Interesting Find

[RyanR]

No shortage of bad info, sometimes it just makes ya wanna ask "WTF?" Smh.

BTW, when you find sea lampreys on "redds" in streams in late spring they are not parasitic at that time. They have no interestin feeding and travel up into these freshwater tributaries only to spawn. For a few weeks each season they're a pretty common sight in a number of streams within the Delaware River watershed but they do not feed at all during this time.

 

[FarmerDave]

Chaz wrote:
What I don't get is why anyone would wantonly kill a animal not know what it was, even if is thought to be parasitic. Lampreys are a part of the greater biosphere, as such should be left in the environment they evolved in.

What makes you think i wasn't going to eat it. :-D

Seriously though, I knew it was a lamprey. What I didn't know is that it was a native species of that creek and different from the invasive.

You never did anything ignorant when you were a kid?

What can I say. I was young and ignorant. The damn thing lived, and I never did it again.

I did however kill a lot of water-snakes back in the day. Now I have a pet one that lives under my rowboat.

 

[pcray1231]

http://www.glfc.org/sealamp/

 

[FarmerDave]

RyanR wrote:
More bad information here than anything else. Smh.

Where?

Sea lamprey in the ocean and it's immediate tributaries are fine and dandy. At least they have predators and can attach to larger fish when they return to the ocean.

Sea lamprey in the great lakes? Not so much.

 

[PennypackFlyer]

Which one Pete?

 

[pcray1231]

Ryan, we weren't talking about sea lampreys in the D. As FD said, sea lampreys in the D are all fine and dandy. They're supposed to be there and don't cause much issue.

The various other types of (non-sea) lampreys that are permanent residents in the Ohio and Susquehanna drainages are also fine and dandy. The only reason sea lampreys even came up is because many anglers don't know the other varieties exist and assume they are invading sea lampreys.

Sea lampreys in the lakes are not fine and dandy. Millions of dollars are spent every year by our government, as well as Canada, to POISON them, and yes, they do it in the tribs while mating. It's not that they're trouble in the tribs, they're trouble in the lakes, but they concentrate in the tribs where they're easier to kill with lower doses of poison.

 

[DaveS]

Back to the OP, I too have seen a lamprey on the DH section of Loyalhanna. Was a long time ago, but I was equally surprised.

 

[LetortAngler]

My one buddy also just caught one out of the lower Yough River last week, didn't even know they were in there, but he also claimed that behind one of the fins of the trout he caught had the distinct lamprey bite mark (likely the Ohio species I assume). Bad enough looking for snakes all the time now these damn things.

 

[FarmerDave]

LA, the Oh Lamprey is nothing to worry about. Totally harmless to humans. I mean if you shove your finger down it's mouth, it might leave a mark, but that is about it.

Although they are parasitic, they are native and haven't wiped out any trout populations at least since the dawn of man. They do not kill the host fish.

As far as attaching to humans, not gonna happen although one light try if stepped on by a fat guy.;-)

They are ugly though.;-)

 

[pcray1231]

They do not kill the host fish.

Always wondered about that. They say they don't kill em. Yet, they attach and suck blood and energy for a considerable amount of time. They apparently detach before the fish is dead, leaving the fish with a chance of recovery (unlike sea lampreys). But, umm, I can't imagine its very good for the fish. These are wild creatures on the brink of survival, and even being weakened I'd guess kills a pretty high % of them in the long run.

Anyway, they are native. They have predators and do not overpopulate. As we've discussed many times in regards to human fishing pressure, I'd imagine they are quite a danger to an individual fish, but they are NOT a danger to a fish population.

 

[FarmerDave]

Whatever Pat. Wonder all you want. Nothing wrong with that. We agree in general, but I don't doubt the survival rate nearly as much as you.

I'm sure the occasional fish dies from it, but it is likely rare. Look at it's size in reference to it's prey. How much more damage can it do than a few leaches? Or maybe a few ticks on a deer mouse's butt.

It's simple math, really.

It's a skinny little bastage averaging less than a foot long and weight is probably what? An ounce or two tops? I didn't look it up.

Now, replace that with a Sea Lamprey that typically are about twice as long, and consequently many times the weight which means they required many times the nutrients from said host and what do you have? Exponential decrease in the same host fish survival chances. It would be like having several ohio lamprey attached to one fish. Now replace it with two or three since it has no natural predators and without control, populations have and would again, boom. Not uncommon to find more than one attached to one fish, or more than one scar in years where sea lamprey numbers are more elevated.

Look, the Ohio lamprey evolved in these streams. They spend their feeding age in the larger streams and rivers, just like a sea lamprey in it's native environment spends it's feeding time in the ocean. A single Ohio lamprey typically doesn't kill the fish, just like a single sea lamprey typically doesn't kill it's host in it's ocean environment.

 

[UncleShorty]

Oh, that hurt...