Clams
Active member
Well that or just trying to have a little fun. Lighten up, Francis.
Invasive Pike in Alaska: A classic story of the Boom and Bust of an invasive fishery started by anglers with buckets that took everything else with it
- Thread starter Fish Sticks
- Start date
Silent Ocelot
Well-known member
Imagine actually caring enough about the environment to want to see a diversified fishery still remain intact and have species of fish simply exist, or caring enough about tarpon to avoid tuckering them out to the point where they are too weak to swim away from sharks... and you're the bad guy.
CRB
Well-known member
Can't wait for PETA to start chiming in
TimMurphy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,147
Dear Silent Ocelot,
Please explain how paying thousands of dollars to fish in exotic locations for fish more than 50% of the world's population see only as sustenance elevates one to the moral high ground?
Make it a good explanation too. Be sure to cover how ignoring local problems and issues to chase fish makes one the good guy.
Regards,
Tim Murphy 🙂
JeffP
Well-known member
Can I agree with both of you? Please.
TimMurphy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,147
Dear Jeff,
You'll get no argument from me if that is what you want to do.
I wish more of us did, but you know the saying, wish in one hand and ... in the other and see which one fills up first?
Regards,
Tim Murphy 🙂
"Eventually, they end up preying on each other, which results in stunted populations.."
How would "preying on each other" result in "stunted populations?"
I would think it work just the opposite. Preying on each other would lower pike numbers, resulting in more space and food per pike, resulting in larger pike, not smaller ones.
Regarding the basic idea that pike should not have been introduced into areas in Alaska where they weren't native, I totally agree. But that's obvious and non-controversial, IMHO.
How would "preying on each other" result in "stunted populations?"
I would think it work just the opposite. Preying on each other would lower pike numbers, resulting in more space and food per pike, resulting in larger pike, not smaller ones.
Regarding the basic idea that pike should not have been introduced into areas in Alaska where they weren't native, I totally agree. But that's obvious and non-controversial, IMHO.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
I'm glad these stories are published, and people are becoming more aware of the issue. Hooker-of-men mentioned earlier that these discussions wouldn't have happened 20 years ago, and I agree. Bob M has said repeatedly that he's never seen this level of support for native fish or this level of awareness about introduced/nonnative species and their impact on native ecosystems.
I see it in social media posts by state agencies promoting introduced species. People are starting to question why the agency is promoting awareness about some introduced species while simultaneously promoting the introduction of others. There may be a scientifically justifiable explanation for why some species may have little to no impact on some ecosystems and why others are terrible for others. However, the justifiable scientific explanation can't be relayed easily to most people.
Unfortunately, the defense of purposeful introductions will continue to dilute the messaging about invasive species. We'll continue to see more and more purposeful introductions of nonnative species as long as states and federal agencies continue to stock nonnative fish where they don't belong.
All of that might be excusable if there was a real concerted effort to minimize or eliminate the impacts of nonnative fish in a few key areas. It's not like there are places in PA where native fish are prioritized over nonnative fish (not outwardly). We arguably have more protections for brown trout in PA than for brook trout. Soon they'll be protected by name/species in 12 locations across the Commonwealth.
I wish folks could understand that those of us advocating for native fish preservation simply want native fish preservation. That obviously means that the nonnative fish take a back seat in some places (not all). Until that happens, I don't think painting the native fish advocates as zealots is fair (Kirk Deter's comments). If anything, the opposite is true.
I see it in social media posts by state agencies promoting introduced species. People are starting to question why the agency is promoting awareness about some introduced species while simultaneously promoting the introduction of others. There may be a scientifically justifiable explanation for why some species may have little to no impact on some ecosystems and why others are terrible for others. However, the justifiable scientific explanation can't be relayed easily to most people.
Unfortunately, the defense of purposeful introductions will continue to dilute the messaging about invasive species. We'll continue to see more and more purposeful introductions of nonnative species as long as states and federal agencies continue to stock nonnative fish where they don't belong.
All of that might be excusable if there was a real concerted effort to minimize or eliminate the impacts of nonnative fish in a few key areas. It's not like there are places in PA where native fish are prioritized over nonnative fish (not outwardly). We arguably have more protections for brown trout in PA than for brook trout. Soon they'll be protected by name/species in 12 locations across the Commonwealth.
I wish folks could understand that those of us advocating for native fish preservation simply want native fish preservation. That obviously means that the nonnative fish take a back seat in some places (not all). Until that happens, I don't think painting the native fish advocates as zealots is fair (Kirk Deter's comments). If anything, the opposite is true.
I thought the same thing regarding your first two sentences. I have seen the northern pike life strategy explained elsewhere in the past (mid-west as I recall) as being one in which the large pike keep the small pike in check through cannibalism, thus maintaining the quality in the fishery rather than having one of predominantly “hammer handles.” Overharvest of larger adults has been explained as upsetting this balance.
Last edited:
I dislike how there seems to be a projected and preconceived viewpoint of many anglers in these posts, as if we (the masses) are all ignorant of not realizing what an invasive species is, not understanding their effects on ecosystems, not understanding the negative impacts of new fish introductions, etc. Even in Silverfox's post above, he says he wishes "folks could understand....." which is implying that we, once again don't understand and are even incapable of understanding.
The reality: the viewpoints, knowledge bases, and actions taken by each and every one of us is as unique as the separate snowflakes in a winter storm. To lump all of us and anyone together is very shortsighted.
I have always had a very thorough understanding of what species are native to what areas, systems, etc and I despise the introductions of non-natives/invasives. It is an ever changing problem. I also feel that I have a firm understanding of what is feasible and not feasible. I do think that PA needs to do more to protect our brook trout. I think there are a select few watersheds that should receive brook trout specific regulations and to offer them greater protections.
With that said, there are a few issues with the topic of invasives. 1) I have never heard of a strategy that is effective at stopping people from spreading invasives. People chime in here and say "education, community outreach, etc, etc." I don't think that is going to make that big of a difference. Why? Because the messages about invasives and their negative impacts are already everywhere. I think that the word is out, I really do, but getting the general public to actually listen and not spread them is a different story. How about we draw a correlation to littering: signs everywhere not to litter, fines posted for littering, we know of the great mass of plastics in our oceans, yet what is everywhere and can't seem to be curbed? LITTER. Public outreach is there EVERYWHERE and we can't stop it. People will continue to move fish and other critters. The snakehead campaign was huge and people continue to move them.
2) The damage done is unique to every system and species. Snakeheads will never displace brown trout. That is fear mongering. How can I say this and not cite the work of scientists, authors, researchers? A gut feeling through observation. Go ahead and criticize but......The smallmouth in Kish don't displace the trout, why? Because it is better suited to trout than smallmouth, but smallmouth are present. The LMB that I find in the Juniata never displace the smallmouth, but they are still there. They always look like stunted garbage fish barely clinging to life, too. Why? because the river offers too much current and an undesirable environment for LMB. If they could really thrive, well then I would find them much more often than I do and much healthier looking. It ain't their cup o' tea. The same will hold true with snakeheads. Their niche and environment already seems to be well understood and it is not a trout stream environment nor is it a river more suited to smallmouth. May they be present? Sure, but they are never, ever going to colonize those waters and be the dominate fish. Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it. Only the future will tell, though.
3) You are right, fisheries agencies promote invasive species often and propagate and spread them. That most likely does have some sign to the general public that it must be okay. After all, I just saw them stocking muskies in the Juniata the other week. Those fish don't belong there. The trout stocking, the stocking of channel cats, the spreading of walleye, etc, etc. This has already been addressed: IT IS ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMINS! Without similar fish to fish for nationwide, tactics, markets, and fishing culture doesn't develop and build revenue dollars. By having bass everywhere it lets everyone want to be like Mike Iaconelli or Kevin Vandam. It allows the dollars to flow, tactics to be discussed, etc and an entire culture build around species. The same with muskies. Everyone can aspire to be like Pete Maina and become a musky expert. The only problem I have with this is this isn't specific to PA and in fact happens nationwide, no, worldwide more or less. But the comments make it sound like it is specific to PA and how horrible our management is. It will change with the times like everything else. The pressure is building as you all say. Be patient.
I am curious to see what happens to the fish stocking on DCNR lands, but I have a feeling it won't totally get shut down. Maybe specific areas but.....
Sorry for the diatribe.
The reality: the viewpoints, knowledge bases, and actions taken by each and every one of us is as unique as the separate snowflakes in a winter storm. To lump all of us and anyone together is very shortsighted.
I have always had a very thorough understanding of what species are native to what areas, systems, etc and I despise the introductions of non-natives/invasives. It is an ever changing problem. I also feel that I have a firm understanding of what is feasible and not feasible. I do think that PA needs to do more to protect our brook trout. I think there are a select few watersheds that should receive brook trout specific regulations and to offer them greater protections.
With that said, there are a few issues with the topic of invasives. 1) I have never heard of a strategy that is effective at stopping people from spreading invasives. People chime in here and say "education, community outreach, etc, etc." I don't think that is going to make that big of a difference. Why? Because the messages about invasives and their negative impacts are already everywhere. I think that the word is out, I really do, but getting the general public to actually listen and not spread them is a different story. How about we draw a correlation to littering: signs everywhere not to litter, fines posted for littering, we know of the great mass of plastics in our oceans, yet what is everywhere and can't seem to be curbed? LITTER. Public outreach is there EVERYWHERE and we can't stop it. People will continue to move fish and other critters. The snakehead campaign was huge and people continue to move them.
2) The damage done is unique to every system and species. Snakeheads will never displace brown trout. That is fear mongering. How can I say this and not cite the work of scientists, authors, researchers? A gut feeling through observation. Go ahead and criticize but......The smallmouth in Kish don't displace the trout, why? Because it is better suited to trout than smallmouth, but smallmouth are present. The LMB that I find in the Juniata never displace the smallmouth, but they are still there. They always look like stunted garbage fish barely clinging to life, too. Why? because the river offers too much current and an undesirable environment for LMB. If they could really thrive, well then I would find them much more often than I do and much healthier looking. It ain't their cup o' tea. The same will hold true with snakeheads. Their niche and environment already seems to be well understood and it is not a trout stream environment nor is it a river more suited to smallmouth. May they be present? Sure, but they are never, ever going to colonize those waters and be the dominate fish. Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it. Only the future will tell, though.
3) You are right, fisheries agencies promote invasive species often and propagate and spread them. That most likely does have some sign to the general public that it must be okay. After all, I just saw them stocking muskies in the Juniata the other week. Those fish don't belong there. The trout stocking, the stocking of channel cats, the spreading of walleye, etc, etc. This has already been addressed: IT IS ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMINS! Without similar fish to fish for nationwide, tactics, markets, and fishing culture doesn't develop and build revenue dollars. By having bass everywhere it lets everyone want to be like Mike Iaconelli or Kevin Vandam. It allows the dollars to flow, tactics to be discussed, etc and an entire culture build around species. The same with muskies. Everyone can aspire to be like Pete Maina and become a musky expert. The only problem I have with this is this isn't specific to PA and in fact happens nationwide, no, worldwide more or less. But the comments make it sound like it is specific to PA and how horrible our management is. It will change with the times like everything else. The pressure is building as you all say. Be patient.
I am curious to see what happens to the fish stocking on DCNR lands, but I have a feeling it won't totally get shut down. Maybe specific areas but.....
Sorry for the diatribe.
hemlock
Active member
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
I was referring to the idea that native fish advocates are often labeled as zealots while the thing they're advocating for has gotten virtually nothing compared to everything else. That and the Kirk Deeter podcast reference specifically since it was brought up and the point of his ramblings on the podcast were essentially the same (we've gone too far).
To the point where any mention of the issues (Cheseapeake logperch, northern pike, brown trout etc.) always ends up with someone referring to the native advocates as zealots. Rather than "what realistic measures could be done to protect native fish?", it always reverts to nonnative fish protectionism even though the nonnative fish have the clear upper hand across the board.
1) With the litterbug analogy that's an even better example of why the state agencies need to lead by example rather than make a few social media posts and put a sign up here and there. What they're doing sets a bigger example of what they say.
2) Never is a strong word. Smallmouth weren't an issue on the Miriamachi until they were. Lake trout werent' an issue on Flathead lake until they were. Snakeheads likely wont impact trout in most areas, but in the coveted downstream areas they might. Ironically, Pike and Musky are probably a bigger threat to trout depending on what happens with the climate over time.
3) You're right about the issue being beyond PA's borders. From my perspective, this gets back to my first and second paragraph here. It's not like PA has any kind of refuge where native fish/native biodiversity is respected or protected by rule. Even our wild and natural areas set aside and managed by DCNR as "refuges" are stocked with nonnative trout and the wild nonnative trout in those "refuges" are protected right alongside the native fish as if they're the same. The stocking is in direct conflict with PA code and the purpose of those wild and natural areas. So PA (PFBC specifically) gets the brunt of my online complaining because 1) I'm a PA resident, and 2) they've got one of the worst track records in the country for native species protection. If there was any meaningful effort to change that course, I'd be less irate about the way things have been, and continue to be managed here.
Good point. I certainly knew that brown trout harmed native brook trout populations by about 1971 or so. And people knew about this a LONG time before that. Charles Lose was writing about this in the 1920s.
There are a great many places in PA where hatchery trout are stocked directly on top of native brook populations. The priority should be to end this, because that would improve brook trout populations.
Trout Unlimited people and others have been pushing for this for years. That is nothing new. And stocking has been ended on many stretches with brook trout populations. But there is still much more to go.
Last edited:
dudemanspecial
Well-known member
Nevermind
Last edited:
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
Saying snakeheads could come jnto conflict and harm brown trout populations is certainly not “fear mongering”, i asked Dr. Joseph Love who studies them and he suggested this could be possible. you got to remember these things don’t come from the equator. They come from southern Siberia, north korea, and china. They easily tolerate 0 Celsius and can even live under ice. They can live in swampy, lake or river habitats and if they find a great food source or swampy spring creek. Silverfox said what I was thinking “coveted down stream waters”. Let me ask you a queskion if your a snakehead in the Susquehanna pr juniata whats the warmest water when its super cold? Penns, Big fishing creek, kish, juniata. We have snakeheads in the little skook right now that would be in brown trout country if not for the dam their all stuck at in hamburg. And don’t forget lake trout present near century without issue before destroying flathead lakes native salmonids, blue cats were there decades not harming anything noticeably then POP, 75% of the biomass in the James and all ither species tanking. As streams warm up this may make smallmouth and/or snake head push browns out, interactions/competition between dish change with temp . I know it’s unthinkable for many but it is certainly not impossible according to Dr. Joseph Love.
You said people know about invasive species but the problem is no one knows what species specifically is an invasive species because PFBC covers up that brown and rainbow trout make the other invasives on their website they DO actually acknowledge look like boy-scouts for the most part based on impact/ranking. NO ONE in the general public knows the staye stocks invasive species. Ask a lay person. It needs an enormous amount of grass roots education/science communication. And you can use the litter analogy but it takes a lot more effort to capture, move and release an invasive species and more communication to public could reduce these introductions, prevent some completely and buy us precious time till the biological controls of the future for invasive species can eradicate these invaders more effectively and stop extinctions.
You said people know about invasive species but the problem is no one knows what species specifically is an invasive species because PFBC covers up that brown and rainbow trout make the other invasives on their website they DO actually acknowledge look like boy-scouts for the most part based on impact/ranking. NO ONE in the general public knows the staye stocks invasive species. Ask a lay person. It needs an enormous amount of grass roots education/science communication. And you can use the litter analogy but it takes a lot more effort to capture, move and release an invasive species and more communication to public could reduce these introductions, prevent some completely and buy us precious time till the biological controls of the future for invasive species can eradicate these invaders more effectively and stop extinctions.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
PFBC worried about them in the upper D now
“Sampling is being done for trout in conjunction with the State of New York. If they start seeing an acute decline of the trout population, the PFBC will look back at angler reports to see if the snakehead could be a culprit.”
“Sampling is being done for trout in conjunction with the State of New York. If they start seeing an acute decline of the trout population, the PFBC will look back at angler reports to see if the snakehead could be a culprit.”
No one knows the state stocks invasive species? That's not true. Lots of people know this. You just had a news story ran right before opening day trout. You're telling me that had 0 impact and educational value? You can also find an article in the Lancaster paper with you and silverfox from 2021 outlining the same stuff.... That's 3 years ago. Plenty of other agencies, govt entities, individuals, educational TV shows all inform of the damage is invasives. You're making a bad misjudgment here, it's not that people don't know, it's that just enough people don't care.
The littering analogy was not meant to represent the difficulty of the task (which you knew, I hope) but how a massive educational campaign has failed. My God, I was taught it in school, grew up with Capt Planet, etc, etc..... It failed. People litter. They know they shouldn't but they do anyways. It's the same with spreading fish. They know they shouldn't, but do.
You've criticized others in the past and basically wrote their opinions on topics off, citing their lack credentialed background on certain subjects. Who is Dr. Love? The only person I can find is an MD. How is he studying snakeheads and why should I value his opinion? I may, just may think I remember you dismissing opinions and claims of John Odenkirk in another thread where he had said Snakeheads had not proven as harmful as they feared and they are filling a different niche. I'm not saying either one, Odenkirk or love, are right or wrong, but why would I believe an MD with an opinion more than anyone else who has self-studied and actually put in time to learn and has an opinion?
I am well aware the fish tolerate and thrive in cold weather and water. Snakeheads do not like strong currents and rocky bottoms/substrates, however. Those two things are pretty common in our trout waters.
I am not saying they won't exist, in these places, they might. I am saying I don't think they will thrive in these settings, but they might, maybe I'm wrong.
The littering analogy was not meant to represent the difficulty of the task (which you knew, I hope) but how a massive educational campaign has failed. My God, I was taught it in school, grew up with Capt Planet, etc, etc..... It failed. People litter. They know they shouldn't but they do anyways. It's the same with spreading fish. They know they shouldn't, but do.
You've criticized others in the past and basically wrote their opinions on topics off, citing their lack credentialed background on certain subjects. Who is Dr. Love? The only person I can find is an MD. How is he studying snakeheads and why should I value his opinion? I may, just may think I remember you dismissing opinions and claims of John Odenkirk in another thread where he had said Snakeheads had not proven as harmful as they feared and they are filling a different niche. I'm not saying either one, Odenkirk or love, are right or wrong, but why would I believe an MD with an opinion more than anyone else who has self-studied and actually put in time to learn and has an opinion?
I am well aware the fish tolerate and thrive in cold weather and water. Snakeheads do not like strong currents and rocky bottoms/substrates, however. Those two things are pretty common in our trout waters.
I am not saying they won't exist, in these places, they might. I am saying I don't think they will thrive in these settings, but they might, maybe I'm wrong.
I wouldn’t call that “worried;” it’s reasonable curiosity. One would first have to rule out the most likely reasons for variations in abundance, such as natural year class variations, temperature swings, abundance of striped bass in any given year, and angler harvest. Note: I doubt striped bass have much of a population impact either, but probably more of a potential individual impact than would snakeheads.
I read the paragraph in the article; it was pretty much boilerplate commentary on new invasive fish species. Frankly, I have little concern that snakeheads will be problematic at the population level for salmonids. Habitat preferences are quite different, being more aligned with Largemouth Bass and Bowfin.
On a geographical note, the dam just above Hamburg where snakeheads have been mentioned as being at its base is on the Schuylkill R, not the Ltl Schuylkill. If that dam is eventually removed, it is unlikely that snakeheads will find the Ltl Schuylkill very hospitable for meeting all requirements of their life cycle and the primary forage will be the abundant white suckers of all ages. If American Shad and American eels (more likely) were restored to the Schuylkill basin, there would be even more forage diversity.
Last edited:
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
I think your wrong about people know and don’t care. You can prove it by asking 10 random non anglers if
1. Do They know the 3 different trout found in PA streams
2. If they knew 2 were invasive an which ones
3. If they liked the idea that the state knowingly stocks them and it’s accelerating the rate of loss of biodiversity and increasing the risk of eventual loss of our state fish.
When I ask folks the answer to 1-3 is No
TimMurphy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,147
Dear Mike,
I find great irony in concern for main stem Delaware's wild rainbow trout regardless of who expresses said concern. If it wasn't for a broken-down train well over a century ago, they would not exist.
As you well know, stripers are native to the Delaware system though. Something has to eat all those herring!
Regards,
Tim Murphy 🙂
