Tim Smith

These kinds of articles are starting to crop up all over the place now. The idea is to focus harvest pressure on invasive species for the benefit of all. Got a problem invasive animal? Eat it. Asian carp, common carp, snakeheads, lionfish, feral hogs, feral goats... ...same idea as the spotted bass harvest that has been proposed for Missouri.

Ha. How about that. http://www.smh.com.au/world/quake-shifted-rotation-of-the-earth-20110312-1bsbb.html Hope that rain isn't glowing. The stories are starting to get more tangled. The Los Angeles Times reported 3 people near the plant were irradiated and now it looks like there is a growing divide between what the Japanese Government is saying and what outside experts are ready to accept. http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/US-Nuclear-Experts-Worry-About-Possible-Japan-Reactor-Meltdown-117863244.html There are news reports saying it's all over now and others saying they're still touch and go. Funny how so many things happen that engineers say can't possibly happen. Fly, nuclear plant design is outside my area. I have a pretty good handle on the atomic theory behind it and the general lay-out but I have no idea if building near the ocean is really an advantage. There are normally large cooling water sources of one type or another nearby.

Given the energy-related issues that are boiling around the glob now plus what happened at Chernobyl it's no wonder the press is on this story hard. Most of the Japanes nuke plants were shut down by the quake and 30% of their energy comes from those. They are looking at some long term problems stemming from this. The nuclear issue is probably more directly relevant to the forum than the tsunami given recent discussions and our geographic location. It looks like it will be a while before the dust settles and we actually know what happened. Lots of conflicting stories out there right now. I kept a Japanese exchange student a few years back and I'm trying to find him now. I'm sure he's fine, but it's hard to think about him over there in all that mess and how badly a modern country like Japan can be rocked by a simple natural event.

15 minutes ago...hopefully the reporter here is wrong and this isn't true. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/report-fukushima-japan-reactor-now-in-meltdown-after-explosion/

(Edited: wrong tone) Let's hope things turn out ok... ...and yes, let's hope we're learning some lessons here.

Evidence for a partial melt-down indicated by limited release of radioactive cesium. Reported 1/2 hour ago. http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/122024/20110312/japan.htm Reactor temperatures decreasing, but more water needed to continue cooling. Outcome still uncertain. Nuclear expert contends melt-down "unlikely" (oops). http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/12/earlyshow/saturday/main20042445.shtml

This happened last night afer the big quake in Japan. Apparently they're pouring seawater into the core today to keep it from melting down. Best case scenario, the plant is permanently ruined and they manage to contain the nuclear material. If it goes bad, we're far enough away that we won't get much of this, but we are downwind.

Yeah, it's a good idea to research this issue in depth because the number of genetically modified products will be increasing quite a bit from this time forward. Be sure to consider the source when you sort through the information. In my opinion the Europeans take this overboard and are afraid to even eat a genetically modified organism. The ag industry is a mixed bag, but some of the folks there can be pretty cavalier when they start seeing dollar signs.

About 1/4 through this one so far and it seems to be worthwhile. It talks about the last wild stocks of fish in the world (including a long section on salmon and arguments for and against genetically modified salmon), the effects of the advent of aquaculture, and 4 examples of how that process is unfolding around the world (with numerous dips into recreational fishing issues). Here's a line from the introduction: Here's a quote from the salmon chapter:

At least you have a good chance to find the hogs if they get away. You'll never get those fish back once they're out.

Quill, these GM salmon aren't like any other fish that has ever been stocked. The agendas on both sides of this debate have been in plain view for the decades this debate has been going on. SIU and OB's post addresses the environmental reasons for TU's position very well. GM salmon have genes from entirely different species built into their DNA. They're programmed to never stop growing and that fundamentally changes everything about them. The chance those engineered genes could introgress back into wild populations makes them risky to wild salmon on an entirely different level. People who don't study wild populations of animals (molecular engineers and agriculturists) don't typically account for those things. This is a typical engineer vs. biologists issue. Engineers are usually pretty proud of themselves when they figure out how to do something and pretty slow to admit that their "solutions" have some holes in them. Tripoloidy helps, but as has been pointed out, it's not perfect. Wild salmon are already in serious decline. We should be trying to save what we have rather than adding additional risks. Beyond that, what will happen when some nimrod decides it would be a good idea to put these genes into Asian Carp or Northern Pike (as has already been tried). Imagine what kind of damage those kinds of freaks could do in your favorite lake. The salmon are just the camels' nose. I actually think corporate aquaculture can be a good thing in some settings, but not when it threatens native stocks. Some fish ALWAYS escape from aquaculture. Triploidy ALWAYS eventually fails when you deal with millions and billions of animals. The logic that says this isn't possible is the same logic that gave us Asian carp. The poster that asked what risk these fish pose to humans raised an important question. We can almost certainly eat these salmon safely, but they could cost us wild salmon stocks. If we get in the habit of reflexively re-engineering animals that will escape into the wild, we'll be in a position to do ourselves incalculable harm over the long haul. That is their risk to us. I'm signing.

Got this note from Trout Unlimited today. This is about salmon but it won't be long till they're making other frankenfish. TU is asking for online petition signatures HERE. Dear Friend, The FDA is close to approving genetically modified salmon for human consumption. This decision could be disastrous for wild salmon in the U.S. and around the world. We simply can't let it happen. Please join Trout Unlimited today and tell the FDA to say NO to genetically modified fish. As you may have heard, a group called AquaBounty Technologies has created a genetically modified salmon that grows twice as fast as conventional farmed salmon. The company is seeking FDA approval to commercially market this "frankenfish." So far, research and public debate has focused on the impacts of human consumption of the fish. But as anglers and conservationists, you know there's far more at stake. If genetically engineered salmon are produced on a commercial scale, fisheries experts say they would inevitably escape into the wild. And if that occurs, it could cause catastrophic damage to the last remaining stocks of wild salmon. We do not question the FDA's ability to determine potential impacts to humans from eating genetically engineered fish, but they do not have the expertise to evaluate potential impacts on wild salmon. As fishermen and women, we have a unique perspective on this issue, and our voices must be heard. Please, join me today in asking the FDA to conduct a full environmental impact analysis and consult with salmon fisheries experts from Trout Unlimited, NOAA Fisheries, and the Fish and Wildlife Service before making this potentially disastrous decision. It's up to you and me to stand up and protect wild salmon and healthy fisheries. Sincerely, Chris Wood President & CEO, Trout Unlimited

From the AFS Message Board.... Antiquated animal import legislation root cause of Asian carp crisis Conservation and fishing groups are calling on the federal government to improve outdated laws and prevent the next invasion Buffalo, NY (February 28, 2011) - Asian carp were allowed into this country under a law governing animal imports that was passed in 1900, and which has remained unchanged, despite a drastically different global trade reality. As two species of Asian carp, the bighead and silver carp, knock at the door of the Great Lakes, conservation and fishing groups are calling on federal officials to finally update import screening laws before the next invader gets here. "Stopping Asian carp should have happened before the first shipment. This incredible threat, this incredible expense, was avoidable," said Jennifer Nalbone, director of Navigation and Invasive Species for Great Lakes United. "It's time for the antiquated Lacey Act to be modernized so that we never have to fight off another invasion like this again." During the 111 years since the Lacey Act was adopted, only about 40 animal groups have been prohibited under this legislation, and usually long after the animals have been imported, escaped into the wild, and are causing harm. By modernizing the Lacey Act, the U.S. Congress can empower the FWS to first assess the potential risks associated with a species proposed for import before deciding whether to allow or prohibit its trade into the United States. "Right now, the next species that might terrorize the Great Lakes could be on its way to the U.S.," said Max Muller, Policy Director for Environment Illinois. "We need Congress to plug the gaping loophole that allows invasive species to be imported into the country, and leaves states like Illinois holding the bag." Bighead and silver carp are just two of the non-native fish and wildlife species that have been imported into the U.S. and that are becoming established and spreading across the country, causing significant environmental and economic damage. Scientists have been working to detect, monitor and respond to these threatening species and others for decades. "In hindsight, if Asian carp had not been allowed into North America, we would have avoided a crisis that very well may permanently alter the ecology of the Mississippi River and could forever change the Great Lakes, two of the largest and most important ecosystems in this country," said Phil Moy, Fisheries and Invasive Species Specialist from Wisconsin Sea Grant and chair of the Technical and Policy Workgroup for the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee. The northern snakehead is another species imported into the country under the Lacey Act, and is out-competing other species for food and habitat. The species was imported for the Asian food market and pet trade and first discovered in the wild in a Maryland pond in 2002, where they were released by someone who no longer wanted them. Although the snakeheads were eradicated from the pond, they later began appearing in the Potomac River and are now well established in the Potomac River and several of its tributaries in Maryland and Virginia. One northern snakehead was caught in Chicago's Burnham Harbor in 2004. Northern snakeheads are aggressive predators that can push out native fish species. According to a risk assessment performed by Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans, they could establish in portions of the Great Lakes, including Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair. In addition to Asian carp and northern snakehead, aquarium clams and snails, like the Asiatic clam and the banded and oriental mystery snails, have established populations throughout the region. If screened for invasiveness before importation, all of these species could have been prevented from being imported into the country. "In this globalized world, animals are traded across continents every day, and the rules governing the live animal trade in this country need to be brought into the 21st Century," said Dr. Phyllis Windle, National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species (NECIS) spokesperson. "We need to stop the Asian carp, and we also need to learn a lesson from all this," said Captain Rick Unger, President of the Lake Erie Charterboat Association. "It's time to make the changes necessary to ensure the next big invader doesn't threaten the Great Lakes fishing and boating community." "Our screening law was outmoded four decades ago when Asian carp first entered the country," said Joel Brammeier, president of the Alliance for the Great Lakes. "We have to slam the barn door closed before another new invasion is unleashed." As a leading import market, the United States receives hundreds of millions of non-native animals each year. Often, they escape from captivity, are dumped by those who no longer want them, or are released into ecosystems by floods and storms. These non-native animals can spread widely, crowd out native wildlife, fundamentally alter natural systems, and spread infectious pathogens and harmful parasites. Contact: Jennifer Nalbone, Great Lakes United, (716) 983-3831, <mailto:jen@glu.org> jen@glu.org Max Muller, Environment Illinois, (312) 869-2629, <mailto:max@EnvironmentIllinois.org> max@EnvironmentIllinois.org Rick Unger, Lake Erie Charter Boat Association, (216) 401-6231, <mailto:rungerchpd@aol.com> rungerchpd@aol.com Joel Brammeier, Alliance for the Great Lakes, 312-939-0838 x224, <mailto:jbrammeier@greatlakes.org> jbrammeier@greatlakes.org Dr. Phyllis Windle, National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species, (301) 345-8516 <mailto:pnwindle@gmail.com> pnwindle@gmail.com Asian carp expert: Dr. Phil Moy, Wisconsin Sea Grant, (608) 263-5133, <mailto:pmoy@aqua.wisc.edu> pmoy@aqua.wisc.edu

Yeah. Al and the administrators had some great points that would make a big difference if they were followed. That would have been a good place to stop.

Drew, "new" posters aren't generally going to check in with you before they make suggestions or express opinions. I'll try to respond to whatever content is in your post, but there's not much anyone can do with that particular expectation of yours. It's your right to make this personal if that's how you roll, but the administrators just made the point that their goal is to keep the threads respectful, on topic and out of personal squabbles. That's what I intend to do. That misrepresents my views. The point isn't to edit out differing opinions, it's to allow opinions on the topics to be heard before they get drowned in personal squabbles that are off point. I doubt anyone wants to do that, but they might be willing to put up with the hassle of doing it if it made the discussions less predictably pissy. Your opinion seems to be that approach won't work here. You have the advantage of a longer history and more experience here. You may well be right. If that's the case then my opinion is that if tigher editorial control won't work, then something else is needed to make it possible to discuss complex or controversial issues without descending into middle school bickering. So it seems. Count the "x"s. He did. Read the thread. He was so frustrated he banned politics as a topic on a board about government policy. He's probably frusrated reading this exchange too. ...by spiraling topics into personal squabbles so they can't be discussed? That helps who? You're welcome to any last word you want.

I'll find my own dictionary, thank you, Drew. I didn't offer to edit anything and posts already get trimmed here sometimes, simmer down. That's common practice all across the internet. If there's no one here the forum or administrators trust to do that equitably then I guess that won't fly and it's a bad idea and I retract it. I know Al was just itching to get at all your spotted bass posts (although, seriously, I'm sure he'd rather put his head through a wall than take on another adminstrator's job, but he did a great job at Riversmallies and one solution to frustrated administrators is to add more hands).

I strongly agree with all of this except the limits for taking on people like Cathorn. I agree his party affiliation isn't important or worth mentioning, but his policy leanings should be open for any (reasonable, legal) comment. I still do think too that the admins should feel more free to carve up individual posts on this forum when they stray out of line and wander into perjoratives and invective. .....seems there's one well-established universally-admired poster on here who until recently had that role on another popular fishing forum (pointing to the guy with the paint brush, here). Maybe he would be willing to help out? Al?

Dano and Lilley, thank you, that's what I thought. Is there a possibility the less civil posts can get cut out of the threads more often without getting the threads shut down. TF. I do think it's best we leave off, you and I. You're going pretty far out on a limb here and arguing some points we never discussed and making broad and incorrect assertions and assumptions about my perspective. You're also making policy without input from Lilley or really reading what I've posted. So far the admins haven't backed up your "rules" and I think I'll leave your tangent where it lies.

TF your definition of "political" uses the word "politics" to define itself. You're not putting much effort into this. This is all pretty much a muddle. MDC deals directly with "big picture" issues every day, all issues worth discussing are debateable (otherwise just go do what you know to do and why bother to talk about them at all??) and science is very much a part of the real world. It generates information and separates the grey areas into more precisely defined areas of black and white. All that's left after that are the values that decide what's black and what's white. And what's important here is that this is Lilley's forum. These limits are his to set and his opinions about these limits are what matter. What are the limits?

Here's the problem FT. As a scientist, I'd like to believe you that you can just confine a discussion to facts and information about a topic. But I've been involved in a lot of those conversations in a lot of contexts where cut and dried science gets smeared as "political". Eventually the weight of the truth will bury those arguments, but it takes a lot of time and effort and an obscene over-abundance of proof to work past some people's denial. Pretty funny you bring up "that" topic because it's an excellent case in point. "That" topic is solidly in the mainstream among scientists, and most of the scientists that I know, fish. And the scientists that fish are explicity concerned about and acting on that particular issue. That's the basic problem with conservation. It asks people to look objectively at their potential negative effects on a resource of and to limit their effects on that resource. That goes against human nature in some ways. The "mainstream" will always be to defend our personal interests. Most entities will immediately scream "politics" as soon as it appears they may actually have to change their behaviors. If your Rock River discussion didn't go political, it's only because the people dumping in the river didn't have any defenders on the forum or the effects were bad enough that it was impossible to defend, or subtle enough that they were willing to wear the blame. You name the group and I can point you to examples of their effects on fisheries and then all the reams of reasons they give about how they never did any fish any harm and how some other "political" group is the REAL bad guy. It's the nature of the beast. I kind of like Eric's suggestion of a sub-forum where "politics" (however that is defined) have more latitude, but it seems to me the Conservation forum would be that place.

Don, that misses the point entirely and isn't really helpful. I am asking what the appropriate lines are between conservation and politics. So far as I can tell Mr. Lilley has not carefully defined those and neither have you. Sorry if I'm misreading you, but your tone here also makes it seem like you're offended the question is even being posed... ...and frankly, those kinds of emotional reactions are the fundamental problem with political topics, not the politics themselves.

...and I think when we get too narrow minded is when the problem starts. A lot of people will want to sit on the sidelines and that's fine. But some of us aren't going to do that. Do we really have to stick our heads in a bucket to post here?

I appreciate your approach, TF, and I don't usually take criticism personally so don't worry about contradicting me. Nobody's shooting and I'm not dead yet, so it's all good. I see the boundaries you're drawing too, but every single one of them is leaky. When a state senator attacks conservation funding, it will put fewer fish in the water and reduce the sustainability resource. That should be an appropriate topic based on the heading of this forum. We can pretend that stacking rip rap on a bank or anything politically "safe" constitutes the limits of conservation. But it's not. Eric. I don't disagree that politics and conservation are linked. That's more or less my point. The question I'm asking is how do we deal with those politics without driving the administrators crazy. ...and optimism is the merely the realization we don't really have any options but to try.

What follows here is offered with full respect and just because it is direct, I hope it won't be seen as confrontational. I have (helped) administrate a forum or 2 and I recongnize the frustrations involved in that process. It is my impression there are level-headed people in charge here so I'm going to try to broach this here. I see in a recent warning post from the administrator what might be seen as a threat to shut down either the conservation forum or perhaps ban certain individuals. However far that extends it's pretty clear that "group hug" a month or so ago hasn't made these topics any less rocky and the administrators are getting tired of dealing with the conflict here. However, as the title here points out, cutting controversial topics (especially politics) out of the conservation forum probably isn't possible. Government is political in its nature. The recent thread that got shut down just (justifiably) beat up a state senator who seems to have a vendetta against the MDC and is trying to shut it down. Any conservation group worth its salt would have taken that even further and would be shoveling money and support at any yellow dog (from any party) that runs against him in the next election. That's political. The hatchery issue involves government funding. That's political. The climate change debate may have run its course and I'm happy to leave it alone (for now), but there will be more current events on that topic in the future and you can bet they will be relevant to southern Mid-American inland fisheries...and some parts of that will probably be political. How do you have a conservation forum without some level of politics and some level of conflict. I fully recongnize that conservation forums (on angling sites) tend to be a special headache. Some people are more or less rabid about the topic (for instance, me). I can catch fish just about anywhere on any tackle and I'm just not interested in the virtues of a wiggle wart vs a rebel craw. Others feel the opposite and just want to be left alone to fish. I think those people should get involved with conservation too, but that's up to them and I think most people recognize that there's some kind of balance to be achieved between the two. I think that's an important balance to achieve. As a person who is heavily involved in conservation off the forum, who has seen internet forums DIRECTLY affect public opinion and the the quality of fisheries and the environment I would hate to see an active, functional forum undone. The notion that no one changes their minds or nothing ever changes because of what they read here simply isn't true. This is what democracy looks like (in all its misshappen glory). How do we do this better? What do we do to make this forum less of a burden? How do we talk about government without talking about politics? Surely we can do this without limiting ourselves to irrelevant issues?

Yes it has gotten blown out of proportion. The actual changes in the short term are likely to be very modest. In the long term, however, the nature of the federal government and the fate of those hatcheries is very much in question. None of us knows how that will turn out but an internet forum is an appropriate place to speculate.