Hello Folks,

Wanted to share this article about the Rapid river in Maine, USA in regards to a smallmouth bass nightmare going on there as we speak.  Brook Trout are native to the US and are being eliminated by the smallmouth bass.  This River used to be one of the best in the USA for trophy brookies.  Now, a one pounder is a real catch! Some interesting info here and its not all bad.  I guess the salmon populations can compete with the smallies, but not the trout.

Ø      The Rapid River is 3.2 miles long and forms the outlet of the Rangeley Chain of Lakes, which have long been noted for their outstanding brook trout and landlocked salmon fisheries. The Rapid River is famed for its large (>4 pound) native brook trout, and for small but abundant landlocked salmon, which were introduced late in the 19^th century. The Rapid River supports very high fishing pressure, despite difficult access. 

Ø      Pond in the River, 512 acres in size, divides the Rapid River into two distinct segments. Pond in the River provides important habitat for certain life stages of Rapid River trout. Both waters drain to 7,850-acre Umbagog Lake, which then forms the Androscoggin River in New Hampshire. A USFW National Wildlife Refuge encompasses a portion of Umbagog Lake. 

Ø      The upper Androscoggin River drainage provides water storage and minimum flows to many downstream industrial and municipal interests. There are several large dams on the Rangeley Lakes, all currently owned and operated by FPL Energy. 

Ø      The Rapid River fishery supports two sporting camps: Lakewood Camps, located on Richardson Lake, and Forest Lodge, located near Lower Dam. The latter is situated in the former home of Louise Dickinson Rich, a Maine author who wrote several popular books about her life on the Rapid River. 

The Problem

Ø      Smallmouth bass were illegally introduced into the New Hampshire portion of Umbagog Lake, probably during the mid-1980’s. They quickly established themselves there, and by the late 1990’s had expanded their range to other accessible waters in the drainage, including the Rapid River and Pond in the River. Both waters provide ideal habitat for smallmouth bass and, as expected, we have observed a dramatic increase in their numbers. 

Ø      Smallmouth bass are severe competitors and predators on brook trout. Wild brook trout production is expected to decline during the next several years. Landlocked salmon are far more tolerant of bass, and we expect this naturalized population to persist. 

Ø      Bass are prevented from accessing (on their own) other large lakes in the Rangeley Chain because the dams are impassable to fish. However, we anticipate additional illegal stockings to occur from this new local “reservoir” of bass. 

Department Actions Taken to Date  

Ø      Intensive sport fishery surveys of the Rapid River have been ongoing since 1994. 

Ø      Habitat surveys of the Rapid River and Pond in the River, including preliminary suitability studies for smallmouth bass, have been completed. 

Ø      Growth and age structure characteristics have been described for all major predator fishes, including smallmouth bass (ongoing). 

Ø      A “no size or bag limit” rule for bass was promulgated in 2000. 

Ø      An existing barrier dam at B Pond in Upton (tributary to Umbagog Lake) was repaired in 2001. 

Ø      Radio telemetry studies to determine seasonal movements and habitat use of adult brook trout were initiated in 2002. A similar study of landlocked salmon and smallmouth bass movements was initiated in 2003 (ongoing). 

Ø      A preliminary assessment of juvenile brook trout and landlocked salmon habitat use, and their interactions with young bass in nursery areas, was initiated in 2003 (ongoing). 

Ø      A comprehensive regulatory package was promulgated for the 2004 fishing season. The regulations are designed to provide maximum protection to trout during vulnerable periods (as determined by telemetry studies) and to reduce competition from landlocked salmon. 

Ø      Surveys of existing natural “bass barriers” and the feasibility of establishing additional barriers to vulnerable trout waters were initiated in 2003. We are currently emphasizing protection of Umbagog Lake and Richardson Lake tributary ponds, but we anticipate extending this project to other waters further upstream (ongoing). 

Ø      Genetic studies of the Rapid River brook trout population have been initiated and opportunities for establishing a broodline of this strain are being explored (ongoing). 

Ø      A food habits study was initiated for all life stages of smallmouth bass collected from the Rapid River, Pond in the River, and Umbagog Lake (ongoing). 

Ø      A comprehensive review of the professional fisheries literature pertinent to this problem was initiated, and personal contacts were established with university researchers specializing in smallmouth bass and brook trout interactions (ongoing). 

Ø      A significant effort has been made to elicit support and assistance from a variety of local and statewide angler groups, including local sporting camp operators and anglers, the Rangeley Guides and Sportsman’s Association, and Trout Unlimited (ongoing). 

Immediate Work Priorities (see footnotes for volunteer assistance)

  Ø      Aggressively seek funding and initiate bass barrier project for upstream watersSUP1/SUP/SPAN.  

Ø      Complete ongoing telemetry, genetics, and bass food habits studiesSUP2/SUP/SPAN.  

Ø      Establish a broodline of the Rapid River trout strain if warranted by genetics studySUP3/SUP/SPAN. This may require additional hatchery resources, and we may need to locate and reclaim a suitable site to hold brood fish in the wildSUP4/SUP/SPAN -- if natural reproduction fails due to bass predation and competition, replacing lost juvenile production with Rapid River-strain hatchery fish may be the most effective, realistic means of mitigating the presence of bass.  

Ø      Seek funding and support to expand juvenile trout habitat surveys and evaluate the efficacy of controlling bass in these critical areas. The Department recommends that this work be contracted to a university graduate student or consulting firm.  

Ø      Collaborate with FPL Energy and Settlement Team to reassess the Rapid River’s flow regime. Studies should be initiated to determine flow regimes most favorable to trout life stages and least favorable to smallmouth bass and landlocked salmon.      

Ø      Continue reviews of the scientific literature pertinent to this issue, and maintain contacts with other professionals involved in this work. The Department is currently seeking assistance from an independent contractor to facilitate a detailed review of the literature. This contract will include provisions for submitting summary reports for professional workers as well as for the general public.  

Ø      Continue sport fishery surveys and maintain current biological information for Rapid River salmonidsSUP5/SUP/SPAN. Design study plan to effectively monitor effects of new fishing regulations and possible flow regime changes.  

Now think, do you really want to go here!

Regards,

Whitey

The best thing about this debate is that it is purely academic. There is no way that MAF or DOC would contemplate such a thing. I see that people couldn't even get flowers in for the Ellerslie show.

Saying that, I do love fishing for SM bass. I once caught a 40cm bass with a 15cm bluegill sunfish in its stomach. These boys are always hungry! I also once watched a snake swimming across a river with a bass in hot pursuit, nipping at the snake and almost drowning it until it finally made its escape up the bank.

Fishing for them with poppers is very exciting. The fish errupts out of the water and absolutely smashes the popper. The fish will then almost always jump and will fight to the bank. LM bass are poor fighters. If you hold them on the first jump and prevent them wrapping you around some structure, they will just flop all the way to the boat.

But I would never risk the superb trout fishing we have here for the sake of a few bass.

Good call Whitey. You are 100% correct in what you say about Bass.

I understand Herring's point of view and share the thought that fishing for Bass would be great. However there are major flaws in his argument and the major one is the seeding you outline.

That is how the majority of our "trash fish" have already been introduced. Also there has never been a case of fish containment in NZ yet. If a particular fish is introduced to a specific waterway it has, in every case turned up in other waterways. Some of these fish spread themselves in unique ways. Perch, for instance, can have their eggs transported into ponds on the feet of waterfowl.

Introducing Bass to NZ would court disaster because as Whitey has pointed out they will out compete the trout. The size of lakes will be no sanctuary for fish as it has not been in the equally huge impoundments in the US. If only planted in northland where they would thrive they would soon be spread by anglers who wanted to fish for them elsewhere. There is also a major chance of disease introduction with new fish stocks something we are relatively free of in NZ at present.

Tournaments would not reach the scale here they do in the US and would have no chance of emulating those in the US the same way the NZ Golf Open can't compete with the US Golf Open, or our Tennis Tournaments can't compete. We do not have the population to create the multi billion dollar industry here they have in the US. That's a pipedream. We currently have a sports fishery that generates hundreds of millions of dollars for the NZ economy at almost no cost to the taxpayer and we would jeopardise that for a 100-1 shot bass tournament? I don't think so.

After 200 years of introducing species to this country we should by now know that the vast majority have, while introduced to be of value, become pests which need constant population control at a cost to the taxpayer and at the expense of other wanted species. Stoats and ferrets were introduced to kill rabbits which were introduced and have been a plague; the counter introduction was of no use and has decimated our native birds etc... Introducing bass would be another step down that road. Trout don't muddy waterways... carp do, but to introduce Bass to fix a problem created by Carp being introduced would be akin to introducing Ferrets to kill rabbits... it won't work and will create other problems.

It amazes me the northern fisheries that have been screwed over by poorly thought fish introductions, in many cases by coarse anglers wanting to emulate sports from other countries or their home countries, as outlined Lake Pupuke and others. When I was a kid there was a good brook trout fishery there, right in Auckland... it would be fantastic if there was a way to put Bass in there, have them go nowhere else and for the kids of Auckland, and adults to experience but there is no practical way to do it without causing even more harm to our already pressured freshwater fisheries. Both fish and game and the NZFFA have huge libraries of documentation and research on other species and their potential impacts… these should not be idle thoughts wondering “what could be” because the information is there of what would be if some species were introduced and it is frightening!!! It’s a non argument as the scientific information is such that the idea of introducing Bass to NZ will never get beyond this forum as the dangers are known, documented and scientific… it would be an ecological disaster for this country and not just with trout!

Didymo stands to have a major impact. It will not wipe out our trout fisheries. It will impact a number of rivers but probably won’t bloom in the majority of our rivers. The measures in place in NZ will slow its spread but they will not and cannot stop it. Biosecurity were absolutely abysmal in their response and probably the spread has not been contained as it could have been in the early stages as their concerns were not great enough. primarily they are concerned with stopping stuff getting here, once its here it's a failure on their part and containment seemed fruitless to them even though Fish and Game were screaming for measures to be put in place as was the New Zealand Professional Fishing Guides Association back in June. As a guide I have invested in large containers and detergents etc to clean all visiting anglers equipment, waders and boots when they arrive and before they depart in accordance with the guidelines set out by F&G and NZPFGA, we have a responsibility to slow this thing, but we will not stop it no matter how diligent and cautious we are, we can slow it down though.

My biggest fear with Didymo is that the only way to eradicate it is to basically wipe out all of the life in a river. This may seem a solution... wipe it out now where its been found and let the rivers embark on a 3-8 year course of re-establishing itself... but beware there are nutters out there in DOC land and Forest and Bird that would have every non indigenous creature banished from this land including us and there will be major opposition to reintroducing trout into these waterways if that "cure" is enacted. This may seem "out there" but these nutters have clout and already have made impractical ideas a reality in many cases.

Didymo is here to stay I'm afraid and it will have major impact on many waterways, but not all and most likely not the vast majority, but it will impact.

Introducing further species as some counter mechanism is just plain folly. We have to nurture and care take what we have not recklessly create more problems. While I would love nothing better than having a local spot where I could go and throw fly rod poppers at Large Mouth bass I shudder at the thought of the reality.