Illegal? Unethical? What say you.....

New River Rat said:

Captain Ahab said:

You do realize that Small Mouth are not a native species either - correct?

Click to expand...

I have been told that by various persons, yes. Do I believe it? I'm not certain. If you research long enough and read enough reports, you should come away uncertain as well. Various maps show the native range skirting the New River in North Carolina and Virginia, some ranges show it included, some not. However, the whole of West Virginia is usually shown as native, which includes the Ohio and its drainage's. These primary ones are the Kanawha and the New. Nobody can state that the smallmouth is non-indigenous for positive.

Click to expand...

According to this abstract smallmouth are NOT native to the New River....

"Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) are not native to the New River of Virginia (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993). They are a relatively new addition to the upper New River fish fauna (Haller- man et al. 2005). The historic native fish fauna consisted of few traditional game fishes, with the exception of channel catfish (Icta- lurus punctatus) and flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993)."

And from Wikipedia....

"The smallmouth bass is native to the upper and middle Mississippi River basin, the Saint Lawrence River–Great Lakes system, and up into the Hudson Bay basin.
Seems pretty definitive to me and I am certain that they are not native to that river system."

Lastly, this abstract states that the impact on the smallmouth population by muskie predation is minimal.

Like I said, it depends on whose report you read.


Native Range: St. Lawrence and Great Lakes, Hudson Bay (Red River), and Mississippi River basins from southern Quebec to North Dakota and south to northern Alabama and eastern Oklahoma; Atlantic and Gulf slope drainages from Virginia to central Texas (Page and Burr 1991).


The native range of the smallmouth bass encompasses most of the Great Lakes, upper Mississippi River, and Ohio River basins plus some tributaries of the lower Missouri and lower Mississippi basins (Robbins and MacCrimmon 1974). This range stretches from northern Minnesota, Ontario, and Quebec in the north to northern Alabama, southern Arkansas, and extreme southeastern Oklahoma in the south and from eastern South Dakota in the west to western Vermont and Quebec in the east.







These maps show a conceived representation of the ranges. They are subject to interpretation and are not displaying necessarily concrete boundaries.

Like I said, there is no conclusive evidence to make me feel they are indigenous or non indigenous. If they were native to the Ohio, and it's tributaries, the Kanawha and New could have been a home range as well.


For what it's worth, I do not believe everything I read about fish or the activity of fishing. We (anglers) are told this event is fact or this situation must be approached in a very specific way, to the point that we will accept anything as fact. I think it shows a gullibility on our part to belive what we are told and not to ask our own questions.

I'll debate no further, because these are no more than opinions and I really don't want to get in a pissing match over those.

But isn't the debate here whether it's ethical - or not - to be wasting game fish by bashing them on the head and leaving them to float away? The question of whether the muskies are eating other game fish isn't relevant. In my state (MN) a lot of money is spent on supporting the walleye population. I don't have the facts but I wouldn't be surprised if the money spent to support the walleye population is equal to all other species combined. I don't fish walleyes and so I don't really care but others do and I have to accept that as being a part of the fishing community. If I owned the world the lakes would be stocked with #6 largemouth bass but I don't and they aren't. My state DNR makes decisions based on a variety of factors including providing a sport fishery for a variety of interests. Whether I personally agree doesn't matter. It is what it is. Not agreeing however does not give me the right to bash the fish I'm not interested in.

bobberboy said:

Not agreeing however does not give me the right to bash the fish I'm not interested in.

Click to expand...

Exactly my feelings. I could care less if I ever catch another Bass (Small or Largemouth). But when I do I release them as gently as I would a Walleye, Northern, Bullhead or any other creature.

New River Rat said:

Like I said, it depends on whose report you read.


Native Range: St. Lawrence and Great Lakes, Hudson Bay (Red River), and Mississippi River basins from southern Quebec to North Dakota and south to northern Alabama and eastern Oklahoma; Atlantic and Gulf slope drainages from Virginia to central Texas (Page and Burr 1991).


The native range of the smallmouth bass encompasses most of the Great Lakes, upper Mississippi River, and Ohio River basins plus some tributaries of the lower Missouri and lower Mississippi basins (Robbins and MacCrimmon 1974). This range stretches from northern Minnesota, Ontario, and Quebec in the north to northern Alabama, southern Arkansas, and extreme southeastern Oklahoma in the south and from eastern South Dakota in the west to western Vermont and Quebec in the east.

These maps show a conceived representation of the ranges. They are subject to interpretation and are not displaying necessarily concrete boundaries.

Like I said, there is no conclusive evidence to make me feel they are indigenous or non indigenous. If they were native to the Ohio, and it's tributaries, the Kanawha and New could have been a home range as well.


For what it's worth, I do not believe everything I read about fish or the activity of fishing. We (anglers) are told this event is fact or this situation must be approached in a very specific way, to the point that we will accept anything as fact. I think it shows a gullibility on our part to belive what we are told and not to ask our own questions.

I'll debate no further, because these are no more than opinions and I really don't want to get in a pissing match over those.

Click to expand...

I wasn't debating anything with you. Just pointing out the facts as science interprets the data. :wink: Even by your own posted maps, the New is east of the "native range".

I said I was through....I musta lied.

I have been a govt employee in a prior career. I am very aware of how scientific data can be skewed to keep a paycheck coming. I know our VDGIF New River muskie biologist very well, have spent time with him in the shock boat. I know our VDGIF New River smallmouth biologist very well. You would be amazed at how "things" work when salary is polluting the "scientific data". Keep in mind, they're human.






Native Range: ..............Atlantic and Gulf slope drainages from Virginia ..... (Page and Burr 1991). This would include the New. And the maps show the native range to cover all of West Virginia, which includes the New. I guess the native smallmouth from WV stopped at the VA state line and never crossed. And I repeat; These maps show a conceived representation of the ranges. They are subject to interpretation and are not displaying necessarily concrete boundaries.

Keystone, Good on ya for standing up for what you believe. New River Rat I'm sorry to say there are many out there like you. I understand your feelings and your concerns with your loss of a special fishing hole and the smallmouth is a very special fish no question about it. Many times people look to anything they can to figure out what happened, why can't I catch what I used to. They want to be a biologist and have their opinion of what is going on under that surface. Do the biologist really know........I think they work within the best means they have available but that is not an exact science so they look for unexplained trends. I have also put some time on a shocking boat. They (shocking boats) are not a population density machine, but used more to hopefully get a sampling of some year class fish for further study etc. Many other things could be happening down there. I have watched biologist put down the numbers and stood beside them for days as we tallied the fish killed in a total eradication study in small lakes and ponds. I worked the Crooked Creek study on Lake Barkley in 1978 when 14 southeastern states, many universities, and federal agencies were involved and approx. 280 acres were totally killed out. Many smaller block nets inside the perimeter were put out for other studies. Each netted area personnel collected the fish only found inside his/her netted area. These were all kept separate, each species, inch group, etc was also tabulated. Each day every group went to their site and picked up the dead fish. Then the sorting and counting began. Massive amounts of information.

Back to the original thoughts these biologist have data on all of our waters dating back for years and years. Even if a biologist skewed the data to make things look good I cannot see where it would have dramatic effects on the years of data collected.