Focker it is because of people with your opinion with the methods of bucket biologists, we have basses in a couple of lake in western North America. If I want to catch a bass, I would travel to the East Coast. If I want to catch some of the Arctic Greyings, I would go to the North and so on. It is not that hard; it is not expensive to travel anymore unless you are from a third-world country.
Why you should NEVER release any fish
- Thread starter teleost
- Start date
- Status
I think his statement is ridiculous as well, but you people here act like the thought police. Skipjack, if you're not careful you will be labeled the next Polypterus; one who has zero people skills and simply upsets people. Calm down. What about his point of most people in the US not being native? How do you rationalize that? We were brought here by humans and introduced to the detriment of the native flora and fauna.
I don't think it should be qualified biologists that decide "what goes into our waterways." I think it should be nature. Biologists are not the infallible creatures you seem to think they are. What's wrong with letting native species stay native? Why do we need anybody deciding what "goes into our waterways?"ewurm;866258; said:
You people?
People skills are entirely overrated.
Wake up...have a cup of coffee and get motivated
Once again you fail to see that man has legs. Man had at a time developed into nomadic way of life. In a way, man was made to travel. This is not to lessen the fact that man has sculpted the Amercian landscape for better or for worse. Some fishes travel extensively also (I recall tagged carp being found over 300 river miles from tagging location) but you can't seem to accept the fact that FISH MUST REMAIN IN THE WATER AND THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN A LAND MAMMAL. Look at coyotes. People didn't grab a bunch of Coyotes and drive them East...they've been moving East for a some time and now there here to stay. As far as your smarmy "rationalize" comment...You dare ask someone that can actually recognize the difference between water and land barriers how they rationalize when you want to grab fish from the wild that you don't even intend to care for just to dump them back....Please tell us how you rationalize this before getting smarmy with "you people".
Since you don't mind posting here telling people how they should act to suit your needs (makes you feel comfortable), I'll tell you how you should act. First study. Think about a subject and look at it from all possible angles. Form an opinion on it. Listen to what others have to say about it and if you had originally studied well, your opinion shall remain intact. As new information becomes available your opinion will change....This is not bad. I'd also recommend that actually caring how others view you is really for shallow people and you should care much less how you, I, poly or skipjack are viewed.
Very few positions life actually require a flawless appearance and most don't need the types of people skills you seem to have. If you have convictions and stick to them, you'll on occasion appear as arrogant and in some cases come downright rude when confronted with complete lack of thought. These things happen in life.....If feathers are ruffled so easily then one should take twice the amount of time BEFORE they post thinking about what they intend to say. Maybe even try Google before they post. In other words...."you people" don't think about what your posting until you type. "You people" often suffer from diarrhea of the fingers.
While all you want to play games, be ecologicly ignorant and generally just really uninformed....Here is what we in the field are doing to prevent any more issues like this:
TITLE II--PREVENTION OF INTRODUCTION OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES BY OTHER PATHWAYS
SEC. 201. PRIORITY PATHWAY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
Subtitle C of title I of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4721 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`SEC. 1210. PRIORITY PATHWAY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
`(a) Identification of High Priority Pathways- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007, and every 3 years thereafter, the Task Force, in coordination with the National Invasive Species Council and in consultation with representatives of States, industry, and other interested parties, shall, based on pathway surveys conducted under this title and other available research relating to the rates of introductions in waters of the United States--
`(1) identify those pathways that pose the highest risk for introductions of invasive species, both nationally and on a region-by-region basis;
`(2) develop recommendations for management strategies for those high-risk pathways;
`(3) include in the report to Congress required under section 1201(f)(2)(B) a description of the identifications, strategies, and recommendations based on research collected under this title; and
`(4) identify invasive species not yet introduced into waters of the United States that are likely to be introduced into waters of the United States unless preventative measures are taken.
`(b) Management of High Priority Pathways- Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007, the Task Force or agencies of jurisdiction shall, to the maximum extent practicable, implement the strategies described in subsection (a)(2), considering appropriate periodic updates to the strategies.'.
SEC. 202. SCREENING PROCESS FOR PLANNED IMPORTATIONS OF LIVE AQUATIC ORGANISMS.
Subtitle B of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4711 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`SEC. 1105. SCREENING PROCESS FOR PLANNED IMPORTATIONS OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS.
`(a) Purpose- The purpose of the screening process under this section is to prevent the introduction or establishment of aquatic invasive species, including pathogens and parasites of the species, in waters of the United States and contiguous waters of Canada and Mexico.
`(b) Catalog of Species in Trade- Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007, the Director of the United States Geological Survey, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Director of the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, and other Federal agencies with jurisdiction over planned importations of live organisms, shall--
`(1) develop and, as necessary, update a catalog of species in trade; and
`(2) include the catalog in the information provided to the public pursuant to section 1102(f) .
`(c) Planned Importations- Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007, no aquatic organism of a species that is not in trade shall be imported into the United States without screening and approval in accordance with this section.
`(d) Guidelines-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 30 months after the date of enactment of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007, the National Invasive Species Council, in conjunction with the Task Force and in consultation with affected regional panels, States, Indian tribes, and other stakeholders, shall promulgate guidelines for screening proposed planned importations of aquatic organisms into the United States.
`(2) CONTENT- At a minimum, the guidelines under paragraph (1) shall include guidelines relating to--
`(A) the minimum information requirements for screening determinations under subsection (e);
`(B) a simplified notification procedure for any additional shipment of organisms that may occur after completion of an initial screening process and determination under subsection (e);
`(C) application forms; and
`(D) shipping labels.
`(3) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION- In developing guidelines under this section, the National Invasive Species Council and the Task Force shall take into consideration--
`(A) the likelihood of the spread of the applicable species by human or natural means;
`(B) species that may occur in association with the species planned for importation, including pathogens, parasites, and free-living organisms;
`(C) regional differences in the probability of invasion and associated impacts;
`(D) the difficulty of controlling an established population of an aquatic invasive species in the wild;
`(E) the profile established under section 1108(b);
`(F) any applicable best available science;
`(G) the potential benefits associated with the species; and
`(H) the requirements of international law.
`(e) Screening-
`(1) EVALUATION-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of publication of the guidelines under subsection (d), each Federal agency with authority over an importation into the United States of an aquatic organism of a species that is not in trade, as determined in accordance with the catalog under subsection (b), and that is proposed for importation into the United States, shall--
`(i) promulgate regulations in accordance with the guidelines under subsection (d); and
`(ii) carry out screening in accordance with this subsection.
`(B) REQUIREMENTS- The head a Federal agency described in subparagraph (A) or the Director, as applicable, shall--
`(i) prohibit the importation into the United States of any species described in clause (i) or (iii) of paragraph (2)(B), unless the importation is for the sole purpose of research conducted in accordance with section 1202(f)(2);
`(ii) restrict, as necessary, the importation of any species described in subsection (2)(B)(ii), unless the importation is for the sole purpose of research conducted in accordance with section 1202(f)(2);
`(iii) make a determination under this subsection not later than 180 days after receiving a complete request for permission to import a aquatic organism; and
`(iv) make the results of the screening process available to the public.
`(2) CATEGORIES- The screening process under this subsection shall require--
`(A) to the maximum extent practicable, the identification, preferably to the species level but, at a minimum, to the genus level, of aquatic organisms proposed for importation; and
`(B) the designation of--
`(i) species with a high or moderate probability of undesirable impacts to areas within the United States and contiguous areas of neighboring countries to which the species is likely to be spread;
`(ii) species with a low or no probability of undesirable impacts to areas within the United States and contiguous areas of neighboring counties to which the species is likely to be spread; and
`(iii) species with respect to which there is insufficient information to determine the risk of such undesirable impacts.
`(3) DELEGATION AND AUTHORITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- If no Federal agency has the authority described in paragraph (1)(A), or if the head of such a Federal agency delegates the screening authority to the Director under subparagraph (B), the Director shall screen the organism.
`(B) DELEGATION TO DIRECTOR- The head of a Federal agency with the authority described in paragraph (1)(A) may delegate to the Director the authority to carry out the screening process under this subsection.
`(C) UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE-
`(i) IN GENERAL- The Director may restrict or prohibit the importation of an aquatic organism of a species not in trade in accordance with the regulations promulgated under paragraph (1)(A)(i) if--
`(I) no other Federal agency has authority to regulate the importation of the species; or
`(II) the head of a Federal agency delegates authority to the Director under subparagraph (B).
`(ii) SCREENING REQUIREMENTS- The Director shall promulgate screening requirements in accordance with the guidelines under subsection (d) to evaluate any planned importation of an aquatic organism, including an importation carried out by a Federal agency, that is not otherwise subject to Federal authority to permit the importation.
`(D) MULTIPLE JURISDICTION-
`(i) IN GENERAL- If more than 1 Federal agency has jurisdiction over the importation of an aquatic organism, the agencies shall conduct only 1 screening process in accordance with a memorandum of understanding described in paragraph (4).
`(ii) CULTURED AQUATIC ORGANISMS- The Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct screening of any aquatic organism imported to be cultured.
`(E) AGENCY-INITIATED SCREENING- At the discretion of the Federal agency with jurisdiction over the importation of a species not in trade, the Federal agency may initiate a screening process for a species for which no other person has filed an application for importation.
`(4) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The Director shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with each Federal agency with the authority to conduct screening under this subsection.
`(B) CONTENTS- A memorandum of understanding under subparagraph (A) shall contain, at a minimum--
`(i) a description of the relationship between, and responsibilities of, each Federal agency, including a process designating a lead agency in cases in which multiple agencies have jurisdiction over the screening of an aquatic species;
`(ii) the process by which the Director will delegate screening duties to, and receive delegation from, other agencies of jurisdiction; and
`(iii) the process by which the agency and the National Invasive Species Council will coordinate and share information required for the screening of a species.
`(f) Review and Revision-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Not less frequently than once every 3 years, the National Invasive Species Council, in conjunction with the Task Force, shall review and revise, based on research on early detection and monitoring under section 1106 and other information, the guidelines, screening, and other activities carried out under this section.
`(2) REPORT- Together with the report required under section 1201(f)(2)(B), the National Invasive Species Council shall submit to Congress--
`(A) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the screening process carried out under subsection (e);
`(B) the consistency of the application of the screening process by Federal agencies; and
`(C) recommendations for revisions of the screening process.
`(g) Prohibitions-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as otherwise provided in this section, it shall be unlawful to import an aquatic organism of a species not in trade.
`(2) PENALTIES-
`(A) CIVIL PENALTY- Any person that violates subsection (c) shall be liable for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $50,000.
`(B) CRIMINAL PENALTIES- Any person that knowingly violates subsection (c) is guilty of a class C felony.
`(h) Fees- The head of any agency that has jurisdiction over a planned importation of an aquatic species subject to screening under this section may increase the amount of any appropriate fee that is charged under an applicable law (including regulations) to offset the cost of screening carried out under this section.
`(i) Effect on Other Laws-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Nothing in this section repeals, supersedes, or modifies any provision of Federal or State law relating to the screening process for aquatic species importation.
`(2) MORE PROTECTIVE LAWS- A State, the District of Columbia, or a territory of the Untied States may adopt an aquatic plant or animal importation law, regulation, or policy that requires a more protective screening process for aquatic species importation than the regulations and policies of this section.'.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-725
Go on now keep argueing about how Invasive species and hobby / "bucket biologist" releases are just fine.....You continue to not understand your hobby is about to get OWNED because you are all to busy thinking nobody is paying attention to really bad pratices and attitudes.
TITLE II--PREVENTION OF INTRODUCTION OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES BY OTHER PATHWAYS
SEC. 201. PRIORITY PATHWAY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
Subtitle C of title I of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4721 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`SEC. 1210. PRIORITY PATHWAY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
`(a) Identification of High Priority Pathways- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007, and every 3 years thereafter, the Task Force, in coordination with the National Invasive Species Council and in consultation with representatives of States, industry, and other interested parties, shall, based on pathway surveys conducted under this title and other available research relating to the rates of introductions in waters of the United States--
`(1) identify those pathways that pose the highest risk for introductions of invasive species, both nationally and on a region-by-region basis;
`(2) develop recommendations for management strategies for those high-risk pathways;
`(3) include in the report to Congress required under section 1201(f)(2)(B) a description of the identifications, strategies, and recommendations based on research collected under this title; and
`(4) identify invasive species not yet introduced into waters of the United States that are likely to be introduced into waters of the United States unless preventative measures are taken.
`(b) Management of High Priority Pathways- Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007, the Task Force or agencies of jurisdiction shall, to the maximum extent practicable, implement the strategies described in subsection (a)(2), considering appropriate periodic updates to the strategies.'.
SEC. 202. SCREENING PROCESS FOR PLANNED IMPORTATIONS OF LIVE AQUATIC ORGANISMS.
Subtitle B of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4711 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`SEC. 1105. SCREENING PROCESS FOR PLANNED IMPORTATIONS OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS.
`(a) Purpose- The purpose of the screening process under this section is to prevent the introduction or establishment of aquatic invasive species, including pathogens and parasites of the species, in waters of the United States and contiguous waters of Canada and Mexico.
`(b) Catalog of Species in Trade- Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007, the Director of the United States Geological Survey, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Director of the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, and other Federal agencies with jurisdiction over planned importations of live organisms, shall--
`(1) develop and, as necessary, update a catalog of species in trade; and
`(2) include the catalog in the information provided to the public pursuant to section 1102(f) .
`(c) Planned Importations- Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007, no aquatic organism of a species that is not in trade shall be imported into the United States without screening and approval in accordance with this section.
`(d) Guidelines-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 30 months after the date of enactment of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007, the National Invasive Species Council, in conjunction with the Task Force and in consultation with affected regional panels, States, Indian tribes, and other stakeholders, shall promulgate guidelines for screening proposed planned importations of aquatic organisms into the United States.
`(2) CONTENT- At a minimum, the guidelines under paragraph (1) shall include guidelines relating to--
`(A) the minimum information requirements for screening determinations under subsection (e);
`(B) a simplified notification procedure for any additional shipment of organisms that may occur after completion of an initial screening process and determination under subsection (e);
`(C) application forms; and
`(D) shipping labels.
`(3) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION- In developing guidelines under this section, the National Invasive Species Council and the Task Force shall take into consideration--
`(A) the likelihood of the spread of the applicable species by human or natural means;
`(B) species that may occur in association with the species planned for importation, including pathogens, parasites, and free-living organisms;
`(C) regional differences in the probability of invasion and associated impacts;
`(D) the difficulty of controlling an established population of an aquatic invasive species in the wild;
`(E) the profile established under section 1108(b);
`(F) any applicable best available science;
`(G) the potential benefits associated with the species; and
`(H) the requirements of international law.
`(e) Screening-
`(1) EVALUATION-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of publication of the guidelines under subsection (d), each Federal agency with authority over an importation into the United States of an aquatic organism of a species that is not in trade, as determined in accordance with the catalog under subsection (b), and that is proposed for importation into the United States, shall--
`(i) promulgate regulations in accordance with the guidelines under subsection (d); and
`(ii) carry out screening in accordance with this subsection.
`(B) REQUIREMENTS- The head a Federal agency described in subparagraph (A) or the Director, as applicable, shall--
`(i) prohibit the importation into the United States of any species described in clause (i) or (iii) of paragraph (2)(B), unless the importation is for the sole purpose of research conducted in accordance with section 1202(f)(2);
`(ii) restrict, as necessary, the importation of any species described in subsection (2)(B)(ii), unless the importation is for the sole purpose of research conducted in accordance with section 1202(f)(2);
`(iii) make a determination under this subsection not later than 180 days after receiving a complete request for permission to import a aquatic organism; and
`(iv) make the results of the screening process available to the public.
`(2) CATEGORIES- The screening process under this subsection shall require--
`(A) to the maximum extent practicable, the identification, preferably to the species level but, at a minimum, to the genus level, of aquatic organisms proposed for importation; and
`(B) the designation of--
`(i) species with a high or moderate probability of undesirable impacts to areas within the United States and contiguous areas of neighboring countries to which the species is likely to be spread;
`(ii) species with a low or no probability of undesirable impacts to areas within the United States and contiguous areas of neighboring counties to which the species is likely to be spread; and
`(iii) species with respect to which there is insufficient information to determine the risk of such undesirable impacts.
`(3) DELEGATION AND AUTHORITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- If no Federal agency has the authority described in paragraph (1)(A), or if the head of such a Federal agency delegates the screening authority to the Director under subparagraph (B), the Director shall screen the organism.
`(B) DELEGATION TO DIRECTOR- The head of a Federal agency with the authority described in paragraph (1)(A) may delegate to the Director the authority to carry out the screening process under this subsection.
`(C) UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE-
`(i) IN GENERAL- The Director may restrict or prohibit the importation of an aquatic organism of a species not in trade in accordance with the regulations promulgated under paragraph (1)(A)(i) if--
`(I) no other Federal agency has authority to regulate the importation of the species; or
`(II) the head of a Federal agency delegates authority to the Director under subparagraph (B).
`(ii) SCREENING REQUIREMENTS- The Director shall promulgate screening requirements in accordance with the guidelines under subsection (d) to evaluate any planned importation of an aquatic organism, including an importation carried out by a Federal agency, that is not otherwise subject to Federal authority to permit the importation.
`(D) MULTIPLE JURISDICTION-
`(i) IN GENERAL- If more than 1 Federal agency has jurisdiction over the importation of an aquatic organism, the agencies shall conduct only 1 screening process in accordance with a memorandum of understanding described in paragraph (4).
`(ii) CULTURED AQUATIC ORGANISMS- The Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct screening of any aquatic organism imported to be cultured.
`(E) AGENCY-INITIATED SCREENING- At the discretion of the Federal agency with jurisdiction over the importation of a species not in trade, the Federal agency may initiate a screening process for a species for which no other person has filed an application for importation.
`(4) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The Director shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with each Federal agency with the authority to conduct screening under this subsection.
`(B) CONTENTS- A memorandum of understanding under subparagraph (A) shall contain, at a minimum--
`(i) a description of the relationship between, and responsibilities of, each Federal agency, including a process designating a lead agency in cases in which multiple agencies have jurisdiction over the screening of an aquatic species;
`(ii) the process by which the Director will delegate screening duties to, and receive delegation from, other agencies of jurisdiction; and
`(iii) the process by which the agency and the National Invasive Species Council will coordinate and share information required for the screening of a species.
`(f) Review and Revision-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Not less frequently than once every 3 years, the National Invasive Species Council, in conjunction with the Task Force, shall review and revise, based on research on early detection and monitoring under section 1106 and other information, the guidelines, screening, and other activities carried out under this section.
`(2) REPORT- Together with the report required under section 1201(f)(2)(B), the National Invasive Species Council shall submit to Congress--
`(A) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the screening process carried out under subsection (e);
`(B) the consistency of the application of the screening process by Federal agencies; and
`(C) recommendations for revisions of the screening process.
`(g) Prohibitions-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as otherwise provided in this section, it shall be unlawful to import an aquatic organism of a species not in trade.
`(2) PENALTIES-
`(A) CIVIL PENALTY- Any person that violates subsection (c) shall be liable for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $50,000.
`(B) CRIMINAL PENALTIES- Any person that knowingly violates subsection (c) is guilty of a class C felony.
`(h) Fees- The head of any agency that has jurisdiction over a planned importation of an aquatic species subject to screening under this section may increase the amount of any appropriate fee that is charged under an applicable law (including regulations) to offset the cost of screening carried out under this section.
`(i) Effect on Other Laws-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Nothing in this section repeals, supersedes, or modifies any provision of Federal or State law relating to the screening process for aquatic species importation.
`(2) MORE PROTECTIVE LAWS- A State, the District of Columbia, or a territory of the Untied States may adopt an aquatic plant or animal importation law, regulation, or policy that requires a more protective screening process for aquatic species importation than the regulations and policies of this section.'.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-725
Go on now keep argueing about how Invasive species and hobby / "bucket biologist" releases are just fine.....You continue to not understand your hobby is about to get OWNED because you are all to busy thinking nobody is paying attention to really bad pratices and attitudes.
all i know is these people in charge of were fish should be and shouldnt did decide to put trout on the east coast and bass on the west which has not devistated anything and since it has not they keep doing it to improve fishing. the trout on the east coast brings people from all over which improves our economy.. zebra mussels were brought in by cargo ships and i remember at one time they said this could be devistating to the wallye but in fact found out that walleye eat zebra mussels and have had no ill affects. the same goes with the round goby and snakeheads which have not devistated anythinig and if u think otherwise then i want to see detailed proof of the above mentioned fish devistating the environment. at first they thought they would but after being here for quite some time there finding out different. so u, i , or the biologists,fish/game commission will never know what the real effects are. did u also know that people have ponds with no fish in them at all and all of a sudden there are bluegill or bass in them for no reason. do u know why this is? one reason of this is prey birds swoop down in the water and grab up a fish and drop them in another body of water. this is a known fact. im all for the reasoning about diseases and such. i would never want to see that happen but noone really knows how non native fish would do in native waterways. im sure there are some that would be fine here and im sure there are some that would not be fine here and noone knows which ones would be and which ones wouldnt be so i agree they shouldnt be over here. but if they could decide which they couldnt on which fish would be harmful and which wouldnt then i would say stock em. i dont see anything wrong with having non native fish in our environment if they didnt have any ill affects on it. alot of u say they shouldnt be here just because they dont belong here. if its not a problem then why not? i dont know but im sure some of our fish are in other countires as well due to ships and what not and as far as i know i dont recall seeing anything about our fish devistating there environment. one way of doing this and i dont know why they dont is to take some popular non native gamefish and they could put them in a controlled small lake and see what happens over time and if they were fine then do u realize what effect that would have on our fishing and our economy. i dont see any reasoning in saying they dont belong here just because they dont belong heres rediculous to me. some of u dont agree with trout being over here on the east coast. how come u dont like that? the only thing it has done is better the fishing and economy. this has been done for many many years and all of it has been for the better. so why no like something that benefits us. to me this entire thread should about fish benefits and harm done by tranplanting fish from one place to another not just about harm only. we also dont have caribou on the east coast but the game commission seen it as no threat and brought them over here. is it right or wrong? noone knows. what they do know is it benefits our way or sport and economy so if ur one of the people who say they dont care about the benefits and are worried about danger of the environment then maybe u should be on all forums telling people they shouldnt be driving cars or using boats with motors which are way more devistaing to our environment then any of these fish are. oh well. i was bored and felt like typing for awile.just remember this is one mans oponion and thoughts and not someone trying to change our habitat for the worse. 
First off the basses on the west coast were not introduced by government-hired certified biologists, but rather ignorant fishers that want to bring their favourite fish to their local areas thus the nickname "bucket biologists." I think this explaination of the term is due. However that is beside the point.
Second, there is nothing wrong with the fish industry as long it is CONTROLLED -- that is my opinion anyway. There are some non-native ponds and artifical rivers around here people can fish in for a price, and they are independent from the natural waterways.
The introduction of non-native fish may not have a clear impact to someone standing by, but they do have an impact on the environment. For instance, those round gobies are threatening native bottom feeders as they are competing for resources. With non-native fish, the competition for resource with other natives that have the same niche is the problem.
About the zebra mussels, you might want to read this page: http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/invasive_species/zebra_mussels.html
From time to time, you will get unexpected result like a predator introduced to control a population of non-native pests, but it end up hunting the native population and leaving the non-native population alone. The only population introduction in any ecosystem should be a natural migration.
Second, there is nothing wrong with the fish industry as long it is CONTROLLED -- that is my opinion anyway. There are some non-native ponds and artifical rivers around here people can fish in for a price, and they are independent from the natural waterways.
The introduction of non-native fish may not have a clear impact to someone standing by, but they do have an impact on the environment. For instance, those round gobies are threatening native bottom feeders as they are competing for resources. With non-native fish, the competition for resource with other natives that have the same niche is the problem.
About the zebra mussels, you might want to read this page: http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/invasive_species/zebra_mussels.html
From time to time, you will get unexpected result like a predator introduced to control a population of non-native pests, but it end up hunting the native population and leaving the non-native population alone. The only population introduction in any ecosystem should be a natural migration.
I don't even know how to respond to this and frankly, I don't have the time right now. I thought this thread would be a good thing, something people could learn from. The last thing I thought is that people would actually argue AGAINST the release of fishes into the wild, guess I was wrong. I am going to lock and un-stick this thread. When I return I will seperate the valuable material from the crap that has taken up the bulk of this sticky. I assure you, there will be a sticky on the subject again but it will be carefully managed by myself. As far as I'm concerned this isen't a subject to be debated. Captive fish don't belong in the wild, be they native or not. This is a fact, not an opinion.focker;866247; said:i beg the differ on the entire native non native idea. personally i think most of us like the non native fish more. at least thats what the fishkeeping hobby is saying. more people keep non native fish cause there prettier or whatever reasons they like them more. i personally could care less if they dumped cichlids snakehead and all the hobby fish all over north america and let the fittest and strongest survive. i understand most couldnt live in the coldwater but im sure some could and other countries can have some of our fish too. non native animals are in all countires so why not fish? one of our biggest natives are bass and imo i think they are ugly and suck. replace em with pbass or dorados
And for anyone who cannot appreciate our native fishes, people with attitudes like Fockers...I invite you to leave this sub-forum. This is a native forum and if you don't like natives you aren't welcome here. If you want cichla and dorados in your backyard move to South America.
- Status
