Joined
·
840 Posts
Is it our role to help control invasive species? or should we just sit back and watch alot of hard work go down the tubes?
when is public control wrong?
when is public control wrong?
Is it our role to help with the control of invasive spieces?
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Joined
·
341 Posts
GOFISH said:Hey guys,
I believe this thread stems from the discussion in the "Bass Fishing Section."
I would hope that the discussion there doesn't spread to all the other sections of the forum and hope that a mod will move this one back there.eace:
GOFISH 8)
:happy: :happy:
This is great a topic on invasive species and then GOFSIH hopes this topic doesnt spread... IRONY....
Sorry nothing personal just me LMAO :happy:
Off topic but Invasive species ought to be those damn dogs who kept munching my live herring this past weekend. :wallbash:
Bluesteele
I hear ya GoFish...and although I have read the discussion there as well, I think this new post has merit in this section as it addresses a very real problem around the Province in many of our freshwater fisheries...
Regardless of the species introduced, be it Bass, Perch, shiners, etc..., invasive species have an impact on Freshwater fishing in BC, so it's probably a good thing to talk about the facts facts surrounding the issues in this section.
However, if this turns into a continuation of that other discussion, or another debate that cannot be conducted with some respect for fellow members, we'll definitely move it somewhere then.
I, and I'm sure a few others, would be interested to see what peoples opinions are on the ethics involved, be it the initial action, or the reaction.
I will reserve my opinion on these issues, as I'm more interested in hearing others opinions on this than typing out my own.
:cheers:
Regardless of the species introduced, be it Bass, Perch, shiners, etc..., invasive species have an impact on Freshwater fishing in BC, so it's probably a good thing to talk about the facts facts surrounding the issues in this section.
However, if this turns into a continuation of that other discussion, or another debate that cannot be conducted with some respect for fellow members, we'll definitely move it somewhere then.
I, and I'm sure a few others, would be interested to see what peoples opinions are on the ethics involved, be it the initial action, or the reaction.
I will reserve my opinion on these issues, as I'm more interested in hearing others opinions on this than typing out my own.
:cheers:
Joined
·
243 Posts
If I catch a bass its as good as dead. Same for any pumpkin seed, crappie or perch. I'm not prepared to give up on our native fishes just so someone can go catch a mess of bass because its easier than properly managing trout/salmon/steelhead populations.jetboatjim said:
Joined
·
1,437 Posts
Your right bluesteele (at least I spelt your name right) ;D this is a great topic! I didn't say that it didn't deserve discussion ......... my concern is that it should be discussed in one area, and doesn't need to be spread out over this and yet another part of the site. What is the purpose of that ....... Mass Advertising??? How many times do you have to hit the same nail before you beat it to death??? If those that take part turn it into a p_ssing match then my hope is that they would just use the same toilet.
Thanks for your response Rib ....... it's not the topic I was referring to but the manner of how it is discussed.
I will reserve my thoughts on this topic as well. We can talk about plants, animals, etc, etc Pat but probably the biggest invasive species and the root to this problem .......... is HUMANS.
GOFISH 8)
Thanks for your response Rib ....... it's not the topic I was referring to but the manner of how it is discussed.
I will reserve my thoughts on this topic as well. We can talk about plants, animals, etc, etc Pat but probably the biggest invasive species and the root to this problem .......... is HUMANS.
GOFISH 8)
Joined
·
606 Posts
Can we ask DFO or Conservation Officer Services what we can do as the public...
If a species is invasive and was introduced illegally and multiplies,it would appear that short of chemically killing the entire waterway and starting from scratch we could help....
You would think Fisheries would know how many anglers would be willing to help fish the crap out of the invasive species if they need a cull..
They encourage the derby in Cultus lake every year..
Now,if I could just get some of the neighbourhood dogs culled life would be good!! :-X
Maybe we could morph all the sockeye fishers into coarse fish cull specialists?? :happy:
If a species is invasive and was introduced illegally and multiplies,it would appear that short of chemically killing the entire waterway and starting from scratch we could help....
You would think Fisheries would know how many anglers would be willing to help fish the crap out of the invasive species if they need a cull..
They encourage the derby in Cultus lake every year..
Now,if I could just get some of the neighbourhood dogs culled life would be good!! :-X
Maybe we could morph all the sockeye fishers into coarse fish cull specialists?? :happy:
You are right, humans are the cause of all these invasive species, we brought them to BC in the first place. That said with our technology and intelect we can also serve to help right the wrongs we have done to the planet. Removing invasive species is one of many ways this can be accomplished.GOFISH said:
I would preffer to think that if people started caring, they would be less "invasive" as you put it. Our numbers are only growing so I hope I am right.
One of the problems is that many invasive species, whether they are plants or animals, were introduced not knowing their invasive tendencies. Take scotch broom for an example. These were planted near highway overpasses for aesthetics and now have overtaken whole sides of our highway system.
Vigilante justice does not go very far, although it does make the individual feel better about themselves. Make some noise, bother the government, DFO CONTINUOUSLY. If a customer continued to bother you about something they didn't like, wouldn't you make them happy just to shut them up?
"Maybe we could morph all the sockeye fishers into coarse fish cull specialists??" LOL!!
Why were shiners introduced into lakes, aren't they tiny useles fish?? Were they used as bait maybe?
Vigilante justice does not go very far, although it does make the individual feel better about themselves. Make some noise, bother the government, DFO CONTINUOUSLY. If a customer continued to bother you about something they didn't like, wouldn't you make them happy just to shut them up?
"Maybe we could morph all the sockeye fishers into coarse fish cull specialists??" LOL!!
Why were shiners introduced into lakes, aren't they tiny useles fish?? Were they used as bait maybe?
Joined
·
840 Posts
Gofish ,this thread covers more than just bass. If you dont like this thread dont look at it.
invasive spieces cme in all sizes and shapes, but what baffles me is the gov wants to protect some? when wil they limit atlantic salmon? if I were to kill every atlantic salmon in the L/M would it be savage or would people look down upon me?
invasive spieces cme in all sizes and shapes, but what baffles me is the gov wants to protect some? when wil they limit atlantic salmon? if I were to kill every atlantic salmon in the L/M would it be savage or would people look down upon me?
Joined
·
452 Posts
MMugs, I believe the shiners are introduced by the bucket brigade to ensure the bass have a steady food supply. It's possibly a conscious stocking effort on their part. This is partly why some lakes in the Salmon Arm area are being poisoned off this fall. Derbies are a good idea for fun (they've been doing it in Japan for a few years now along with a bounty - cash/kilogram of bluegill and bass. They grind it up for the local farmers to use as fertilizer) but my limited understanding of how it works is that derbies only increase the survival rate of the invaders' offspring amplifying the problem in subsequent seasons.
Joined
·
815 Posts
This question has always puzzled me because it rest on some high moral and philosophical ground.
If you agree with evolution then all species are invasive - that is to say that at one point there wasn't the species. It's also the tendency of all species, if they thrive, to expand their range 'naturally', such as the many times salmon's territory either expanded or retreated with the ice ages. Most of the 'natural' ways of specie migration are caused by chance (flies and birds getting swept across the ocean to island), changing environment, population pressure, and hitch hiking (seeds and animals stowing away on migrating animals).
If the migration of species by hitch hiking is a natural way of distributing species why is it unnatural when humans do it? Which lead to the big question are we part of nature or above it?
If we are a part of nature then the movements of species by us is fine. We just happen to be facilitating the most viable species to push out those unfit. And soon we will have land environments that are much like the pelagic ocean, where there is the possibility of species traveling around the world and there is much commonality few species (I know the oceans have great diversity, however, pelagic fish like marlin, tuna, sword fish aren't genetically the same but are still the same spice, that is they can mate and have viable offspring weather in the Pacific, Indian or Atlantic - populations mix). The big downside is that we won't have as much biodiversity and many of our favorite animals will go the way of the doe doe. (I personally disagree with argument the biodiversity will be lost. I think the mechanize of evolution is not damaged by the loss a specie... but that another can of worms).
If we are above nature, it's our duty to try and keep everything the same. But how do we set the bar for what is natural and what is not? An example is the re-introduction of sea otters into Kylaquat (SP!) sound. They're return after more than a century of being gone changed the environment from a hugely successful environment for shell fish, which were the staple for the native there, to one dominated by kelp, great for rearing fish but the shell fish were decimated. The loss of the shell fish fishier caused a call by the native community for the killing of the sea otters. Who's right?
I don't know.
Have fun, Jason
If you agree with evolution then all species are invasive - that is to say that at one point there wasn't the species. It's also the tendency of all species, if they thrive, to expand their range 'naturally', such as the many times salmon's territory either expanded or retreated with the ice ages. Most of the 'natural' ways of specie migration are caused by chance (flies and birds getting swept across the ocean to island), changing environment, population pressure, and hitch hiking (seeds and animals stowing away on migrating animals).
If the migration of species by hitch hiking is a natural way of distributing species why is it unnatural when humans do it? Which lead to the big question are we part of nature or above it?
If we are a part of nature then the movements of species by us is fine. We just happen to be facilitating the most viable species to push out those unfit. And soon we will have land environments that are much like the pelagic ocean, where there is the possibility of species traveling around the world and there is much commonality few species (I know the oceans have great diversity, however, pelagic fish like marlin, tuna, sword fish aren't genetically the same but are still the same spice, that is they can mate and have viable offspring weather in the Pacific, Indian or Atlantic - populations mix). The big downside is that we won't have as much biodiversity and many of our favorite animals will go the way of the doe doe. (I personally disagree with argument the biodiversity will be lost. I think the mechanize of evolution is not damaged by the loss a specie... but that another can of worms).
If we are above nature, it's our duty to try and keep everything the same. But how do we set the bar for what is natural and what is not? An example is the re-introduction of sea otters into Kylaquat (SP!) sound. They're return after more than a century of being gone changed the environment from a hugely successful environment for shell fish, which were the staple for the native there, to one dominated by kelp, great for rearing fish but the shell fish were decimated. The loss of the shell fish fishier caused a call by the native community for the killing of the sea otters. Who's right?
I don't know.
Have fun, Jason
Joined
·
840 Posts
good read big j. I still think that putting fish/plants in a bucket and willfully planting them is very wrong, never mind the accidental hitch hiker.
Just look @ the Nile perch! good idea in the beginning but boy were they wrong.
how about snakes in Hawaii, good for rodent control but they didn't think the would take out populations of birds.
there are many examples.
Just look @ the Nile perch! good idea in the beginning but boy were they wrong.
how about snakes in Hawaii, good for rodent control but they didn't think the would take out populations of birds.
there are many examples.
Yes, it's everyone's role. But sometimes, the negative effects of control or erradication of an invasive species are far worse than allowing them to do their thing. This might be especially true if an invasive species has successfully displaced a native species (and thereby occupying its niche, more or less), and removing the invasive would alter the population dynamics of the various species in that community. Another more obvious example are pesticide usage.
Invasive species in general are bad, but it's not as simple as that. Some species, invasive or otherwise, simply have more value than others when it comes to sustaining a healthy ecosystem. In the end, it really comes down to what's best for humans in the long term (speaking more about the services a healthy ecosystem provides us with - clean air, clean water, etc, and not short term gains).
Invasive species in general are bad, but it's not as simple as that. Some species, invasive or otherwise, simply have more value than others when it comes to sustaining a healthy ecosystem. In the end, it really comes down to what's best for humans in the long term (speaking more about the services a healthy ecosystem provides us with - clean air, clean water, etc, and not short term gains).
Great point of view bigjay, this comment made me think
[sorry GOFISH], I'm sure they did not "hitchhike" unintentionally, therefore it would be unnatural for their introduction and answers your big question that most probably, think that they are above nature. It is only human nature ;D.
Just as in the example of Bass :
[sorry GOFISH], I'm sure they did not "hitchhike" unintentionally, therefore it would be unnatural for their introduction and answers your big question that most probably, think that they are above nature. It is only human nature ;D.
Joined
·
243 Posts
We had designated lakes, now we have the bucket brigade
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
