Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Quote

Genetic verification is warranted in the future, but implementation may create accessibility barriers to record submissions.

Does that mean anglers will have to access DNA testing before submitting a catch? 

Posted
9 minutes ago, tjm said:

Does that mean anglers will have to access DNA testing before submitting a catch? 

BassPro has plans to bring to market the "Species Selector" portable DNA test kit.

Posted

It's strange to think that in half a century of bass fishing that I've never once caught a small mouth bass. I thought I had, many times. I've probably released a couple World Record NB. Just shows that we don't know what we don't know. I'll probably continue to refer to NB as SMB.

Posted

I think the splitters are going a little overboard on this.  It takes sophisticated DNA analysis to confidently differentiate between some of these bass, which were once races or at most subspecies but are now considered different species.  Neosho bass and smallmouth are a good example.  Neoshos readily and without any problems hybridize with smallmouth.  They have the same habitat requirements, the same spawning habits, and it's questionable whether even an experienced angler can differentiate between the two by appearance; the variations in individuals are greater than the variations between the two "species".  So it would seem that the only way to say whether one is a smallmouth or a Neosho is by arbitrarily calling it one or the other because of where it was caught.  But then we know that smallmouth were stocked all over the Ozarks, including in streams where supposedly Neoshos were historically.  So are there really any "pure" Neoshos?  And WERE there ever any pure Neoshos?  Neoshos are found in the streams that all collect into the Elk and Spring river systems, which eventually all reach the Arkansas River.  But there are a lot of other streams that also enter the Arkansas, just a little farther downstream.  So there were no natural barriers to separate Neoshos from the smallmouth in those other streams like the Illinois River, Big Piney Creek or the Mulberry River.  Were the "Neoshos" almost but not quite the same genetically as the Mulberry, Big Piney, and Illinois?  And were the smallmouth in those streams different enough genetically from, say Meramec River smallmouth (because of the really wide separation as far as river corridors go) to warrant being a different species or subspecies?  Heck, anybody who has fished up North knows that the smallmouth in Minnesota appear to be more different from the smallmouth in the Ozarks than the smallmouth in the Meramec are different from the smallmouth in the Elk.

It's getting to the point where when it comes to bass, a world record will be considered different for almost every river system.  The redeye bass is a great example of that.  There are now, what, like seven or eight different species of what were once called redeye bass, with slight differences in appearance depending upon where they were caught.

Posted

I thought Neosho bass also inhabit the Illinois and some other Ok. streams?  It is true that stocking has and will slur the distinction between any similar "breeds". The stocking of Tennessee ‘lake strain’ SMB in Tenkiller would have impacted the native bass in the Illinois.

I read years ago that the Centerton Hatchery had at on time inadvertently mixed two or three "species" of rock bass and I've caught Ozark Bass lookalikes as well as a couple of Shadow Bass lookalikes in an Elk  trib that would have been stocked by that hatchery back then. But, I guess all the rock bass in this region were imported at some point.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.