Missouri Bass Again

[Walcrabass]

I believe that I have an idea what we want in the way of Bass after the previous "Missouri Bass" discussions.

A. We all would like to see bigger Bass.

B. we don't want steroids or pollution to accomplish our goal.

C. we don't think that the Kentucky Bass are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

D. We agree that Healthy Bass of a different gene pool would not cause a problem because it would further diversify our own Bass. This is as long as they had been proven to be healthy.

E. A slot limit would help the situation.

F. Fishermen should be able to tell the difference between the species of Bass we have in our waters.

Thank you to everyone for their input. I hope that it has us all thinking in a positive way.

[shockley32]

Sounds great to me - send it to MDC.

Brad

[fozzie.]

I believe that I have an idea what we want in the way of Bass after the previous "Missouri Bass" discussions.

A. We all would like to see bigger Bass.

B. we don't want steroids or pollution to accomplish our goal.

C. we don't think that the Kentucky Bass are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

D. We agree that Healthy Bass of a different gene pool would not cause a problem because it would further diversify our own Bass. This is as long as they had been proven to be healthy.

E. A slot limit would help the situation.

F. Fishermen should be able to tell the difference between the species of Bass we have in our waters.

Thank you to everyone for their input. I hope that it has us all thinking in a positive way.

I'm still not convinced about D.

Saying that the Florida strain is "genetically superior," is sort of a misnomer- it has traits, such as large size and fast growth, that we find desirable. But in order to reach that genetic potential it requires a set of environmental conditions found in places like Texas, Florida, and California. I just don't think the environmental conditions of Missouri reservoirs are comparable to reservoirs in those areas, and I'm not sure there would be any benefit to stocking a strain of bass which would not perform any better, and may perhaps perform worse, than the strain we already have.

I guess the best analogy I can make is with walnut trees. You can buy walnut seedlings which have been grown from trees deemed to have excellent genetics- for traits like fast growth, straightness, good form, etc. If you plant those seedlings in a loamy, well drained bottom, in full sun, the synergy between the plant's genetics and its habitat is maximized, and you'll see those good genetics expressed in the growth of the plant.

But if you choose a dry, rocky, upland site with poor soil and little water, all the genetics in the world won't make that seedling perform well. It may grow, it may survive, but it will never thrive compared to the trees down in the bottom. All the genetics in the world won't make up for the fact that the habitat and environmental conditions aren't suitable to its growth. I hope that makes sense.

As for evidence of what I'm talking about, some studies done in central Illinois in the early 90's found that Florida strain bass stocked in ponds had lower winter survival and slower growth at age 2 and 3 than bass of the northern strain. Moreover, hybrids between the two strains performed at an intermediate level- better than the Florida strain, worse than the northern strain.

You could stock Florida strain in MO reservoirs to broaden the gene pool, and perhaps you'd see some bigger bass with higher growth rates. But it's also entirely possible that you'd be tainting the gene pool- that you'd wind up with slower growing bass which are more susceptible to winter die-off than what you had in their before. Is that a worthwhile goal?

I'm still open to the possibility that there may be some benefit to stocking Florida strain bass, but first things first, I think there needs to be A LOT more study of how the two strains interact, and the benefits and potential pitfalls of stocking a new strain.

[eric1978]

Saying that the Florida strain is "genetically superior," is sort of a misnomer- it has traits, such as large size and fast growth, that we find desirable. But in order to reach that genetic potential it requires a set of environmental conditions found in places like Texas, Florida, and California. I just don't think the environmental conditions of Missouri reservoirs are comparable to reservoirs in those areas, and I'm not sure there would be any benefit to stocking a strain of bass which would not perform any better, and may perhaps perform worse, than the strain we already have.

I'd say that's just about exactly right.

Everyone would like bigger bass, but I think you're trying to square a circle here Walcrabass. Florida strain largemouth just won't thrive up here. I'd really love to have Peacock Bass fishing here, too, but it's just not possible given the conditions.

The best way to improve our fisheries is through the correct regulations and habitat protection and improvement. I'd suggest staying focused on those things, since they're really all we have any kind of control over. We're never going to see LM bass in the sizes they are produced in FL, TX, CA and Mexico. If you could find a place where the conditions were appropriate for FL strain bass, go for it...maybe in a power-plant lake or something. But introducing genetically incompatable species to MO reservoirs would just be a waste of time and money.