Invasive fish species ?

Travis Bille

Active Member
Again, you're assuming the bass weren't already there, and there is plenty of information out there indicating they were already in the rivers when the dams were built. On top of that, part of the reason the dams were built is that the runs were decimated by people killing all of the beavers. The runs were paltry as a result, and so no one thought it was all that big a sacrifice to make lakes.
So if largemouth bass are native to the Deschutes river system, why aren’t people catching them out of Little Lava Lake and the D headwaters?
 
Last edited:
You've been asked like 4 separate times now cite sources. If you have studies as despicable as you claim them to be, cite them. I'll read them and that can be discussed but if you refuse to cite any studies I have a hard time believing you. The funny thing about scientists is that they can't shut up, if they find something new they are incredibly excited to share it with the world, and no money could make the broader scientific community not publish studies contradicting what we accept today if their was evidence for it.
What part of "the studies you've posted in this thread" did you not understand? Re-read your precious Snake River study. 8 tons of bias, most of which I've outlined here in this thread. 0, ZERO, NADA study done on any other predatory species in the same sections of the river they pulled their bass samples from (or anywhere else in the river), no comparison/corresponding data gathered on planter trout. All totals given are (admittedly) assessments/estimates/extrapolations, not hard data.....but it's so conclusive Washington, and Oregon legislatures/departments cite it in their justifications for altering take limits on "warm water species", and drain schedules on the lakes they occupy?.....and they wonder why fishing tackle sales/license sales are on the decline.
 

Gfisher2003

Active Member
What part of "the studies you've posted in this thread" did you not understand? Re-read your precious Snake River study. 8 tons of bias, most of which I've outlined here in this thread. 0, ZERO, NADA study done on any other predatory species in the same sections of the river they pulled their bass samples from (or anywhere else in the river), no comparison/corresponding data gathered on planter trout. All totals given are (admittedly) assessments/estimates/extrapolations, not hard data.....but it's so conclusive Washington, and Oregon legislatures/departments cite it in their justifications for altering take limits on "warm water species", and drain schedules on the lakes they occupy?.....and they wonder why fishing tackle sales/license sales are on the decline.
do you mean this one?

which has the fairly noticeable addendum saying more research is needed to make informed management decisions in the abstract.

Or this one?


which multiple times throughout the study says that their results were only conclusive during summer months in fairly specific conditions, and never makes a claim about management decisions that should be made and only offered a conclusion about how the presence of invasives affects native species.

neither of these studies makes claims about management decisions I am extrapolating from the provided data ways that we can respond to them.

To answer your question about not surveying native fish species, it is true that there is likely less research being done on them right now. Research funding is limited so the focus is on species that have not been evolving with each other for thousands of years. There are cases where changes in habitat seem to have thrown native species out of balance with each other, and studies have been done on them.


Draining schedules on lakes are not purely decided based on whether or not bass are present either, new schedules have largely been oriented at restoring more natural flow regimes to the water below dams not above them from what I have seen.
 

LilCutts

fish & whistle
WFF Supporter
What part of "the studies you've posted in this thread" did you not understand? Re-read your precious Snake River study. 8 tons of bias, most of which I've outlined here in this thread. 0, ZERO, NADA study done on any other predatory species in the same sections of the river they pulled their bass samples from (or anywhere else in the river), no comparison/corresponding data gathered on planter trout. All totals given are (admittedly) assessments/estimates/extrapolations, not hard data.....but it's so conclusive Washington, and Oregon legislatures/departments cite it in their justifications for altering take limits on "warm water species", and drain schedules on the lakes they occupy?.....and they wonder why fishing tackle sales/license sales are on the decline.
Could ya take it down about 30%?
 

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
do you mean this one?

which has the fairly noticeable addendum saying more research is needed to make informed management decisions in the abstract.

Or this one?


which multiple times throughout the study says that their results were only conclusive during summer months in fairly specific conditions, and never makes a claim about management decisions that should be made and only offered a conclusion about how the presence of invasives affects native species.

neither of these studies makes claims about management decisions I am extrapolating from the provided data ways that we can respond to them.

To answer your question about not surveying native fish species, it is true that there is likely less research being done on them right now. Research funding is limited so the focus is on species that have not been evolving with each other for thousands of years. There are cases where changes in habitat seem to have thrown native species out of balance with each other, and studies have been done on them.


Draining schedules on lakes are not purely decided based on whether or not bass are present either, new schedules have largely been oriented at restoring more natural flow regimes to the water below dams not above them from what I have seen.

If these were the papers erock was referring to, just proves the point made in another thread (Can hatchery and wild co-exist) about not reading the entire paper, ie, if these are the studies, looks like Mr erock is grossly mischaracterizing the studies and simply went from some headline. If they are not the studies, this shows the value of providing the actual citation/link, rather than some amorphous generic "your beloved Snake River study".

@erock23175, it would help if you stopped being a smartazz, and started providing the actual citations/links to the studies you are referring to, otherwise, looks like you're just making shit up.

Cheers
 
do you mean this one?

which has the fairly noticeable addendum saying more research is needed to make informed management decisions in the abstract.

Or this one?


which multiple times throughout the study says that their results were only conclusive during summer months in fairly specific conditions, and never makes a claim about management decisions that should be made and only offered a conclusion about how the presence of invasives affects native species.

neither of these studies makes claims about management decisions I am extrapolating from the provided data ways that we can respond to them.

To answer your question about not surveying native fish species, it is true that there is likely less research being done on them right now. Research funding is limited so the focus is on species that have not been evolving with each other for thousands of years. There are cases where changes in habitat seem to have thrown native species out of balance with each other, and studies have been done on them.


Draining schedules on lakes are not purely decided based on whether or not bass are present either, new schedules have largely been oriented at restoring more natural flow regimes to the water below dams not above them from what I have seen.
do you mean this one?

which has the fairly noticeable addendum saying more research is needed to make informed management decisions in the abstract.

Or this one?


which multiple times throughout the study says that their results were only conclusive during summer months in fairly specific conditions, and never makes a claim about management decisions that should be made and only offered a conclusion about how the presence of invasives affects native species.

neither of these studies makes claims about management decisions I am extrapolating from the provided data ways that we can respond to them.

To answer your question about not surveying native fish species, it is true that there is likely less research being done on them right now. Research funding is limited so the focus is on species that have not been evolving with each other for thousands of years. There are cases where changes in habitat seem to have thrown native species out of balance with each other, and studies have been done on them.


Draining schedules on lakes are not purely decided based on whether or not bass are present either, new schedules have largely been oriented at restoring more natural flow regimes to the water below dams not above them from what I have seen.
 
If these were the papers erock was referring to, just proves the point made in another thread (Can hatchery and wild co-exist) about not reading the entire paper, ie, if these are the studies, looks like Mr erock is grossly mischaracterizing the studies and simply went from some headline. If they are not the studies, this shows the value of providing the actual citation/link, rather than some amorphous generic "your beloved Snake River study".

@erock23175, it would help if you stopped being a smartazz, and started providing the actual citations/links to the studies you are referring to, otherwise, looks like you're just making shi
I've read plenty of the studies concerning this subject.


So now that I've re-read this shit-study, I can tell you conclusively that they did not bother to gather comparative data. It's a shit-study based on "IDEOLOGY" (Specifically: "I need to write paper that says "bass bad" so stupid legislator will get rid of the fish I'm too stupid to avoid catching while fishing for trout").
 

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
Thanks for that very insightful critique, without any reference to any statement in either paper you seem to find offensive.

"I can tell you conclusively that they did not bother to gather comparative data." - Really unclear what you're talking about here - comparative to what? The Hughes paper surveyed 7 streams. What would you like to compare those 7 streams with? The Carey paper is a review. I don't think you have much of a clue what talking about, or, you never actually did "reread". Neither paper comes anywhere close to suggesting "bass are bad" and should "be gotten rid of" (perhaps you're referring to some other study you still haven't sited).

You're only showing your own bias, and demonstrating utter ignorance about what either study is trying to say.

Until you articulate with an actual real "critique", siting erroneous data, statements that are not supported by the data, or contradictory studies, rather than over the top ad hominem attacks, you're just on a rant, and not doing your "cause" a whole lot of good.

Cheers
 

CreekScrambler

Active Member
I believe the character causing all the fuss here is either misinformed beyond recovery (unreachable) or simply trolling as many takers as possible. Neither scenario requires further engagement. Post history is highly suspect. Why burn additional time here? This thread is stuck with accommodating misinformation as a valid point of debate.

Anybody else wanna move to end this thread?
 
Thanks for that very insightful critique, without any reference to any statement in either paper you seem to find offensive.

"I can tell you conclusively that they did not bother to gather comparative data." - Really unclear what you're talking about here - comparative to what? The Hughes paper surveyed 7 streams. What would you like to compare those 7 streams with? The Carey paper is a review. I don't think you have much of a clue what talking about, or, you never actually did "reread". Neither paper comes anywhere close to suggesting "bass are bad" and should "be gotten rid of" (perhaps you're referring to some other study you still haven't sited).

You're only showing your own bias, and demonstrating utter ignorance about what either study is trying to say.

Until you articulate with an actual real "critique", siting erroneous data, statements that are not supported by the data, or contradictory studies, rather than over the top ad hominem attacks, you're just on a rant, and not doing your "cause" a whole lot of good.

Cheers
How can I cite the fact that the study itself is flawed, if it lacks the data? Would you like me to cite each paragraph, and then reference the kind of data that would have made the information that they did gather actually mean something definitive (and perhaps even disqualify their original thesis)? If I did that, would it change your mind about anything?
 

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
How can I cite the fact that the study itself is flawed, if it lacks the data? Would you like me to cite each paragraph, and then reference the kind of data that would have made the information that they did gather actually mean something definitive (and perhaps even disqualify their original thesis)? If I did that, would it change your mind about anything?
Yup!!!

(you still haven't clarified which paper you're referring to, the simplest of things you can't seem to do, so I suspect you will not provide the above critique).

cheers
 

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
I believe the character causing all the fuss here is either misinformed beyond recovery (unreachable) or simply trolling as many takers as possible. Neither scenario requires further engagement. Post history is highly suspect. Why burn additional time here? This thread is stuck with accommodating misinformation as a valid point of debate.

Anybody else wanna move to end this thread?
Yup!!!!!!

cheers
 
How can I cite the fact that the study itself is flawed, if it lacks the data? Would you like me to cite each paragraph, and then reference the kind of data that would have made the information that they did gather actually mean something definitive (and perhaps even disqualify their original thesis)? If I did that, would it change your mind about anything?
" Neither paper comes anywhere close to suggesting "bass are bad" and should "be gotten rid of"" <---re-read them. Start with the "thesis" in the titles. They tell you that they are trying to prove bass are harmful to salmonids. As for what I want them to compare? I want them to catch samples of anything big enough to eat a chinook smolt, and compare the stomach contents. I want them to do that further down river than within a few hundred yards of a hatchery outlet. I want them to do it on multiple spots on the river, from the hatchery to the ocean. I want them to do it multiple times a year during the duration of their study. Then, I want them to document, and assess the volume of "everything else" they find in the stomachs of everything they harvest in the study.

See, I believe that not only are bass not "harmful" by comparison to any other predator in the rivers (including the ones they aren't native to) but they reduce predative pressure from both humans, and other species on Salmonids. I also believe salmonids utilize bass, and other warm water species as forage. I believe that efforts to eradicate Bass, and other warm water species from rivers, and lakes not only negatively impact annual fishing spend, but actually lowers the health of the river ecosystems....ie producing the exact opposite of the intended/stated effects of these policies. And lastly, I believe that if the same monies that had funded these studies had been dedicated to resolving issues we already KNOW are causing the bulk of the problem (our lakes do not have appropriate escapement (ie a riverene aperture that flows over the dam down to the river below, or around the dam entirely)) that we would have returning runs bigger than we had while beavers were the ones building the dams.

PS. I didn't come to these conclusions because it's what I wish, or what I dream, or what I just really, really, really want to be true. I proved much of it on the end of my own line over the last 45 years. I've posted videos on Youtube of me catching native trout on baby bass-patterned plugs. The only more conclusive data I could have been gathering would have been examining stomach contents to verify that I'm catching trout that think they are eating baby bass. Given the consistency of the efficacy of these patterns, I'm pretty sure it's because they eat baby bass. I mean, if you consistently caught trout on a particular stream on a fly that looks like the bugs you keep having to swat away from your face, it's pretty safe to assume you're catching fish on that fly because they eat those bugs.
 

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top