A POD a few days back had me scratching my head a bit.  It was a sight that I have not witnessed in Quetico and that being a SM bass on a stringer.  I assume it was on the stringer for the purpose of carving it up and eating it but I could be wrong.  Regardless, this led me to question my menu in Quetico.  I've never considered bass as table fare when I can have my fill of Walleye, Pike or LT.  I like to fish for bass and they are a blast to catch but eat . . . ?  What say you and why?

Bass are never table fare ;D

I eat them. I’m not a fish snob.

Sorry the devil made me say it.  
Actually I like a variety.  I even eat a northern if it is a spring trip.  

If you can turn your nose up at any fish caught in the Q i don't believe you actually enjoy eating fish, you just enjoy the idea of it. Samllies are excellent table fare and have been served up on every trip i have ever taken.

polarbear wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 11:33pm:

If you can turn your nose up at any fish caught in the Q i don't believe you actually enjoy eating fish, you just enjoy the idea of it. Samllies are excellent table fare and have been served up on every trip i have ever taken.

Ummmm, ok.  I'm not a fish snob and I'm not turning my nose up nor am I doubting that it's eatable but just wondering "why" when the lake is full of walleye.  If you like it, fantastic.  I've just never considered the idea.

PhantomJug wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 9:55pm:

A POD a few days back had me scratching my head a bit.  It was a sight that I have not witnessed in Quetico and that being a SM bass on a stringer.  I assume it was on the stringer for the purpose of carving it up and eating it but I could be wrong.  Regardless, this led me to question my menu in Quetico.  I've never considered bass as table fare when I can have my fill of Walleye, Pike or LT.  I like to fish for bass and they are a blast to catch but eat . . . ?  What say you and why?

I'll eat smallmouth bass over LT any day.  Smallies, taken in the cold water of the Q, are great eating.  

prouboy

Nothing quite like the taste of a walleye caught in the Canadian shield.

This might be interesting though..........we much prefer to eat smallmouths than walleye in the Lake St. Clair, St. Clair river and Lake Erie watersheds. It's not that they are bad, the water quality is very good nowadays and has been for quite some time. The "white bellied" walleyes are just a different tasting fish than the "yellow bellied" eyes caught in canoe country.

We like the smallies and find them excellent eating certainly not to be compared with their big mouth counterparts. Of course ANY red meat on any fish I catch is trimmed away.

I am also extremely fond of eating northerns, especially those with a little heft to them. A 30" is generally worth cleaning as the bones are developed enough to be able to NOT cut through them so easily as with the smaller ones. Small pike = hassle in my book. I love the meaty firmness of pike and think they have a good flavor as well.

I minimize my LT eating as well. Probably only 1 meal per trip. I always wish I could take it home and smoke it.

Well, I am turning my nose up, at the thought of eating a bass.  Yup, I did it once, never again.  Truely for the dogs.  I'd eat my dirty sock first.  Sure they're fun to catch.  But why, when you've got anything else to eat?

I will gladly assume the "fish-snob" moniker.

I aim for a trout, pike or walleye meal daily.  Reminds me of the good ol' boy convention on LLC.  About 4 bass boats trailered over from Sandpoint.  All of 'em from Alabama land.  They were in heaven and couldn't eat enough smallies.  They threw the pike and 'eyes back.  Had me over to their fire at Zup's....now that was a mess o' bass in the frying pan.  I politely declined and went away snickering...(<--fishsnob).

I've eaten smallmouth bass occasionally and have considered it the fish of choice for Cache Lake fish chowder. I always thought the meat had a firmer texture and the flavor reminded me of bluegill. The firmer texture made for nicer chunks in the chowder. They are also one of the easier fish to fillet. Stout rib and backbones and no y-bones.
The only times I have ever eaten bass is on a canoe trip. In Wisconsin I think bass are far too important as a sport fish to eat.

I never much liked bass when I would sometimes have it summers on Lake Simcoe as a kid.  So I was surprised how much I liked it when we cooked some up this past summer in Quetico.  In fact, my wife prefers it to Walleye.  I can't say that I prefer it but it is very light.  I remember bass as having a very "fishy" taste but last summer I became a convert.  Maybe it has to do with the northern lakes.  I'm sorry there won't be any bass where I'm going this summer, not only because they are exciting fish to catch but because of the taste.

Walleye #1 for me, Pike #2, LT #3, and if I have to smallies #4.  

Smallies do taste quite good in Quetico but are a fish of last resort for me. Heck, I love all kinds of fish and all the fish up north are good tasting to me. To each his own.

When I moved to Minnesota over 20 years ago, a wise guy told me that Minnesotans like their fish white and tasteless (bland?).  So their fish of choice for eating are walleye and crappie.  

Over the years I've found this stereotype to be true!

prouboy

Any argument about "taste" is moot IMO.  I could say roadkill skunk tastes like $#!? and someone would just tell me I'm not preparing it right.  Honestly I do not want to "taste" my fish any more than I ought to.

Consider this . . . A 15" walleye is about 3 yrs. old; a 15" SM is about 12 yrs. old.

wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 4:45pm:

Walleye #1 for me, Pike #2, LT #3, and if I have to smallies #4.   Smallies do taste quite good in Quetico but are a fish of last resort for me. Heck, I love all kinds of fish and all the fish up north are good tasting to me. To each his own.

+1

I think I've filleted 5 smallies in the past 15 years or so and 4 of them were at the specific request of others in my party.  I can only recall one meal where we had to fillet a smallie to round out the meal.

Yeah, to each his own.

Honestly, I don't excited much anymore about "fishing," other than for walleye.  I like the challenge of trying to outsmart walleys.  

But when I'm in the QP or WCPP, I fish to eat.  When it comes to eating fish, smallies, are great.  As are northern and walleye.  

I remember a power boat fishing trip to Lake of Woods years ago.  We were based at an island fishing camp.  One evening the owner announced that the next day he and his help would be offering shore lunch, with all the trimmings, on a nearby island, for the entire camp, (about 7 cabins as I recall).  I asked him what kind of fish he'd be serving.  He laughed and said, "You'll be eating walleye, bass, lake trout, northern, perch -- whatever we have in the freezer.  After years of doing this, honestly, they'll all taste just fine."  They did, and they still do.

prouboy  

I like fish on canoe trips about every 3rd day.  When solo, a couple of 12 inch smallies fried up with some rice and vegies can really hit the spot.  I'll eat any specie, preferring small lakers, walleye and smallies.  Pike are tasty, but a pain to fillet and slimy as heck...

Kingfisher wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 11:50am:

I've eaten smallmouth bass occasionally and have considered it the fish of choice for Cache Lake fish chowder.

I'll have to give this a try KF. As I mentioned in another post, Cahce Lake chowder is a favorite of mine. I have only added walleye to date. I would expect NP would do just fine as well. I do agree they are an easy fillet as well, just not as easy as a walleye IMO. I did keep a few SM on a trip to the Western basin of Lake Erie and did not care for them at all when we ate them. On a previous trip to the Q we kept one for dinner becasue it was hooked deeply and I thought it was very tasty even though my expectations were low.

J

SM and NP were regular dinner fare before I learned how to catch walleyes.  Bass survive well enough on a stringer, so I don't hesitate to hold a couple while trying to draw a walleye.  And then there's the kids.  Its a real bummer to them to have their "trophy bass" tossed back because its the wrong species.

-YB

I have found that Smallmouth Bass from coldwater lakes are delicious.  It surprised me to find out, but really, it's true.  I prefer them over Northerns and Lake Trout, but not over Walleye.  Walleyes will always be the target meal, but when they are hard to come by I will target a Smallie for the fry pan.

JChief wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 12:30am:

Kingfisher wrote on May 1st, 2011 at 11:50am: I've eaten smallmouth bass occasionally and have considered it the fish of choice for Cache Lake fish chowder. I'll have to give this a try KF. As I mentioned in another post, Cahce Lake chowder is a favorite of mine. I have only added walleye to date. I would expect NP would do just fine as well. I do agree they are an easy fillet as well, just not as easy as a walleye IMO. I did keep a few SM on a trip to the Western basin of Lake Erie and did not care for them at all when we ate them. On a previous trip to the Q we kept one for dinner becasue it was hooked deeply and I thought it was very tasty even though my expectations were low. J

Like KF, we consider smallmouth the fish of choice for our weekly Cache Lake Fish Chowder dinner (or lunch). Many years ago on a late fall trip we hoped to hang a walleye for dinner while traveling to our next camp. Unfortunately, the weather and fish did not cooperate and we arrived at camp fishless. Determined to have fish for the chowder, I worked the shoreline around camp and caught a decent little smallmouth which we promptly chunked up and added to the soup. From then on it's been a staple.
Fried walleye, baked laker, fried (very good) or "Poor Man's Lobster" for the northerns and smallmouth for the soup........standard weekly fare.

We always prefer Walleye when available but freshly caught and fried SB in the Quetico are very good and easier to fillet for me than NP. We have been on several lakes without walleye and enjoyed eating just NP and SB

The first time I tried smallie for dinner was a few years ago on a trip with my two 20 yr old sons and one of their friends. He was a big fella, not heavy, but he had quite an appetite. Needless to say, I had on that particular trip, underestimated our food requirements. The last day of our trip left us with only some crackers and a small bag of dried apricots. I supplemented the last tiny ration with one small Northern, one small walleye and a medium bass. I have to say the bass tasted pretty good, maybe it's because we were on the brink of starvation, or at least our stomachs were telling us so. I would eat it again, but I do prefer walleye or lake trout.

Not a fan of bass.  I do chuckle at the grocery store, there's a tank full of live ones in the 2-4# range.  Not a fan of lake trout either.  They're both fine for breading/frying serving with a sauce.  

Walleye, brookies, perch, crappie, sunfish - all good eatin'.

Definitely the colder the water the better the fish.  I've had mid-summer walleye caught on the edge of shallows/weed lines that tasted like mud.

im not a fan of eating bass. ive had them a couple times and was never impressed. if you butterfly them so they are thinner and take more batter they taste alright.

baked lemon pepper lake trout #1
battered and fried walleye #2

Hmmmm.........I can't help but wonder Jax if your talking largemouths or smallies...........Altogether different critters.

Smallies in the Spring from those cold Northern waters are just fine in book.

Cold Northern waters are the key word here.
Here in S. Michigan most people I know don't eat NP as a rule.
They eat LMB-SMB, but mostly deep fried/pan fried an the choice of batter/preparation makes the meal/.

The flesh is soft and mushy to the taste if just pan seared.
Get up into the cold water and it's a completely different story.

I never even considered eating NP until I read positive reviews here.
I was amazed how good it was. Firm and to my taste slightly sweet.
Tends to dry out like walleye but if pan seared properly it's delicious.

I have thought about the whole eating bass thing for awhile now including largemouths and have come to this conclusion.

I personally think what makes a fish taste good or bad is its primary diet and not water temps. Catch a laker out of lake michigan where it's primary diet is very oily baitfish and they taste pretty bad in my book.........like inedible bad with rolls of oily fat on them. When I kept hearing about how good the lake trout were in canoe country I had a tough time believing it.

Some of the best fish I have eaten were largemouths and they came out of strip mines. Now some may say pure clean water and there may be some truth to that but I think it was because these bass ate nothing but crawdads. Same with smallies. I think smallies are so good because they have an affinity with crayfish. Can't prove it but I strongly suspect it is true. Some of the best eating saltwater fish also prey heavily on shellfish. Hogfish and mutton snapper come to mind.

MT,

I can buy the diet argument but I see another factor as well that might blend the two arguments?

Generally speaking, I would say the Northern waters are less polluted that some of the warmer waters. Pollution does it's worse on the lower end of the food chain, we sometimes don't see the results until they show up in the food/game fish.

Maybe a combo of the two makes the best eating fish ;)

Right you are! Shellfish are a cleansing agent in any ecosystem. That is one reason I'm not always crazy about eating oysters, shrimp and the like. Must be some reason they aren't kosher. So if the crayfish eat up the pollution and the bass eat the crayfish :P............

I think another factor is cultural.  I caught a whitefish in Pickerel Lake once...looked like a rough fish, almost like a carp.  

I didn't know what it was until I got home and had a fisheries biologist id it.  Anyway, I let it go, but found out it is considered a delicacy.  

Carp, for that matter, are eaten by millions of people!  

So to me it's: fish feed, water quality, and culture.

prouboy

solotripper wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:45pm:

Pollution does it's worse on the lower end of the food chain, we sometimes don't see the results until they show up in the food/game fish.

I think you have this backwards, but agree with what I think you're saying.  The low end is closest to the source, herbivoires & photosynthesizers & such.  The top end is where we tend to eat & where concentrations are highest.

Little fish pick up & store little quantities of pollution.  They don't live very long so they don't have the chance to build up large quantities.  Big fish live for decades & subsist on the little fish.  Pollution has a chance to build up.

We need to eat further down the chain.  Leave tuna & salmon & swordfish alone.  For our own health and the health of the world.  Ironic that our move to eat up the food chain resulted in our ability to critically examine the results of eating up the food chain.

  (You need to Login or Register

mastertangler wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 11:02pm:

Must be some reason they aren't kosher.

Because it's written, that's why.   ;)

For example, sole is found in the same muck as crab.

Those rules exist in the reality of 600BCE - 2000BCE depending on your belief.  Cheesburgers aren't kosher either.  So much for kosher.

For the most part, accepting that the waters are relatively clean, shellfish are fine.  Something that irks even my jewish biologist pal.  As he states, "Those old rule makers had no understanding of metabolism."  The big problem being that much of our waters aren't clean and wont be clean for another 1000 years, all the while we ruin more and more waters in our quest for the two-car-garage.

Preacher wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 2:04pm:

For the most part, accepting that the waters are relatively clean, shellfish are fine.  Something that irks even my jewish biologist pal.  As he states, "Those old rule makers had no understanding of metabolism."

I hate to get into a religious discussion on this thread but just remind your "pal" that when the orignal idea of kosher was created, there wasn't "rule makers" but only one "Rule Maker". And I'm sure He had all the knowledge of metabolism. ;) I'll leave my comments at that. :-X

Android wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 2:42pm:

Preacher wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 2:04pm: For the most part, accepting that the waters are relatively clean, shellfish are fine.  Something that irks even my jewish biologist pal.  As he states, "Those old rule makers had no understanding of metabolism." I hate to get into a religious discussion on this thread but just remind your "pal" that when the orignal idea of kosher was created, there wasn't "rule makers" but only one "Rule Maker". And I'm sure He had all the knowledge of metabolism. ;) I'll leave my comments at that. :-X

He never shows up for his book signings.  I suspect it was all done by ghost writers.  And that book is, even in the most radical sects, understood and accepted as written by a man with the exception of the Ten Commandments which the first edition was lost entirely and the second written by a man.   ;)

All my posts are as dictated by FSM, may you be touched by His noodly appendage.  Behold The Divine Word.   ;)

A bit late joining this one but I would prefer eating my shoes versus LT. SM are great from clean water. Like any of the fish don't lkeep the big ones eat the smaller fish.  

We like to mix up the meals so Walleye are first then Pike and Bass  but we very our menu, helps the pallet enjoy the flavor variations of good fish.

It amazes me how many people eat LT in MI most of us consider them a nusaunce fish like CARP!  Actually I think Carp Would Taste Better  ;D

S_L,

I can't speak for Lake Trout from MI waters, I've only had them smoked and they were excellent, but a LT grilled over a open fire with your choice of seasonings is my 1st choice for Q fish dinners. After that it would be a tossup between pan seared Walleye and NP. SMB I prefer in chowders but in pinch will pan sear as well.

My basic rule for eating what I catch is how it tastes without any seasonings or sauces.

wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 3:04pm:

A bit late joining this one but I would prefer eating my shoes versus LT. SM are great from clean water. Like any of the fish don't lkeep the big ones eat the smaller fish.   We like to mix up the meals so Walleye are first then Pike and Bass  but we very our menu, helps the pallet enjoy the flavor variations of good fish. It amazes me how many people eat LT in MI most of us consider them a nusaunce fish like CARP!  Actually I think Carp Would Taste Better  ;D

Have you ever eaten lakers from the BWCA/Quetico?  My guess based on this post is that you have not.  

You really oughta try one someday.  They taste nothing like Great Lakes lakers.

Puckster wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 1:51am:

I think another factor is cultural.  I caught a whitefish in Pickerel Lake once...looked like a rough fish, almost like a carp.

Similar experience on a canda trip out side of the Q. Caught 2 whitefish which to my then uneducated eye looked like a cross between a shad and a carp and promptly released them. When I got back to the dock I saw a canadian couple with a few of the shad/carp on a stringer so I had to ask. In their opinion, whitefish was the only fish to keep for eating purposes. I still haven't tried it other than smoked but live and learn. Or is it learn and live?

J

Duck wrapped in Bacon tastes good ....Throw away the duck and eat the bacon. ;D

If you have to smoother any fish in suace, spices or marinade it is only good for smoking. I have never had smoked fish I didn't like.

I will admit I do love catching the Lakers in Qt they are a great fight.  In the Great lakes they are like realing in an old shoe.

I think I will pass on trying the LT unless thats all we catch.

JChief wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 8:34pm:

Puckster wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 1:51am: I think another factor is cultural.  I caught a whitefish in Pickerel Lake once...looked like a rough fish, almost like a carp. Similar experience on a Canada trip out side of the Q. Caught 2 whitefish which to my then uneducated eye looked like a cross between a shad and a carp and promptly released them. When I got back to the dock I saw a Canadian couple with a few of the shad/carp on a stringer so I had to ask. In their opinion, whitefish was the only fish to keep for eating purposes. I still haven't tried it other than smoked but live and learn. Or is it learn and live? J

Did a trip into the White Otter one year, when a old paddling companion was recovering from a serious closed head injury. Stayed in Cabin run by Canoe Canada, on little lake off of White Otter. Stroll thru woods put us in WO with boat and motor.

One of the guys reeled in a Whitefish, much to my surprise. He didn't know what it was and almost let it go. I recognized it and we got onto a school and caught a few more.

They were spectacular grilled in foil with onions and Cajun Blackened Fish seasonings ;)

Seasonings/Sauces/Marinades IF done right add to the flavor of fish, not take away. If all you taste is the seasoning you might as well get a piece of freezer burned cod and chew on that :P

Always interesting to read what other people think.  My preference is lake trout, walleye, small mouth bass and then go without.  If all we have is northern, we just don't eat fish.  I have eaten northern a few times, but just don't like the bones.  I know, they say you can fillet northerns.  But even if I got the bones out, I am not crazy about the taste.  Actually, I think bass is a close second to walleye.  One plus to eating small mouth is that you are removing an invasive species.  One problem with lake trout is if you're a group of two, the trout is often too large  (over 24 inches) for only two people.
Westwood

im not a big fan of the taste of unskinned pike either. i always skin it and to deal with the bones you cut it into fish sticks. take the fillet with the skin on it and then cut it like a piano keyboard, about 1/2 inch wide keys. then move the skin and the bones will fry right out. this method works with pike up to 25 or so inches. beyond that, the Y bones are too thick and dont dissolve in the grease. i wouldnt eat a pike over that size anyway.

NP are not hard to fillet or de-bone but it does take practice.  I can find little difference between walleye and pike in northern climates; taste and texture wise.  Both are white, firm and flakey and taste identical IMO.  I have seen many instructions and videos on filleting pike but none are much use.  You have to see someone do it and then do it yourself a few times.  Once you have it down the mystery is gone.

Westwood wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 3:44am:

One plus to eating small mouth is that you are removing an invasive species.  Westwood

Westwood,
Really? Invasive? Maybe nonnative. If they were invasive would the Minnesota DNR make the end of the SM season catch and release if they were an invasive species? I think we are beyond invasive and into non native game fish.
  (You need to Login or Register

no, smallies are definatly invasive little .... ;D  probably the next Q rule coming down the pike...mandatory consumption of smallmouth!

PJ, your taste buds?  pike=walleye?

I'm pretty close to agreeing with PJ here on pike flavor.  I wouldn't call it nearly identical to walleye but it is a close second in my book.  My strong preference to stringer up walleye over pike is more due to the bones than flavor.  

The bones are not a huge nuisance...if you know how to attack the fillet with your fork you can strip 'em 100% out very easily...but hey, I'm lazy and walleye ARE easier to eat and to fillet.

PhantomJug wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 6:32pm:

Consider this . . . A 15" walleye is about 3 yrs. old; a 15" SM is about 12 yrs. old.

From my perspective, Walleye (and Pike) were made for eating, but the Bronzeback was made for trophies.  Ok, fillet me!

wally wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 7:49am:

PJ, your taste buds?  pike=walleye?

Out of Quetico, yes, well almost.  I find little difference the times I have carved one up.

Out of the 6th Crow Wing, I probably wouldn't eat it.

PJ, you've pickled your tongue

wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 8:54pm:

Duck wrapped in Bacon tastes good ....Throw away the duck and eat the bacon. ;D

:exclamation
Oh you poor misguided child.  


Quote:

If you have to smoother any fish in suace, spices or marinade it is only good for smoking. I have never had smoked fish I didn't like. I will admit I do love catching the Lakers in Qt they are a great fight.  In the Great lakes they are like realing in an old shoe. I think I will pass on trying the LT unless thats all we catch.

Agree.  I've had cold water lakers (not Great Lakes) that taste bleh when compared to other species.

Android,

In most if not all MN water the small mouth bass is a native species.  The small mouth bass is not native to the Arctic watershed.  At the gathering in Madison at Canoecopia, I spoke with Doug from WCPP about smallmouth bass.  In the WCPP pamphlet, it had a red x over a picture of a smallmouth bass.  Then on the same page they had restrictions on when and what size of smallmouth bass you could keep.  I asked Doug why not let anglers catch and keep any size of bass any time of the year.  There is an internal debate on how to treat smallmouth bass.  It will be interesting to see what the final decision will be.

So let me see if I understand you, invasive is different than non-native just like you can have six or a half dozen.
Westwood

wally wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 12:44pm:

PJ, you've pickled your tongue

We need a 'sarcasm' emoticon around here.  That Crow Wing chain is nothing but sewage and boat exhaust.

I've seen whats floating in Lake Bemidji.  Used to make it all the way down to us on Big Wolf. ;D

Westwood wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 2:38am:

Android, In most if not all MN water the small mouth bass is a native species.  The small mouth bass is not native to the Arctic watershed.  At the gathering in Madison at Canoecopia, I spoke with Doug from WCPP about smallmouth bass.  In the WCPP pamphlet, it had a red x over a picture of a smallmouth bass.  Then on the same page they had restrictions on when and what size of smallmouth bass you could keep.  I asked Doug why not let anglers catch and keep any size of bass any time of the year.  There is an internal debate on how to treat smallmouth bass.  It will be interesting to see what the final decision will be. So let me see if I understand you, invasive is different than non-native just like you can have six or a half dozen.Westwood

Westwood,
I remember hearing stories of our canoe camping fore fathers transplanting SM into lakes where they were not native. So maybe they are native to the mississippi basin but not to the arrowhead regoin. I guess I assumed you were talking about the BWCA. Either way I would say there is a huge difference between non native and invasive. Milfoil=invasive....Ring neck Pheasant=non native  ;)

The locals brought the BW and Q smallies in
deceased Mr. Zup and crew....and probably earlier than that
probably the Zenmaster himself, Sig

So now I understand.  Non-native are creatures/plants we like and invasive are creatures/plants we don't like.  So friendly Martians are non-native and destroy the Earth Martians are invasive.
Westwood

Non-native is just that. Invasives take over, displacing native plants and creatures. There's a lake I went to a lot. It was a great trout lake. Never caught a bass in it until the late 80s. Now it's full of bass and it's not the great laker lake it use to be. Just my observation.

I encountered a group of Eye snobs in Ely a few years back who told me I was lower than a swamp creature for eating bass.  Had never heard that before.  I guess there was some concern about the fact that bass like to eat crawdads that was particularly repulsive to these gentlemen.

Setting the Northerns aside, we choose table fare based on availability and size as much as anything.

Often times the lakers are too big, but they eat good.  Any of the big three (again, not the N Pike, imho) in the 17 to 18 in is going to taste good if cooked well.

On the other hand, we eat n. pike only if necessary, and if someone volunteers to hone their fish cleaning skills.

Ha!  Not eating something because it doesn't eat crawfish ;D ;D ;D  Living in Louisiana, I've learned that a few crawfish are bait, and 20lbs or more is a party!

*** This poll has now closed *** Alrighty then but that was like 75 views and 1 vote ago.  ;)

Well, let's keep it going then.  I was a little confused when I opened the forum and there it was on the top of the page - I assumed it was time to tally the results.  We can keep it open.

Bass are still icky though.   ::)

PhantomJug wrote on Aug 11^th, 2012 at 12:26am:

Bass are still icky though.   ::)

I agree but they still taste good!
  (You need to Login or Register

Which species were present in the Quetico during the last Ice Age? Whichever ones were there then are the only native species. Which term applies to "introduced by humans into ecological zones they would otherwise not be present"? Just looking for a little clarity on this whole invasive/non-native issue. I think moving species to a different continent is categorically different from moving fish over a couple of lakes. Smallmouth from Quetico lakes are tasty! Don't you aspire to tell your special someone "I caught you a delicious Bass!" Or are we just a bunch of old farts here.
Jon

With fish you are not talking continents, but watersheds.  Quetico has two watersheds.  One is Hudson Bay (Arctic Ocean) and the other is Lake Superior.  My understanding is that bass are native to the Lake Superior watershed, but not the Arctic watershed.

This poll was "Showcased" long enough I'll bet. It's still open until the originator decides to close it.

I forget how all this works but I think that's right.

Jon wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 12:57am:

Smallmouth from Quetico lakes are tasty!

Ya know, now that I think about it, I believe I'd prefer a BW/Q bass to a local walleye. Northerns taste way different 'round here than up there too. Best fish I ever had was a monster Quetico Bluegill. It's the only one I ever caught up there and was big enough to make cleaning one worthwhile. Just thinking about it makes my mouth water.

I have one last trip at the end of august. I'm going to carve up a bass and a walleye and we will have a taste test with my kids.  Then we'll close the poll.

PJ
I did the same test several years ago with a crew of adults and kids.  It was early in the year and the water was cold. I had walleye, bass and northern. The northern was a couple of small ones and northern out of cold water taste better. All species did about the same.

I'm wondering how an honest taste test could be accomplished. Full fillets would be a dead giveaway and therefore prone to a   (You need to Login or Register. ;)  Then again, even if you chunk 'em up into bite size pieces there is that telltale textural difference.

One year a friend's wife commented on our apparent disappointment upon catching Northerns when fishing for Walleyes. Her take on it was quite logical. If you don't like catching Northerns, why not eat them and throw the Walleyes back?

Said lake is full of Bass 25 years later.

I'll clean and eat Smallies, but prefer Pike or Walleye (and in that order). I am such a compulsive Smallmouth fisherman that over the years I have developed a chronic Smallmouth "twitch" in my retrieve  ;)

Gnawbone Jack wrote on Aug 24^th, 2012 at 2:21pm:

I'll clean and eat Smallies, but prefer Pike or Walleye (and in that order). I am such a compulsive Smallmouth fisherman that over the years I have developed a chronic Smallmouth "twitch" in my retrieve  ;)

Oh my Gosh.......I thought I was the only one with a "Smallmouth twitch". I have been to the eye doctor twice and each time he tells me to stop fishing for smallmouths. We'll see what the new doc says ;)