I ran across this website (http://invasivore.org/) and wondered what folks here think of the concept. After all, this community is particularly cognizant of invasive species and also has the means and aptitude to harvest them successfully.
On one hand, humans have historically been frighteningly effective at reducing or eliminating species that we find tasty (or inconvenient, but that's another discussion). Could that be channeled to help reduce the numbers and spread of invasive species?
On the other hand, it is always dangerous to cultivate a demand for invasive species as someone, somewhere, will decide that it is easier to cultivate/raise species x,y,or z in their backyard than it is to harvest it in the "wild." History proves this often leads to further spread of the species, as the combination of humans and commerce opens up a bottomless well of irony and unanticipated consequences.
The website proves that there is certainly some interest and activity already going on around this topic, but it is probably not a concept that registers with most Americans. That could change with a single mention by Oprah, or if Kim Kardashian goes on the "invasivore diet" to loose baby weight.
So, is it an innovative idea that should be encouraged, or an interesting concept that would just muck things up worse if acted upon?
Eating the local non-locals...
Started by
Guest_rootsman_*
, Jun 19 2013 01:04 PM
9 replies to this topic
#2
Guest_Subrosa_*
Guest_Subrosa_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:00 PM
I think your assessment of man's treatment of food species is almost 100% incorrect. The best ways to ensure the continued survival of an animal is to figure out how to make it taste good, or to domesticate it as a pet or for other reasons such as putting them to work. The wild progenitors of dogs, cats, chickens, cows and horses are in rough shape from a population point of view, but their domesticated progeny are quite secure if not problematic. Extinction/extirpation usually come from habitat destruction (including introduction of non-natives), or the animal being considered a pest, particularly one which interferes with the production of food. I can't think of a single species which has been eaten into extinction. That said, your idea is a good one.
#3
Guest_Subrosa_*
Guest_Subrosa_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:14 PM
A quick look at the website turned up a few interesting things, for the good and the bad. Knowing that garlic mustard is worth eating could have cut my food bill considerably if I hadn't instituted a policy of eradication last season. As it is I won't have to want for it though! But to see the mindless repetition of the falsehood that Northern Snakeheads are a responsibility of the aquarium trade is rather distressing. I've worked in the trade almost non-stop since 1981, and the only Snakehead species I ever saw in the trade were the Giant Snakehead, Channa micropeltes (known in the trade as Red Snakeheads because of their juvenile coloration) and Channa asiatica, known in the trade as the Zig Zag Snakehead. The only Northerns I've ever seen were in Asian fish markets. The infamous Crofton Pond introduction was definitively traced back to a fish market.
Edited by Subrosa, 19 June 2013 - 03:15 PM.
#4
littlen
-
- NANFA Member
- Washington, D.C.
Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:36 PM
rootsman, this is a very interesting topic and one that I deal with almost daily at my work. We are highly involved with bringing awareness to and about invasive species---their study, eradication, the problems they create and offer suggestions on how to 'fix' the problem. The main species we work with are the Lionfish in the Atlantic, but also the Northern snakehead (Channa argus). We promote the slogan, "Eat em' to beat em' ". In our stance, both are excellent table fare (the Lionfish moreso) and we try to encourage local fishermen to target these species and give other species typically harvested time to recover. This is better applied to the Caribbean where Grouper and Snapper are overfished and Lionfish are plentiful. We hope to encourage local governments to also promote awareness and the feasibility of catching and eating these problematic and invasive species. It is highly unlikely that people are going to start breeding either species in the backyard/ponds to then have more 'meat' to sell to markets as the demand for these fish (hopefully) increases.
In my opinion, this is a great approach for controlling blooming populations of invasive species, or at least the 2 that I'm speaking of. Of course, this doesn't apply to many others as carp will likely never reach $10 a pound and be considered a delicacy. In most cases we will never eradicate an invasive species---and can only hope to control their numbers. Eating them seems like a good idea.
In my opinion, this is a great approach for controlling blooming populations of invasive species, or at least the 2 that I'm speaking of. Of course, this doesn't apply to many others as carp will likely never reach $10 a pound and be considered a delicacy. In most cases we will never eradicate an invasive species---and can only hope to control their numbers. Eating them seems like a good idea.
Nick L.
#5
Guest_rootsman_*
Guest_rootsman_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 June 2013 - 04:30 PM
Subrosa, you're right, my statement did kind of make it sound like humans had exterminated everything that we like to eat. What I meant to say, is that this dietary trend could leverage the fact that humans have the historically proven capacity to eliminate (or come very close to eliminating) particular critters that we decide that we want between two buns.
I agree with you on the role of habitat destruction as a major agent in species extinction, and I agree that many extinctions cannot be attributed to over-harvest for food but rather for human convenience, for lack of a better word. But there are, unfortunately, a multitude of examples of human's short-sighted destruction, largely through over-harvest, of species that are "useful" to us for food or their furs or other reasons. In many cases, populations could have perhaps survived degredation/reduction in habitat if not also subjected to harvest pressure, or went extinct despite an adequate amount of suitable habitat.
Just to stir the pot, I'll throw in the historical example of the destruction of a large percentage of North American megafauna after the migration of humans to the continent, and also the various island-based species such as the Dodo, Great Auk, and Galapagos Tortise which were extirpated largely through the gustatory exertions of passing sailors (admitedly with an assist from introduced rats and pigs). The American Bison also comes to mind. Farming and railroads certainly didn't help the situation, but the .50 rifle had accomplished their near extinction long before the vastness of the short grass prarie had been significantly altered by settlers.
For fish lovers, the modern examples are, frankly, too depressing to get into. Three concepts to reflect on: drift nets, long liners, and by-catch. Ah, Bluefin Tuna, the buffalo of the seas...
Of course some species have been selected by humans and domesticated, and as a result their numbers have flouished, but there is a seperate discussion to be had as to what degree that actually constitutes an improvement or protection. My dogs would likely have one opinion, a chicken in a factory farm might have another.
My main question about the whole idea of being an invasivore is, could people do this on any sort of large scale without screwing it up and making things worse instead? I'm not sure...
It seems like the threshold is when people stop collecting the resource themselves and introduce a profit motive by buying it from someone else. But I'm also pretty cynical about these things, so who knows?
I agree with you on the role of habitat destruction as a major agent in species extinction, and I agree that many extinctions cannot be attributed to over-harvest for food but rather for human convenience, for lack of a better word. But there are, unfortunately, a multitude of examples of human's short-sighted destruction, largely through over-harvest, of species that are "useful" to us for food or their furs or other reasons. In many cases, populations could have perhaps survived degredation/reduction in habitat if not also subjected to harvest pressure, or went extinct despite an adequate amount of suitable habitat.
Just to stir the pot, I'll throw in the historical example of the destruction of a large percentage of North American megafauna after the migration of humans to the continent, and also the various island-based species such as the Dodo, Great Auk, and Galapagos Tortise which were extirpated largely through the gustatory exertions of passing sailors (admitedly with an assist from introduced rats and pigs). The American Bison also comes to mind. Farming and railroads certainly didn't help the situation, but the .50 rifle had accomplished their near extinction long before the vastness of the short grass prarie had been significantly altered by settlers.
For fish lovers, the modern examples are, frankly, too depressing to get into. Three concepts to reflect on: drift nets, long liners, and by-catch. Ah, Bluefin Tuna, the buffalo of the seas...
Of course some species have been selected by humans and domesticated, and as a result their numbers have flouished, but there is a seperate discussion to be had as to what degree that actually constitutes an improvement or protection. My dogs would likely have one opinion, a chicken in a factory farm might have another.
My main question about the whole idea of being an invasivore is, could people do this on any sort of large scale without screwing it up and making things worse instead? I'm not sure...
It seems like the threshold is when people stop collecting the resource themselves and introduce a profit motive by buying it from someone else. But I'm also pretty cynical about these things, so who knows?
Edited by rootsman, 19 June 2013 - 04:32 PM.
#6
Guest_Subrosa_*
Guest_Subrosa_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 June 2013 - 04:56 PM
I will concede the island species used as food, but the case against us on the NA megafauna is questionable at best. Did we eat them or infect them into extinction? The Bluefin is no longer available in numbers to sustain a commercial harvest, but far from extinct. They are the subject of intensive efforts to produce them like chickens because of the potential financial return. Bison are the new domestic cow, and totally secure. Then there's one's definition of an invasive species. Imo here in SE PA, the Commonwealth is the greatest introducer of invasive species. Largemouth Bass, Bluegills and Trout are introduced invasives here (Brook Trout are Char). Largemouths are the second most destructive invasive fish species in terms of extinctions and extirpations caused, right after the Nile Perch. Brown and Rainbow Trout are much more piscivorous than our native Brookies and have undoubtedly had an impact on the populations of some of our Darter species. As you can see I'm pretty cynical myself!
Edited by Subrosa, 19 June 2013 - 04:56 PM.
#7
Guest_don212_*
Guest_don212_*
-
- Guests
Posted 20 June 2013 - 05:42 PM
as example of food extinctions i offer the passenger pigeon and the berring sea dugong i believe the pigeon was extirpated to feed slaves, i know i have e the dugong name wrong but it became extinct in 27 years, if you want to eliminate an animalfrom a select area, it will be trickier
#8
Guest_rootsman_*
Guest_rootsman_*
-
- Guests
Posted 22 June 2013 - 06:41 AM
Moderators,
I posted in general discussion since for some of us the "invasives" are actually NA natives that have been introduced outside their home ranges--i.e. the panfish which were introduced to the Columbia/Willamette system after the Columbia Exposition in the early 1900s. If it would be more appropriate to move the post to the "Invasives" section of the board, please feel free to do so.
thanks
I posted in general discussion since for some of us the "invasives" are actually NA natives that have been introduced outside their home ranges--i.e. the panfish which were introduced to the Columbia/Willamette system after the Columbia Exposition in the early 1900s. If it would be more appropriate to move the post to the "Invasives" section of the board, please feel free to do so.
thanks
#9
Guest_don212_*
Guest_don212_*
-
- Guests
Posted 22 June 2013 - 09:28 PM
they are trying to control nutria by getting locals to eat them, but even though they eat the muskrat which it is displacing, most don't seem to like them, i'm a diver but i don't intend to handle and cook a poisonous lionfish, i might kill them if i come across 1 if i could capture and sell them it would be more motivation
#10
littlen
-
- NANFA Member
- Washington, D.C.
Posted 24 June 2013 - 07:45 AM
^don212, I can appreciate your skepticism in not wanting to capture, handle, and cook a 'poisonous' fish. (They are actually vemonous, but that is rather a moot point, unless you are thinking that like the Japanese Blowfish, you must be careful to cut around the poisonous glands within the fish). Otherwise, once a speared Lionfish is dead and had it's spines removed, it is completely safe to handle the fish to produce the filets. The only dangerous parts of a Lionfish are it's dorsal, pelvic, and anal spines (pectoral fins are NOT), which are much more dangerous when the fish is kept alive and handled. Regardless, spearing and leaving the fish in the ocean is acceptable means of 'removal' for me. Dead is dead. Studies have shown that 'wild' Lionfish in the Atlantic are getting bigger than their wild brethren in the Indo-Pacific as they have no natural predators and are more or less free to feed 24/7.
The idea with capturing and reselling (juvenile) Lionfish has come up. One drawback is that much like Oscars and other large, predatory fish in captivity, John Q. Homeowner is more likely to dump this species right back into the ocean when it outgrows his 20gal. or eat his prized Blue-Green Chromis. No offense to Oscar owners out there, or anyone on this forum as I'm sure everyone is a responsible fish-keeper. I'm also not proposing a ban on Lionfish sales in the U.S. They are a great fish and make an excellent species to keep in the home aquaria so long as you have the appropriate means to keep it.
So while we certainly don't have to agree on eating them, I think we can both agree on the need for their removal. It is my hope that the commercial fishing industry, to include local fisherman living on the islands in the Caribbean, pick up on wanting to target Lionfish. Some information will be required to teach them how to safely handle this fish, but I can speak for how good the meat is.
The idea with capturing and reselling (juvenile) Lionfish has come up. One drawback is that much like Oscars and other large, predatory fish in captivity, John Q. Homeowner is more likely to dump this species right back into the ocean when it outgrows his 20gal. or eat his prized Blue-Green Chromis. No offense to Oscar owners out there, or anyone on this forum as I'm sure everyone is a responsible fish-keeper. I'm also not proposing a ban on Lionfish sales in the U.S. They are a great fish and make an excellent species to keep in the home aquaria so long as you have the appropriate means to keep it.
So while we certainly don't have to agree on eating them, I think we can both agree on the need for their removal. It is my hope that the commercial fishing industry, to include local fisherman living on the islands in the Caribbean, pick up on wanting to target Lionfish. Some information will be required to teach them how to safely handle this fish, but I can speak for how good the meat is.
Nick L.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
