Once you watch your first blow up you will be sold just like me . I'm all for ethical harvest just completely against senseless killing or blind hatred . Its funny almost everyone that wants the fish eradicated has little to no interaction with them. They will be in all the frog water on the susky or in the dammed areas .
Only a matter of time
- Thread starter Fredrick
- Start date
Once you watch your first blow up you will be sold just like me . I'm all for ethical harvest just completely against senseless killing or blind hatred . Its funny almost everyone that wants the fish eradicated has little to no interaction with them. They will be in all the frog water on the susky or in the dammed areas .
I never understand why one invasive is demonized, and others aren't, when both could have disastrous effects on the ecosystem. I don't see many people up in arms about the flathead catfish in the Susky, even thought they're eradicating the sunfish and rock bass.
The saving grace of brown trout is that they are filling a niche left absent by the brook trout, which isn't as flexible with how we've changed the environment.
The saving grace of brown trout is that they are filling a niche left absent by the brook trout, which isn't as flexible with how we've changed the environment.
Snakeheads are ugly. Ugly and/or odd things get demonized easier. They are also completely foreign to most people so until they become more familiar they will be demonized. And I'd say that very few species really have a super bad impact on things. We are so accustomed to the "invasives" that we have that we don't give half of them a second thought. I'm used to smallmouth bass, brown trout, rainbows, Japanese beetles, etc.
Yep it's because they are ugly not because of what the experts are saying about them. The experts say they are bad for the ecosystem. Let's overlook potential destruction of the ecosystem because they are fun to catch. Let's watch a few videos of biased snakehead aficionados interviewing experts and then cherry pick their words and twist it into there is no concern.
The fact that they are picking them out of the fish ladders and killing them shows the experts true concerns yet snakehead aficionados will pepper us with bias fishermen interviews of the experts. Deeds and actions not words.
Don't get me wrong I think it's great that some find pleasure in catching them. What's concerning is the shear happiness over their spreading into waters famed for a different type of fishing. This is why (not saying by anybody here) they will be found above any ladders or impediment.
The fact that they are picking them out of the fish ladders and killing them shows the experts true concerns yet snakehead aficionados will pepper us with bias fishermen interviews of the experts. Deeds and actions not words.
Don't get me wrong I think it's great that some find pleasure in catching them. What's concerning is the shear happiness over their spreading into waters famed for a different type of fishing. This is why (not saying by anybody here) they will be found above any ladders or impediment.
So your first sentence was obviously a facetious jest at my post. It is because they are ugly. People are scared of and judgemental of what we don't know and aren't used to. I'm guilty, so are you. I don't think snakeheads are causing that much harm. I am not a snakehead proponent and I still am not advocating their denouncing. John Odenkirk seems to agree with this argument and I would have to believe that at the moment he is certainly one of the authoritative figures on snakeheads in the northeastern U.S. please find me evidence of his they have impacted the ecosystems and are all that damaging. Once again, I AM NOT A SNAKEHEAD ADVOCATE. I'd rather keep my river the way I know it. Smallies (invasive) redbreasts (native) Rock bass (invasive) channel cats (invasive) fallfish (native) walleye (invasive) but now I have lots of flatheads to deal with (invasive) and soon snakeheads I'm sure.
The National Park Service defines a invasive species as a non-native organism whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to human, animal, or plant health.
It is often thought that the terms 'invasive' and 'non-native' can be used interchangeably, but this is not always true. For a plant or animal to be invasive, it must do harm. Simply being non-native is not cause for concern. The National Park Service actively manages those non-native species that do harm.
Understanding the difference between invasive and non-native species and when a species is managed is crucial.
...and when a species is non-native
Non-native species are those that have occurred outside of their natural range. That natural range could be as far as another country or as near as a different region of the same country.
Unlike invasive species, non-native species may not hinder or prevent the survival of others within the ecosystem. They simply exist where they have not naturally occurred. Other terms used for non-native species include 'exotic' or 'alien' species, but these are often discouraged terms, as they may imply another meaning.
You might even recognize some non-native species of plants in your own backyard or on your dinner table. Non-native species such as petunias and tomatoes, present no threat to native plants and have been cultivated by humans for centuries.
Link to source: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/invasive/learn.htm
I don't blame the State conservation agencies for being cautious about the invasion of snakeheads. Remember, the Hudson, Delaware and Chesapeake Bays are key spawning areas and nursery waters for the Atlantic striper population.
No one knows what the long-term effects will be in the bays or in any other waters now populated with snakeheads since their native range is Asia.
It is often thought that the terms 'invasive' and 'non-native' can be used interchangeably, but this is not always true. For a plant or animal to be invasive, it must do harm. Simply being non-native is not cause for concern. The National Park Service actively manages those non-native species that do harm.
Understanding the difference between invasive and non-native species and when a species is managed is crucial.
...and when a species is non-native
Non-native species are those that have occurred outside of their natural range. That natural range could be as far as another country or as near as a different region of the same country.
Unlike invasive species, non-native species may not hinder or prevent the survival of others within the ecosystem. They simply exist where they have not naturally occurred. Other terms used for non-native species include 'exotic' or 'alien' species, but these are often discouraged terms, as they may imply another meaning.
You might even recognize some non-native species of plants in your own backyard or on your dinner table. Non-native species such as petunias and tomatoes, present no threat to native plants and have been cultivated by humans for centuries.
Link to source: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/invasive/learn.htm
I don't blame the State conservation agencies for being cautious about the invasion of snakeheads. Remember, the Hudson, Delaware and Chesapeake Bays are key spawning areas and nursery waters for the Atlantic striper population.
No one knows what the long-term effects will be in the bays or in any other waters now populated with snakeheads since their native range is Asia.
Here is an article about flatheads >
Flatheads are invasive, according to the federal government, and a threat to not only the Susquehanna, but the Chesapeake River into which it drains. Catfish become top predators, preying on native fish and other aquatic life.
Pylodictis olivaris, also known as the mudfish or shovelfish, is native to drainages around the Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico, but has spread way beyond its normal range. It is a big carnivore that has been found as large as 130 pounds — making it popular with anglers because of its size and taste.
Starting as far back as the 1950s and 60s, they were stocked or released into other areas. The first release into the Chesapeake in 1965 was accidental. Populations spread into the Susquehanna and Schuylkill.
Officials from the Chesapeake Bay Program, charged with leading the restoration of the bay, are concerned about the growing numbers of flatheads and their potential impact on menhaden and blue crabs.
But since the flatheads are already in the waterways and there’s little that can be done to get rid of them, anglers have taken advantage of the opportunity to catch really big fish.
Link to source: https://www.inquirer.com/science/climate/pennsylvania-record-flathead-catfish-lancaster-20190508.html
They are big fish and becoming very popular. I'm not sure the PFBC or anyone else can prevent them from invading the rivers of PA.
Flatheads are invasive, according to the federal government, and a threat to not only the Susquehanna, but the Chesapeake River into which it drains. Catfish become top predators, preying on native fish and other aquatic life.
Pylodictis olivaris, also known as the mudfish or shovelfish, is native to drainages around the Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico, but has spread way beyond its normal range. It is a big carnivore that has been found as large as 130 pounds — making it popular with anglers because of its size and taste.
Starting as far back as the 1950s and 60s, they were stocked or released into other areas. The first release into the Chesapeake in 1965 was accidental. Populations spread into the Susquehanna and Schuylkill.
Officials from the Chesapeake Bay Program, charged with leading the restoration of the bay, are concerned about the growing numbers of flatheads and their potential impact on menhaden and blue crabs.
But since the flatheads are already in the waterways and there’s little that can be done to get rid of them, anglers have taken advantage of the opportunity to catch really big fish.
Link to source: https://www.inquirer.com/science/climate/pennsylvania-record-flathead-catfish-lancaster-20190508.html
They are big fish and becoming very popular. I'm not sure the PFBC or anyone else can prevent them from invading the rivers of PA.
Since the thread is about snakeheads, not flatheads, I won't address flatheads here. As for why snakeheads get so much attention, there is a fascination with anything new in nature that could be a threat and if its name has the word "snake" in it the fascination is ramped up. Even more interesting is when a "new" critter can accomplish unusual feats that most native species can't, such as the reputed ability (exaggerated) to crawl across land.
Odenkirk carefully Tailors his words to his audience. A great trait to have when you work in and amongst the environmental crowd. Even when being interviewed by anglers who are out to prove snakeheads are good he clearly states their impact on the ecosystem. He also is the first to note they are still learning about the snakehead. This is an expert saying this not some weekend angler who wants to see the expansion of snakeheads. Does this not carry great weight when deciding the pros and cons of the snakehead on the ecosystem?
Also important to remember is the fact that government policy on how to deal with snakeheads is being made based on the words, reports and studies of the experts like Odenkirk. The policies coming out are unmistakable in their massage and intent, the snakehead has to be controlled by eating or just killing them. This alone speaks volumes about what the experts, true stewards and advocates of the environment, feel about the snakeheads impact. I put no weight in what a guy with a fishing rod thinks on the subject.
So until this changes my opinion will be based on the deeds and actions of the experts and not on the beliefs of those who enjoy fishing for them.
That's right. The PFBC has instructed anglers to kill them and dispose of them properly or release them immediately...possession of a live snakehead for longer than it takes to unhook them and release them or kill them is not allowed. Clearly, their message is they are not to be possessed or transported alive by any means because having them moved from one water body to another compounds the problem. I would add as a conservationist that it is important for anglers to be able to distinguish a Northern Snakehead from the native and harmless Bowfin for obvious reasons.
So Poopy watch the video again and answer theses questions for me
Has the Northern Snakehead been proven to be hurting local fish populations in any body of water ?
Did John Odenkirk say that he deems them not to be invasive ?
Has there been to date any evidence proven they are invasive?
Do you consider the fish invasive because they are good colonizers ?
Did John say that he didn’t agree with his superiors and the feds listing them as invasive?
Are states basing their stance on Snakeheads due to fear or science ?
And yes the jury is still but it doesn’t justify the demonization of the fish with absolutely no evidence to support their claims . I understand not wanting the spread of the fish but spreading miss information to the public last time I checked was wrong.
https://youtu.be/lceYaOj8P9M
Has the Northern Snakehead been proven to be hurting local fish populations in any body of water ?
Did John Odenkirk say that he deems them not to be invasive ?
Has there been to date any evidence proven they are invasive?
Do you consider the fish invasive because they are good colonizers ?
Did John say that he didn’t agree with his superiors and the feds listing them as invasive?
Are states basing their stance on Snakeheads due to fear or science ?
And yes the jury is still but it doesn’t justify the demonization of the fish with absolutely no evidence to support their claims . I understand not wanting the spread of the fish but spreading miss information to the public last time I checked was wrong.
https://youtu.be/lceYaOj8P9M
