HAS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOST IT'S MIND

[groovitudedude]

This is exactly why there are laws on people buying certain types of species in certain states.

Good point. If the pikes weren't there in the first place, there wouldn't be this problem. This is the fault of irresponsible people who keep fish illegally and then release them.

Intensive Competition. A reward system for fisherman (women)(all ages) who catch and turn in the fish, even at $5 a fish it would have been cheaper. Grand Prize for most caught.

This wouldn't work because...

You will never eliminate all the pike, down the road sometime somehow they will show up again and again

there are bound to be some pike left, and they will breed and cause more problems.

California still has lakes? (just saying)

Yes, California still has lakes. Just saying.

Please note that this isn't the result of fish keepers, the Pikes are there because the County and in corperation with the State put them there, this isn't some mindless Pike keeper that decided that I'm tired of the five fish I have and knowone else wants them, so I'll take them and dump them in the near by lake or stream and bingo they found each other and started to breed like wabbits. This was done by biologist and the Parks and Fish & Wildlife, a half to a dozen fish in a body of water holding Hundred of Millions of gallons of water and other predatory Fish, does not make for perfect breeding grounds to start establishing another species.

I will point out again that this is NOT the fault of the state or Biologists. Like I already said, why would biologists let loose destructive fish, knowing what they know? And why would the state cause a problem that would cost tons of money and damage to fix? It's the fault of irresponsible pike-keepers who shouldn't even be keeping pike at all in California.

Someone else stated that they where placed there by the state back in the 1800's. I just think that it is totally INSANE to consider poisioning the entire watershed, to kill off one species of fish in order to stock another species of fish. Not to mention they have already spent Millions of Dollars on this idea already, and the fish are still there.
And there's NO way anyone going to convince me that these fish became established to the point that they are from a handful of Monster Fish Collectors dumping there stock in a lake, unless there stock was in the thousands. But thats just my opion.
And oh yeah, by the way biologist can easily obtain permits to import protected or endangered species alot easier than you or I. I have friends that used to worked for the Museum of Natural History, that can tell you stories of animals they brought in to this country without permits. And the only thing they worried about was, customs of the country they were in. Once they they where on US soil, or being inspected by US customs they didn't give a dam*.

Like I said before, it is irrational to believe that biologist would put these fish in the lake. All you said was that they could obtain them, not release them illegally. And with pikes in Cali, it's not "Monster Fish Collectors", it's illegal fish collectors. They got there somehow, and it wasn't because of biologists. Anybody with a degree in Wildlife Biology is too smart to do something that dumb.

So what will hapen if someone just re-introduces the pike after they restock it?

Then that person is stupid.

 

[Danyal]

actually, it more than likely was a biologist, that is how all of our non-native fish got introduced into california, mostly in the late 1800's and early 1900's but i believe the last established non-native species was introduced in 1956(?) i don't remember exactly what species, but a couple months ago i sat down with a state fisheries biologist and we discussed it and he confirmed this. i doubt a hobbyist would have been responsible, it was either a biologist or a fisherman, my bet is on the biologist because i don't think a fisherman would really go through the effort to transport enough live pike across state lines to establish a breeding population.

 

[groovitudedude]

actually, it more than likely was a biologist, that is how all of our non-native fish got introduced into california, mostly in the late 1800's and early 1900's but i believe the last established non-native species was introduced in 1956(?) i don't remember exactly what species, but a couple months ago i sat down with a state fisheries biologist and we discussed it and he confirmed this. i doubt a hobbyist would have been responsible, it was either a biologist or a fisherman, my bet is on the biologist because i don't think a fisherman would really go through the effort to transport enough live pike across state lines to establish a breeding population.

I will go back to my point that any rational human being with a degree in Biology would not be stupid enough to do something so destructive to the environment. Would you please elaborate on why this biologist thought it was a good idea? And most people that transport live pike probably had no intentions to release them in the first place. Maybe they had no place to put them and couldn't give them to a LFS. There are plenty of valid reasons.

 

[Noto]

I'm afraid you see the field of biology through rose-colored glasses.

Fisheries biologists in the past have often felt it was a good idea to introduce exotic species; in fact, this mindset is still pretty widespread among many agencies. Wildlife biologists were involved in the introduction of grass carp to the midwest, peacock bass to Florida, Nile perch to the Rift Lakes, mosquitofish to the American southwest and the tropics worldwide, etc. etc., not to mention the continued stocking of non-native gamefish worldwide.

California's native fishes have and continue to be devestated by deliberate, state-sponsored, biologist-approved introductions of fish from eastern North America and Eurasia, as well as accidental and illegal introductions by the state's residents and visitors. This particular case is one of an unofficial introduction, the Northern Pike, interfering with the state's planned introduction, Rainbow Trout, in an ecologically dead lake. It was largely an economic problem rather than an ecological one, though there was concern that the pike could escape to the Sacramento River and cause serious damage to the native fish still dwelling there, particularly salmon.

You all might be interested to learn that this effort has already been carried out, apparently successfully: see this article for more details.

I found this information interesting:

Prior to the September treatment, the pike had ravaged the trout population. After the lake was treated with rotenone, DFG workers collected over 50,000 pounds of fish. About 10 percent were northern pike, 83 percent were brown bullheads and less than 1 percent (.6 percent) were rainbow trout. The remaining 6 percent included largemouth bass, golden shiners and pumpkinseed sunfish, according to Randy Kelly, DFG Project Manager.

For those of you who don't know, brown bullheads, northern pike, largemouth bass, golden shiners, and pumpkinseed sunfish are all eastern species that do not naturally occur west of the Rockies, i.e. they are all introductions. The trout in Lake Davis, though a species native to the west coast, were all introduced as well. That's right, there were NO native fish affected by this operation.

 

[groovitudedude]

I'm afraid you see the field of biology through rose-colored glasses.

Fisheries biologists in the past have often felt it was a good idea to introduce exotic species; in fact, this mindset is still pretty widespread among many agencies. Wildlife biologists were involved in the introduction of grass carp to the midwest, peacock bass to Florida, Nile perch to the Rift Lakes, mosquitofish to the American southwest and the tropics worldwide, etc. etc., not to mention the continued stocking of non-native gamefish worldwide.

California's native fishes have and continue to be devestated by deliberate, state-sponsored, biologist-approved introductions of fish from eastern North America and Eurasia, as well as accidental and illegal introductions by the state's residents and visitors. This particular case is one of an unofficial introduction, the Northern Pike, interfering with the state's planned introduction, Rainbow Trout, in an ecologically dead lake. It was largely an economic problem rather than an ecological one, though there was concern that the pike could escape to the Sacramento River and cause serious damage to the native fish still dwelling there, particularly salmon.

The difference is that mosquitofish, grass carp, etc. have not been known to wipe out entire lakes. Pike, on the other hand...

And I would also like some proof of the deliberate, state-sponsered, biologist-approved introducions that you have referred to. I may have a different viewpoint, but I do think that a little evidence is necessary in order to blame this on biologists.

 

[Skeeters]

Grass carps can destoryed the spawning spots for other fish by devouring on these plants to protect the eggs and the fry. They also devouring the same food of the waterfowl, therefore the grass carp pose a threat to our waterways.

Mosquitofish are responsible for declining the rare and threatened species populations in the worldwide as there are lots of threatened species in the western part of the United States such as Gila topminnows, endemic gambusias, pupfish and also some rare frog/toad species because the people thinks mosquitofish do better at control the mosquito larvas.

Nile Perch nearly wiped out all cichlid species in Lake Victoria because some people want add these perch for fisheries and as food fish.

Peacock bass in Florida....well Florida's full of exotics so I can't say about these PB.

Now that California lake is full of nonnative fishes anyways and not single California native fish species lived in that lake. You dont say what strain of hatchery rainbow trout, it may be possible that these trout cannot reproduce in the lake, therefore the reason why their populations declining. So I don't think northern pike pose a threat in that lake and I cannot see how they can wipe out these NON NATIVE fish populations. So I blamed on biologists OR people who work for Fisheries, not some bunch of aquarists. Sadly it is common for fisheries to stock non native fishes as gamefish or as forage fish in the waterways that they are not native to.

 

[Danyal]

You dont say what strain of hatchery rainbow trout, it may be possible that these trout cannot reproduce in the lake, therefore the reason why their populations declining.

iirc, the guy i talked to said they were pyramid lake or shasta lake strain.

 

[gangster]

IS there still PIKE in lake davis? California has awesome trout fishing. Just come up north to Tahoe, redding area or the many california rivers for such species as salmon or steelhead(rainbow that has gone to sea and back).

 

[banjocat]

Not every effort has been as encouraging. In March 2003, the department used underwater detonation cord to try to blow up the pike. A grand total of four pike were killed.

I wonder how many other fish they killed. People with fishing rods could have done a better job

 

[MultispeciesTamer]

I will go back to my point that any rational human being with a degree in Biology would not be stupid enough to do something so destructive to the environment. Would you please elaborate on why this biologist thought it was a good idea? And most people that transport live pike probably had no intentions to release them in the first place. Maybe they had no place to put them and couldn't give them to a LFS. There are plenty of valid reasons.

pike are a great sport fish, fight hard and eat out weak fish, true they eat alot. most likly a biologist stocked them in there to control other fish populations and to create a new sport fish to catch from the lake. now if pike were eatting and killing as many trout as said there would be some world records and extra fat pike, my guess is that most of the pike ate other gamefish and that bass are to blame for low trout numbers. Only larger pike would eat the trout anyways cuz most large pike would be out in open water while small pike would be in shallow water with weeds eating bluegills and such.