OK... Not to open up a big can of worms, but just to stimulate some thinking and discussion...
Al Agnew had some very interesting facts on another thread about the Smallmouth in the streams of Missouri and Arkansas. While it answered some of my questions, it also lead to some fodder for debate in my opinion... So here goes...
As far as any given stream is concerned, what would you consider a "native" fish to be? "Wild" fish, of course, would be those species introduced by man, but then self propogated within that watershed. I would imagine the first generation hatched in the stream (not counting hatched in Whitlock boxes) would be considered wild?
But as for native, the waterways were formed at some point in time (no creationism vs. evolution debate, please) and from what we understand, there were no fish in these new streams. Southeast Arkansas was once totally underwater, and the Ozarks were somewhat underwater at some point. Anyway, at what point does the introduction (by nature) of a particular species of fish make it no longer "native" but a part of the natural progression of things and brought about by migration from other waterways?
And does this introduction by migration not make them "native" anyway? I am of the opinion that every species of fish (excluding trout of course) was made a part of the White system by this method either as the watershed was formed, or some time thereafter.
Just my opinion and I wait in anticipation of your responses... for real, guys... I'm not kiddin'... this time...