Native species

[Terry Beeson]

OK... Not to open up a big can of worms, but just to stimulate some thinking and discussion...

Al Agnew had some very interesting facts on another thread about the Smallmouth in the streams of Missouri and Arkansas. While it answered some of my questions, it also lead to some fodder for debate in my opinion... So here goes...

As far as any given stream is concerned, what would you consider a "native" fish to be? "Wild" fish, of course, would be those species introduced by man, but then self propogated within that watershed. I would imagine the first generation hatched in the stream (not counting hatched in Whitlock boxes) would be considered wild?

But as for native, the waterways were formed at some point in time (no creationism vs. evolution debate, please) and from what we understand, there were no fish in these new streams. Southeast Arkansas was once totally underwater, and the Ozarks were somewhat underwater at some point. Anyway, at what point does the introduction (by nature) of a particular species of fish make it no longer "native" but a part of the natural progression of things and brought about by migration from other waterways?

And does this introduction by migration not make them "native" anyway? I am of the opinion that every species of fish (excluding trout of course) was made a part of the White system by this method either as the watershed was formed, or some time thereafter.

Just my opinion and I wait in anticipation of your responses... for real, guys... I'm not kiddin'... this time...

[WebFreeman]

Is there a particular species you're thinking of, Terry? Aside from invasive species (like the asian carp and to a seemingly less harmful way the common carp), I can't think of anything that isn't native. There was some walleye debate earlier this spring, but I think it's been fairly well established that a sub species of walleye was native and MDC/AGFC maybe stocked a different strain. I think there is also some discussion about Kentuckies over taking smallies in some streams. Unless they are stocked, it seems this is a natural evolution that maybe we could change through management.

[Crippled Caddis]

The 'Head opener of Worm Cans' wrote:

<And does this introduction by migration not make them "native" anyway? I am of the opinion that every species of fish (excluding trout of course) was made a part of the White system by this method either as the watershed was formed, or some time thereafter.>

IIRC, (and as you well know that's always questionable!() I've read reports that indicate that in past ages trout were indeed native to the region in ice-aqe eras. So where's the cutoff point for 'native'?

IMO it's all relative. If my memory in the case above is correct then trout were indeed 'native' at one point during and following climactic extremes. Our streams are indeed almost classic trout habitat, lacking only the temperature specifics neccessary to the char species for survival.

Everything I've read and experienced indicates that Smallmouth, a specie that can prosper in waters only a few degrees above those required by trout, are native to the region within historical parameters. My question concerns the other members of the Black Bass family-----were they native or introduced?

[gonefishin]

To me whether or not a fish is invasive is the answer to your question. It seems to me that almost every time a foreign species is introduced it causes problems. Grass Carp, Bighead Carp, Common Carp and so on.

Trout I don't see as a becoming a big problem because they are not capable of becoming invasive. The places in MO that trout can exist without man intervention is very limited and without mans intervention Trout would in all probability die out in Missouri.

I really don't think we have any fear of trout destroying other fish habitat in the MO and Mississippi rivers because of overpopulation.

[Guest]

.

[gonefishin]

won't become invasive in MO but are capable out west. look at the efforts to remove brooks and rainbows in cutthroat territory.

siusaluki: You may be right but I generally think of Trout as being native to the western states other than Brown Trout which are native to Europe.

I may have been mistaken but I thought Terry was referring to the Ozark region.

gf

[jdmidwest]

There is one big invasive species, Man! We drop new species where they don't belong and they become a nuisance. We dam up streams and change the habitat. We farm to the edge of a stream and cause them to silt up. We raise animals and let the manure pollute and kill the streams. We clear cut timber and let the gravel and soil runoff and choke the streams.

[gonefishin]

There is one big invasive species, Man! We drop new species where they don't belong and they become a nuisance. We dam up streams and change the habitat. We farm to the edge of a stream and cause them to silt up. We raise animals and let the manure pollute and kill the streams. We clear cut timber and let the gravel and soil runoff and choke the streams.

Makers Mark is good

[SilverMallard]

If you really want to split hairs, then this discussion is very interesting, indeed. But CC makes a good point: native vs. wild is hair-splitting in many cases, and the monicker often becomes a matter of what point in history you make the native cut-off.

Another GREAT point has been touched on. MAN is a native, but migratory species...and very invasive and persistent. We have expanded our native range to cover the globe and now into space. I submit for your rumination:

If man is a native species (which he definitely is)...

If wildlife species spread other wildlife species "naturally" (and they do)...

If changes in climate and such cause wildlife species to alter their own natural range (and they do)...

Then are not, in fact, species introduced to a new locale by man ALSO very natural?

To ME, the whole notion that "human intervention" somehow negates the whole "naturalness" of things is intellectually naive, if not dishonest. It certainly seems arrogant...considering ourselves "unnatural" and somehow separate from the ecosystem and the food chain. Some fish carve out redds for spawning for propagation. Birds alter trees for nesting. Beavers cut timber and build dams. The mid-continent population of light geese is destroying its own habitat and that of many other waterfowl species (environmental damage..."pollution?"). Coyotes will wipe out small game populations and be forced to find a new home or starve. Dolphins fish and have sex for recreation. Pigeons and seagulls have become so adapted to human impacts on their environs that they now SEEK OUT population centers instead of remote places. Some monkeys make and use tools. Raccoons wash their food before eating it.

Certainly man's manipulation of and adaptation to the environment is vastly greater than that of other species. This is why we are so invasive and persistent (successful at the prime mandate: betterment and perpetuation of the species). But...in MY world-view...we are "native," we are natural, and we are nothing more than one more species in the ecosystem. Thus, what we bring with us is the result of a natural process.

For me, where fisheries are concerned, I only differentiate between the planting of hatchery-raised fish for sporting purposes and the wild reproduction of fish without regular hatchery stockings...much the same way I differentiate between shooting free-range pheasants or quail on a farm vs. shooting pen-raised birds that were released for sporting purposes only. Beyond that, it really doesn't matter to me and I think most of the hair-splitting arguments are silly.

[Terry Beeson]

GF,

To clarify... I am talking about what makes ANY species ANYwhere so-called "native"... Review Al's post in the "Brown Trout in the Eleven Point" thread. Good information and Al has a great deal of knowledge on the subject. But the "argument" - if you want to call it that - is whether the Smallmouth in the streams of MO and AR are really "native" since they migrated from other waters. So my question became, what constitutes "native."

But with your comments in mind, does this deem the Smallies here to be "invasive?"