Non- native fish

[gonefishin]

The AGFC will soon begin stocking Florida bass into Brushy Creek. Is it a good idea to introduce non-native fish into local waters? Arkansas already has bass it is not like the resource is depleated. Does anyone know what the longterm impact be on the native bass.

[Flysmallie]

From what I understand a Florida bass is just a genetic strain of the largemouth. I know it has done wonders for the bass fishing in Texas and Mexico. The main benefit is that they grow a lot faster. Not sure what impact it will have on the native fish though.

[Gavin]

I'm not sure if LMB are native to Brushy Creek but if LMB are already in Brushy Creek who cares if they stock unless the stocking effort will displace other beneficial or unique species. Florida Largemouth just dont belong in the same category of non-native species as the Zebra Mussel, Asian Carp, or Didymo. Cheers.

[mcp633]

How 'bout those asian carp? take your head right off if you're not careful.

[MoCarp]

Florida Largemouth just dont belong in the same category of non-native species as the Zebra Mussel, Asian Carp, or Didymo. Cheers.

Boy are you in the bushes--LMB are listed as one of if not THE most damaging invasive species world wide--I am not agreeing but just read between the lines

The invasive bass

Believe it or not, the largemouth bass — darling of the North American freshwater sport-fishing community — is considered a pest fish elsewhere

By Ken Schultz

ESPNOutdoors.com Fishing editor

Editor's note: ESPNOutdoors.com Fishing editor Ken Schultz also is a commentator for "BassCenter," which air Saturdays on ESPN2; look for his "Reel Speak" segment.

The March 2005 issue of National Geographic magazine contains an interesting article about invasive species and the effect that they've had on native flora and fauna throughout the world.

A sidebar to the article lists the 100 least-wanted invasive species worldwide, according to a global invasive species database maintained by the World Conservation Union.

These invasive species, or non-native/exotic species, are not listed in order of the degree of threat they impose.

But, lo and behold, among the seven species listed in the fish group is Micropterus salmoides. Yep, that is none other than the darling of the North American freshwater sport-fishing community and the single-most popular predatory fish species in the United States: the largemouth bass.

The largemouth bass, by the way, was endemic to parts of the North American continent, yet is now found in every state except Alaska (having been introduced to many of them).

It has also been exported to Central and South America, Europe (including Spain and Italy), a handful of countries in Africa, and to China and Japan in Asia.

Japan is undertaking an effort to eradicate bass, which have evidently caused harm to native fish. This often happens when species that have evolved to fill a specific biological niche are transplanted to other environments where the local species are unable, or poorly able, to cope with the invaders.

Think kudzu, milfoil, hydrilla, spartina grass, zebra mussels, lamprey eels and carp for close-to-home examples.

How often have you heard American anglers speak disparagingly of carp, which are not native to North America but which are pervasive throughout the continent?

Carp came to North America from Europe, by way of Asia, where they are native.

According to a report on exotic fish by the Sport Fishing Institute, carp "were apparently brought to the United States from Europe in 1831 and 1832 by a private citizen." The New York Department of Environmental Conservation reported that carp were first introduced into New York in 1831.

As the Sport Fishing Institute and many others have written, the introduction of the common carp (also on the 100 least-wanted-species list) to North American waters was a monumental mistake.

Ironically, at the same time that carp were being distributed across the United States, so were brown trout, which were imported from Germany and also make the least-wanted list.

While some exotic introductions are ecologically harmless, many are very harmful and have caused the extinction of native species.

Freed from the predators, pathogens and competitors that have kept their numbers in check in their native environs, species introduced into new habitats often overrun their new home and crowd out native species. In the presence of enough food and a favorable environment, their numbers explode.

Once established, exotics rarely can be eliminated.

So, alas, the largemouth is no longer wanted in Japan by those who wish to see the native species of that country prosper, even though there's a sizable interest in fishing for bass among Japanese freshwater anglers.

Perhaps Japanese environmentalists are thinking about what happened in Africa, which not only has largemouth bass, but also Nile perch (also on the least-wanted list), a species native to that continent but not to some of its biggest waters.

Lake Victoria, which is the second largest freshwater lake in the world, borders three African countries, many of whose people depend on that body of water for subsistence and fish it commercially to sell species to the aquarium trade and food markets.

The deliberate introduction of Nile perch into Lake Victoria is believed to have caused the apparent extinction of hundreds of small native tropical species in that enormous lake, and is now viewed as one of the most destructive exotic introductions of all time.

Perhaps at this point you're thinking about the fuss that has been stirred up in the past few years by the discovery in Maryland (and now other states) of the snakehead, a high adaptive and fiercely predatory invasive fish that can tolerate low levels of oxygen and is unlikely to be eradicated.

Some folks in America are very worried about snakeheads, which, incidentally, are native to India and China.

a few links

espn.go.com/outdoors/general/ columns/schultz_ken/2009713.html - 47k

espn.go.com/outdoors/general/ columns/sutton_keith/1987002.html - 48k

www.issg.org/database/species/ search.asp?st=100ss&fr=1&sts - 97k -

heres another bit makes you think--

if we "go full native" kiss every dam goodby--and fish for lots of snaildaters

http://ccpr.freedom.org/invasive/beers-2.html

Invasive Species...

What are they? (Part 2)

(February 23, 2003)

By Jim Beers

Invasive Species is the name currently applied to non-native plants and animals that cause problems of one sort or another. Non-native is the relevant phrase, and it refers to those plants and animals that are relatively new to an area, be that a state, nation, or continent. While most of us take for granted thousands of species of plants and animals that were here when our grandparents and great grandparents were alive, such as: Hungarian partridge, brown trout, English ivy, and day lilies, as acceptable members of our environment; environmental groups, many academics, bureaucrats, and socialists bent on clearing large swaths of the United States for something called the Wildlands Project, know that "non-native" really means not present when European explorers stepped ashore.

There have even been legal arguments made that an Eastern U.S. native fish (largemouth bass) introduced into Western U.S. reservoirs are "non-native" and should be eliminated. Have no doubt that non-native means all of these things, and that this will be a readily accepted definition in a court of law by government or environmental litigants when seeking jurisdiction, land control, or control of human activities.

While advocates for Federalizing Invasive Species matters never mention non-natives such as pheasants or day lilies, as eventual targets for elimination, there is a list of often-mentioned, non-native species that can, and do cause extensive and serious problems. Zebra mussels that came from Europe on ships now clog water intake pipes and displace native mussels. Hydrilla, a thick, mat-like plant infests many streams and reservoirs. Salt cedar, a small shrubby tree, displaces native shrubs along waterways in the West and uses significant amounts of scarce water. The Brown tree snakes, brought to Guam from New Guinea as stowaways on WWII planes, have decimated Guam's bird life, caused power outages and bitten hundreds of children and adults. They could stowaway to Hawaii or California, where they could wreak havoc also.

Cheatgrass is a plant that displaces native plants, creates a fire hazard, and infests winter wheat over large parts of the U.S. Leafy spurge is poisonous to cattle and horses, while yellow starthistle is poisonous to horses; both crowd out native plants and the animals that depend on them in densely infested areas. Kudzu, the infamous vine from a science fiction movie smothers southern trees and buildings. Sea lampreys invaded the Great Lakes, and began killing lake trout and introduced salmon long ago, when canals and sea-going ships opened the way. Nutria, a large muskrat-like marsh dweller, causes extensive marsh plant damage in Louisiana and Maryland. Fire ants are also a species that has come north and threatens human safety as well as pets and domestic animals.

When advocates of Federalizing the management and control of such species speak or write, many facts are ignored and avoided. For instance, zebra mussels have cleaned up (clarified) many waterways, such as Lake Erie, where deeper sunlight penetration has caused an explosion of submerged plants that shelter fish and accordingly created a very productive commercial and sport fishery. Hydrilla, which elicited newspaper forecasts of environmental Armageddon when first spotted 20 years ago, near Washington, DC, established large beds in the Potomac River creating extensive cover for endangered fish, a now-famous bass fishery, and large flocks of wintering scaup, mallards, and geese viewed from Washington office windows.

Another point not mentioned, is the extreme dependence on pesticides that is necessary for control of many of the plants and insects such as fire ants. Indeed, those who live with many of these pests testify to the fact that chemical tools for control have long been available but environmental prohibitions and use permission requirements are set impossibly high. Also, the current efforts of states like Louisiana to decimate nutria populations with a bounty, and create markets for the meat and fur are never mentioned.

Another missing portion is the status of genetically modified grains and fruits (many of which are also non-native) under the proposed programs. Problematic native species such as poison ivy, poisonous spiders and scorpions are also never mentioned when discussing harmful species. Similarly, thousands of non-native landscaping species like tulips, day lilies, and lilacs and non-native hunting and fishing species like chukars, pheasants, brown trout, and Great Lakes salmon go unmentioned.

Certain states like Florida and California are very strong backers of Federalizing Invasive Species efforts. The reason for their support is their semi-tropical to Mediterranean climate, which when combined with the large influx of international contacts means a high incidence of new species constantly cropping up. Their climate makes them ideal habitats for exotic fish dumped in ditches, fruit flies hitch-hiking on airplanes or steamers carrying fruit, pets or wild animals escaping from owners, and even birds miraculously blown across oceans from similar climates. Indeed, at one Invasive Species U.S. House of Representatives Hearing that I attended, a Florida state employee was the most outspoken advocate in the room for more Federal dollars, more Federal employees, and more Federal authority (and that is saying something.)

I will remind the reader that early in the proposal stage for the Endangered Species Act (1970-72) similar "facts" were publicized, and others were dismissed.

-Bald eagle preservation (while I used to see 30 at a time when I was in the Aleutians) was stressed, while isopods and flies as a means to stop public works projects was never mentioned.

-Saving sturgeon, a relatively innocuous and little-seen fish, was touted, while using the slight variations found in minnow-like darters from insular Tennessee watersheds to prevent construction of a needed major dam was never mentioned.

-Romantic stories about saving evening wolf howls in Minnesota gained lots of media attention, but no one mentioned the effects on stock, big game animal populations, pets, and humans that expanding wolf population would have. Intentions to force wolves back into the West where they had been purposely exterminated, were vehemently denied for years.

-The listing of subspecies much less races, populations, subpopulations, population segments, and distinct population segments was never imagined by anyone but the sponsors.

-Concerns that professors, researchers, and other specialty experts would skew their findings and eventually their scientific classifications and habitat declarations in order to get grants and other benefits resulting from publicity of their specialties went unmentioned. The fact that 30 years later advocates and politicians would offer "better science" as a solution, can only be termed comical.

-Worries that Federal bureaucrats would List species and never delist unless forced, seemed far-fetched. Promotions, budgets, bonuses, and wide-ranging power were to become directly proportional to the size of the program.

-Suspicions that environmental groups and politicians would lard the Federal agencies with employees with activist intentions for regulation writing and lawsuit cooperation were never mentioned.

-Taking property without compensation, closure of Federal land access, elimination of businesses and recreational activities in the name of Endangered Species were also scoffed at and denied.

-Claims of environmental "needs" and ecosystem "viability" were merely justification rhetoric, and not true.

-Worries about loss of sovereignty to U.N. bureaucracies dedicated to worldwide control of International Endangered Lists that expand biennially, were dismissed, but were eventually proven to be true.

The relevance of the history of Endangered Species program, to the development of the Invasive Species' effort must be understood. Hopefully the upcoming articles will allow you to develop the perspective to judge for yourself. The next article will treat the history of management and control programs and the Constitutional responsibilities applicable to these matters.

This series is not meant to disparage control activities or to discourage more cooperation between government and landowners, businessmen, and others. It is meant to avoid the inescapable quagmires that the Endangered Species Act has created. As subsequent articles treat The Biology, The Pushers, the Politics, The Real Goals, The Unintended Consequences, and Current Happenings they will, hopefully, prepare you to consider What Must Be Done, that will conclude the series.

[gonefishin]

WOW, MO! Thats a lot of info. Useful though. I really dont know if Flordia Bass are a bad thing or not. I just wonder what people think about it. The kind of info you posted certainly should be useful to people.

[Al Agnew]

There's a bunch of stuff I totally disagree with in the article in Mocarp's post. But that's neither here nor there. Arkansas has tried Florida strain largemouths before. I think one of the first places they tried it was Mallard Lake. For a while, that lake was producing some really big fish, but I don't think the Floridas thrived. I think I remember reading that research has shown that Florida strain largemouths don't do well unless the growing season is comparable to what they evolved with, which means that it makes little sense to stock them anywhere north of maybe southern Arkansas. They grow fast, but don't live as long as northern largemouths.

So I'd guess that probably the Floridas won't mess up the largemouth population or the ecosystem, but may not make things any better, either. I wonder why AGF sees the need to spend the money to stock them.

I think we gotta use good science and common sense when deciding upon stocking a non-native species. There have been a lot of mistakes made, such as stocking northern strain walleye in Ozark reservoirs...the average size of the walleye in those reservoirs went down, and former true trophy fisheries became just average walleye lakes.

[Bobby M.]

I think that Al is right, the florida strain just will not survive and reproduce very successfully where the water temperature gets very low. However, if a few are able to spawn, they would be able to introduce some new genes into the "native" northern strain largemouths, which could be very beneficial assuming the fish got a good combo of genes, any bad combos would probably not live to reproduce so there shouldn't be many negative affects from this. If you guys are interested in catching some of these florida strain bass, Swepco lake in Arkansas is stocked with them and they reproduce do to the heated water, and there are some giants to be caught.

[Brian K. Shaffer]

Where is this even coming from ? Is there proof that AGFC is really gonna do this ? The proof is in the pudding, and I see none thus far.

Brian

[Danoinark]

Here's the AGFC newsletter article. I got it yesterday....Dano

AGFC to begin stocking Florida bass into Brushy Creek

ARKADELPHIA - The Fisheries Division of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission is planning to roll out a new project to introduce Florida-strain largemouth bass into the Brushy Creek arm of DeGray Lake this summer.

The project calls for an intensive stocking of fingerling bass over an eight-year period into the 900-acre lake arm, according to AGFC chief of fisheries Mike Armstrong. "We'll do before and after evaluations to determine genetic introgression of the Florida genes into the resident bass population and resultant changes on bass growth rates and size structure," Armstrong explained. "The goal is to increase the individual size of bass being caught without incorporating more restrictive harvest regulations," he added.

Armstrong said the stocking will begin this June. "We will start collecting fish from DeGray in March to determine the genetic makeup, growth rates and other population metrics of the existing bass population before introducing the new Florida bass," he said.

Armstrong noted that the agency in the past has resisted stocking Florida-strain bass into large, clear, upland reservoirs like DeGray Lake due to the need to stock large numbers every year to effect a lake-wide change in the bass population. "Recent research emerging from Alabama and Texas has demonstrated that heavy localized stocking into an arm of a lake can deliver the desired genetic introgression within a fairly local area of the lake. This project will test that idea over a eight-year period in DeGray," he said.

DeGray was chosen because it is the southern most lake of the large U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoirs, it contains the aquatic vegetation habitat preferred by Florida-bass, and it is the smallest of the Corps' hydropower reservoirs. "We deliberately chose not to use Lake Ouachita since we are already trying to establish Tennessee-strain smallmouth bass into that lake, and it has been suffering from a relatively poor forage crop," Armstrong said.