PDA

View Full Version : Large mouth bass in Ashley



Piscivorous Pike
09-02-2009, 10:04 AM
People living on Ashley report that for two years they have found Large mouth bass, Micropterus salmoides and the population density and year class strongly suggest that they are well established now. Why such a disasster? Stock a big sun fish, yes, bass are just big sun fish, same family and now you can fish for bass in Ashley at the cost of a unique fishery. Bass are everywhere in the USA, Kokes are not, bass have a relationship to real sport fish like cotton tail rabbits to white tail deer.

You will see changes, likely not for the better in the populations of Kokes in the lake.

Bad news and I wonder how this is going to pan out with FWP and also the environmental effects and the generous limits on Ashley for Kokes.

Having an education as a wildlife manager I understand deeply some of these consequences and it worries me.

It aggravates me that in such a pristine delicate fishing hole someone that cannot catch trout and Kokes would dump in a rough fish like bass. This is the same lame unifiormed mind set the public had in the 1870's-1890's. The data is in and this multi species stocking just does not work. Bass like other fish eat what is in the lake. Whatever they consume is biomass that is converted to bass and not used in the production of trout and salmon. There is not an unlimited supply of feed in these clear lakes, that is why they are clear they are relatively sterile! That is also an evolultionary reason Salmon die after they breed as it returns nutrients to the food chain ensuring the fry some plankton to eat in these sterile cold waters.

Bass to a cold water fisherman like me is like cotton tail rabbits to a white tail hunter. No comparison. Imagine having a mountain of prime white tail hunting and deciding to wipe them out so you could hunt rabbits! Same difference as this new problem.

Bass tournaments drove the tackle industry, heck I put myself through college almost 40 years ago working in sporting goods. The mentality 40 years ago was anything that you could catch and eat was a sport fish and those that you did not eat were rough fish. I have witnessed areas where people thought Pike were therefore rough fish because they did not know how to remove y bones to prepare them for eating. Carp and suckers which have y bones, mud vains and for the most of the year taste like mud therefore are rough fish. Pro fishing brought about catch and release and the idea a fish that fights is a sport fish. Keeping that in mind, what the Europeans know and practice is that carp are horrendous fighters, more so than bass and therefore are sport fish! Yes, carp are a better fighters because of the skeletal structure, better sport fish than bass, you would not put carp in Ashley would you? Yet someone put bass, a lesser animal into Ashley, a shame.

In the future when we consider Ashley Kokes and how the fishing is doing we can now keep bass in the corner of the equation.

Someone put Macs into Swan Lake and it too is now changing. Those are doing something to the Swan Lake Kokes. I nailed one about 25# last May. How many Kokes did that take to make 25# of Mac?

Lets hope for the best and support smart fishery conservation and leave the stocking to those who understand the big picture.

I would just love to interview the folks that dumped the bass into Ashley. I would love to understand how they can arrive at those destructive decisions.

Good luck, good fishing.

Neptune
09-04-2009, 10:33 AM
Pike, I have to say I agree with you. Bucket Biologists are in no way helping ANY fishery.

But your statement about leaving the stocking to those who understand the big picture isn't really working either....Look at Flathead Lake for example or Canyon Ferry, both are in turmoil because of FWP decisions.... Just sayin'

Piscivorous Pike
09-04-2009, 12:54 PM
Pike, I have to say I agree with you. Bucket Biologists are in no way helping ANY fishery.

But your statement about leaving the stocking to those who understand the big picture isn't really working either....Look at Flathead Lake for example or Canyon Ferry, both are in turmoil because of FWP decisions.... Just sayin'

Absolutely correct! I should qualify my statement, it is those who have no irons in the fire, an employer or political agenda. A third party researcher by all means.
Unfortunately a lot of MT. management is done on an agenda basis and not by science (deer permits for out of state makes money and is guaged to sell outfitter permits, don't you think?).
When FWP got Fed. money to research and publish the condition of Bull Trout stocks a few years ago, the publication I get a kick out of and re-read often enough is the one where the poor biologist had to address the Thompson River population just after the FWP dumped European Brown Trout on top of them. There is a page of double speak and back peddling trying to justify, ignore or dance around the issue because he KNEW is was a disaster and would go beyond removing the brookies. How could he publish what he knew and believed in and criticize his employer?
I am glad now that I never went to work for any western game department over the last 36 years since completing my education. Some of my classmates became managers, regional managers and even dept. assistant managers. The stories of aggrevation I have heard...