Carps eat bass/gill eggs when they're spawning and the DFG asked them to kill all that they can catch... What?.. Really? I read it in another forum for Southern California surf fishing~ is this JUST in Southern California?...
Printable View
Carps eat bass/gill eggs when they're spawning and the DFG asked them to kill all that they can catch... What?.. Really? I read it in another forum for Southern California surf fishing~ is this JUST in Southern California?...
Carp are bottom feeders. When there isn't anything on the bottom they are opportunistic feeders.
Basically a trash fish. So yes..
Kill them.
Some people actually eat them. But I rather eat the plank they were cooked on. :wink:
maybe carp are a problem in your state but to say that they are "trash fish" is only one side of the coin. if we begin to pick and choose what we allow in our local fishery we will soon be out of places to fish. be careful of what you wish.
Bill
Carp are a lot of things but they are most definitely not a trash fish. True, they are not native to the US. Neither are brown trout. They are big, strong, wary fish that are as fine a sport as you will find. Oh, and they are 10 minutes from your door, just about anywhere.
Carp are not native to North American Continent. European Carp were brought over here by our European Ancestors. Recent year we now have Asian Carp that have be brought over to North America. Both are are aggressive feeders, and they disrupt the Ecological Pyramid that keeps our water healthy, and balanced.
Unforunately, just like the "Genie let out of the Bottle", it is almost impossible to iradicate a species that has been introduced to a ecosystem, where that specie has no know predetors that keep them in check.
Once the damage is done, it cannot be undone! So I say, catch some carp, and eat them. They are quite good to eat! There are many fish that freshwater anglers do not eat, and that is a shame. Burbot (Eelpout) is a freshwater fish that is a member of the Cod family, its loins are good eats, a little melted butter and it taste like lobster.
I love White Fish, smoked and served with a white cream sauce.
I am glad the Northern Pike have restrictions in Minnesota for minimum length, before you keep them. But I do love eating Pike and Pickerell. Easy to fillet if you know how to get around the Y-bone.
I eat Suckers that are caught in clean water, they are good eats also.
All true. However, Brown Trout are not native to North America. Rainbow Trout are native to only a few watersheds in the American west. I hear very few people talking about removing them from waters where they are now living in a feral state. (oops I guess with trout, one should say "wild" instead of feral, gotta respect the mighty trout).Quote:
Carp are not native to North American Continent. European Carp were brought over here by our European Ancestors. Recent year we now have Asian Carp that have be brought over to North America. Both are are aggressive feeders, and they disrupt the Ecological Pyramid that keeps our water healthy, and balanced.
Largemouth Bass are not native to much of their current range. Crappie and bluegill have a much broader range today than their native range.
Many of us will talk about some invasive fish or another and say it needs to be eradicated from our local waters without ever considering our favorite fish species is also an invasive.
So, how does one determine which non-native species to protect? Or should we be in favor of eradicating all non-native species and returning as many waters as possible to their natural state, which would be removing browns from all water in North America and Rainbows from most water in North America as well as removing largemouth bass, bluegill and crappie from many lakes and streams in North America. The list of what we consider game fish that are in fact invasive species is fairly large depending on where you live (Oacars and Cichlids in Florida, Peacock Bass in Florida are two that come to mind in addition to Browns, Rainbows, Largemouth Bass, Bluegill, Crappie are the ones that come to mind right off).
Trust me, I'm no fan of carp. I fish for them from time-to-time and they are fun to catch and grow quite large, but for some reason I don't particularly like catching them. I'd much rather catch an 8" bluegill on a 3wt.
So, this isn't a "save the carp" message, but more of an open ended question of where does one stop when picking and choosing which invasive to remove and which to keep?
Just my thought for the day.
Jeff
As a fisheries biologist with 50 years experience under my belt, I don't know of a single waterbody where carp have, in fact, upset the "ecological pyramid that keeps our water healthy and balanced ". There definitely are waters where carp, and other so-called "rough fish" dominate. In almost every such case, if in fact not all, the original damage was done by man; and carp and the other rough fish, being reasonably tolerant of polluted, low dissolved oxygen waters, became the dominant species present, leading to over population in many cases. Being highly visible, they took the rap for being the "cause" of the "bad water" conditions and the loss of the desirable species.
As far as palatability is concerned, they have been considered a delicacy in Europe for ages; that is why our European ancestors introduced them to this continent. The secret to their quality as table fare lies in knowing how to handle one from the time it is caught until it is ready "for the pot". Absent this knowledge, they are not fit to feed to the cats. (Been there; done that.)
I have to agree on the bluegill on a 3 wgt....but other than that you have to depend on your state Dept of Natural Resources. How can we determine how many deer are allowed to be taken each season? And by what method(s).?? Trapping seasons (if you are so inclined) etc..etc.
I was going to say what aged_saged just said...I read they were introduced to the USA as a food source for the Pioneers.
And the places I have seen and fish for them are not in danger of effecting any other species. Like said, waters already affected by Humans.
But this is good because I do like to fish for them. But I will harvest a few from time to time because they do get thick...not hurting anything other than themselves and smell maybe.
I have caught carp by accident and by design. A lot of fun, big and put up a dandy fight. There are places where they are called Golden Bonz and guides booked just to catch them. As far as eating, my only experience was with smoked carp and it was terrific. We have several articles here on FAOL on catching them, it's not a joke.
Taken from "The Compleat Angler", Isaak Walton and Charles Cotton, 1593-1683:...........Take a carp, alive if possible, scour him, and rub him clean with water and salt, but scale him not: then open him, and put him with his blood and liver, which you must save when you open him, into a small pot or kettle;then take sweet-marjoram, thyme, and parsley, of each half a handful; a sprig of rosemary, and another of savory;bind them into two of three small bundles, and put them too your Carp,with four or five whole onions, twenty pickled oysters, and three anchovies. Then pour upon your Carp as much claret-wine as will only cover him; and season your claret well with salt, cloves, and mace, and the rinds of oranges and lemons. That done, cover your pot and set it on a quick fire, till it sufficiently boiled:then take out the Carp, and lay it with the broth into the dish, and pour upon it a quarter pound of the best fresh butter, melted and beaten with a half dozen spoonfuls of the broth, the yolks of two or three eggs, and some of the herbs shred: garnish with lemons, and serve it up, and much good do you!
Kenstah, give the book a read you'll be fascinated with what you find. An oldie but goody.
I have a lot of trouble killing anything just because some government agency says to.
I fish a lake all summer in Colorado that has a nice population of pike. Apparently, the pike eat the stocked trout. Notices everyplace advising that pike caught should be killed rather than returned to the water.
If I'm going to eat the fish, or someone I know wants to eat it, then I'll kill it. Otherwise, I release it alive back into the water from whence it came. If someone wants to kill them, for whatever reason they choose, they can do so themselves.
Personally, I'd rather catch the pike than the trout anyway. Harder to fool, and they get bigger and fight harder.
I feel the same way about carp. If it's not going to be eaten, I'm letting it go. I don't think any fish is a trash fish.
Buddy
I and a number of my friends that live in Ca,( where I've joined them to sightfish for carp), would have to approach this very cautiously. I know they can harm gamefish and cause some ecological damage. They do tend to uproot vegetation and create turbid conditions on some flats. However as others have said, they are a blast! I wouldn't be alarmed at people keeping them to eat in certain lakes that are very bass friendly. I hate to think of them as being wasted. In my area many people are catching them as a prime food source. I'm having too much fun with them excersizing my drag!!! Best this year was 21 lbs. on a six wt.;)
Charlie
I have never caught a carp on a fly rod before, but i will when it warms up a bit, I have caught them on an ultralight rod and my heavier catfishing rigs. They put up a heck of a fight and are a blast to catch. I find them very ugly, but cooked just right(usually fried) is one of my favorite eats. it is a very bony fish, but fried right, the small bones chew up just fine. they may be bad for the ecosystem, but they do a lot less damage than humans, should we eradicate everyone that is not native american?
Grew up in Big River Country. We not only eat them - we like them. ;)
Give me a nice female out of cool, clean water and and I'll put a plate of fried fish in front of you that I think most would find plumb palatable. ;) Good smoked and canned too.
I think I have a short description I penned of preparing them somewhere. Maybe I should send it to the "recipe" section. :)
Something sounds fishy about that. DFG would not ask people to violate state fishing regulations unless there is a specific regulation in place for a specific water. Bass and bluegill also eat carp fry. Some of my local lakes have thriving populations of bass, bluegill, crappie, and carp.
From the CA freshwater sportfishing regulations, section 1.87
"It is unlawful to cause or permit any deterioration or waste of any fish taken in the waters of this state."
wow! nice information everyone!
here's the original post(fish report) if anyone is interested~
that guy is NOT me! and this is NOT one of my post!
Bingo!
Not in my estimation but i've run into an awful lot of salmon/steelhead fishermen that consider (vehemently at that) smallmouth bass to be 'trash fish' and when they catch them, they toss them on the bank to die, claiming that there will be one less intruder to displace a salmon or steelhead and also to eat same's progeny. The smallmouth bass is not indigenous to Oregon but is protected in the fishing regs.
No cheers,
MontanaMoose
If we want to consider the asian carp in this thread, everyone on both sides of the great lakes would be glad somehow to remove all the fish they can---eat them, poison them, grind them into catfood or fertilizer or any other use. They have found dna proof that the have made it past the weir in Chicago Sanitary and Shipping Channel and made it into Lake Michigan. This is a bad news invasive species that threatens all of the great lakes sportfishing and commercial fishing. By their size, a 9 or 10 wt would be in order for a small one---anyone have a good algae fly?
http://daymix.com/go/http://www.inde...s-1877848.html
Here in Wyoming a few fish have been introduced in recent times that have greatly affected the fishing. In Lake Yellowstone, lake trout were introduced. It has decimated the Cutthroat population.
In the western part of the state, Ling (Burbot, Freshwater Cod) have been introduced into a couple of the lakes, and have affected Kokanee Salmon populations.
Both fish are gamefish in other areas... but in both locations, if u catch one, they have policies in place to keep it or kill it.
Likewise, in the Potomac drainage area, I lived there when the Snakehead made its way into that system and quickly took over a few of the smaller lakes from LM Bass.
Some have to wonder what the Asian carp will do to the Great Lakes when it's population becomes noticeable. Most likely, the great lakes will be undergoing a major transformation in the next 10 to 20 years.
Paul
Just a comment;
I would guess that most of the lakes where Carp are found are not native to the U.S. either! There has to be some type of population control in some waters, I suppose. I have heard that some places in the West require you to take all Brookies in order to protect the Cutts.
Things change.
Species expand their range. Other species die out or shrink. It's the nature of life. Life finds a way.
We do need to look carefully at history in this instance. Man has never, not once, been able to stop the spread of another species. If a species is able to survive in an area, eventually it reaches that area. Way this whole things work, and it's not up to us.
Some want to point at us and say that humans are to blame. But we are a part of nature, not gods hovering above it. To think that we could either stop this or cause this is the height of hubris. It was always going to happen, with or without us. Perhaps our ability to assist other species in spreading is one of our purposes in nature, like the honey bee helping the plants to pollenate. If it wasn't us, though, there would be another medium of transfer.
Our planet is continually evolving. Our problem is not that we are altering nature, but that we are trying to keep nature from altering itself. A patently futile task.
Deal with the expansion of species. They aren't going away regardless of what anyone wants, or what anyone may do. The so called destruction that they may cause is just how the world works. If the species that currently reside where the expanding species move are adversly effected, they will either adapt or perish. Way the world works.
And there will be some positives in the change. We'll find them, in time, and adapt as we are made to do.
Eventually, it will us that are unable to adapt, and we will disapear. The world wil go on just fine without us.
Buddy
Buddy gets 10 pts just for using the phrase "height of hubris" in a sentence.
I like that, for some odd reason... :p
Jeff, my understanding is that Virginia, at least, has embarked on a campaign of poinsoning, netting, and electro-shocking to remove primarily brown, but also rainbow, trout. This has been done in an attempt to promote native brookies. In some places and at certain times, all limits on browns were to be removed and anglers were not allowed to release any or they would be cited. I have read that browns up to 4 pounds were poisoned.
It is all a matter of values and what people are trying to do.
On a related note from another post, as for not being able to restrict the spread of species, try running that idea past a passenger pigeon.
Ed
I have to respectfully dissagree with Buddy's view of species migration.
Yes, if a species moves to a new environment where it is able so thrive, it will. We only have to look at dutch elm disease, emerald ash borer, zebra mussels... the list goes on and on. To assume that a species will get to that new environment on its own just because it will be able to thrive there is blatently false. If this were the case we would expect to see polar bears attempting to migrate to Antartica and thriving there.
Yes, species do migrate and they do colonize new areas. However, in most cases this occurs over millenia not decades. With few exceptions, most invasive species arrived to their new area through the direct actions of humans. They would not be there without our "help".
To assume that humans are not to blame for most invasive species or to assume that our purpose on this earth is to expand the range of other species is surely the "height of hubris".
Kevin
Shorthaul:
The carp in the article is an entirely different carp from the one the thread is about. We have been talking about what is known as the European or German carp. The German carp has been in the "Lakes" for more than 100 years.
Carp are a blast to catch on the long rods.
The point was made browns,rainbow, crappies are no longler limited in their native ranges. True, but it should be remembered they were purposely introduced into waters too degraded to sustain the original species, brook char. Ironicly, where introduced into western waters the brookie is now considered invasive. Go figure.
I suspect the expansion of crappie range,(and walleyes) although man encouraged, might just as easily have occured naturally. Nature abhors a vacuum, and if a certain body of water will support a certain species of fish, they will come.
Brings up the old saying "One man's trash is another man's treasure"
Funny we call a species that takes over some waters Trash fish.
I have a video of Oliver Edwards fishing some of his home waters. He hooks into the Rainbow that is HUGE and any one of us would consider a trophy.
He referred to IT as a trash fish as these were Brown trout waters.
Fly Goddess: When I was a kid Utah still planted rivers with rainbows. We thought of them as trash fish that competed with the cutts. That was over 50 years ago and to this day when I catch a planted rainbow I think trash fish even though I know better.
Tim
While out in Yelowstone last summer, I noticed folks calling brook trout trash fish. Where I do most of my trout fishing (Smokey Mountains) brook trout are the only true native trout (char actually but who's counting) and are considered "the" fish to catch.
I was really pleased to catch as many brookies as I did even though they are considered trash fish in the area.
Jeff
Charlie Elliott, the late southeastern editor for Outdoor Life once wrote an article called "The Ugh Fish". In it, he made this point exactly. He detailed example after example of how largemouth, smallmouth, trout and salmon were each considered to be "trash" fish by various fishermen, depending on what section of the country they lived in and what they preferred to fish for. My favorite story was the Tennessee sucker fisherman who loathed smallies AND trout.
Personally, I'd rather catch carp than anything. In terms of fighting ability, they put most freshwater fish to shame.
Its NOT what "people" in a certain area think of as trash fish....its what that state's Dept of Nat Resources plainly STATE a species as trash fish that matters.
As far as "fight" goes....fighting a carp is like setting the hook in the back bumper of my Jeep! There is no "fight" just a slow..straight line..unable to STOP ...pull! That is the only way I can tell a carp from a catfish on the end of the line.
"As far as "fight" goes....fighting a carp is like setting the hook in the back bumper of my Jeep! There is no "fight" just a slow..straight line..unable to STOP ...pull! That is the only way I can tell a carp from a catfish on the end of the line."
Well, they must be super charged around here. I have had them jump, barrel roll, crash into downed brush and most have a tendency to go up stream then back down and wrap around me where I stand.
This behavior may totally depend on time of year conditions etc...
Can you tell I just spent the last week tying Carp flies???
Also, back east, Smallies were considered trash fish for a LONG time...still are to many New Englanders and further back Lobster were smashed and used as fertilizer...go figure.
If I wished to actually CATCH carp...a box of Wheaties is all I'd need....:lol:
I once read, and I believe it, that you could 'clean out any quality trout water with a few pounds of velveeta'.
That's one reason we fly fish for trout rather than bait fish. Makes it more sporting, and thus more fun.
Same reason why we shoot ducks and geese on the wing. You could easily kill all you wanted with a .22 pistol as they sat on the water or were feeding in a field.
Why fly fishing for carp is so rewarding is that they are harder to fool with an artificial fly than any trout. Spookier, too. Maybe they are easy to catch on bait. So are trout in most places.
Buddy
Right on Buddy. I agree totally. I read about guys catching Carp right and left with BAIT...now when they try with a fly...nothing.
If bait is your choice, go for it, but something about landing them with just a hook, feathers, hair, fur, synthetics....etc No smell or taste, not that feels GREAT!
Carp were brought to this country as a food source so many people enjoy eating them. They are strong and powerful and offer great close to home recreation. Remember that the first guys that fished for bonefish were looked down upon. I went to Canada many years ago and asked about good northern pike fishing and they all looked at me weird, they were considered trash fish.
Even if I killed all of the ones that I catch in a year on the fly rod, well over 100, it would make no difference in their population controll other than opening a spot in the eco system for more reproduction. Whether you like them or not, they are hear to stay. Ebrace your fears and enjoy what they have to offer becasue they really isn't much you can do about it. Personally I keep them as pets, Japanese carp known as koi and I fish for them. I have come to love and respect the lowly carp.
I prefer to catch trout but good trout fishing is over 2 hours away, carp are within 10 minutes of the house. If you are not fishing for carp you are missing out.