I have noticed a lot of comments about the spread of the non native smallmouth bass. So, if walleye were to introduced into a lake that had not previously contained walleye, would anyone object? Just curious.

i dont have an answer but a great question.

Hmmm. Walleyes are native, so let's assume they've been there for thousands of years. Smallies were introduced about 100 years ago by 'sportsmen'. Smallies spread across the region lake by lake. Note, Largemouth Bass are native.

I'd imagine if a lake were one that could support a Walleye population up there they'd already be there.

I personally get a kick out of catching and eating Smallies.... but true Minnesotans view them as a trash fish. There is evidence that Smallies are affecting populations of native species like Lakers and Walleye, hence the negative attitude towards a fish that the rest of the Nation has created an industry around. (Bass Pro Shop, Bass Boats, Bass tournaments, Billie the Singing Bass etc. etc.)

I don't see a difference. Invasive is invasive. Would you object to Asian carp? Just because a fish is tasty or fun to catch doesn't change things for me. It's about eco-systems.

From what I've read walleye were introduced to most of the BWCA also. Dang I guess I'll just have to learn to enjoy catching introduced species.

Walleyes have actually been stocked in many lakes where they didn't occur before. Maybe not in the BW, but elsewhere in the state and the Superior National Forest. I can think of several (Maude and Picket for example) that were northern pike lakes but the DNR planted walleyes. Philosophically, I don't like it--we have scattered genetic strains and non native species all over the place. But in reality, it provides fishing opportunity where little existed, so that is a good thing I suppose.

I guess what I would like to see is that where there are lakes that have "intact" fish populations, they remain that way.

So the DNR won't mind if I fish out all the smallmouth? Smallmouth are fun to catch and not bad to eat. My strangest catch was a northern pike that appeared to be pregnant. I was curious enough to open him up and to my surprise I found a walleye! Not a huge one but he was swallowed whole and in the early stages of decomposition.

Walleye are native to the western and central BWCAW, but not the east, although there is some debate as to whether or not they are native to Saganaga. Many lake trout fisheries were eliminated or degraded when walleyes were introduced into some lakes. An excellent example is Brule Lake, where a good trout fishery once occured. After smallmouth and walleyes were introduced decades ago, the fishery declined to the point that today there are few, if any, trout in Brule.

Smallmouth were introduced to the BWCA beginning around 1938 by resort owners looking to expand fishing opportunities for their clients during the "Dog Days" of summer. Smallmouth have been expanding their range ever since.

Uh Oh, Know we have a whole new debate. I believe the smallies are going no where so you might as well enjoy catching them. I had no idea walleyes had a negative impact on Trout.

Generally, walleyes occur naturally in lakes that are connected to river systems with fast moving water that provide spawning habitat (or a lot of gravelly wind swept shores). Unless the lake provides spawning habitat, the lake needs to be restocked to maintain a fishable number of walleyes. The thing about smallmouth is they can reproduce in practically any lake. I think they spread pretty easily, and that what makes them "invasive" in my mind. I don't think walleyes really fill that bill.

Is anyone upset by the lakes managed for stream trout program?

suko is on to something. liberalized smallmouth bass fishing no restrictions,I like it. Stream trout are fine they don't spread like bass. Actually there are a couple of native brook trout lakes in MN.

thank god they introduced the smallies or else i would have never been introduced to the Bw or the Q..my dad first took me there in the late 80s to fish for them...

I thought the only native brook trout in MN were in lake Superior and its tributaries below the first barrier falls.

Lakers and walleyes coexist fine in lakes where they naturally occur together (Knife, Basswood, LaCroix, and many others). These are usually bigger lakes with a wide range of habitats and a diverse food base. It's when walleyes are introduced into trout lakes where they don't occur naturally that problems often occur.

Of course, many trout lakes won't support walleyes for long due to a lack of suitable spawning sites, but many trout fisheries in Minnesota and Ontario have been damaged or eliminated by walleye introductions.

smallmouth are a good catch in kansas. I don't know if they are native though.

Just wanted to muddy the water a little more....I tseems the consensus is to not put fish where they don'y historically occur. I agree, however, what to do about Splake or Tiger Musky? In the wild, they occur far below the stocking numbers. But, since da' Tiger is half Pike, can we drop a couple of hundred in Ensign? Maybe humans should stop making up fish. Here in Okla., the fisheries are big on Striped Bass/White Bass hybrids, and Walleye/Sauger hybrids(Saugeye). I dunno, kinds messing with nature....

After reading this thread and visiting this question again, I realize I have developed a more passive stance. Things maybe mucked up a bit with the various fish introductions that have occured , but, my concerns are; are they fun to catch and can I figure them out to catch - usually to be returned to the habitat they were taken from.
Boppa

Marsonite-Brook trout were/are native to small streams in SE MN also. The population was wiped out by over fishing and bad agricultural practices. they have been re-introduced in some streams.
As far as the original question goes- ecosystems should be left as they were naturally.

Right you are Moose. I forgot about SE MN. But what about Togue's statement that there are lakes with native brookies? I haven't heard that one, but I've been wrong before.

I thought all stream trout that occur in the BWCA lakes were introduced there.

FYI...

stream trout stocking

Moose Plums, too bad so MANY ecosystems have been damaged.

Well one of the lakes I was refering to is lake superior. The other has no record of stocking and is connected to a river. I'm not sure how they got there(the river wasnt stocked either).

That's a good question.
My first reaction is to say "no"... the Walleye shouldn't be introduced to new lakes.

And then I think of how they've been introduced to many lakes already, and that I enjoy that. Hmmm.

Thanks, Kanoes...interesting link...Terry

smallmouth are only native to the ohio river drainage and have been introduced in every other body of water where they are now found.its no wonder since they are such scrapy fighters. i agree we should try not to do any further damage but im still gonna enjoy what we have.

They must have naturally spread from Ohio river basin to Mississippi basin (take a right at Cairo, IL)?

MN DNR site says they're native to our major rivers (all connectded), but introduced throughout the BWCA (and other lakes).

MN DNR Appeal of Smallmouth

DNR managers believe it's a coincidence that Green Lake walleye numbers have declined while smallmouth numbers and size have increased. "We can see how anglers might think that the two are related," says Ron Payer, DNR Fisheries section chief, "but there has been no documented case in Minnesota or any other state where smallmouth have harmed walleye abundance."

Minnesota DNR

What really is invasive? Aren't most of us here because of the "invasive" mentality? As long as we (and those bronzebacks) are not a detriment, what's wrong with peaceful coexistence?

I find it very hard to believe that smallmouth bass have little impact on other populations of fish. You always hear about what fragile environments the BW's waters are and how they have limited resources for the fish populations. Seems to me if an invasive predator fish enters a lake it will be in direct competition with the other fish for the same limited resources. It's very simple.

What about stocking Musky? About being invasive specie, if the Indians thought we were an invasive specie & had the technology we had(bang,... dead indian) no body would be here.

The state of Illinois DNR is stocking walleyes and muskies in southern Illinois at Lake of Egypt, Cedar Lake and Kincaid Lake. Local old timers hold the walleye and muskies as problematic non-native species much as many do the smallmouth in the BWCA. They are concerned about the crappie and largemouth which are the staple down here.

Of course I am in favor of stocking walleye in new lakes, but of course a walleye is a game fish not a rough fish like carp or Smallmouth bass :)

Minnesotans hate (tongue in cheek BTW) SMB, because they are so darn easy to catch. I have to wade through them sometimes to get to the walleyes. It is annoying they get in the way of real fishing. The DNR may claim they don't affect other populations, but when you roll up on your favorite walleye reef and nail SMB after SMB and no walleyes anymore---what more evidence do you need????

Tim

All I know is that those smallmouth are sooooooooo tasty!!!

Captn Tony I have to correct you walleyes were mot introduced to "most" of the BWCAW. They are a native fish to the region and to he vast majority of the lakes and rivers in the BWCAW/Quetico. I am sure a few lakes were stocked over the years but not many.

Most lakes stocked in MN for walleye are lakes that didn't really produce catchable populations of any fish. The MN DNR stocks these lakes to provide fishing opportunities where none or little existed before and without repeat stockings the walleyes soon are gone forever. They also stock lakes with poor reproduction to supplement the native population levels. I am sure you may find a lake or two that was stocked years ago in the BWCAW with walleyes, but definitely not most.

Very few species evolved in the geographic locations that we encounter them in today. Successful species disperse and colonize new areas. It is a mistaken notion to believe that the biological community that existed at some given point in time is the correct one. The activities of Native Americans and climate change created opportunities that were exploited by other species. The smallmouth bass enjoys the competitive advantage of being one of our most desirable freshwater game fish. It's positive economic impact is huge and it's introduction came before the designation of the area as a wilderness. It is difficult to argue that it's presence in the BWCA has seriously degraded the environment. It does not appear to have diminished biological diversity in this new habitat. It's negative impact seems to be mostly upon an esoteric notion of static ecological continuity.

I'm still trying to get over the, "...true Minnesotans view them as a trash fish." comment... nope, can't get past such a ridiculous statement.

Catfish, you are a wise one!

"Successful species disperse and colonize new areas."
So catfish are saying asian carp are okay too? They adapt well to our ecosystem and push other species out. ---just becuase they adapt well it makes it okay?--I just don't agree.

Smallmouth did not colonize or migrate---they were trucked in, brought by train, or dropped in by sea plane by man--just like carp. When you artifiscially introduce a new species en masse to a new environment there are always repercutions. It throws off the balance of the ecosystem.

"It is difficult to argue that it's presence in the BWCA has seriously degraded the environment. It does not appear to have diminished biological diversity in this new habitat." I think there was a discussion here a few years ago about how novel it was to catch Largemouth Bass in the BWCA. The Largemouth have always been here---just not in the numbers they once were due to smallmouth introduction. The fact people think LMB are such a rare catch or some even think they are not native is a testament to the impact of smallys. If you are lucky enough to get deep into Quetico or the BWCAW and find a lake with no tributaries for the smallys to infest---you can still find a few lakes chocked full of LMB, but on most lakes they just could not compete for the forage. Is that a negative enviromental impact??? I guess it is okay because some people find it easier to catch smallys, than LMB or walleyes.

"The smallmouth bass enjoys the competitive advantage of being one of our most desirable freshwater game fish." speak for yourself---when I catch the 20th little 14 inch bass in a row on a formally nice walleye reef---I do not find that desirable, it actually makes me sick. So how does this hoarde of little smallys gobbling up forage not impact the biological diversity of their new environment? MN DNR can claim they have no evidence that smallys negatively impact other fish, because they haven't done any studies to prove or disprove their notions. The Candians, Michigan, New York DNR have studied the negative impact of smallies and have reached different conclusions. There is talk of increasing harvest limits or no limits on smallys in Quetico. There was a Canadian study in the BWJ a few years ago on the negative impact on Lake Trout when smallies are introduced to a lake. There is currently a study underway by the SD DNR to prove or disprove the negative impact of smallies on walleye poulations. SO there is evidence they affect the bilogical diversity.

Ultimately it is what it is what it is---I will just have to learn to like eating SMB :) After all that it is fun when you tie into one over 20 inches. I am really not as negative about samllys as I come off--I just think they are overvalued, and their impact underrvalued by many becuase they like catching them.

I'm guessing catfish has some experience/background in natural resources management??? Yes, he speaks knowledge.

Well stated Catfish! Hanta Yo!

Catfish speak with straight tongue!! Cowabunga!!

"You Dammed Straight Alvie!" ;)

Smallmouth-invasive or not are unchalleged by any other fish in the BWCA for fight and table fair..... love'em

timatkn, you are spot on. I take it that alot of you with the view that smallmouth bass are good in anyway for the bw are not from mn. Pike, laketrout, whitefish and eelpout, are all better table fare and better fighters than smb. If there was a way to remove them I would be first in line to help.

Good post, Timatkn. I'd love to see the Minnesota DNR treat smallmouth bass in the BWCA like the National Park Service treats illegally introduced lake trout in Yellowstone Lake: year-round season, no limits, mandatory kill all you catch.

I'm a lake trout fanatic, but the lake trout population in Yellowstone is wiping out the world's best cutthroat trout fishery.

togue...arctic.....you are men after my own heart.