March 21, 2011
Bighead Carp Added to Federal List of Injurious Wildlife
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will publish a final rule in the Federal Register on March 22, officially adding the bighead carp to the federal injurious wildlife list. The final rule codifies the Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act (S. 1421), signed into law by President Obama on December 14, 2010. The injurious wildlife listing means that under the Lacey Act it is illegal to import or to transport live bighead carp, including viable eggs or hybrids of the species, across state lines, except by permit for zoological, education, medical, or scientific purposes.
Under the Lacey Act, an injurious wildlife listing means the species has been demonstrated to be harmful to either the health and welfare of humans, interests of forestry, agriculture, or horticulture, or the welfare and survival of wildlife or the resources that wildlife depend upon. The penalty for violating the Lacey Act is up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine for an individual or a $10,000 fine for an organization.
Curbing interstate transport of live bighead carp promotes the federal government’s goal of preventing the carp’s spread into new lakes and rivers in the United States, where it can have devastating effects on native species. The Service listed other Asian carps (the black carp, silver carp, and largescale silver carp) as injurious wildlife in 2007.
Bighead carp were imported from eastern China to Arkansas in the 1970s to improve water quality in aquaculture ponds and sewage treatment lagoons. The fish, which can grow to 60 or more pounds, have since spread through the Mississippi River basin and have been collected as far north as Lake Pepin in Minnesota. Because of their large size and abundance, bighead carp routinely out-compete native fish for food. If bighead carp enter the Great Lakes and become established, they potentially threaten the 1.5 million jobs and $62 billion in wages connected to the Great Lakes.
The bighead carp injurious wildlife listing is just one of many steps the federal government is taking to protect the country’s aquatic ecosystems from Asian carp. On December 16, 2010, the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee (ACRCC) released an updated version of the Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework. The ACRCC represents a state and federal partnership dedicated to stopping the spread of all types of injurious Asian carp, including bighead, into the Great Lakes.
For more information on how the Service is working with partners to control Asian carp, please visit
www.fws.gov/midwest/Fisheries/asian-carp.html
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals and commitment to public service. For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov.
Feds now list Asian carp as "Injurious Species."
Started by
Guest_az9_*
, Mar 24 2011 01:20 PM
19 replies to this topic
#2
Guest_EricaWieser_*
Guest_EricaWieser_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 March 2011 - 02:17 PM
It's a nice gesture, and I suppose it's nice to be able to fine people for tying to introduce them now. But as a Cleveland native born and raised, I think it's silly to say they're doing this to protect fishing industries here. We don't eat the fish that come out of the lake; it's not safe. And honestly our sporting industry isn't large either. Too little, too late. What the lakes really need is not to have had toxic industrial wastes dumped into them for the past two hundred years. The best thing we ever did for Lake Erie was to accidentally introduce zebra mussels, which have done far more to remove the lake from the status of "most polluted lake in the world" than any human cleanup. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's nice of them to try to stop the carp from reaching the great lakes. But would Erie really change that much if they did?
Edit: and at this point the fish will swim here on their own. They just needed our help to cross the ocean. Now that they're established in North America they can do the rest by themselves. So fining people for transporting them won't do anything, not anything at all.
Edit: and at this point the fish will swim here on their own. They just needed our help to cross the ocean. Now that they're established in North America they can do the rest by themselves. So fining people for transporting them won't do anything, not anything at all.
Edited by EricaWieser, 24 March 2011 - 02:23 PM.
#3
Michael Wolfe
-
- Board of Directors
-
- North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage
Posted 24 March 2011 - 02:45 PM
We don't eat the fish that come out of the lake; it's not safe.
Have to disagree with this part... I lived in Cleveland in the early part of this century... and I ate yellow perch form the lake as do many many other people.
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin
#4
Guest_star5328_*
Guest_star5328_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 March 2011 - 04:37 PM
Lake Erie is the biggest walleye fishery on the planet, tons of people go out on charters and on their own every year to catch and eat millions of perch and walleye. What makes you think people aren't eating fish from lake erie?
#5
Guest_EricaWieser_*
Guest_EricaWieser_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 March 2011 - 06:05 PM
This consumption advisory from the Ohio EPA: http://www.epa.state...ry_pamphlet.pdfLake Erie is the biggest walleye fishery on the planet, tons of people go out on charters and on their own every year to catch and eat millions of perch and walleye. What makes you think people aren't eating fish from lake erie?
Just look at the pages and pages of "Do Not Eat" and "Once Per Month" warnings.
Oh, and as for Walleye, according to the Ohio DNR, "Walleye under 25" and smallmouth bass are one meal per week. Walleye over 25", white bass and steelhead (because of their higher fatty oil content) are one meal per month." Source: http://www.dnr.state...58/Default.aspx
Edited by EricaWieser, 24 March 2011 - 06:09 PM.
#6
Guest_ashtonmj_*
Guest_ashtonmj_*
-
- Guests
Posted 25 March 2011 - 07:16 AM
From another born and raised for 20+ years Clevelander you are sorely mistaken about the greatest thing that happened to Lake Erie was zebra mussels. I don't even want to waste time getting into the arguement as to why, you are just wrong. Percieved benefits vs. percieved harm and actual benefits vs. actual harm must be carefully seperated. You are sorely wrong that the sporting industry isn't large either. It is quite possibly the largest recreational walleye fishery in the country, consistently one of the largest smallmouth bass, and has become one of the better steelhead fisheries in the past two decades. "We don't eat fish that come out of the lake, it's not safe" is quite a blanket statement for a metropolitan area of 1 million people not to mention the other states and country that might beg to disagree with you. You might want to head north from CWRU to the E. 55th ST pier Wildwood, or Gordon Park and see just how many people are keeping the fish they catch to eat. Every body of water but ONE has some fish consumption advisory in Ohio. Eat your ocean tuna or Atlantic salmon with PCBs and Hg levels just as high. Personally, I had much more satisfaction out of catching my limit of walleye of an acceptable eating range, carefully trimming fat from the filets and eating my one meal a week. Honestly, other than the occassional leftovers, and there usually aren't with walleye, fish consumption in this country is not that high anyways that people will be eating on average more than one meal a week of the same thing from the same body of water.
#7
Guest_rjmtx_*
Guest_rjmtx_*
-
- Guests
Posted 25 March 2011 - 09:56 AM
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Fish consumption advisories are (unfortunately) very common throughout the country. Still, they are just advisories to be on the safe side. People still consume plenty of fish, even where there are advisories with no ill affects. Stopping transport of the invasive fish is the best thing to do. Believe it or not, there are still places in this country without zebra mussels, quagga mussels, silver carp, bighead carp, etc, and we do not want them. It would mean a lot of paperwork for me (snark).
Again, the advisories you listed are very common, and they are advisories. You are also advised to drive the speed limit, consume low to moderate amounts of alcohol, and no tobacco. There are advisories for a reason, but if it were truly a deadly toxic sludge out there, there would not be an advisory, but an all out ban on consumption.
Again, the advisories you listed are very common, and they are advisories. You are also advised to drive the speed limit, consume low to moderate amounts of alcohol, and no tobacco. There are advisories for a reason, but if it were truly a deadly toxic sludge out there, there would not be an advisory, but an all out ban on consumption.
#8
Guest_native44883_*
Guest_native44883_*
-
- Guests
Posted 25 March 2011 - 05:30 PM
Drive through the city of Fremont and the city of Maumee in about 2 weeks, people elbow to elbow trying to catch lake erie walleye and white bass making the yearly spawning run up the rivers. People come from all over the country for our walleye fishing and there is a large number of charters and head boats people use and pay upwards of 400 dollars per day to experience our exceptional fishery. like star5328 said walleye capitol. About half hour ago i had my second walleye meal of the week 
so far so good!
so far so good!
#9
Guest_gzeiger_*
Guest_gzeiger_*
-
- Guests
Posted 26 March 2011 - 12:31 AM
If the basis for the one meal per week advisory is anywhere near as conservative as the limits establlished for radioactivity in food I think I'd be comfortable eating them at least ten times a week. Probably wouldn't like the taste much after that though.
#10
Guest_Skipjack_*
Guest_Skipjack_*
-
- Guests
Posted 26 March 2011 - 07:55 AM
Lake Erie's commercial fishery is a 4-7 billion dollar industry. People do eat the fish.
#11
Guest_az9_*
Guest_az9_*
-
- Guests
Posted 26 March 2011 - 08:55 PM
If the basis for the one meal per week advisory is anywhere near as conservative as the limits establlished for radioactivity in food I think I'd be comfortable eating them at least ten times a week. Probably wouldn't like the taste much after that though.
Being in the aquaculture industry and under attack by the wild caught fisheries for mercury in the diet (which is blow way out of proportion due to an obvious ulterior motive) I saw a publication on mercury advisories and it was just that, extremely conservative and you would have to eat a lot of fish day after day for a long period of time to have any concerns. A lot of people don't know mercury is a natural element in the environment and can show up in the most pristine areas. Tree leaves have it for God's sake!
Wish I could find it. I will ask some of my colleagues to see if they can locate it for me to post it.
#12
Guest_az9_*
Guest_az9_*
-
- Guests
Posted 26 March 2011 - 09:02 PM
Here it is:
Study: No Detectable Risk from Mercury in Fish
ROCHESTER, New York, May 15, 2003 (ENS) - Contrary to warnings from government and environmental organizations, a study of 643 children from before birth to nine years of age shows no detectable risk from the low levels of mercury their mothers were exposed to from eating ocean seafood.
According to a University of Rochester Medical Center study of mothers and children in the Republic of the Seychelles, an island nation in the Indian Ocean, children born to mothers who ate an average of 12 meals of fish a week — about 10 times the average U.S. citizen eats — showed no harmful symptoms. The study is published in the May 16 issue of the British medical journal “The Lancet.“
The study is the latest in a series of updates on children who have been studied since their birth in 1989 and 1990. The children have been evaluated five times since their birth, and no harmful effects from the low levels of mercury obtained by eating seafood have been detected.
“Consumption of fish is generally considered healthy for your heart, yet people are hearing that they should be concerned about eating fish because of mercury levels,“ says lead author Gary Myers, MD, a pediatric neurologist. “We‘ve found no evidence that the low levels of mercury in seafood are harmful. In the Seychelles, where the women in our study ate large quantities of fish each week while they were pregnant, the children are healthy.“
In a commentary on the research in “The Lancet,“ Johns Hopkins scientist Constantine Lyketsos writes that, “For now, there is no reason for pregnant women to reduce fish consumption below current levels, which are probably safe.“ He calls the Seychelles study a “methodological advance over previous studies.“
Fish are the primary source of exposure to mercury for most people. Scientists estimate that about half the mercury in the Earth and its atmosphere originates from natural sources such as volcanoes, and about half comes from human activities.
People receive most of their mercury exposure by eating ocean fish like tuna, swordfish and shark. The fish eaten by women in the Seychelles had approximately the same levels of mercury as those eaten by consumers in the United States — but they ate much more fish than most people in the United States.
“This study indicates that there are no detectable adverse effects in a population consuming large quantities of a wide variety of ocean fish,“ says Myers, the senior author of the Seychelles study and an internationally recognized authority on mercury. “These are the same fish that end up on the dinner table in the United States and around the world.“
Courtesy of
Ronald E. Kinnunen
Michigan Sea Grant
Michigan State University
710 Chippewa Square-Ste. 202
Marquette, Ml 49855
(906)226-3687 Phone/Fax
kinnunel@msu.edu
Study: No Detectable Risk from Mercury in Fish
ROCHESTER, New York, May 15, 2003 (ENS) - Contrary to warnings from government and environmental organizations, a study of 643 children from before birth to nine years of age shows no detectable risk from the low levels of mercury their mothers were exposed to from eating ocean seafood.
According to a University of Rochester Medical Center study of mothers and children in the Republic of the Seychelles, an island nation in the Indian Ocean, children born to mothers who ate an average of 12 meals of fish a week — about 10 times the average U.S. citizen eats — showed no harmful symptoms. The study is published in the May 16 issue of the British medical journal “The Lancet.“
The study is the latest in a series of updates on children who have been studied since their birth in 1989 and 1990. The children have been evaluated five times since their birth, and no harmful effects from the low levels of mercury obtained by eating seafood have been detected.
“Consumption of fish is generally considered healthy for your heart, yet people are hearing that they should be concerned about eating fish because of mercury levels,“ says lead author Gary Myers, MD, a pediatric neurologist. “We‘ve found no evidence that the low levels of mercury in seafood are harmful. In the Seychelles, where the women in our study ate large quantities of fish each week while they were pregnant, the children are healthy.“
In a commentary on the research in “The Lancet,“ Johns Hopkins scientist Constantine Lyketsos writes that, “For now, there is no reason for pregnant women to reduce fish consumption below current levels, which are probably safe.“ He calls the Seychelles study a “methodological advance over previous studies.“
Fish are the primary source of exposure to mercury for most people. Scientists estimate that about half the mercury in the Earth and its atmosphere originates from natural sources such as volcanoes, and about half comes from human activities.
People receive most of their mercury exposure by eating ocean fish like tuna, swordfish and shark. The fish eaten by women in the Seychelles had approximately the same levels of mercury as those eaten by consumers in the United States — but they ate much more fish than most people in the United States.
“This study indicates that there are no detectable adverse effects in a population consuming large quantities of a wide variety of ocean fish,“ says Myers, the senior author of the Seychelles study and an internationally recognized authority on mercury. “These are the same fish that end up on the dinner table in the United States and around the world.“
Courtesy of
Ronald E. Kinnunen
Michigan Sea Grant
Michigan State University
710 Chippewa Square-Ste. 202
Marquette, Ml 49855
(906)226-3687 Phone/Fax
kinnunel@msu.edu
#13
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 26 March 2011 - 09:42 PM
Mercury levels in fish are a function of the trophic status of the fish species: top predators will have more mercury, because they eat other species lower in the food web and will tend to concentrate any material found in their food items. That's why tuna and swordfish get so much attention with mercury, because they are apex predators. If you eat herring or sardines you won't get as much mercury, or any other abnormal material in that environment, on a gram for gram basis. It's true that mercury is naturally occurring, but the press release cited above gives the number that as much mercury is mobilized by human activities such as burning coal and various metallurgical work. Especially if that extra mercury takes a readily biologically available form like methyl mercury, that's a big number.
But it really does depend on species and location.
But it really does depend on species and location.
#14
Guest_wargreen_*
Guest_wargreen_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 April 2011 - 09:29 PM
From another born and raised for 20+ years Clevelander you are sorely mistaken about the greatest thing that happened to Lake Erie was zebra mussels. I don't even want to waste time getting into the arguement as to why, you are just wrong. Percieved benefits vs. percieved harm and actual benefits vs. actual harm must be carefully seperated. You are sorely wrong that the sporting industry isn't large either. It is quite possibly the largest recreational walleye fishery in the country, consistently one of the largest smallmouth bass, and has become one of the better steelhead fisheries in the past two decades. "We don't eat fish that come out of the lake, it's not safe" is quite a blanket statement for a metropolitan area of 1 million people not to mention the other states and country that might beg to disagree with you. You might want to head north from CWRU to the E. 55th ST pier Wildwood, or Gordon Park and see just how many people are keeping the fish they catch to eat. Every body of water but ONE has some fish consumption advisory in Ohio. Eat your ocean tuna or Atlantic salmon with PCBs and Hg levels just as high. Personally, I had much more satisfaction out of catching my limit of walleye of an acceptable eating range, carefully trimming fat from the filets and eating my one meal a week. Honestly, other than the occassional leftovers, and there usually aren't with walleye, fish consumption in this country is not that high anyways that people will be eating on average more than one meal a week of the same thing from the same body of water.
Ashton I completely agree with your whole post, but I cant help but comment on the mussels. Erica as far as the zebra mussel goes there is much research into theyre ability to actually "smother" native mussels which many native species use as food, how many species they have or will threaten, or possibly worse is still being studied.
#15
Guest_pylodictis_*
Guest_pylodictis_*
-
- Guests
Posted 08 May 2011 - 10:03 PM
Lake Erie is the biggest walleye fishery on the planet, tons of people go out on charters and on their own every year to catch and eat millions of perch and walleye. What makes you think people aren't eating fish from lake erie?
Almost all bodies of water in this country have similar warnings. Lake Erie has improved tremendously, not to say it doesn't have room for improvement. In my area the James River is considered by those not in the know to be disgusting and horrid. Mainly older folk who remember how it was, but a few of the younger people believe this(though the park get's 500,000 visitors a year) as well. It was awful in the past and it's easier to clean the waterway than it's reputation. I think this may be the same type of case.
Edited by pylodictis, 08 May 2011 - 10:07 PM.
#16
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 08 May 2011 - 10:10 PM
After the kepone incident in the James, it's hard to avoid thinking of the river as horribly polluted with a carcinogenic pesticide that doesn't necessarily go away quickly.
#17
Guest_pylodictis_*
Guest_pylodictis_*
-
- Guests
Posted 10 May 2011 - 04:53 PM
After the kepone incident in the James, it's hard to avoid thinking of the river as horribly polluted with a carcinogenic pesticide that doesn't necessarily go away quickly.
It's been a long time and most of the pollutant is buried in the bottom substrate. It's also in the extreme downstream sections.
#18
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 May 2011 - 12:13 PM
It's been a long time and most of the pollutant is buried in the bottom substrate.
You're certain?
#19
Guest_pylodictis_*
Guest_pylodictis_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 May 2011 - 05:28 PM
You're certain?
Yes, kepone is no longer in detectable levels in James River fishes. Not to mention the incident was in Hopewell, further downstream than most of the fishing(20 miles below Richmond).
http://www.sciencema...06/440.abstract
http://www.wtvr.com/...0,5376688.story
"All of a sudden, if they see a dead fish, or five, or fifteen or a hundred, floating out somewhere on the river, they're going to forget that bald eagle or that osprey, and remember the dead fish," said Ostrander"
#20
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 May 2011 - 07:23 PM
That doesn't necessarily means it's gone, stable polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons like those can linger a long time in living lipids. They will degrade, and are degrading, just like DDT and PCB. The classic study is Lake Apopka in Florida with an insecticide spill that soon went to an undetectable level, but alligators became largely intersex because the material was concentrated up the food chain in their fats and then became a good estrogen mimic. Maybe the James is luckier.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
