poopdeck wrote:
You guys just conveniently forget about the balance of nature thing. A healthy fishery is a healthy fishery. It's not just a healthy snakehead fishery.
Yes, that's absolutely a good point. But what exactly determines if the fishery (with non-natives) is "healthy" or not?? Variety, and presence of stable native populations would be the obvious answer. Each fish having their own niche, the whole food web thing, etc..
Or, in some cases, is the "health" of a fishery determined by angler preference? ......"A healthy fishery is a healthy fishery. It's not just a healthy brown trout fishery.".....
If a non-native species is the dominant "sport fish" in a given body of water, does that REALLY mean the fishery is healthy, when a native fish (whether it be brook trout, or something else) would have otherwise been there instead?? Again.....angler preference. Is the Susky healthy with all those smallmouth bass? Are the native fish better off without them? Then you have situations like the upper Delaware where things are very out of wack (not saying that's a "bad" thing, but it sure isn't natural). Places like the Central PA limestoners shouldn't be chock full of brown trout, and the Erie tribs shouldn't have unnaturally crazy high numbers of steelhead fall through spring. If anything is unbalanced, it's those place. But then again, I suppose everyone has their own idea of what is balanced.
As an angler I'm not necessarily saying it's a terrible thing. I love fishing for all those fish. But yet again, it's our preference as anglers. River absolutely full of brown trout: Good. River absolutely full of snakeheads: Bad. We can't be so hypocritical.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the snakeheads really will eat everything else to the point that things get way out of balance, or if they're just simply another bass, etc. Time will tell. And in the meantime, yes, we should take home snakeheads to eat if the biologists are suggesting we do so.