No there are no Bass. Why because this country has the world's best quality trout fishing and has had for over a hundred years. Why would we put all of that at risk, not neglecting the huge tourist revenue it generates for the country as well as recreational pursuits for our citizens to have Bass?

I understand it would be cool to have some of those warm water species here, especially in the far North where trout don't do as well, but the risk simply isn't worth it.

The fact of the matter is, trout and bass do not coexist very well.  Bass, by nature are invasive and will eventually overtake any trout species in any water body to the point of extinction.  And they will be spread to other water bodies without intention. We have already made these mistakes in the US.  Please, for the love of god don't do it.  People go to New Zealand to trout fish because its one of the last places left where the trout fisheries have not been destroyed by foolish fishery management.  I believe you will beat didymo if NZ DOC treats it like the plague, cross contamination must be kept to ZERO!  Areas with Didymo must be closed to fishing. Meanwhile you must experiment with different solutions, some of which may temporarily affect local trout and insect populations (ie, algaecides, drought, physical excavation & removal, etc.)  However, once local infestations are remedied, the trout populations can be carefully restored.  The hardest part of this is money.  Beating didymo will cost a lot of $$$, NZ DOC must find the money.  Pilot studies and pilot remedies must be tried and tested starting this year.  My company, Cummins Envirotech, Inc., specializes (in part) in the design and implementation of in situ remedies for management of algal blooms, invasive flora, etc.  The first step is to collect water quality data (ie. pH, Temp, DO, ORP, EC, NH3, PO4, NO3, etc.) for a full annual period.  It's quite simple really, once you find out what it likes and needs, you change the local environment so its not so happy, and then death.  Containment and removal are often the most effective measures, however, also the most expensive.

See you soon.

Whitey

Herring, are you just trying to wind us up?

Smallmoth bass are an incredibly hardy species. They are found in just about every state in the USA, and in Canada. They love warm water (27C is fine) but they tolerate the cold water lakes in Canada. They eat anything that they can fit into their mouths but like fish and crayfish most. I have had some fantastic fishing for them in South Africa - they take flies readily and fight well.

They have filled a vacancy in the fishing waters in SA, in that most ofthe rivers are too warm for trout except in the headwaters. This is not the case in NZ - only in the far north can trout not survive in lowland rivers.

But......... SM and LM bass have been responsible for pushing native species to the verge of extinction in SA and Japan. They crowd out trout in many SA streams. They would probably adapt to most NZ waters very well. The SM bass fishery would be good, but not world class. You're dreaming if you think that tourists would come to NZ to catch bass.

NZ has fantastic trout fishing. I personally would strongly oppose anything that has even a remote possibility of threatening the trout fishery. It always amazes me how people are never satisfied with what they have - even when what they have is bloody brilliant!

Well I reckon if the world was Ideal we should introduce bass into the lakes and rivers up north. most, with some exceptions, would be ideal fisheries. imagine spending a day fishing off the rocks at spirits bay then having a bass fishing session in the lagoon by the camp. fantastic. look at lake omapere it's naffed and fool of grass carp, why not chuck some bass in there. yes they would spread if not naturally then by some plonker as has happened to lake opotoa with perch. with out really understanding their biology it's hard to say if they could breed when moved further south. so maybe it's not a real risk, many fish can survive low temps but cannot spawn or reproduce ie spotted black gropper and many of the wrasse spp. found around our coastline.

OK say didymo and koi take out the great lake of taupo and ruin the lake fishery, and this could very very easily happen, why not chuck bass or similar in. as for rotorua that is a yucky and at times smelly pond but an amazing fishery, still if koi etc stuff it why throw bass in there too?.

it has not worked in nz's favour to introduce an animal to control another animal thats for sure but if the fishery is stuffed why not make use of it?

 anyway I'm of to catch some trout to put in my mates dam!

 i think Herring has some good points, certainly  ponder a few of them but the chances of getting any new fish species into the country is very low esp how doc and forest n bird would like to eradicate trout from our rivers anyway let alone introduce another predator of native fish.

I too would like to see bass introduced to NZ waters. Trout are fine, no worries, but not exactly holy creatures. I think as an introduced rec fishing species, in the lower waikato river hydro lakes and the northland lakes they would be a superb addition to our sport.

Cheers,

Stu.

I think this is approching the first intelligent thread I have read on this forum.. that is to say I haven't managed to dumb it down yet.

Herring, could you keep your sentences shorter please, I get confused half way through them.

 there we go I've dumbed it down... ahh happy now.

Ok folks, if you want Bass to run roughshod across NZ than you certainly have the right to it.  Just remember, the problem isn't so much the fish, it's the people who love fishing for the fish, they are the ones that will secretly seed other lakes and rivers for recreational preference and run the trout into history.  I recommend that you study other areas of the globe that have tried this first so that you know the REAL consequences before you try it.

As for Didymo, lets select a river, close it and begin testing.  Must start collecting information and trying management practices ASAP before it becomes unmanageable.  At the same time we must harvest some Didymo, grow it in the Lab, and run some tests on it there as well. 

Whitey

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.

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.

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.

�      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. 

�      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. 

�      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. 

�      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

�      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. 

�      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. 

�      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. 

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

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

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

�      A �no size or bag limit� rule for bass was promulgated in 2000. 

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

�      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). 

�      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). 

�      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. 

�      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). 

�      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). 

�      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). 

�      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). 

�      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). 

�      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.