Bass? Alberta?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

ok now it my turn i will ask you this one more time if you refuse to answer then we will all just agree you have no proof and no foundation for your claim. Bass was already introduced in to alberta show us proof that there was any problems with that introduction and any native species.now put up or well if your so smart you should know the rest

DO YOU REALLY THINK YELLING MAKES YOUR POINT MORE OBVIOUS???!!!

The introduction in Hanmore was an experiment of which the only result I know that there was no viable reproduction that occurred.

I am also not aware of any studies that showed what impact those released bass had on the ecosystem of the lake.

As such, as one can't prove a negative, my answer is I don't know.

And that is the problem, we don't know what we don't know.

Why risk an introduction in other waters?

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

DO YOU REALLY THINK YELLING MAKES YOUR POINT MORE OBVIOUS???!!!

The introduction in Hanmore was an experiment of which the only result I know that there was no viable reproduction that occurred.

I am also not aware of any studies that showed what impact those released bass had on the ecosystem of the lake.

As such, as one can't prove a negative, my answer is I don't know.

And that is the problem, we don't know what we don't know.

Why risk an introduction in other waters?

So other wards no you can show no negative impact on the native species.
and the fact that the was no viable reproduction is a positive showing that your fear of them running uncontrollable like perch is unfounded like most of your concerns. I would think that if there was a negative impact it would have been recorded because i'm sure even back then there were people like you the nay sayers of the world.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN ACTION A HANDBOOK
-self explanatory

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

Well thats a lot of research you went through for nothing small mouth bass dose not fall under the Precautionary Principle. The reason being (1) it has been introduced prier times with no notable negative effects. (2) the small mouth bass will not invade the food source or spawning areas of the native fish. (3) they are border specific by temperature. and as I said many time we are talking of a put and take pot lake closed res. stocking Carry on


Ps I was very intimidated by your stern face emoticon
sorry they don't have an emoticon for what it made me do

[avb3]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

Well thats a lot of research you went through for nothing small mouth bass dose not fall under the Precautionary Principle. The reason being (1) it has been introduced prier times with no notable negative effects. (2) the small mouth bass will not invade the food source or spawning areas of the native fish. (3) they are border specific by temperature. and as I said many time we are talking of a put and take pot lake closed res. stocking Carry on


Ps I was very intimidated by your stern face emoticon
sorry they don't have an emoticon for what it made me do

You obviously didn't read any of the links, because you still don't understand the precautionary principle.

And as far as having to do a lot of research, some of those links came from.... get ready... that obviously unreliable Wikipedia article... you know, the one that was fully referenced.

You choose to ignore good science in the quest to promote a selfish agenda of stocking non-native species in Alberta.

That may be acceptable by sportsmen and women in Eastern Canada, it is NOT acceptable by conservation minded sportsmen and women in Alberta.

[freeones]

I could really care less whether they introduced bass in AB. If they took hold and became a viable fishery, I'd probably take advantage of it, but otherwise, a put and take system to catch tiny fish has no appeal to me.

After reading through a lot of this thread, my objective opinion is that the "pro" bass side has made a much stronger case than the "anti" bass side.

Simply repeating over and over again that something bad MIGHT happen (aka the precautionary principle apparently) isn't much of an argument in the face of all the evidence to suggest that the risk is very minimal in AB. The argument opposing the potential costs is also kinda weak. Between existing government stocking funds that could be redirected and fundraising by those that support bass stocking it should be pretty easy to come up with the funding necessary to get things started.

[buckmaster]

Originally Posted by avb3

DO YOU REALLY THINK YELLING MAKES YOUR POINT MORE OBVIOUS???!!!

The introduction in Hanmore was an experiment of which the only result I know that there was no viable reproduction that occurred.

I am also not aware of any studies that showed what impact those released bass had on the ecosystem of the lake.

As such, as one can't prove a negative, my answer is I don't know.

And that is the problem, we don't know what we don't know.

Why risk an introduction in other waters?

When were they stocked in hanmore lake? It was island lake that they were stocked.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by buckmaster

When were they stocked in hanmore lake? It was island lake that they were stocked.

Mea culpa, I stand corrected. Was thinking the wrong side of the highway!

[avb3]

Originally Posted by freeones

Simply repeating over and over again that something bad MIGHT happen (aka the precautionary principle apparently) isn't much of an argument in the face of all the evidence to suggest that the risk is very minimal in AB.

So zebra mussels, Asian carp, snakeheads, European milfoil and purple losestrife don't ring a bell as to the dangers of introducing non-native species into an ecosystem?

Zebra mussles were accidental, Asian carp and snakeheads likely released by on purpose and purple losetrife was "such a pretty plant" which had no natural predator in North America.

What harm could happen?

I can only say, we don't know what we don't know, and if we don't know, why take a chance?

Why not concentrate on making our existing fishery the best it can be.

The argument opposing the potential costs is also kinda weak. Between existing government stocking funds that could be redirected and fundraising by those that support bass stocking it should be pretty easy to come up with the funding necessary to get things started.

God knows that there is so little funding that goes to it in the first place, why dilute funds.

Should things go wrong, even if it can be corrected (doubtful), how would it be paid for?

The AFGA has been fundraising for years to obtain critical habitat for fish and wildlife. Do you have any idea how difficult it is even for it to do so?

RMEF and DU are finding that their traditional fundraising (and they are the experts at it) is tanking to the point that they are looking at seriously curtailing some of their activities and staffing.

You hoping that funding raising will pay for stocking is just a hope.

Why do you think hatcheries in Alberta have shut down?

Because it costs millions of dollars that just is not available.

It's a nice thought, but reality is that even for marquis species it is difficult to raise enough funds to have projects be sustainable.

Originally Posted by avb3

So zebra mussels, Asian carp, snakeheads, European milfoil and purple losestrife don't ring a bell as to the dangers of introducing non-native species into an ecosystem?

Zebra mussles were accidental, Asian carp and snakeheads likely released by on purpose and purple losetrife was "such a pretty plant" which had no natural predator in North America.

What harm could happen?

I can only say, we don't know what we don't know, and if we don't know, why take a chance?

Why not concentrate on making our existing fishery the best it can be.



God knows that there is so little funding that goes to it in the first place, why dilute funds.

Should things go wrong, even if it can be corrected (doubtful), how would it be paid for?

The AFGA has been fundraising for years to obtain critical habitat for fish and wildlife. Do you have any idea how difficult it is even for it to do so?

RMEF and DU are finding that their traditional fundraising (and they are the experts at it) is tanking to the point that they are looking at seriously curtailing some of their activities and staffing.

You hoping that funding raising will pay for stocking is just a hope.

Why do you think hatcheries in Alberta have shut down?

Because it costs millions of dollars that just is not available.

It's a nice thought, but reality is that even for marquis species it is difficult to raise enough funds to have projects be sustainable.

I was just writing a response to freeones when this came up...no need for any more from me. Well said.

[pickrel pat]

any type of put and take fishery is kind of gay in the first place. its o.k for kids i guess. watching a water truck dump a thousand fish into a pond and then casting for them has no appeal to me.

[ADIDAFish]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

any type of put and take fishery is kind of gay in the first place. its o.k for kids i guess. watching a water truck dump a thousand fish into a pond and then casting for them has no appeal to me.

There is definitely something about catching a fish that was born and raised in the wild. They are usually prettier and stronger/better fighters. I still enjoy some put and take lakes but it's not the same.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

You obviously didn't read any of the links, because you still don't understand the precautionary principle.

And as far as having to do a lot of research, some of those links came from.... get ready... that obviously unreliable Wikipedia article... you know, the one that was fully referenced.

You choose to ignore good science in the quest to promote a selfish agenda of stocking non-native species in Alberta.

That may be acceptable by sportsmen and women in Eastern Canada, it is NOT acceptable by conservation minded sportsmen and women in Alberta.

I was going to respond to this earlier but took some time to cool down. Where do you get the audacity to come on to an open sportsman forum and degrade another group of sportsman that you know nothing about I will definitely pass your comments along you disgust me you can not shake my opinion so you go after innocent people and try to draw the rest of the Alberta sportsmen and women in the hole with you. If it was up to me you would be banned for such a statement.


You have flip flopped on this subject so much at the start you said you had all this scientific information on how harmful introducing smallmouth in Alberta would be after repeated requests for this information and your failure to be able to produce it then you flopped over to precautionary principle. Which requires NO burden of proof how convenient. But this principle only is used if there has been no tests on the situation done well guess what Bass were already introduced in to Alberta with no impact on native fish And if you check post 340 thanks to you its a link that shows there would be no impact on native species. So you can continue to beat a dead horse BUT it won't be this one.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

any type of put and take fishery is kind of gay in the first place. its o.k for kids i guess. watching a water truck dump a thousand fish into a pond and then casting for them has no appeal to me.

You may be right Pat don't think i would use that vernacular but because of a number of fear monger it my be the only way. but then again it may be the only way some people would be able to experience fishing period is put and take ponds and lake because of physical limitations and i'm positive you would have no objection to that

[freeones]

Originally Posted by avb3

So zebra mussels, Asian carp, snakeheads, European milfoil and purple losestrife don't ring a bell as to the dangers of introducing non-native species into an ecosystem?

Zebra mussles were accidental, Asian carp and snakeheads likely released by on purpose and purple losetrife was "such a pretty plant" which had no natural predator in North America.

What harm could happen?

I can only say, we don't know what we don't know, and if we don't know, why take a chance?

Why not concentrate on making our existing fishery the best it can be.

God knows that there is so little funding that goes to it in the first place, why dilute funds.

Should things go wrong, even if it can be corrected (doubtful), how would it be paid for?

The AFGA has been fundraising for years to obtain critical habitat for fish and wildlife. Do you have any idea how difficult it is even for it to do so?

RMEF and DU are finding that their traditional fundraising (and they are the experts at it) is tanking to the point that they are looking at seriously curtailing some of their activities and staffing.

You hoping that funding raising will pay for stocking is just a hope.

Why do you think hatcheries in Alberta have shut down?

Because it costs millions of dollars that just is not available.

It's a nice thought, but reality is that even for marquis species it is difficult to raise enough funds to have projects be sustainable.

Seriously, you're comparing those species to stocking bass in a few ponds in AB? Totally ridiculous.

A simple OK from SRD and I'm guessing you'd see several private individuals take it on themselves at their own expense to experiment with the viability of stocking bass in dugouts and small ponds. Thats probably not the best way, but I think maybe you underestimate how many dedicated people there are out there that would volunteer their time and money for these kinds of things. We're not talking a province wide stocking program, just a small number of handpicked pothole lakes. I don't know if the results would be any different than some of the previous attempts, but I don't really see the harm in trying other than those that are crying about the sky falling.

I knew before I posted that any discussion with you in particular, but the self proclaimed all knowing never been wrong in his life sheephunter as well was pointless, that's why I've stayed out of this thread and most threads. I think I'll go back staying out of it.

[huntsfurfish]

OK, Ill try again.

There is a serious element of risk bringing bass to AB. Previously I believe there was some mention as to why there were no further lakes stocked with bass in Sask.

Here goes. Bass in Diefenbaker could make their way into AB and Bass introduced into AB could make their way into Sask from AB!

That people is risk! Any fisheries people that get it wrong would get lynched.

And Bucket biologists are a constant problem in Alberta as well.

If a species is not in a particular system, the moment it is released it has changed the ecosystem! That is a fact!

Can fish species co exist, yes - so what. Does not make it right or justify its introduction.

Management practices of years gone by does not justify practices now.

Just wanting a species intro does not justify it.

Some want musky some perch some zander some some some. Get real.

There would be costs associated to new programs, money is already stretched pretty thin. Many complain about poor management practices in AB. I think under the circumstances they are doing pretty darn good.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

OK, Ill try again.

There is a serious element of risk bringing bass to AB. Previously I believe there was some mention as to why there were no further lakes stocked with bass in Sask.

Here goes. Bass in Diefenbaker could make their way into AB and Bass introduced into AB could make their way into Sask from AB!

That people is risk! Any fisheries people that get it wrong would get lynched.

And Bucket biologists are a constant problem in Alberta as well.

If a species is not in a particular system, the moment it is released it has changed the ecosystem! That is a fact!

Can fish species co exist, yes - so what. Does not make it right or justify its introduction.

Management practices of years gone by does not justify practices now.

Just wanting a species intro does not justify it.

Some want musky some perch some zander some some some. Get real.

There would be costs associated to new programs, money is already stretched pretty thin. Many complain about poor management practices in AB. I think under the circumstances they are doing pretty darn good.

You can try as many times as you want there is no Proof that there is any risk introducing smallmouth bass in Alberta. But if you want to read what has been posted the last 5 day you did not post you will read in post 340 that there is proof that smallmouth bass will not infiltrate native fish food or spawning areas and they are border contained by water temp and or closed water res or lakes. now if you feel like waiting another 5 days and then try one more time don't waste your time or ours thanks.

[maclennanchris]

who cares really....caught bass all the time as a kid in Ottawa. Boring!!!

[Dust1n]

Originally Posted by maclennanchris

who cares really....caught bass all the time as a kid in Ottawa. Boring!!!

Headshot

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by maclennanchris

who cares really....caught bass all the time as a kid in Ottawa. Boring!!!

Thank you for your input as BORING as it was GEEEEZE

[whitetail Junkie]

Originally Posted by maclennanchris

who cares really....caught bass all the time as a kid in Ottawa. Boring!!!

Caught Trout all my life in Alberta......BORING

[Jorg]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

OK, Ill try again.

There is a serious element of risk bringing bass to AB. Previously I believe there was some mention as to why there were no further lakes stocked with bass in Sask.

Here goes. Bass in Diefenbaker could make their way into AB and Bass introduced into AB could make their way into Sask from AB!

That people is risk! Any fisheries people that get it wrong would get lynched.

And Bucket biologists are a constant problem in Alberta as well.

If a species is not in a particular system, the moment it is released it has changed the ecosystem! That is a fact!



Can fish species co exist, yes - so what. Does not make it right or justify its introduction.

Management practices of years gone by does not justify practices now.

Just wanting a species intro does not justify it.

Some want musky some perch some zander some some some. Get real.

There would be costs associated to new programs, money is already stretched pretty thin. Many complain about poor management practices in AB. I think under the circumstances they are doing pretty darn good.

You should send a resume to be a writer for Two and a half men ha ha ha

[Jorg]

Originally Posted by avb3

So zebra mussels, Asian carp, snakeheads, European milfoil and purple losestrife don't ring a bell as to the dangers of introducing non-native species into an ecosystem?

Zebra mussles were accidental, Asian carp and snakeheads likely released by on purpose and purple losetrife was "such a pretty plant" which had no natural predator in North America.

What harm could happen?

I can only say, we don't know what we don't know, and if we don't know, why take a chance?

Why not concentrate on making our existing fishery the best it can be.



God knows that there is so little funding that goes to it in the first place, why dilute funds.

Should things go wrong, even if it can be corrected (doubtful), how would it be paid for?

The AFGA has been fundraising for years to obtain critical habitat for fish and wildlife. Do you have any idea how difficult it is even for it to do so?

RMEF and DU are finding that their traditional fundraising (and they are the experts at it) is tanking to the point that they are looking at seriously curtailing some of their activities and staffing.

You hoping that funding raising will pay for stocking is just a hope.

Why do you think hatcheries in Alberta have shut down?

Because it costs millions of dollars that just is not available.

It's a nice thought, but reality is that even for marquis species it is difficult to raise enough funds to have projects be sustainable.

Just curious can you post a link with information about how snakeheads have caused harm to native Canadian fish ?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Jorg

Just curious can you post a link with information about how snakeheads have caused harm to native Canadian fish ?

It appears that DFO certainly is concerned..

But they are just scientists, right? What would they know!

Just in case you feel they have any veracity, it appears they are saying much of what I an others have tried to put on the table.

Quoting DFO:

"When a new species reaches an ecosystem where it does not occur naturally, many cannot adapt to new surroundings and fail to spread; some disappear entirely.Others, however, can become aggressive aliens in ecosystems that lack the natural checks and balances to control their numbers.These invaders can decimate native plants or animals through predation or competition for food and living space.What remains of the ecosystem can often be quite different, and less productive, than before the arrival of the invader."

Applying the precautionary principle, one does not knowingly introduce new species into an ecosystem, no matter how much "fun they are to catch".

Of course, arm chair fish experts probably know more then those scientists, and what the hey, it might be fun to see how a non-native fish does here.

Hey! It might not do any harm, right? All those "scare mongers" out there could be proven wrong.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by avb3

You obviously didn't read any of the links, because you still don't understand the precautionary principle.

And as far as having to do a lot of research, some of those links came from.... get ready... that obviously unreliable Wikipedia article... you know, the one that was fully referenced.

You choose to ignore good science in the quest to promote a selfish agenda of stocking non-native species in Alberta.

That may be acceptable by sportsmen and women in Eastern Canada, it is NOT acceptable by conservation minded sportsmen and women in Alberta.

What a disgusting display

Originally Posted by avb3

It appears that DFO certainly is concerned..

But they are just scientists, right? What would they know!

Just in case you feel they have any veracity, it appears they are saying much of what I an others have tried to put on the table.

Quoting DFO:

"When a new species reaches an ecosystem where it does not occur naturally, many cannot adapt to new surroundings and fail to spread; some disappear entirely.Others, however, can become aggressive aliens in ecosystems that lack the natural checks and balances to control their numbers.These invaders can decimate native plants or animals through predation or competition for food and living space.What remains of the ecosystem can often be quite different, and less productive, than before the arrival of the invader."

Applying the precautionary principle, one does not knowingly introduce new species into an ecosystem, no matter how much "fun they are to catch".

Of course, arm chair fish experts probably know more then those scientists, and what the hey, it might be fun to see how a non-native fish does here.

Hey! It might not do any harm, right? All those "scare mongers" out there could be proven wrong.

You are a friggin piece of work how do you have the guts to come on here without at the very least an apologie to the sportsmen and women of eastern Canada that you degraded. And to the sportsmen and women of Alberta that you disgraced with your statement. But from what you've shown you have no respect for anyone.

[WayneChristie]

OK we have both bass and snakeheads in Saskatchewan now, so debate is already done, they will both be arriving next Saturday morning on the greyhound and eating all your stocked trout, after that its your pets and two days after that your children, the world as we know it has ended. bend over, grab your ankles, and kiss your butt goodbye.

[swampdoc]

Originally Posted by avb3

You obviously didn't read any of the links, because you still don't understand the precautionary principle.

And as far as having to do a lot of research, some of those links came from.... get ready... that obviously unreliable Wikipedia article... you know, the one that was fully referenced.

You choose to ignore good science in the quest to promote a selfish agenda of stocking non-native species in Alberta.

That may be acceptable by sportsmen and women in Eastern Canada, it is NOT acceptable by conservation minded sportsmen and women in Alberta.

I read about this post on one of the other forums I follow I don't get to this forum much and after reading this crap i'm glad. This is the slimiest thing I've seen written in a long time I can't believe someone would actually write it or that anyone would let it remain........what a fool

[mszomola]

I thought we all cared the whole time , east and west . I wouldn't suggest something like snakehead to be released any ware . They have different feeding habits are of warm climate and they too like asain carp are from distant location ( overseas ) it's very different when you compare bass whom exsist with all native species which exsist accross much of the united states and canada.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

[/COLOR]
What a disgusting display

You are a friggin piece of work how do you have the guts to come on here without at the very least an apologie to the sportsmen and women of eastern Canada that you degraded. And to the sportsmen and women of Alberta that you disgraced with your statement. But from what you've shown you have no respect for anyone.

I was going to come back with a personal attack seeing you seem to think they are appropriate, but then I remembered that my mom told me when people throw fits and stomp their feet it only means they are showing their frustrations that they don't know how else to communicate them.

So keeping that in mind, I will stay with the topic.

Horsetrader, it is you and others who first referred to how wonderful the bass fishing is in the east and why don't we bring them here. Most who felt that way at one point or the other indicated they were from east of the prairies.

I've fished in Ontario and Quebec. I know how great the fishing is there... much better then here in Alberta.

I've worked with organizations like the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and you know what? They are one of the premier conservation groups in the country and do a fantastic job. The AFGA has often partnered with them.

I know what the OFAH viewpoint on introduced and invasive species is and I know it mirrors the comments I made. But then, they are conservationists and understand the issue.

I want my Alberta, with all the challenges our habitat has, to stay as much as possible healthy for our NATIVE populations of fish and wildlife. That precludes experiments that some people like you want to perform.

Your concern appears to be not so much for the native species, but your own selfish desire to fish for species that would be here if they belonged here.

[steelhead]

Snakeheads are a tropical fish. One step above warm water fish.





STEELHEAD

[avb3]

Originally Posted by mszomola

I thought we all cared the whole time , east and west . I wouldn't suggest something like snakehead to be released any ware . They have different feeding habits are of warm climate and they too like asain carp are from distant location ( overseas ) it's very different when you compare bass whom exsist with all native species which exsist accross much of the united states and canada.

So you do understand that introduced species are a danger. Snakeheads and Asian carp are very dramatic about their actions, so have a high profile.

Any introduction of a non-native species carries risk with it. Why would we want to expose our native fish to any risk, even if the argument is made that it may be minor. We suspect, but we don't know that.

When things go wrong, they can really go wrong, and reversing that situation may become impossible.