nutritional forage for Bass (and other minnow eating fish)

[SpoonDog]

Correlation does not imply causation.  Foxes eat rabbits.  You can look inside a foxes' stomach or at its scat and see little bits of rabbit.  There's a relationship between foxes and rabbits.  But anglers and biologists have been cutting open bass tummies for a while now, and they pretty rarely see common carp- despite, as you mention, the fact that there's probably billions of baby carp out there.  If there's alllllll those baby carp out there and they're rarely winding up in bass stomachs, it'd be totally unreasonable to claim carp are an important forage species for bass.  It's just not supported by the facts. 

It's great there's a lake in Texas where carp and bass do fine.  Austin's about as different from Missouri as Missouri is from Madison, WI- and throughout many northern lakes carp have caused serious environmental damage.  Holding up a few examples where carp have been mostly benign doesn't mean that's representative, or that we should ignore the instances where they've become a real problem.  The intellectually honest thing to do is say carp have the potential to seriously wreck aquatic ecosystems- and knowing that should we, as anglers, encourage their persistence?

6 hours ago, MoCarp said:

as far as managing invasive species for the benefit of Trophy Fisheries we do it for Brown Trout in the state of Missouri, Browns are documented to negatively impact native species, and is listed as one of the worst Invasive (INCN list) offenders in the USA... blamed directly for extinctions of native species in North America, 

Ringneck pheasants (Asian) negatively impacts native species, and have displaced prairie chickens through out their former ranges. Managing "non-natives" is done in every state in the USA...Common Carp were in our white river chain of lakes before the dams went in, been here for over 140 years stocked on purpose in the 1870's by the U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries

The folks who stocked trout and the folks who stocked pheasants didn't understand the consequences of their actions.  Both are excellent examples of exactly why we SHOULD learn from past mistakes, why we SHOULD be hesitant to introduce or encourage the persistence of non-native species.  We know the consequences of carp on aquatic ecosystems and I don't think it's wise to ignore them.  At the end of the day you're arguing we should knowingly take a position which may negatively impact native wildlife, because in the past people unknowingly took the same approach.  That instead of learning from their mistakes, we'll use them to justify making our own.  I still think that's bad policy.

[MoCarp]

3 hours ago, Quillback said:

All I can comment is on is what I see on the water.  I have never seen, in all the bass I have caught in Table Rock, a single one with a carp in it's gullet.  Shad, craws, brook silversides, and an occasional bluegill have been it.  I fish the dam end of Beaver every once in a while, clear water, and from what I can tell a healthy carp population.  The bass fishing is tough on that end of the lake.

I am not anti-carp, but I don't buy the argument that having a healthy carp population, leads to a healthy black bass population, at least in these Ozark highland lakes.

so are you inferring a nonexistent or over harvested common carp/buffalo population = a superior back bass population in highland lakes? or our lakes are turbid because of benthic feeding fish? (common carp, buffalo, and associated sucker species) and if common carp are in what way hurting black bass populations in ozark highland reservoirs?

Something is eating common carp eggs, larva, and YOY, if they were not we would be eye deep in commons in our highland reservoirs, considering the high fecundity of fish like common carp and buffalo (fecundity doesn't in itself guarantee spawning success)

[MoCarp]

53 minutes ago, SpoonDog said:

Correlation does not imply causation.  Foxes eat rabbits.  You can look inside a foxes' stomach or at its scat and see little bits of rabbit.  There's a relationship between foxes and rabbits.  But anglers and biologists have been cutting open bass tummies for a while now, and they pretty rarely see common carp- despite, as you mention, the fact that there's probably billions of baby carp out there.  If there's alllllll those baby carp out there and they're rarely winding up in bass stomachs, it'd be totally unreasonable to claim carp are an important forage species for bass.  It's just not supported by the facts. 

It's great there's a lake in Texas where carp and bass do fine.  Austin's about as different from Missouri as Missouri is from Madison, WI- and throughout many northern lakes carp have caused serious environmental damage.  Holding up a few examples where carp have been mostly benign doesn't mean that's representative, or that we should ignore the instances where they've become a real problem.  The intellectually honest thing to do is say carp have the potential to seriously wreck aquatic ecosystems- and knowing that should we, as anglers, encourage their persistence?

The folks who stocked trout and the folks who stocked pheasants didn't understand the consequences of their actions.  Both are excellent examples of exactly why we SHOULD learn from past mistakes, why we SHOULD be hesitant to introduce or encourage the persistence of non-native species.  We know the consequences of carp on aquatic ecosystems and I don't think it's wise to ignore them.  At the end of the day you're arguing we should knowingly take a position which may negatively impact native wildlife, because in the past people unknowingly took the same approach.  That instead of learning from their mistakes, we'll use them to justify making our own.  I still think that's bad policy.

anecdotal evidence is the meat and potatoes of the whats going on here questioning that leads to scientific studies, the recent revelation that show black basses feeding on asian carp and getting fat off them, arguably contributing to the resurgence to back bass (and other minnow eating fish) in the Illinois river system,

1st perceptions can be flawed. Example The round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) in the great lakes were supposed to decimate the black bass population, but what happened was the bass gorged on the new prey item and smallmouth bass populations boomed

just like the zebra muscle infestation in lake Michigan, creating better fishing and water clarity that looks like a Caribbean Island vacation instead of the cesspool the great lakes had become 

[MoCarp]

Beaver Island lake flats fishing for carp, Lake Michigan's crystal clear flats, also impacted by over harvest of common carp via Bfing..(oh yeah smallmouth fishing pretty good too)

[SpoonDog]

You're not providing anecdotal evidence, MOCarp- you're repeating an unsubstantiated claim.  There's no reason to assume some predator/prey relationship between bass and carp when you can actually just look in the bass' stomach.  That research has already been done, there's no reason to keep doing a study over and over again hoping to find the results you like.  That's not good science.

You'd never confuse or compare groundhogs and Hampshire hogs despite their similarity in name.   Common carp and asian carp are two entirely different things, and there's no reason to think a largemouth would eat one just because it eats the other.  Carp and gobies are different things, and there's no reason to think MO bass will eat common carp because MI bass eat gobies.  You're still hung up on drawing relationships between unrelated things.

 

 

 

 After asian carp displaced 80% of the gizzard shad, minnows, and other forage fish on the Illinois River, bass started eating them- maybe because they're better forage, but definitely because they're one of the few things left to eat.  Where there may have been a dozen different forage fish species before, the bass population now is almost entirely dependent on one.  After gobies displaced most of the sculpins, most of the darters, most of the crayfish, and most of the other prey items, Great Lakes smallies started eating round gobies.  When all that was left to eat was invasive species, sportfish eat invasive species.  All the complexity in the original food web provides stability- if the population of prey item X crashes, there's still prey item F, Y S,Q, Z and R to exploit.  In these systems invaded by non-native species, all of that complexity is reduced to one predator eating one prey species.  If that prey species crashes, there's no safety net.  It's a lazy, irresponsible way of managing our natural resources for future generations.

I don't mind carp- I like fishing for them, and some aquatic habitats are so degraded they're one of the only sportfish opportunities available.  But like asian carp or zebra mussels or round goby, they're not entirely benign in our native aquatic ecosystems.  That's just the reality of the world we live in.  That reality should be reflected in ecosystem management. 

[Quillback]

4 hours ago, MoCarp said:

so are you inferring a nonexistent or over harvested common carp/buffalo population = a superior back bass population in highland lakes? or our lakes are turbid because of benthic feeding fish? (common carp, buffalo, and associated sucker species) and if common carp are in what way hurting black bass populations in ozark highland reservoirs?

Something is eating common carp eggs, larva, and YOY, if they were not we would be eye deep in commons in our highland reservoirs, considering the high fecundity of fish like common carp and buffalo (fecundity doesn't in itself guarantee spawning success)

Nope, you're making the inferences.  What I am saying, and it is simple, is that there seems to be no benefit to black bass populations in our Ozark lakes by having common carp present.  I don't know what is eating those baby carp, but it doesn't appear to be black bass. 

[MoCarp]

2 hours ago, SpoonDog said:

You're not providing anecdotal evidence, MOCarp- you're repeating an unsubstantiated claim.  There's no reason to assume some predator/prey relationship between bass and carp when you can actually just look in the bass' stomach.  That research has already been done, there's no reason to keep doing a study over and over again hoping to find the results you like.  That's not good science.

It was brought up on this very forum about how bass in Stockton seem to be skinner and weigh less for there length, shad seem to be as abundant as ever... thats not anecdotal evidence?

Bfing pressure is up exponentially....I know the dad of Stockton's biologist..next time I speak to him, Ill find out if they have ever done "a what they are feeding on study" on Stockton in the last 10 years.

like any aquatic biome things change and the only way to understand it is to regularly check,

its why they electro/trap sample and if I remember correctly Arkansas does a Rotenone fish assessment...

I would applaud a study on whats eating common carp/Buffalo eggs/larva/and YOY...

so your saying we should not explore the possibility that removing a highly nutritious (even higher than rainbow trout) possible prey items? and doing so is "bad science"?

 

2 hours ago, SpoonDog said:

Common carp and asian carp are two entirely different things,

I agree..because of that, I would like to see the unlimited harvest of Common Carp go back to the 20 in aggregate like it was in the past

 

2 hours ago, SpoonDog said:

I don't mind carp- I like fishing for them, and some aquatic habitats are so degraded they're one of the only sportfish opportunities available.  But like asian carp or zebra mussels or round goby, they're not entirely benign in our native aquatic ecosystems.  That's just the reality of the world we live in.  That reality should be reflected in ecosystem management. 

 

[MoCarp]

1 minute ago, Quillback said:

Nope, you're making the inferences.  What I am saying, and it is simple, is that there seems to be no benefit to black bass populations in our Ozark lakes by having common carp present.  I don't know what is eating those baby carp, but it doesn't appear to be black bass. 

the carp have been here 140 years...THATS ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTY YEARS!...rabbits seem to be no benefit for deer populations ether....I content common carp are at worse benign to LMB/SMB/WALLEYE populations in Ozark highland Lakes, and that they contribute a highly nutritious prey item to critters that feed on them fish and all the other critters that eat them

so if you haven't seen this..lots of non fish critters eat common carp

 

[SpoonDog]

Maybe we shouldn't make management decisions based on youtube videos?

 

37 minutes ago, MoCarp said:

It was brought up on this very forum about how bass in Stockton seem to be skinner and weigh less for there length, shad seem to be as abundant as ever... thats not anecdotal evidence?

No, because there are many different reasons why a fish would be skinny.  Anglers watching bass chase down carp, catching bass with distended stomachs full of baby carp, catching fish that are puking up baby carp in the boat- that's anecdotal evidence.  A high school kid doing a science project and finding loads of baby carp in bass stomachs is anecdotal evidence.  You're picking one possible explanation to the exclusion of all others, and insisting a fishery ought to be managed based on your unsubstantiated claim.   As you've said- carp have been around 140 years and in all that time with all those diet studies there's never been any indication they make up a significant proportion of bass diets. 

 

Quote

so your saying we should not explore the possibility that removing a highly nutritious (even higher than rainbow trout) possible prey items? and doing so is "bad science"

 

Only if carp make up a significant proportion of bass diets.  There's no reason to think they do, because carp don't show up in bass stomachs.  Three and a half ounces of sheep testicles have 26 grams of protein, 380 mg of Potassium, and 26% of my recommended daily allowance of Phosphorous.  But in order to assimilate that nutrition, I have to eat balls.  Their nutritive value unless I put 'em in my mouth, chew 'em all up, and get 'em down in my tummy-tums.  If I woke up tomorrow morning and all of the sheep testicles all over the world were gone- if there were no chance of ever eating a sheep testicle again- I wouldn't starve to death.  Because I don't eat sheep testicles. 

From the diet studies I've seen common carp are the sheep testicles of the aquatic realm- yeah, they're around; yeah, you can eat them, but no one's knocking down doors to get at 'em.  If bass aren't eating carp, I don't understand the value in spending money and resources investigating whether they'll starve when something they weren't eating in the first place is removed from the system. 

 

 

(sorry Phil).

[MOPanfisher]

1 hour ago, SpoonDog said:

common carp are the sheep testicles of the aquatic realm

Absolutely my favorite line today!