A Trophy Smallmouth River Being Destroyed By FISH AND WILDLIFE.

[Mackdaddy21]

The Yampa River in Northeastern Colorado is a nice midsize river. It has a tremendous population of fat smallies, up to 6 pounds. A fly fisherman, bait fisherman, or lure fisherman can easily catch 30 - 50 smallies per day, many over 4 pounds.
Sadly, the US Fish and Wildlife wants to remove the smallmouth bass in the river. They want to do this because the river is home to several endangered sucker and chub species. These fish are endangered and nearly extinct because of the presence of dams on the larger rivers the yampa feeds. However the fish and wildlife, along with state agencies, want to remove the smallmouth since they cannot take down the dams and turn off the irrigation diversions. The yampa once supported a thriving pike population, but that fishery is a shadow of it's former self because of fish and wildlife tyranny.
The suckers and chubs are unpopular and are so hated that many anglers kill them when they are caught. These fish are doomed to extinction because they require a whole river at optimum conditions.
Nearly 100% of the public in the area is against the gamefish removal. In many sections the fish and wildlife will simply remove the trophy smallmouth and throw them on the banks.
We are tired of this government tyranny. This is America, not Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, or Nazi Germany. The government cannot do whatever they want.
I am circulating a petition to stop this madness. Since this is a federal project, any signature from anywhere in the US is valid. I would so appreciate any support from anywhere we could get. We here in Colorado and Utah are being robbed. They refuse to listen to the public, which they are required to. There has been no public vote or anything like this whatsoever. They have completely disregarded the democratic process of this nation.
I wish for some more like minded anglers to stand up and say enough is enough. We here in Colorado have had enough of our rights and our fish being taken away for special interests.

Tyler Peck (email is [email protected], contact me for more info).

Catfish, pike, largemouth bass, trout, and any fish not native are being killed in the basin for unwanted SUCKERS AND CHUBS.

[suskymusky]

I think they should leave the river alone and let nature take its course.These so called experts that tinker with habitats by adding species or taking them out interfere with the balance of nature.The PA fish commission removed all of the smelt from Harvey's lake because they were supposedly were eating all of the fish eggs.We used to get buckets of smelt while icefishing as well as nice laketrout and walleye.Now, its rare to see lakers or walleyes there, so whose eating the eggs now?

[TroutFishingBear]

I think they should leave the river alone and let nature take its course.These so called experts that tinker with habitats by adding species or taking them out interfere with the balance of nature.

I live in colorado also and you said EXACTLY WHAT I SAY.

Smart man

[SuperX2]

Too bad these groups like to play God so much. Sorry to hear about your situation.

[ChenBassHead]

Before I even read your replies, I had the exact same opinion. This is just nature. Think of how many species of fish have become extinct of the course of history. For god sakes, if I caught them they would end up as bait anyway. What is so special about one variety of chub, or sucker over the next variety anyway. I can just see the signs now:

Help Save the Short-Nosed, Red Tailed, Blue bellied, Spotted Sludge Sucker

Personally, I don't care about these fish. They're all the same to me. The only suckers that are worth keeping are the redhorse, because it's a great fighter, and can grow pretty big, along with carp(although not actually a sucker), and buffalo are great fish. But I could give a d**n less about the 3 inch chubs that steal my bait, and prevent me from getting to the brookies in the stream behind my house. It's ridiculous. Trust me, you can put my name on that petition. They can call my house if they want to. I'll give them an idea of the general public opinion. 

-Zach

[Tim Smith]

I realize this is an old topic but it seems like an important one and worth a second look.

Be warned, I'll be taking a contrarian view to some who have posted here.  I hope no one will take that as a personal affront.  That's not how it's intended.  I do hope, however, that some of these ideas will get another look.

First of all a few caveats:

1.  I don't know any specifics about this specific smallmouth bass removal.  The larger rotenone removals make me cringe, and I don't know all the specifics about those systems and I don't know what the options are.  Until you've looked at these issues in depth, criticizing (or supporting) a removal is a risky stance to take.

2.  Smallmouth bass fishing inside the native range of smallmouth bass is just about one of the best things going.  Inside their native range they deserve as much conservation effort as anything else...more perhaps since they are an apex predator. 

3.  High plains fisheries are a bit of a mess.  I would have to know much more about this river before I took a strong stance on it...but...

...a few things seem to have been overlooked here:

1.  The sentiment expressed here in this thread is correct that the best management action is usually no action;  but in this case it's too late for that.

2.  People were already "playing God" when they put nonnative smallmouth bass in those streams to begin with.  Taking them out is more a form of repentance than a sin. 

3.  In a state full of fishing opportunities, it makes little sense to sacrifice whole species for the sake of one more place to fish for smallmouth bass.  No nonnative fishery is in no danger across its' native range the way those native species are.

4.  Since when did we decide what was important based on how hard it fights?  Anglers that care about the resource should have a basic concern for all the species that inhabit their systems.  Do we really want to be the kind of people who only care about what's pulling on our poles?

Redhorse are the only suckers worth saving?  Really.  Which ones?  There are quite a few species.  Chubs are in the way of your brookies?  Really.  What do you think the brookies are eating once they reach a decent size?  ...oh, and watch our behind your brookie's back, but cause that may well be a nonnative smallmouth bass sneaking up behind it to slurp it down.

As anglers, we need to take a broader view.   

Nonnative apex predators have strong effects on local ecosystems.  Often it's not chubs and suckers at risk from smallmouth bass, but salmon and trout.

Maybe trying to keep those native fish from dying out isn't tyranny all.  Maybe what is tyrannical is to force everyone else to accept the extinction of native species because someone wants to fish for a particular fish in a particular place. 

[pooley]

smallmouth bass were introduced throughout the U.S. by train from their northeast habitat. they are native in a very few watersheds.

[Tim Smith]

True, they weren't originally everywhere.

You're especially correct about the northeast and middle and upper Ontario.

However, according to the native range maps I have, they did occur throughout the Midwest and upper southeast upward into southern Ontario, Wisconsin and Minnesota.  Iowa has native smallmouth as do Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, large parts of the eastern seaboard and Oklahoma.  Kansas, I'm not sure.  New York has some native smallmouth.

It is often repeated in the Chicago area that their smallmouth aren't native, but that's not true.  They were there during the earliest collections in the 19th century.

Their distribution was about 2/5 of  the continental US and some parts of Canada.

Why not just creel them where they aren't native?

[rayfrommaine]

Everyone seems to have overlooked the issue of the dams and the lack of suitable habitat for the chubs/suckers.  I got the impression that this was not necessarily a problem of predation by smallmouths, native or not.

[Tim Smith]

It would take some pretty strong data to know that with certainty, Ray.  It would take similarly strong data to quantify the role of dams.  It's never either/or is it.  It's both.  If this place is like 95% of everywhere else in the world, that data doesn't exist, and it won't ever exist given the budgets and time constraints that exist in all management agencies.

If you've ever been in one of those meetings, everyone lines up  in the traditional "circle of blame" and points at the other guy to explain the problems.

The USFWS can't get the dams down.  They can manage fish.

[pooley]

they are native to rivers and lakes connected to rivers. the lakes and pond thing was cause by us.