Printable View
NATIVES
For the last several years it has become a cultural vogue in the fisheries departments across this country to eliminate so called "non-native" species in favor of historically native species. This policy has resulted in viable populations of fish being totally eradicated in favor of a species that were historically present.
Well said Neil. We always want to "fix" things that may not be "broken" Dick xfishcop
Neil,
Your comments reflect mine 110%. Thank you for more effectively stating your position in a far better manner than any of my previous efforts.
Ralph
John,
I think your post defines the differences on both sides of the coin.
You would define or justify the discussion/decision with quoted regulations and Websters.
I would not.
Keep in mind, Websters has changed numerous times since 1828 and most regulations are of a partisan and political gene pool.
Native American? I have to agree with Neil. My ancestors all came here long before the revolutionary war. SO I consider myself a much "Native American" as any other....with the mode of transportation (ship vs land bridge) being the only difference. Definitions are often used both ways in order to support or refute a particular argument. :)
John,
All in good discussion.
BTW.....you're signature..."The fish are always right"...
They seem to be doing just fine where they are at...why remove them? :)
Ralph
John,
I undertand the "why" they are addressing it like they are. Still don't agree with it though.
My response actually was just a light-hearted comment on your signature. :)
Ralph
LOL.....Nice!
Eradicating a viable species that is thriving, after the environment has already adjusted to it is not just wrong, but borders on criminal. They are taking a chance on destroying an entire ecosystem because of some perceived notion of 'purity'. Here's a flash...you can't go back. Even eradicating the newer species will not necessarily restore the waters to what they were before. The ecosystem has already been irrevocably changed, forever. All you do is even more damage.
By their reasoning, then we shouldn't be allowed to fish for carp, brown trout (introduced from Europe in the 1880s), or bass and crappie (range greatly extended by stocking programs, making them a 'non-native' species throughout most of their current range). Oh, and cottontail rabbits would be also have to be eradicated, to the detriment of all the predators that have adjusted to having them for dinner. How about Nutria? Without them, hydrilla would choke off a lot of otherwise great fishing waters.
This madness needs to stop. We fund most of the so-called 'conservation' attempts in this country, and we should have a say in the matter. Write your elected officials.
Gig....just write TU. I am a member like many of us, and unfortunately they are driving the cart on much of this issue.
Ralph
This is certainly a hot button issue with quite the discussion for both sides. In Maine we've begun to see a distinction with "Native" vs "Wild" brook trout and that distinction is being used in the management and fishing regulations in those waters with in the state. I for one am a fan of the native fish species, and would prefer to have the native fish over the exotics. But I won't turn my nose to them either, the way I see it the current species of fish are in the water systems and you may as well fish for them. I say maintain the status quo and do everything possible to prevent new introductions of fish species despite it being a losing battle. Agencies should be tailoring regulations to protect species if they are in danger of losing a species, but everything has to be a trade off.