Posted 12 March 2012 - 04:25 PM
Just thinking out loud here:
The anglers' logic "There used to be many trout here; now there are few trout and many rock bass; therefore, rock bass are causing the decline in trout" seems obvious enough, but could be totally false. A very similar logic, believed by many hunters in my area, has it that "There used to be many quail in this field; now there are few quail and many turkeys; therefore, turkeys are causing the decline in quail." This is nonsense. Quail leave a given field as it undergoes ecological succession and the plant community and physical structure of the habitat changes to something more suitable for turkeys. My intuition is that something similar is happening in this lake- an underlying ecological change that favors a fish (rock bass) which loves structure, feeds on nekton and clinging inverts, and has a higher tolerance for warmth, turbidity, nutrient loading, etc. than do trout.
I admit I don't know much about the ecology of northern lakes, but it doesn't sound likely to me that a rock bass boom would by itself have much impact on trout populations. Rock bass are structure-loving ambush predators; I think of trout as more open-water or benthic fish. Wouldn't they be using different enough resources that competition would be slight? And of course trout are at least as piscivorous as rock bass are; rock bass may eat baby trout that wander into their habitat, but trout are doubtless just as apt to eat baby rock bass.