smallmouth has adapted for success in these environments.
(Return to home page)

Contents
Home
Smallmouth systematics
Habitat range & characteristics
Adaptive morphology & sensation
Diet & metabolism
Reproduction: from spawn to brawn
Interspecies relationship dynamics
References & links
About the author



Thank you for this link after reading this I feel it is even safer to introduce bass in Alberta

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by Jayhad

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

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

Just some added info > Spawning Habits:
Smallmouth bass spawn mostly from the middle of May through the end of June when water temperature exceeds 15.5° C (about 60° F). We have records of spawning as late as early August, however.

[xtreme hunter10]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

dude!!!!! you just proved yourself wrong.... lol!!!!!!

Right or wrong doesnt matter. thats the info. thats what is here in the province. now just cause it was native at one time doesnt mean its not stocked with a non-native strain. But it doesnt really matter as long as there are fish to catch.

[Kim473]

Would love to see some Muski stocked some place as well as bass. They don't stock perch anymore so this won't happen. Soon all you will catch in Alberta will be Rainbows and Walleye. Perch are dissapeering, Pike are getting smaller and fewer.

[mszomola]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

here is your link avb3

water quality, food availability, and the presence or absence of competing species are among the most important variables that dictate the degree to which a freshwater environment qualifies as suitable habitat for smallmouth bass. Hypothetically, the ideal habitat for these fish would boast a rich and plentiful supply of forage; ample locations that offer the space, safety, and geologic elements necessary to carry out a successful spawning period; clear to lightly-stained water that allows the smallmouth bass to maximize its vision as an advantage in hunting prey; relatively cool water temperatures that promote sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen; and the virtual absence of competing fish populations that require similar conditions for their own species to survive. Of course, a natural freshwater ecosystem that meets all of these criteria is extremely rare. therefore, while the smallmouth bass would surely flourish under these conditions, its lifestyle has been adapted for general success in a variety of less-than-optimum habitats.

so they seem to be able to adapt to their habitat.



in reality, the smallmouth bass must make the most out of the resources at its disposal. Those lakes, rivers, and reservoirs that offer the best overall combination of the aforementioned criteria, all within a relatively close range to each other, are most likely to have smallmouth bass inhabiting them. Generally, smallmouth bass are not present in habitats that require them to travel long distances to find and utilize resources, even if all of them are present. if a competing species, such as walleye or largemouth bass, has exercised dominance over the best areas to feed or spawn, the smallmouth often has no choice but to settle for the next-best options. In this way, and contrary to popular belief, smallmouth habitat is defined less by preference than one might assume.


apparently when up against a dominate species walleye and i'm sure pike they do not compete for the prime food source or spawning areas.





Prior to human interference, the prevalence of smallmouth bass was almost exclusively limited to the mid-north to northeastern quadrant of what is now the continental united states: East to west from minnesota to the edge of vermont, and north to south from parts of canada to portions of arkansas and alabama. In general, its native range primarily included the great lakes; the upper mississippi, st. Lawrence, ohio, and tennessee rivers; and the extensively branched drainage systems associated with these water bodies. Since the arrival of american settlers, this species has become extensively introduced in lakes, rivers, and reservoirs throughout north america. The expansion of smallmouth bass ran largely parallel with the construction of railroads in the 1800s, by which these fish were first shipped to various locations across the nation. While the aforementioned areas remain home for the majority of smallmouth bass,widespread introduction of smallmouth bass into new bodies of water has extended its distribution greatly via human stocking efforts. as of today, successful smallmouth bass fisheries exist in almost every u.s. State,


the introduced small mouth fisheries appear to be doing well



although they remain few and far between in the western and southernmost areas of the country. Attempts have been made to introduce self-sustaining populations in europe and africa as well, but results have been mixed at best.



The smallmouth bass generally inhabits streams and rivers with relatively clear water and swift currents, along with many clear-water lakes with gravel or rocky shoreline structure. In regards to its habitat range, there are a number of broad characteristics that these water bodies have in common. The geologic age of a particular water body is perhaps the most important factor in determining what species of fish are present, and in what proportions. All lakes (along with rivers and reservoirs) undergo the natural process of eutrophication, which is normally gradual but can be accelerated by anthropogenic interference. The geological age of a natural lake can be broken down into oligotrophic, mesotrophic, and eutrophic stages. Oligotrophic lakes are the youngest in geological terms: They are usually deeper; full of colder and clearer water; contain high amounts of dissolved oxygen in deep water; very sparse vegetation; and contain rather low nutrient levels. Their shorelines tend to be steeper, rougher, more rock-based, and surrounded mostly by evergreen trees. Consequently, these infertile conditions largely limit the growth of most fish populations. In most of central and eastern canada, along with the northernmost regions of the midwest and eastern united states, oligotrophic lakes are most prevalent. In such waters, lake trout tend to be the dominant species.

a lake in the late oligotrophic stage may carry smallmouth bass near shallow water structure, rock basins, or steep drop-offs;meanwhile, more oligophilic species (like lake trout) tend to reign over the deeper, more wide open areas.

so even though the bass will live in the same waters as trout the areas of the water they reside in is different. Again they are not competing




as eutrophification progresses, conditions slowly arise that make a lake more fertile in terms of bearing a greater number of fish species: Water temperatures experience a gradual thermocline; the amount of vegetation increases, especially in shallower areas; nutrient levels, and therefore water turbidity, increase; complex changes result in softer and shallower lake structure, with more gradual shorelines and a basin comprised mostly of gravel and sand. When a lake has reached this middle-aged status, it is deemed mesotrophic, of which walleyes are the prototypical fish species.

Generally, smallmouth bass are most prevalent in lakes which have recently transitioned from oligotrophic to mesotrophic conditions: These adolescent waters offer a surplus of environmental moderation: Water is cool rather than cold or warm; dissolved oxygen levels are sufficient enough; vegetation may be present but not overbearing; decent water clarity allows vision to be heavily utilized for predation; and perhaps most importantly, conditions are not as favorable for comparable fish species that prefer strictly oligotrophic (lake trout) or eutrophic (largemouth) habitat. in early mesotrophic lakes, smallmouth bass are able to occupy more numerous and diverse locations; in older mesotrophic lakes, walleye and largemouth bass populations may limit the extent to which smallmouth are free to venture and expand their resources.


so the smallmouths are not free to venture and expand their resources



as eutrophification proceeds in a late mesotrophic lake, water temperatures change from cool to warm; aquatic vegetation becomes very prominent, with heavily-weeded shallow areas; nutrient levels are relatively high; water changes from semi-stained to dark and murky; the lake basin is composed mostly of mud and clay; flattened shorelines often blend in with the lake’s less-defined outer edges. When this geologically old lake has maintained such conditions for an indefinite period of time, it is classified as eutrophic. Smallmouth bass are virtually nonexistent in eutrophic waters, which are the most prevalent lake type in nearly all portions of the united states located south of the wisconsin border. Instead,
largemouth bass are usually the dominant eutrophic lake-dwellers. Eutrophic lakes are generally most prevalent in all areas of the united states south of wisconsin.


did you not say that alberta lakes are eutrophic lakes, so where are the largemouth.





eventually, when a lake reaches the dire end of the geological age continuum, it essentially becomes a bowl of soup. The water is too warm, shallow, oxygen-deprived, and overcrowded with vegetation to be considered hospitable for almost any fish species; bullheads and carp are among the only exceptions. While no two lakes are identical, seasonal weather and overall climate changes also affect the location of smallmouth bass within a given body of water, which can vary substantially depending on the time of year. Generally, they occupy shallow water during the springtime spawn, medium depths in the summer, and deepwater drop-offs in the winter.
While they endure a geological aging process that is similar to that of natural lakes, different portions of the same rivers and streams may simultaneously exhibit much different geological conditions. Frankly, this means that rivers and streams are often home to much more complex and multi-faceted ecosystems. The environmental conditions that make for quality smallmouth habitat in a natural lake, which include water temperature, clarity, depth, and vegetation, broadly apply to those in rivers as well. Younger segments of a river are typically those that are deeper, run through rough and rocky gorges, and are characterized by cold and clear water with a strong and fast-flowing current; such conditions are most suitable for trout species. Current velocity is determined primarily by water level and slope, which can vary from one location to another just a half-mile downstream. Middle-aged river segments have more moderate depths and currents, along with sparse vegetation and a smoother, semi-soft bottom; walleye and sauger tend to inhabit these areas. Older river areas tend to be shallower, more vegetated, have muddier bottoms, and exhibit more laidback currents; these areas provide a good place for largemouth bass. Much like lake-dwelling smallmouth, river smallmouth are best suited for occupying a transitional space between young and middle-aged river environments. Interspecies competition amongst fish is often a lesser issue in rivers, because younger, middle-aged, and old geological attributes are often present within differing segments of the same river. Therefore, different species tend to congregate within those areas that best match their profile. When considering the complexity of a river, and its potential to harness an astounding level of ecological diversity, look no further than the nearby mississippi river, which flows along the border between wisconsin and minnesota. Smallmouth, walleye, sauger, largemouth, and even catfish are well-supported and abundant, living happily together within the same river system, yet unevenly distributed amongst various segments that best meet their individual habitat needs.

Unlike in lakes, river bass must adaptively cope with the ever-present strains of water current. In general, smallmouth in a river must consume a far greater amount of food than those in lakes or reservoirs in order to compensate for the energy spent swimming though currents. As a result, river bass are comparably stronger and more muscular than the lazy lake-dwellers. As a means of both conserving energy and obtaining a predatory advantage, river smallmouth like to remain close to structural features that create breaks in the current, such as submerged boulders or logs. The slack water found alongside these objects can create practical points from which to ambush and attack unfortunate prey items that may be carried toward the bass via the current.
Along with certain lakes and rivers, some reservoirs have created quality smallmouth habitats as well, although the conditions from which reservoir smallmouth bass benefit are sometimes more artificial than natural. These water bodies are the products of anthropogenic (manmade) impoundment, whereby dam water has been held back for purposes of flooding a terrestrial landscape. Reservoirs with strong smallmouth bass populations are typically derivatives of highland landscapes found in the southern united states, with moderate depths and clear water. In the northern united states, reservoirs of similar construction usually hold walleye. Because they are manmade, reservoirs may hold the greatest potential for bearing dominant smallmouth populations, as conditions can more or less be decided upon to favor against the likes of competing fish species. It is worth noting, however, that the artificiality of such favorable smallmouth conditions might be subject to criticism from an intensely naturalist perspective. Having said that, the largest smallmouth bass ever caught, weighing a world-record 11 lbs. 15 oz., came from dale hollow lake, which is actually a reservoir. Extremely shallow reservoirs filled with lots of weeds or timber are more conducive for largemouth and pike relative to smallmouth, whereas extremely deep reservoirs with underwater canyons and plateaus are too deep and cold to be hospitable for anything more than trout.

Having learned about the various characteristics of lakes, rivers, and reservoirs that provide habitat for smallmouth bass and other fish, perhaps you would like to learn more about how the smallmouth has adapted for success in these environments.
(return to home page)

contents
home
smallmouth systematics
habitat range & characteristics
adaptive morphology & sensation
diet & metabolism
reproduction: From spawn to brawn
interspecies relationship dynamics
references & links
about the author



thank you for this link after reading this i feel it is even safer to introduce bass in alberta

super read !!! Awesome post !!!


And really thats why they exsist with so many different species .... look at christina lake for example .... i fished this lake extensively this year and last and heres what i had found...


the lake is shallow around the edges but immediately drops off into very deep water ! Theres streams running into the lake and two major flats at the north and south end....


The small mouth have stunted growth there so for some reason , theres good numbers but not good size. They remain shallow and the bigger smallies move out after spawn in may - june sometimes july ( depending on water temp )

The lake itself only really holds 2 solid areas for bass , the rest of the shoreline is very unproductive ..

The north and south end flats are were all the big ladies play. the trout i have caught on that lake have come more from the channels and deeper water WAY out of sight of any bass ...

[huntsfurfish]

Lets stock Zander too!

We should make a list.

[huntsfurfish]

So what happens when they(SM bass) get into the Oldman/Bow/South Sask River system? Maybe Sask. doesnt want bass in their systems. There is way more to it than just putting and keeping them in a few lakes. And surviving in the South of Alberta is very possible and so is reproduction in that system! As sportmen and women we are the stewards of the land(and water). To introduce another species when they are already present nearby is unneccessary and a bit irresponsible.

In this day and age thankfully fisheries people are very shy(and rightfully so) of introducing new species!

What has been done as past practices should not justify further imports. While many species are capable of inhabiting the same waters, this is neither BC or Ontario!!!!

It is too late to remove RBT, Brown and Brook trout, my guess is they are here to stay. (yes I fish for them too). And deep down a little part of me wants them in AB. but

If you feel the need to fish for bass, there are numerous places to go. So go!

We do not need every species in our back yard!

ps JMHO

[mszomola]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

So what happens when they(SM bass) get into the Oldman/Bow/South Sask River system? Maybe Sask. doesnt want bass in their systems. There is way more to it than just putting and keeping them in a few lakes. And surviving in the South of Alberta is very possible and so is reproduction in that system! As sportmen and women we are the stewards of the land(and water). To introduce another species when they are already present nearby is unneccessary and a bit irresponsible.

In this day and age thankfully fisheries people are very shy(and rightfully so) of introducing new species!

What has been done as past practices should not justify further imports. While many species are capable of inhabiting the same waters, this is neither BC or Ontario!!!!

It is too late to remove RBT, Brown and Brook trout, my guess is they are here to stay. (yes I fish for them too). And deep down a little part of me wants them in AB. but

If you feel the need to fish for bass, there are numerous places to go. So go!

We do not need every species in our back yard!

ps JMHO

and thats really all it is , just an opinion which is fair for sure !

but your rationale is of personal opinion where horsetrader posted factual data to make a more educated decision overall ....

and based on the info posted none of the rivers here would ever sustain life for bass , the water is far too cold ..... bass need it to hit 65 to spawn and that wont happen on most of the river if not all of it ....

[avb3]

Originally Posted by mszomola

and thats really all it is , just an opinion which is fair for sure !

but your rationale is of personal opinion where horsetrader posted factual data to make a more educated decision overall ....

and based on the info posted none of the rivers here would ever sustain life for bass , the water is far too cold ..... bass need it to hit 65 to spawn and that wont happen on most of the river if not all of it ....

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.

[horsetrader]

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.

You have shown NO proof to this fact instead you showed proof in your last post that they are NOT harmfull to native fish or there spawning ground. YOU continually say you have facts but you can present NONE.


END OF STORY

[avb3]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

You have shown NO proof to this fact instead you showed proof in your last post that they are NOT harmfull to native fish or there spawning ground. YOU continually say you have facts but you can present NONE.


END OF STORY

Horsetrader, I know you have difficulty in understanding conservation, species dynamics and the precautionary principle.

As such, your will continue to insist, like Martha Stewart, that "It is a good thing".

Difference is she is talking about muffins and cakes, and you would like to introduce what you consider is the missing link into Alberta's ecosystems.

If her muffins and cakes turn into a disaster, one can always start over.

If your missing link fish species you want to see so badly here turns into a disaster, there is no starting over.

And that would NOT be a good thing.

[Jorg]

Originally Posted by avb3

Horsetrader, I know you have difficulty in understanding conservation, species dynamics and the precautionary principle.

As such, your will continue to insist, like Martha Stewart, that "It is a good thing".

Difference is she is talking about muffins and cakes, and you would like to introduce what you consider is the missing link into Alberta's ecosystems.

If her muffins and cakes turn into a disaster, one can always start over.

If your missing link fish species you want to see so badly here turns into a disaster, there is no starting over.

And that would NOT be a good thing.

What potential disaster are you referring to ?

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

Horsetrader, I know you have difficulty in understanding conservation, species dynamics and the precautionary principle.

As such, your will continue to insist, like Martha Stewart, that "It is a good thing".

Difference is she is talking about muffins and cakes, and you would like to introduce what you consider is the missing link into Alberta's ecosystems.

If her muffins and cakes turn into a disaster, one can always start over.

If your missing link fish species you want to see so badly here turns into a disaster, there is no starting over.

And that would NOT be a good thing.

What I do understand is that you are frustrated your so call fact have been torn apart and shown for what they are if you can't read and verify your facts BEFORE you post it you have no one to blame but yourself. As for as this last post I would say you are not only frustrated but also humiliated your attempt to humiliate me by the Martha stewart slam just goes to show you have no place to go with your arguments. Your post are that of a drama queen. perhaps you would have better luck on the muskie thread.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by Jorg

What potential disaster are you referring to ?

Some dude said the world is coming to a end.......the bass stocking is the start of the beginning to world demise.... .
When the first bass swims in Alberta water.....the hills will burst into flames...all the prairie ponds and rivers will be boilling like lava....the only cool water left will be deep in the mountains....the freshly stocked bass will take the first greyhound bus to the eastern slope waters.
Once there, they will do the funky with the hybrid bulltrout/brown fishes...making a super species called the bullybrownass......this fish will be vicious and when the wild horses come to the river to drink...the bullybrownass fish will grab them like a gator grabs a possum in louisiana..............few select men will have the courage to fish for the bullybrownass, a tv reality show will document their lives...".Men who stab the bullybrownass".

Because of the barbless laws very few are caught and they eventually take over the woods and cities....man kind is doomed. Grab your slipbobbers this will get ugly.

[mszomola]

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.

The way you write , is 100% an opinion ... Unless your talking about your post of facts, that's contradictory....

And the rest is filler.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by mszomola

The way you write , is 100% an opinion ... Unless your talking about your post of facts, that's contradictory....

And the rest is filler.

Go back and read in the past 12 pages links both myself and Sheephunter have given you.

Repeating and trying to spoon feed once again will not accomplish anything.

[steelhead]

Sheep wrote....


.........Great chart steelhead but I couldn't help notice the word "prefered" in front of temperature. I think you are taking it too literally.


Still trying to put a square block in a round hole?


Yah, prefered, thats what it says. I guess they have to stop teaching that concept in school after a hundred years of doing so so people dont take it too literally.


Yes, i agree, there are places in many, many rivers where trout and walleyes mix, You bet. But like i mentioned before, you wont find them in the higher stretches or the high mountains. Unless your gonna tell me that Jasper N Park on the North Sask is a walleye mecca. Pike maybee as they like it a bit colder, but walleyes?


I spent ALOT of time on the Wapiti river at GP. Downstream of GP to the smoky confluence, I got bullies and walleyes. GP warmed up the river by 2 degrees as compared to the west side. As close as 6 miles west of GP, only bulls and grayling were present. No walleyes, not at all, nada, naaahting.


That imaginary line, is very real



aaaaanyways



Someone posted above about salmon eating bass in Washington and BC. And again, these areas they speak of are in a different cliamate. Not high mountain streams like Alberta, larger rivers and lakes in desert basins at a considerably lower altitude than trout streams in Alberta. This data doesnt work here. Find another example. osooyoos lake and almost anything south of BC is the great basin and the northern tip of the sonora desert.



My choice would be largemouth bass waaay over smallies, and for these reasons.

Largemouth bass have a better tolerance to low oxygen and brackish waters. They would work well in a few of those trout stunting, winterkilling sloughs they now pay to watch trout die. I have seen and fished dugouts that has less that 5 feet of water and wintered hard, but held a good number of good sized fish. Not excellent or collosal, but good sized fish, that smashed dry flies and topwaters like seal eating orcas. As bass are carnivores, they keep thier populations in check to help produce bigger fish in a small pond. No millions of stunted fish like perch. And, AND, they love perch. Now thats how to keep the perch in check. I would put catch and release on them as the populations of good sized spawners must be protected. Bass would be number 4 on the predator scale as i would put whitefish above them due to numbers and thier like of spotails, a prey specie. In some cases, I would put trout above them as we have some big char here that just love eating fish. And those soft bass are a favorite for the walleyes and pike. Thats if they ever got loose. As largies LOL, PREFER, lol, warmer waters than any other alberta gamefish and 10 degrees off trout, there would be little to NO chance of this specie climbing high enough upstream and into our fragile trout bearing high mountain streams and lakes. Now, if jasper becomes the walleye mecca, then we may be in touble, maybee, theres still colder water upstream. Once stocked and self reproducing, theres no need to restock and that saves a buck for the province, and we all know how this Gov is cheap as a , well, i better not end that one. Either way, it is a cheaper alternative than the mud trout stocking and may benefit other trout lakes. Everyone wants to fish bass, lots of people leaving your favorite lakes fly guys!!


Its a win win and harmless in this province and would enhance fisheries.


And heres a point we all missed.....


Saskatchewan, our neighbour and very simular climate, has NO problems with thier bass invading other bodies of water. They only exist in 4 or 5 lakes and its been that way for decades.

Use the sask example. it works for them!!




STEELHEAD

[steelhead]

AVB3 wrote.................. Go back and read in the past 12 pages links both myself and Sheephunter have given you.

Repeating and trying to spoon feed once again will not accomplish anything.


Vastly different climates and rivers and altitude. It gets colder as you go north and up in altiutude. More grade 8 geography for ya.



That info is bunk for this province. Plus they dont consider that pike and walles roam our waters. very bunk.




Thanks for the spoon feeding your handing us.


STEELHEAD

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

Go back and read in the past 12 pages links both myself and Sheephunter have given you.

Repeating and trying to spoon feed once again will not accomplish anything.

The links YOU gave were nothing you said they were don't try to insinuate that they were you only make yourself seem irrational

[whitetail Junkie]

I cant believe that this thread is still going on.....

Some of the "Big Mouths" on here need to get off there Pedestal's....

eitherway, we all know that Alberta is more than polluted with Trout,and its about time they brought in some bass lakes.

Originally Posted by steelhead

Yes, i agree, there are places in many, many rivers where trout and walleyes mix, You bet. But like i mentioned before, you wont find them in the higher stretches or the high mountains. Unless your gonna tell me that Jasper N Park on the North Sask is a walleye mecca. Pike maybee as they like it a bit colder, but walleyes?


I spent ALOT of time on the Wapiti river at GP. Downstream of GP to the

STEELHEAD

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.