U.S. Fisherman (snakehead killing thread)

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Status
Not open for further replies.
XR, there are only two species to my knowledge that can survive outside of extreme south FL, extreme S. Texas, and Hawaii. Those sp are channa argus and channa asiatica (spelling?)

Anyhow just some tid bits of info. To date no channa sp. has had ill effects on the ecosystem they are present in. There are only three places with confirmed breeding populations. One - S. Fl, C. marulius - caught along side natives as well as dozens of other exotics The second is Hawaii - intentionally introduced for food - its an island, they aint going any where, And the third, Potomac River; C. argus. These fish arent spreading either. They are restricted by the falls up stream and by the Atlantic Ocean down stream. There has been no evidence to show any ill effects here either.

There is a fourth possible breeding population in the White River in Arkansas. However this is pretty new and still being researched. I have a really good buddy that is in the middle of the research for the state so I got the inside "scoop" of the net so to speak. :naughty:

Oh and lets not forget fellas that channa have been imported into the U.S. for well over 50 years. Also not mention the fact that states like Arkansas had farms dedicated to the raising of sp such as C. argus for food!
 
---XR---;2047393; said:
would you like to add something constructive or just be a troll?


take a :chillpill: man im in to be constructive but you got to admit the mods :owned: ya. either way were kinda :topic:lets just get back to the reason this thread was made. :werd:
 
Plasticmotif;2047666; said:
A bit, yeah. It takes as much time to google something as to ask a silly question.

Top level predators as invasive species....common sense? :screwy:

I have googled the subject and it was all speculation with no scientific DATA, or it was inconclusive. So I recommend you do the same before you make a silly comment.
 
varanio;2047752; said:
I have googled the subject and it was all speculation with no scientific DATA, or it was inconclusive. So I recommend you do the same before you make a silly comment.

Go back to school please. Snakeheads are a R-selected species. They reproduce fast, tons of offspring @ little to no energy cost to the parent all the while being apex predators in their environment.

Invasives are bad, mmkay?
 
Plasticmotif;2047792; said:
Since I'm at work and can't access our library for the journals....

http://www.fws.gov/news/newsreleases/r9/09E74A8D-8E2E-49E9-B0F551156137A349.html

I'm fairly certain they wouldn't raise a big stink over something that wasn't a threat.

Now we're entering an entirely new debate about the major overreaction and knee-jerk legislation that banned all of the species channa, even though most do not pose a threat.

"These fish are like something from a bad horror movie," said Secretary Norton
Funny, they did make a bad horror movie about them.


OOOOO, the big bad frankenfish... the same scare tactic mentality that keeps reasonable decisions from being made.

frankenfish.jpg


Look out snakeheads...
 
Plasticmotif;2047784; said:
Go back to school please. Snakeheads are a R-selected species. They reproduce fast, tons of offspring @ little to no energy cost to the parent all the while being apex predators in their environment.

Invasives are bad, mmkay?

There is no need to make silly sally comments you decided to be an ahole all of sudden its up to you, youre little cut and paste excerpt had nothing to do with numbers, or surveys as to how the species is actually affecting any of the native species. All it was a bunch of paraphrasing from what looks like an interview. But ill discontinue this conversation piece with you since you cant seem to find anything more beneficial than being a punk. The question was for XR whom I am asking if he/she had anything that might be more useful, because I am truly interested in reading about the impact if any. Youre doing a diservice to a thread that could potentially be informative, back to the play pen for you pal.
 
varanio;2047827; said:
There is no need to make silly sally comments you decided to be an ahole all of sudden its up to you, youre little cut and paste excerpt had nothing to do with numbers, or surveys as to how the species is actually affecting any of the native species. All it was a bunch of paraphrasing from what looks like an interview. But ill discontinue this conversation piece with you since you cant seem to find anything more beneficial than being a punk. The question was for XR whom I am asking if he/she had anything that might be more useful, because I am truly interested in reading about the impact if any. Youre doing a diservice to a thread that could potentially be informative, back to the play pen for you pal.




I agree....There is no need to get cute here...
 
I just that I couldn't access the library for journal articles.

Also, nearly everything I've read says that the ban was potential hazard control.

It takes years and years to compile data showing that something/anything is the direct cause of another species decline. They have less than 5 natually reproducing sites in the US. The Potomac being the largest. The amount of acreage there is huge. It's hard to get exact numbers on the damage that they've done and will do.

Sorry to be an a-hole, but talking in absolutes gets me defensive.

You started out by saying "Whatever, that's poppycock. Show me the money."

Invasives are always bad.

^^^Absolutes :-(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
MonsterFishKeepers.com