Interesting study on smallmouth bass removal

[Quillback]

They tried to remove the smallies in a NY lake and they found that it resulted in even more smallmouth, albeit smaller in size and more skittish.  

Invasive Adirondack smallmouth bass evolve to counter control efforts

[Flysmallie]

The genie does not go back in the bottle. 

[WestCentralFisher]

Years ago, I fished in a very remote network of lakes in the northeastern US that based on a book I read, was supposed to be absolutely full of native brook trout. It was a gamble to base an entire trip of that scale around a few lines in an old book, but the type that can often pan out. In three days, I only hooked one trout. It was probably the most heartbreaking missed fish of my life; it was on the very last day of a wilderness trip, it was conservatively 20 inches, and I lost it right at the canoe. 

But what I did catch on that trip is, again, conservatively, 100+ bass. The little flatwater creeks and shallower lakes were full of largemouth bass, which were easy to catch, but were stunted and seemed extremely out of place in the north woods setting. The deeper, rockier bottom lakes held smallmouth. There didn't seem to be very many, but they were hogs. An average fish was 17-18 inches. One of the best smallmouth lakes was where I lost the one trout. They did feel like they belonged in that north woods setting, but apparently they didn't. 

It turns out, 5-10 years before we got there, someone decided that the brook trout only hung out in the deeper water in the summer and wouldn't it be nice to have something to fish for in the shallow water? Well, that logic is my theory, because even where they're common in that area, lake brookies tend to be a pain to locate and often require canoe trolling, which is about as difficult as it sounds. In any case, there was a bait bucket stocking of large and smallmouth bass in the system, and they almost immediately took over. I'm told the trout population is basically gone. 

Just shows that anything can be invasive in the wrong spot. Heck, brookies are among the top causes for decline in native cutthroat in many western streams. 

[BilletHead]

2 hours ago, WestCentralFisher said:

Years ago, I fished in a very remote network of lakes in the northeastern US that based on a book I read, was supposed to be absolutely full of native brook trout. It was a gamble to base an entire trip of that scale around a few lines in an old book, but the type that can often pan out. In three days, I only hooked one trout. It was probably the most heartbreaking missed fish of my life; it was on the very last day of a wilderness trip, it was conservatively 20 inches, and I lost it right at the canoe. 

But what I did catch on that trip is, again, conservatively, 100+ bass. The little flatwater creeks and shallower lakes were full of largemouth bass, which were easy to catch, but were stunted and seemed extremely out of place in the north woods setting. The deeper, rockier bottom lakes held smallmouth. There didn't seem to be very many, but they were hogs. An average fish was 17-18 inches. One of the best smallmouth lakes was where I lost the one trout. They did feel like they belonged in that north woods setting, but apparently they didn't. 

It turns out, 5-10 years before we got there, someone decided that the brook trout only hung out in the deeper water in the summer and wouldn't it be nice to have something to fish for in the shallow water? Well, that logic is my theory, because even where they're common in that area, lake brookies tend to be a pain to locate and often require canoe trolling, which is about as difficult as it sounds. In any case, there was a bait bucket stocking of large and smallmouth bass in the system, and they almost immediately took over. I'm told the trout population is basically gone. 

Just shows that anything can be invasive in the wrong spot. Heck, brookies are among the top causes for decline in native cutthroat in many western streams. 

                   Bucket biologists have been the demise of many native fisheries.  Even certified biologists screw up. This being said some introduced species have worked out but just as @Flysmallie said once that bottle is opened it can turn into pandoras box.

[fishinwrench]

4 hours ago, BilletHead said:

Even certified biologists screw up.

From my perspective they are the first & MOST LIKELY to screw things up.   

Biologists and their "experiments" have likely caused more problems than they have solutions, over the last 100 years.

[Flysmallie]

9 hours ago, fishinwrench said:

Biologists and their "experiments" have likely caused more problems than they have solutions, over the last 100 years.

That’s hilarious. Stupid, but hilarious. 

[BilletHead]

   Some mistakes have been made we all know that but the instead of guessing and griping about what might be we should be thankful for what we have. 

[fishinwrench]

5 hours ago, Flysmallie said:

That’s hilarious. Stupid, but hilarious. 

Accurate, regardless. 

[fishinwrench]

5 hours ago, BilletHead said:

   Some mistakes have been made we all know that but the instead of guessing and griping about what might be we should be thankful for what we have. 

I doubt that "we all know" about even a tiny percentage of it.    

Not denying the occasional good that comes from it......but more forethought, safeguards and control are needed !   Badly ! 

[Flysmallie]

On 7/1/2025 at 1:48 PM, fishinwrench said:

 

Not denying the occasional good that comes from it......but more forethought, safeguards and control are needed !   Badly ! 

It’s not usually a biologist that screws things up, it’s the people with the money, or more importantly the people that hope to profit off what they do. Those are called politicians and most Americans will follow them blindly off a cliff. The control is needed for them. Scientists don’t profit by screwing over the natural resources.