Smallmouth bass and chain pickerel. They’re both common across much of the United States — so much so that few people give much thought as to how they might expand their range. If you were to catch one in a lake or river where you hadn’t previously, you’d probably shrug it off as a fluke and go on with your day. You might even think it was kind of cool. Because these species are woven into the fabric of American fishing, we don’t perceive them as threats.
Both fish are extremely aggressive predators, however, and our neighbors to the north don’t look at chain pickerel and smallmouth quite the same way. In Eastern Canada especially, trout and Atlantic salmon rule the roost. But over the last few years, the region has grappled with illegally introduced bass taking over historically prized brook trout and salmon waters. Think the U.S. is immune to the same issue? It’s not. Though it doesn’t get nearly as much media attention, we’ve waged our own war against smallies and pickerel in certain rivers, most notably on the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam.
The battles on both sides of the border have largely been fought by scientists and government officials. Recently though, Canadian officials have come up with a new plan that requires recreational anglers to pitch in or pay the price.
The Most Expensive Bass
According to CBC News, the province of Nova Scotia has issued a mandatory catch-and-kill order on smallmouths and chain pickerel in the Margaree River watershed, which includes several lakes and tributary streams. Smallmouth bass were brought there illegally in the 1940s, while pickerel were legally introduced during the same era. Similar to what has happened in the Colorado River, the bass were historically confined to Lake Ainslie but are now showing up in large numbers in the Margaree. This is a heritage river that is famed for its strong runs of wild Atlantic salmon, which are to the Canadian Maritimes what striped bass are to the East Coast of the U.S. (in terms of profitability for lodges, guides, and tackle sales).
Read Next: The Best Way to Catch Smallmouth Bass in Rivers: Hit Them With Topwater Lures While Wading
Area officials are pointing to climate change as the catalyst for the strengthening smallmouth and pickerel populations. Both fish are comfortable in warm water, and during low water periods, when native salmon smolt and trout are confined in smaller areas, the aggressive invaders can easily pick them off. With all the other threats facing the Margaree’s wild fish runs, fisheries managers want to remove as many of these non-native bass and pickerel as possible.
What makes this new, angler-driven eradication effort so jarring, however, are the penalties. Fishermen caught releasing either species within the watershed can now face a fine of up to $100,000 for a first offense. (The penalty for a second offense jumps to a $500,000 fine or two years’ jail time.) The question is: Will the threat of such heavy consequences be enough to make anglers abide?
Blind Spots
The biggest problem with kill orders is enforcement. Paul McNeil, President of the Margaree Salmon Association, openly told CBC that policing the order “will be tough.” We’ve had the same issue with catch-and-kill orders here in the U.S., most notably with invasive snakeheads.
Nearly 25 years ago, when they first exploded onto the scene in Maryland, the government told anglers to kill every snakehead upon capture. As they expanded into Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, and beyond, each state adopted the same edict. But do you catch the irony here? Telling people to kill them early on clearly didn’t stop their expansion into new waters. In fact, it didn’t even make a dent, and as an increasing number of anglers decided they actually enjoyed targeting snakeheads, a question of benefit versus penalty arose. If I don’t kill the fish, what kind of fines or consequences am I facing?
In many states the answer was never clear, and as the years went on and the snakehead population grew, several states decided they were okay with anglers releasing snakeheads if they went back into the same water body where they were caught. Although I can’t say it’s never happened, I don’t recall ever reading, seeing, or hearing about a single case where someone was penalized for releasing a snakehead. There just aren’t enough officials to enforce the order, so the odds of getting caught are slim.
Hired Killers
Here in the States, we’ve tried the reward model instead of threatening penalties. In Washington and Oregon, anglers can earn money thinning out the pikeminnow population in the Columbia River. In Arizona, non-native brown trout in the Lees Ferry section of the Colorado River have a bounty on their heads, and on the South Fork of the Snake River in Idaho, you can get paid to harvest rainbow trout. On paper, the idea of paying anglers to target and kill unwanted fish is great. But did it really work in practice? No doubt, some anglers grabbed the pikeminnow by the tail and made some cash, but there are still loads of them in the mighty Columbia. There was some early hype around the trout bounties, but overall, I’d suspect, the reward has had little effect. The reason why could speak to the potential failure of the new program in Nova Scotia.
Read Next: Angler Made $61,000 Last Year Catching Pikeminnow in the Columbia and Snake Rivers
Because at the end of the day, the angler who just caught the invasive smallmouth or snakehead or unwanted rainbow trout must care enough in the moment to execute the order and claim their prize. This means losing fishing time to deal with a dead fish you might not want in the first place, then driving to a check-in station and doing the paperwork required to make a bit of cash. And if there’s nobody around watching you, a lot of anglers (sadly but truly) will brush off a kill order.
Now, I would hope that the threat of a $100,000 fine will get more people working toward the Canadian cause. But I wouldn’t expect it to be enough to ensure that every pickerel and bass in the Margaree winds up sleeping with the fishes.R
