2 Asian carp found in ponds near Toronto waterfront

[turbo_22]

(11-18-2015 06:59 PM)Eli Wrote:  Did you know that moose aren't 'native' to North America either? Been here less than 10 000 years and have still not adapted to deal with brainworm that 'native' ungulates are immune to.
Yep. Moose. That iconic, all Canadian, mountie-uniform-wearing animal. Not native.

Neither are honeybees. Those honeybees that are being threatened by Monsanto are actually an "invasive" species. But we couldn't have the agriculture we have without them!

[OldTimer]

(11-18-2015 06:59 PM)Eli Wrote:  Did you know that moose aren't 'native' to North America either? Been here less than 10 000 years and have still not adapted to deal with brainworm that 'native' ungulates are immune to.
Yep. Moose. That iconic, all Canadian, mountie-uniform-wearing animal. Not native.

Neither are we, ....and look at the mess we made of things...........grin.

Cheers,

OldTimer

[tweedwolfscream]

Pretty sure most people's definition of native wildlife would include species that migrated here naturally via the Bering land bridge... which actually I think includes all of our "native" deer, though some of them crossed much earlier than moose. I guess you could say that no life is native to where we are since it was all a barren ice sheet at some point.

[MuskieBait]

One of our iconic northern species, the Northern Pike, also crossed over from the Bering Land Bridge and spread into America. They did not evolved in America, and thus, are not technically native.

On a smaller time scale, yes, nothing is native in Ontario the last glaciation period would cover and kill all the species previously living in prehistoric Ontario. All the species present now migrated and invaded north (from the Mississippi reservoir) as the glacier retreat.

Even now, species are spreading in areas they are not "native" to, where "native" is based on our short colonial time scale. Smallmouth Bass are invading into the Algonquin and Haliburton Highlands, and into areas north of Cochrane. Chain Pickerel are spreading across the St. Lawrence into Ontario from New York, Black Crappie are spreading across the Kawathra. Some of this is natural, some due to man creating passage ways in the form of canals.

That's the beauty of nature, the constant flux that occurs, the constant struggle to find balance as a species invade, or evolve, or disappear. It has been happening for millions of years. It has been the rule as long as there is life. It is how species are spread to the furthest reach of ocean (like the Hawaiian Islands) and how new arrivals in new habitats evolve into new species.

There are some cases, that even with the best of our ability, nature forces her way such that invasive species were unintentionally introduced. A very good example is the Burmese Python invasion in Florida, which can be traced back to a reptile facility that was damaged by Hurricane Andrew. In the process, hundreds of Burmese Python escaped and gave rise to the current population. During the same natural event, many exotic fish species also escaped the aquaculture farms when they were flooded, and many of today's exotic cichlids living in Florida canals can be attributed to that event. OT, I'm sure you are well aware of this.

Coming back to the carp invasion, who are we to blame in the end? The catfish farmers who LEGALLY put in Bighead, Silver and Grass Carp species in their pond to control algae blooms? Or should be blame the state agencies for allowing these carp species to be used as biological control in the first place? Or should we blame city and state land use planner to allow these fish farms to be built on river flood plains with an understanding that escape is a probable reality if flooding does occur? Or should we blame US Corp of Engineers for ever building shipping canals to connect the Mississippi drainage to the Great Lakes?

To think we as human can control all of this is foolish. But to say we should not be vigilant about our own actions is irresponsible. However, if everyone has enough long term vision, maybe we would still have Atlantic Salmon and Lake Sturgeon swimming in Lake Ontario today. The fact is human has a very short vision because our own lifespan is so limited, and in a geological time scale, all of this really means nothing. Another ice age will wipe Ontario into a clean slate once again...and perhaps next time we will have a whole different assemblage of "native" species based on how the glaciers and the subsequent rebound will sculpt our landscape; and thus provide the varying habitat that may be suitable for some species.

This is the way of nature. All of this we are doing is simply to satiate our own sick needs as "Guardians of the Earth" or "Masters of the Earth" if you are more sinister. Nature can really care less what we are doing. She can unleash a catastrophic event (like the Yellowstone Caldera erupting) and wipe us all clean off the Earth with the flex of her pinkie.

** I remember reading somewhere about the revival of Gila Trout. Apparently, the state wildlife agency was having good success bringing back Gila Trout population to a creek, only to have a landslide of volcanic ash bury the creek and destroyed all the efforts. Kinda sinister, you think? We have our intentions...nature has her own.

[OldTimer]

(11-20-2015 04:19 PM)MuskieBait Wrote:  ....To think we as human can control all of this is foolish. But to say we should not be vigilant about our own actions is irresponsible......

Atta boy..............Well said!

Cheers,

OldTimer

[tweedwolfscream]

"not technically native" suggests there's a generally accepted definition of native species that excludes pike. The way I've always heard "native species" used it means that the species came to exist in the area by natural (ie. non-anthropogenic) means. This would include chars and whitefishes colonizing the Algonquin Highlands as the ice sheet receded to expose them, but not smallmouth bass being dumped into the same lakes by fisheries managers in 1899. Perhaps you consider this distinction arbitrary, but I've mainly heard native and non-native species discussed in the context of human impacts to the ecosystem. And if by "native to" you mean "evolved into the species as we know it in", then I doubt there would be a single species of organism native to Ontario.

Anyway, you seem to interestingly view accidental introductions as nature imposing its will in spite of human efforts. I tend to see it more as nature's balance being thrown off by human intentional and unintentional actions. Not believing literally in a sentient "nature" with agency and intent, I can't say that one of those mental constructs is more true than another, but what I take away from it is more the fragility of the ecosystem than its resilience.

[MuskieBait]

I take a very wide view of ecology. I view humans as part of nature, not separated from nature. I view that, unless we stock plants and animals with an intent to propagate them in new habitats, any unintentional spread of species by our action is part of nature.

If a bird carries a fish egg from one location to another via the egg hitchhiking on the bird's body, we call that as natural spread. We do not term this as an invasion.

If a human carries a fish egg from one location to another via the egg hitchhiking on the side of the boat, we call that as anthropological spread. We term this as an invasion.

In either case, there is no intent to spread the species by the bird or the human. The introduced organism is a hitchhiker.

In parallel argument, if a Round Goby hitchhike, however impossible it may seem in the hollow of a log that drifted from the Black Sea to the St. Lawrence River, we call this as natural spread.

But if a Round Goby hitchhike in the ballast water of a transoceanic transport ship that transit between the Black Sea to the St. Lawrence River, then we call this as an invasion.

In either case, the Round Goby is a hitchhiker. There was no intent.

The truly inexcusable acts are our continued introduction of species into non-native habitat in the name of "providing additional recreational fishing opportunities". This is a selfish and ignorant act that gives zero regard to native species and ecosystems. While the US and Canada continued to prosecute invaders, the same agencies are continuing to spread non-native species based on their recreational fishing value and desirability. This is simply sickening and ill-conceived.

[OldTimer]

(11-23-2015 04:18 PM)MuskieBait Wrote:  The truly inexcusable acts are our continued introduction of species into non-native habitat in the name of "providing additional recreational fishing opportunities". This is a selfish and ignorant act that gives zero regard to native species and ecosystems. While the US and Canada continued to prosecute invaders, the same agencies are continuing to spread non-native species based on their recreational fishing value and desirability. This is simply sickening and ill-conceived.

Yep.

And much of this driven by the glamorization of catching the biggest, and/or the most of a select few species by a select few anglers.

Then we have the "money" and "votes" motivators for our elected representatives.

I would support more emphasis and promotion of the sport for its rewarding outdoor experience ........... while also raising angler awareness of the challenges, rewards and value in fishing for all species.

Stocking of non-natives is so unnecessary, and a waste in my eyes.

Cheers,

OldTimer

[zippyFX]

A new economic opportunity for Canada?

http://nowiknow.com/nothing-to-carp-about/


Why the Israeli defense minister got involved I can not fathom....

[tweedwolfscream]

(12-02-2015 11:47 AM)zippyFX Wrote:  A new economic opportunity for Canada?

http://nowiknow.com/nothing-to-carp-about/


Why the Israeli defense minister got involved I can not fathom....

Ehud Barak is a former (Bill Clinton era) PM and at the time was leader of a government coalition member party, so one can imagine he'd have taken on high-level files outside the strictly defined defense portfolio I guess? No one's ever accomplished anything by navigating Israeli bureaucracy by the book, trust me.

Quote:For those unfamiliar with the food, it is basically meatloaf, only cold and made of fish, and typically served in fist-sized blobs instead of slices.

Ugh... they're describing that god-awful preserved gefilte fish that comes in jars on the grocery store shelf and tastes like poison. Real gefilte fish, homemade or ordered from a respectable caterer, comes in a big loaf and is served sliced. The ingredients are carp, pike and whitefish, so making it "from scratch" would be an interesting mini-multispecies challenge...

(11-23-2015 04:18 PM)MuskieBait Wrote:  I take a very wide view of ecology. I view humans as part of nature, not separated from nature. I view that, unless we stock plants and animals with an intent to propagate them in new habitats, any unintentional spread of species by our action is part of nature.

If a bird carries a fish egg from one location to another via the egg hitchhiking on the bird's body, we call that as natural spread. We do not term this as an invasion.

If a human carries a fish egg from one location to another via the egg hitchhiking on the side of the boat, we call that as anthropological spread. We term this as an invasion.

In either case, there is no intent to spread the species by the bird or the human. The introduced organism is a hitchhiker.

In parallel argument, if a Round Goby hitchhike, however impossible it may seem in the hollow of a log that drifted from the Black Sea to the St. Lawrence River, we call this as natural spread.

But if a Round Goby hitchhike in the ballast water of a transoceanic transport ship that transit between the Black Sea to the St. Lawrence River, then we call this as an invasion.

In either case, the Round Goby is a hitchhiker. There was no intent.

The truly inexcusable acts are our continued introduction of species into non-native habitat in the name of "providing additional recreational fishing opportunities". This is a selfish and ignorant act that gives zero regard to native species and ecosystems. While the US and Canada continued to prosecute invaders, the same agencies are continuing to spread non-native species based on their recreational fishing value and desirability. This is simply sickening and ill-conceived.

OK, I'll loop back and address this. Yes humans are part of the ecosystem and taking that to the extreme you could say that landscape-level industrial deforestation is part of nature running its course, just like a beaver's deforestation of a 1-acre pond. At the other extreme one could say that exhaling CO2 is an anthropogenic climate impact. I think when we talk about natural vs unnatural it's because we're valuing some conservation of balanced ecosystems from the extremely rapid (one might say catastrophic, though that's more value-laden) changes brought to bear by industrialized civilization, but yes we are part of that ecosystem. So, we have to draw the line somewhere. You've drawn it between intentional and accidental impacts; I personally wouldn't put it there, since many of this species' greatest impacts to the ecosystem have been unintentional. Including if we're speaking narrowly about introduced aquatic species. As one example, consider that most lake-dwelling brook trout populations in the Algonquin/Haliburton highlands have been decimated through the introduction of spiny-rayed fishes native to Ontario but not native to the lakes in question. In some lakes the fish in question was smallmouth bass, put there intentionally to establish a recreational fishery, and in some lakes it was perch, probably introduced accidentally through a bait bucket escape. They have a similar effect and I see no reason to draw a principled distinction between them.

So I, instead, would draw the line between impacts we have as part of our basic functions as an organism (breathing, subsistence-level harvest and land use) and those that are functions of the immense scope and technological capacity of modern society. Not that the latter is evil, just that there is value in conserving as "natural" what elements of the ecosystem have not been overturned by it.

And yes, it's possible for species to spread far from their original range through rare events like riding a log. It's just that where such a thing is feasible, it would have probably happened by now, or at least, unlikely but possible events like that would "naturally" be spread out over time such that ecosystems can adapt.

Anyway, I don't disagree with you about sport fish introductions as a bad thing that we shouldn't be doing. And neither do I blame any one party for unintentional introductions like silver carp. But neither can I really begrudge those who introduced bass up north in the 19th century; as unfortunate as the decision was, I don't know if anyone had the knowledge at the time to understand why it was wrong.