[spoonplugger]

there website has been down for a while now
did they disband?
just wondering if anyone knows

 

[sage2106lb]

One can only hope they did.But if you do find them please thank them for the great bass fishing in the Lower Pitt River we have now. issed: :naughty:

 

[Centerpin]

Maybe their just waiting for more transport buckets. :naughty:

Centerpin

 

[nates]

I'm pretty sure they're not the ones responsible for transplanting the bass, seeing how they have been in the system since the 30's. : Just a group of guys taking advantage of a great fishery that now exists here in B.C.. :thumbup: Also these fish aren't going anywhere so we should all just accept the fact that they're here and deal with it. The only problem people have with them is that they're going to destroy salmon stocks. At the rate things are going now the salmon stocks will be long gone due to over harvesting. definately not from bass. :wallbash: Give me a break guys, you should focus your efforts on the real issues with salmon stocks, and leave the bass out of it. :cheers:

Nates

 

[reelangler]

I'm pretty sure they're not the ones responsible for transplanting the bass, seeing how they have been in the system since the 30's. : Just a group of guys taking advantage of a great fishery that now exists here in B.C.. :thumbup: Also these fish aren't going anywhere so we should all just accept the fact that they're here and deal with it. The only problem people have with them is that they're going to destroy salmon stocks. At the rate things are going now the salmon stocks will be long gone due to over harvesting. definately not from bass. :wallbash: Give me a break guys, you should focus your efforts on the real issues with salmon stocks, and leave the bass out of it. :cheers:

Nates

You and your bass...

 

[Rib]

I'll go fish for bass...would be interesting to check it out. :thumbup:

As for transplanting foreign species, well, heaven help the guy I catch doing it. Otherwise, If they're there, fish them.

I agree with Nates, they aren't the reason our stocks are in decline.

Bass huh? Gonna have to check it out one of these days...

rib

 

[sage2106lb]

Well nates I fish the back waters of the lower Pitt for cutthroat and bulltrout alot. When I start to catch more bass than the fish that I am targeting there is a big problem. More and more in the last two years. Your saying bass have been in this area since the 30's is BS. A few lakes maybe. I am originally from your neck of the woods back east. The fish didn't get in this system from ducks feet they were introduced by some IDIOT who thinks bass are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Sorry for the rant just my :2cents:

:cheers: sage.

 

[spoonplugger]

being new here and not wanting to start a war here with my first post, but there was a reason i asked about the WCBA, kind of testing the waters and my feeling was right just the mere mention of bass gets people mad
I am a Bass angler have been for 30 years ten years ago there were a handful of lakes in BC that one could catch bass in today it seems to be out of control and tempers flare big time at the mere mention of bass. i personally have nearly gotten into fist fights with fly fishermen over the subject, what i would love to do is unite all anglers in this fight because i belive that who ever is doing this can be caught. over the last year i have talked to people in fisheries and have learned that the person doing this is not so stupid, what i was told was if you see perch in your favorite lake expect bass in the next year or two, this person plants a forage base first for the bass.
now as a bass fisherman i am angry about this as well,
the finger pointing and accusations need to be put away and a united front between all anglers should be in place, united we can share info and keep our eyes open and eventually catch this person, another thing i learned recently is that bass were just a start i have heard that Walleye and northern pike have begun showing up in south eastern BC.
so anyone up for a discussion and not an argument? and for the record i was never affiliated with the WCBA in any way.

Wayne

 

[Rib]

Welcome to the forum Wayne,

I am wondering...might you have any insight into how someone might transport these fish? Obviously just a bucket and some water could do it for a short drive, but inevitably if the journey is longer it complicates things...making it more difficult to keep the fish alive to survive the transplant.

I was recently playing golf over at Meadow Gardens Golf Club near Pitt Meadows, and there were largemouth everywhere in the lakes on the course. Tons of them. I would imagine that once such a person planted one lake or water system, then they would use it as a base or source of fish to plant other systems. With the Perch and the bass...what lakes, water ways in the lower mainland have these fish now? Do you personally know of many anglers that target these fish specifically, if so, how many do you typically see when you're out there...?

Thanks,

rib

 

[abbyfireguy]

I will refrain from making my comments about bass as Rib is kept busy enough keeping an eye on all my other posts...:happy: :thumbup: :-*

 

[nates]

I agree sage. There is definately more bass now than what there used to be. I don't agree with the introduction of these species either. I just don't have the power to do anything about it. So I'm not going to waste my breath complaining about it, :-X when I have no intention of doing anything to help rectify the situation.

Tight Lines, Trout or Bass.

Nates

 

[reelangler]

Tight Lines, Trout or Bass.

Nates

What about salmon

 

[spoonplugger]

Thanks for the welcome Rib.
I have a partial list somewhere here i will try and find it and post it for you as to what lakes have Bass and Perch
if i recall mostly the interior lakes and some on the island, and yes i do know of alot of anglers who target only Bass and i can say for them that they do not like the stocking that is going on either.
as for the comment "what about the Salmon" Bass are now turning up in the fraser river that i got from the langley conservation office last week.
again i think as a group something can be done here

Wayne

 

[steely_crazy]

:cheers: spoonplugger - welcome....

I agree that the bass DO NOT belong here. but ,,,, Bass would probably be fun on a top-water fly. I dont know but when I used to fish for them back home with top-water plugs it was pretty entertaining watching the largemouths inhale the offering. Smallmouth bass are known for their acrobatic leaping, and believe me a 5lb smallmouth will have you heart pumping when they do a few leaps and runs. Use light gear and have some fun with them, perhaps they just need a little more pressure from the angling community here to keep them in check? As a youngster at our cottage my Dad told me a little poem out fishing once that had me laughing pretty hard,

I wish I were a fish
I wish I were a bass
I'd climb up on a rock
And slide down on my ---- OVER-COAT

 

[reelangler]

If the bass are in these systems, and it is unlikely they would be leaving anytime soon, then sure go ahead and fish them.
I have made my own decision to not target bass nor participate or support the fishery anytime soon, or ever. If the
resource is there, then by all means use it... but I do believe that something should be done to stop the progression of
the species.


Ribwart and Nates, im just wondering, when you guys say that bass aren't the reason our salmon stocks are in such great
decrease... do you mean that bass do affect them, but not in great numbers or as much as other factors so it doesn't
matter? Or, do you mean that bass just don't affect the salmon population, period.

If you answered to the first one, I would like you both to reconsider what you've said. Every little factor makes a difference
as both of you know. If you replied to the second one, I'd like to know how it doesn't effect the stocks. Also, how does it
effect the stocks? I have no idea...

I'm just saying that IF it does affect the stocks of our future salmon or any other resident fish we love, then there is only
one thing to do about bass, and that is eliminate them.

 

[nates]

Reelangler,

The bass affect the salmon stocks by feeding on the salmon fry. I believe that the majority of salmon fry don't go any where near where the bass hang out. I also believe that the population of salmon will not be greatly affected by this, all other species in our systems are all aggresively feeding on salmon fry aswell. Like I said before, the Bass aren't going anywhere anyways. I'm going to take you out and catch bass real soon. ;D

 

[fishortho]

Ther only fish that can survive the toxicity of living on a golf course are carp, and BASS!....They are very hardy and will eat anything that moves including frogs, small fish and every other bug that moves in the water....The carp are primarily bottom feeders and are not tarketed much here either, but I do know there are some over at the Mayfair Lakes Golf Course that are pushing 10-20 lbs.......Ortho

 

[reelangler]

Reelangler,

The bass affect the salmon stocks by feeding on the salmon fry. I believe that the majority of salmon fry don't go any where near where the bass hang out. I also believe that the population of salmon will not be greatly affected by this, all other species in our systems are all aggresively feeding on salmon fry aswell. Like I said before, the Bass aren't going anywhere anyways. I'm going to take you out and catch bass real soon. ;D

The point im trying to get at is that bass still affect the salmon stocks. No matter how large or small, they still affect it. It's like that whole DW-40 post, the toxins in the solution MAY or MAY NOT affect the fish, but the possibility of affecting the fishery is till there, so just be safe and don't do it. Just because bass do not have a significant effect on salmon stocks YET, they also reproduce. The bass fishery will grow and with more bass born, less salmon will make it back to spawn. If there is a risk of depopulation of our resident fish, I believe we should do something about it. Bass don't belong here and something should be done about it.

And as for me going bass fishing... I don't think so!!!! :wallbash:

:beerchug:

 

[sarg]

I don't think that the logic of "since they are here now might as well fish for them” makes any sense. Introduced species can have a massive impact on the surrounding environment. A prime example being Australia...where a variety of species are causing havoc on the environment. Originally they had a relaxed view of introduced species and some were even brought in to fix a problem unfortunately causing a bigger problem in the long run. Anyhow what I am trying to say is simply justifying a problem with an attitude of they are here might as well accept it… is quite dangerous. Also stating that the bass have a small impact on the environment is not backed up by conclusive studies. They do not belong here. To introduce the species was a selfish move to begin with.

 

[troutchaser]

I don't think that the logic of "since they are here now might as well fish for them” makes any sense. Introduced species can have a massive impact on the surrounding environment. A prime example being Australia...where a variety of species are causing havoc on the environment. Originally they had a relaxed view of introduced species and some were even brought in to fix a problem unfortunately causing a bigger problem in the long run. Anyhow what I am trying to say is simply justifying a problem with an attitude of they are here might as well accept it… is quite dangerous. Also stating that the bass have a small impact on the environment is not backed up by conclusive studies. They do not belong here. To introduce the species was a selfish move to begin with.

Fine Srethy... but what do you suppose we should do about it? It's not like you can poison the fraser and all it's tribs. The only way to make any impact would be to fish for them. And it would take A LOT of bass fishing. I think this is part of what Nates is talking about. There are too many in the system now for us to react. This window of oppurtunity was closed a long time ago. Sure it's unfortunate, but thanks to a few bucket carriying, half-witted transplants from back east, we have to deal with it. I'm tired of people crticizing someone's opinion, without providing any solutions to the problem at hand.

Bass have far less impact on salmon stocks than people think. There are far less trout in these waters than what there used to be. All the bass are doing is replacing that void. Sure there are less salmon now too, but we all know this had nothing to do with the amount of non-human predatory species. I mean, people have the gaul to suggest that we have open season on seals becaue they are "intrusive" and "greedy" and "fat pigs". Yeah... either that, or we've overfished their water to the point that they have no other recourse. Those "fat pigs" are trying to put on blubber so they can survive. They're not meant to be in the rivers, just as they're not meant to be out covering hundreds of miles out in the ocean without seeing a salmon. This is not their fault but it is their problem. Let me ask you this. Who are the real "Fat Pigs" in this equation. We all know the answer. It's just not many are willing to accept responsibility, and are left pointing the finger at anything or anyone possible. As a human race, the blame lies squarely on us, and us alone. When it comes to our fisheries, WE ARE THE ALIEN SPECIES.

When the Salmon runs become virtually obsolete, some may actually be thanking the bucket brigade for introducing a species that is here to stay. Whether you agree with it or not, you will have to come to grips with this.