John Harrigan: ‘Reclaiming’ ponds is dirty word to some

You’re fishing your favorite trout pond, one you’ve fished for 50 years, and suddenly something hits your fly trolling back there 70 feet or so, and you drift while you strip your line in. And there on the hook is not a trout, but a smallmouth bass, about as welcome in this scenario as a skunk at a picnic.

There is a great dichotomy among people who love to fish. On one side are people who think warm-water species — pickerel, bass, perch — are the greatest thing since sliced bread. On the other side are fishermen who think anything but trout are trash. In between are laid-back people who are happy to catch anything as long as it’s edible, which all of the aforementioned species are.

Still, to a die-hard trout fisherman anything other than a trout is an affront. Hence the term “rough fish,” used with contempt to refer to anything that isn’t as sleek, shiny, or (in the eyes of the beholder) beautiful as a trout. To a dedicated trout fisherman, perch and bass are down there on the evolutionary scale with moray eels and sharks.

Now, there are a few lakes and ponds, many of them in the northern quarter of the state, that are officially designated as trout waters and to everyone’s knowledge have always been trout waters, meaning that no warm-water species ever lived there, just cold-water-loving trout. These tend to be revered as almost sacred sanctuaries, unsullied by the presence of so much as a lowly chub or dace.

And when fly-fishermen make the horrifying discovery that unwanted species have somehow crept in, the reaction is visceral. Call Fish and Game. Call your Commissioner. Call your local legislator. Hell, why stop there? Call Ray Burton, too.

And then, demand that the pond be “reclaimed,” a euphemistic term for poisoning, meaning kill everything in the pond, and then wait a year and restock it with trout. A sort of ethnic cleansing of the aquarian world.

Now, this kind of thing used to be done routinely. Many trout ponds have been reclaimed several times over the past century. It was considered the right thing to do.

No more. These days “reclaiming” a pond is, to some, a dirty word, a despicable bias of species, an unforgivable interference in a natural process, a “monocultural” affront to diversity, a technological slap to Mother Nature’s face. Even when someone has illegally introduced an unwelcome species, as happens all too often, some people are still against reclaiming.

Sometimes things can get physical. A few years ago biologists “reclaimed” Little Diamond Pond, and an environmental activist dumped a bucket of dead creatures onto a Fish and Game receptionist’s desk.

And now, smallmouth bass are spreading in Pittsburg’s renowned Back Lake, one of the highest-profile trout fisheries in the state, and there are clarion calls for Fish and Game to “do something.”

So that's why I got dirty looks when I asked people in Pittsburg if there were any smallmouths up there! :>)

I am against these yahoos illegally introducing fish! Who do they think they are to decide what fish should be where?

Well as for reclaiming, I don't know it's a tough call. I guess knowing that most of middle and southern NH has plenty of Bass, I'd say YES, relcaim and keep The Great North Woods trout country!

NESportsman.com had a bunch of guys slamming someone who had caught an Oscar in a pond and put it back. Many of them were saying that it wasn't natural for that fish to be there and it wasn't right for him to let that fish live even though he had his 5 year old daughter with him.

When I mentioned that Bass are not natural here either, they had nothing to say!

Just more division of sportsmen when what we need is to stick together!

Hmm. I wonder if the trout fisherman's beef is that they are catching smallmouth or that the bass totally displace the trout. I like to fish, and smallmouth have more fight per pound than anything else I have caught, but to each his own. My question to FR would be this: Does having smallmouth competing with trout result in stunted trout growth, too much mortality among trout fry, or no general difference to the trout, or what?

If the trout are still there and healthy, but the fisherman are mad because they are catching smallies, I say "quit yer bitchin." If trout populations are being ruined then I thing the trout guys have a point.

"Does having smallmouth competing with trout result in stunted trout growth, too much mortality among trout fry, or no general difference to the trout, or what?"

Smallmouth bass are voracious feeders on other species. Recognize, for example, that you can catch a smallmouth on a live minnow or a fish-emulating lure.

But what do you catch trout on? Generally, flies, salmon eggs, corn, etc.

Don't know for sure, but I'd guess that the introduction of smallmouth to a trout lake would severely deplete, if not eventually eliminate, the trout.

...do you know about hand fishing, referred to on an interesting PBS documentary as "Okie Noodling"?

Know of it, and known people who've done it, though I've never done it myself. Until the PBS show, I've never heard it referred to as "Okie Noodling", just "noodling", whether in Oklahoma, Alabama, Kansas or Texas.

One of the sportstalk show hosts in Dallas, Norm Hitzges, had the PBS noodler on his show. The guy took his sport very seriously.

I suspect most of the guys I've known who allegedly practiced the art did so as a sideline to trotlining and beer drinking...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.