Why not bass?

[ian_brown]

I had a great time fishing the Tully with Jay yesterday (Jay caught three nice trout, I caught one bat - I have low standards for a great time). On the way up, I asked a question that's been going through my head for a few months: Why doesn't the PFBC stock bass in warmwater streams in addition to, or instead of, trout?

For example, the Wissahickon has wild small mouth. If it were stocked with more smallies, they would be far more likely to survive through the entire summer than trout.

I would think the spin fishers would come around pretty easily, as it would give them the option to target fish all summer, instead of just for a week or two in the Spring and in the Fall. Bass are tasty, and pound for pound they fight harder than trout.

Obviously it would be a terrible idea to replace a significat number of trout stockings with bass. However, it would be interesting to see a highly publicized test programs on a few of the warmest streams across the state.

 

[jayL]

I agreed last night, and I still do. It would be interesting to see if the commission would ever be willing to go in the face of their prized trout program. As a spin fisherman for alot of years, I wouldn't have minded the chance to go out and catch the crap out of smallies on some of our more marginal trout streams.

I'm curious to hear what you guys think about this one too.

 

[nimrod]

I agree. There are plenty of marginal trout waters around, the upper Brandywine and French Creek coming to mind. The lower reaches of the Tully would be a good fit too although I caught a nice smallie yesterday mixed in with three nice browns in the delayed harvest section.

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear Jay and Ian,

Most of the streams that have both smallmouth and trout in them have no problem producing wild smallmouth on their own.

I think the expense of modifying the hatchery system to produce many millions of adult bass would probably be prohibitively expensive too.

I wish the Fish Commission would do a little more work to find out where all the dang smallmouth in the Susquehanna River below the junction with the Juniata River have gone? You can't consistently catch 15 smallmouth in day on the river if you fish it with dynamite. You used to be able to catch 15 in an hour just half-azzin' it.

Something is really wrong.

Regards,
Tim Murphy

 

[troutbert]

Raising and stocking hatchery smallmouth on top of wild smallmouth populations makes exactly as much sense as raising and stocking hatchery trout on top of wild trout populations.

Both make no sense at all.

 

[Padraic]

I wish the Fish Commission would do a little more work to find out where all the dang smallmouth in the Susquehanna River below the junction with the Juniata River have gone?

You beat me to it! I was gonna say that pretty soon they'll have to stock the Susquehanna if you want to see a bass in there. The elevated bacteria levels closed the City Island beach, and the younger bass are already dying (or so I hear).

 

[FarmerDave]

troutbert wrote:
Raising and stocking hatchery smallmouth on top of wild smallmouth populations makes exactly as much sense as raising and stocking hatchery trout on top of wild trout populations.

Both make no sense at all.

My sentiments exactly. In fact, I think it makes even less sense.

 

[afishinado]

Yeah Tim, the smallmouth fishing is in the toilet.........


http://www.abc27.com/news/stories/0707/436290.html

 

[Padraic]

FarmerDave wrote:

troutbert wrote:
Raising and stocking hatchery smallmouth on top of wild smallmouth populations makes exactly as much sense as raising and stocking hatchery trout on top of wild trout populations.

Both make no sense at all.

My sentiments exactly. In fact, I think it makes even less sense.

Another year or two like we've had and that won't be an issue on the Susquehanna. It could be the state's first "put 'n take" bass river.

 

[FarmerDave]

Padraic wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:

troutbert wrote:
Raising and stocking hatchery smallmouth on top of wild smallmouth populations makes exactly as much sense as raising and stocking hatchery trout on top of wild trout populations.

Both make no sense at all.

My sentiments exactly. In fact, I think it makes even less sense.

Another year or two like we've had and that won't be an issue on the Susquehanna. It could be the state's first "put 'n take" bass river.

That still wouldn't make sense if you ask me. The problem in with the river, not the fish.

 

[shipnfish2006]

Its weird though because the walleye population is really starting to take off and the bass are just slowly disappearing. After just fishing a river with no problems at all in Maine, I truly can't believe how much the suskie has changed for the worse in the last 5 years. Hopefully they can identify the problem with the fishery before its too late!

 

[Chaz]

Smallmouth bass are not native to any region of PA accept SW PA. That's one reason. Where there is suitable habitat Wild Smallies thrive, that's another reason. Where there are pollution issues they have problem just as trout do. Water quality should be a prime concern for PFBC and DEP and should be considered above whether or not to stock fish. Clean up the water and the fish will come. We don't need more smallies in our streams we need cleaner streams.
Smallies are not compatible with brook trout, so I would object strongly to any stocking of smallies in brook trout water sheds. In the Susquehanna, the smallies are suffering from unknown problems wacking the population. Walleyes may do doing well right now, but the river has so many problems you should expect them to suffer also.

 

[RLeeP]

>>Smallmouth bass are not native to any region of PA accept SW PA>>

I don't think that's quite right, Chaz..

They're native to the Allegheny drainage which means their original range in PA extended as far north as about 8 miles south of Erie and as far East as probably the lower Oswayo on down to Ridgeway, etc.

That's probably a third of the state.


Personally, I don't see any real world conflicts of significance between brook trout and smallmouth even in those portions of the state where the smallmouth is not indigenous. Short of clearing all the streams and northcentral reservoirs of all competing fish for the sake of brook trout, we're always going to have, IMO, a situation where there are niches where the best acclimated and adapted fish is going to naturally dominate.

But that's just me...

On Edit: I can't think of anything that makes less sense to me than stocking smallmouth bass though. But, IMO, the reason why has virtually nothing to do with the potential impact of doing so on self sustaining trout populations. I just don;t believe the potential conflict between the 2 is significant enough to be concerned with.

 

[FarmerDave]

You beat me to it Robert. the smallmouth original range was basically west of the eastern divide which is probably about a third of the state. And by the way, you are not entirely correct, either. They are also native to the St. Lawrance Watershed and the great lakes, so you can include those last 8 miles, too. ;-)

 

[RLeeP]

>And by the way, you are not entirely correct, either. They are also native to the St. Lawrance Watershed and the great lakes, so you can include those last 8 miles, too.>

Before or after the glacier...?

 

[FarmerDave]

RLeeP wrote:
>And by the way, you are not entirely correct, either. They are also native to the St. Lawrance Watershed and the great lakes, so you can include those last 8 miles, too.>

Before or after the glacier...?

Which Glacier. :-D

 

[ian_brown]

Lots of good points. It would be a bad idea to stock smallies over wild populations of trout or bass.

I still don't get why trout, rather than bass, are stocked in marginal waters where they will die in the first heat wave. Like Tim said, there is a huge trout infrastructure, and it would be difficult to adapt it to bass. I just don't get why the state started stocking trout in these marginal streams in the first place. Is it just a cultural thing, i.e. when the hatcheries were being developed, people weren't interested in bass?

It doesn't really matter. As others have pointed out, money for modifying stocking would be better spent on stream improvement.

 

[Maurice]

ian_brown wrote:
Lots of good points. It would be a bad idea to stock smallies over wild populations of trout or bass.

I still don't get why trout, rather than bass, are stocked in marginal waters where they will die in the first heat wave. Like Tim said, there is a huge trout infrastructure, and it would be difficult to adapt it to bass. I just don't get why the state started stocking trout in these marginal streams in the first place. Is it just a cultural thing, i.e. when the hatcheries were being developed, people weren't interested in bass?

It doesn't really matter. As others have pointed out, money for modifying stocking would be better spent on stream improvement.

Wow Ian, let me take a stab at this one.

First, When the hatcheries were built or fish culture began in the state, it was because culturally,people liked to kill everything they caught, and because the habitat was destroyed by logging prior turn of the century (1900), the native brook trout populations couldn't keep up with the demand. Plus they were generally smaller fish and out west and over seas there were species, ( rainbow trout and brown trout ) that grew bigger. So the agency designed to protect our watersheds and provide angling opportunities started shipping them in via rail car and culturing brown trout shipped from Europe. Remember, the creel limit was 50 trout in those days at a 6" minimum size. And they didn't even have freezers then.

From then until now it has been a challenge for the F&BC to raise as much of their product as possible to make the price of the license a value. To keep the revenue coming in, realizing they couldn't keep up with a 50 trout limit it was lowered to 25 and then 12 and then 8 and now 5. and the size limit went up to 7". All the while these reductions coincided with increased pollution issues from the hatcheries which also damaged the wild populations on those streams. Take a look around the state for a large, limestone spring creek and you will likely find a PF&BC hatchery on its headwaters.

Stocking in marginal streams began when the streams were not marginal and supported trout for the purpose of providing additional fishing opportunities during the cooler months, with the intent to harvest these fish that were raised.

SM Bass were not native to the eastern half of the state and were an introduced species like the RT and BT. They too were introduced to provide a sport fishery. But require less "stocking effort" because they are prolific reproducers.

And so it goes.

Maurice

 

[Wulff-Man]

...And trout taste better than bass (?).

 

[FarmerDave]

All good answers Maurice.

Also, It takes about 3 years to grow an adult legal size bass. That didn't have anything to do with the way things are, but it would make it cost prohibitive to have a similar program for bass.

Here is a litle tidbit. by the numbers, the PAF&B raised and stocks far more walleye than they do trout. However, they are stocked as fry and or fingerlings. I suppose that could be done with bass, and probably is to a much smaller degree.