New Jersey has the Green sunfish and Warmouth sunfish on their invasive species list to be destroyed as soon as they are caught.
http://www.state.nj....c_invasives.htm
"Green sunfish and warmouths have a larger mouth than the state's native sunfish, thus have the ability to outcompete native fish. "
New Jersey has the legal right to do this, no question. But I call them to the mat ethically for the Green Sunfish, where they clearly have not done their discovery due diligence.
First, their reasoning is flawed. In Eastern Pennsylvania we have an abundance of Green Sunfish. They do not out compete their smaller mouthed cousins. I've never seen a pond or lake containing both Greens and Bluegills where the Bluegills did not outnumber the Greens by a large margin.
Next, looking at the Green Sunfish distribution, they have a strong presence in the Delaware River watershed, and have had one for many years. Looking at old distribution maps, they did not extend further east than the Susquehanna watershed, but that has not been the case for ages. They are abundant and thriving in Eastern PA. They are in the Delaware River, to get to NJ they only need to swim across it. New Jersey has 0 percent chance of stopping this incursion, and is needlessly killing these animals.
I have no strong opinion on the Warmouth, but will note the inconsistency between NJ and PA. In PA they are on the endangered list, in NJ the invasive list. This includes the Delaware River Watershed, where the fish has been found, and both States share this watershed.
So, is there Sunfish stupidity in NJ, or am I missing something?
Sunfish stupidity in New Jersey
Started by
Guest_Pumpkinsteve_*
, May 29 2014 08:27 PM
16 replies to this topic
#2
Guest_Skipjack_*
Guest_Skipjack_*
-
- Guests
Posted 29 May 2014 - 08:54 PM
Yeah, if they do not belong there, and are introduced, the state is probably doing the right thing. They may never cause a problem, but simply if they are not native, they deserve no protection whatsoever, and should in my opinion be treated like any other invasive.
#3
Guest_Erica Lyons_*
Guest_Erica Lyons_*
-
- Guests
Posted 29 May 2014 - 08:56 PM
"I have no strong opinion on the Warmouth, but will note the inconsistency between NJ and PA. In PA they are on the endangered list, in NJ the invasive list. "
Although PA and NJ share a border, there's a mountain range in between the native distribution of warmouth in PA and the fish found in NJ.
http://www.rom.on.ca..._type=map&id=86
I agree with you, though. I think it's a waste of taxpayer money to list a species natively found in the state next door as 'invasive' and to spend money trying to eradicate it.
Although PA and NJ share a border, there's a mountain range in between the native distribution of warmouth in PA and the fish found in NJ.
http://www.rom.on.ca..._type=map&id=86
I agree with you, though. I think it's a waste of taxpayer money to list a species natively found in the state next door as 'invasive' and to spend money trying to eradicate it.
#5
Guest_centrarchid_*
Guest_centrarchid_*
-
- Guests
Posted 30 May 2014 - 02:51 AM
I think the intent is to control human mediated spread. Wording of law is simple and prevents confusion. Both species are also preferred bait for large catfish making transport for such reasons more likely despite legality issues.
#6
Guest_Subrosa_*
Guest_Subrosa_*
-
- Guests
Posted 30 May 2014 - 05:04 AM
Considering that the PA/NJ border is also pretty much the boundary between the Piedmont and Atlantic Coastal Plain regions, it's hardly surprising that the ranges of different fish species come together there. The bulk of the species on PA's endangered species lists, both plant and animal are plentiful in NJ, due to their being confined to the Coastal Plain which PA has very little of within its borders.
#7
Guest_Skipjack_*
Guest_Skipjack_*
-
- Guests
Posted 30 May 2014 - 07:00 AM
I think the intent is to control human mediated spread. Wording of law is simple and prevents confusion. Both species are also preferred bait for large catfish making transport for such reasons more likely despite legality issues.
I bet you hit the nail on the head here.
#8
Guest_Pumpkinsteve_*
Guest_Pumpkinsteve_*
-
- Guests
Posted 30 May 2014 - 03:50 PM
Yeah, if they do not belong there, and are introduced, the state is probably doing the right thing. They may never cause a problem, but simply if they are not native, they deserve no protection whatsoever, and should in my opinion be treated like any other invasive.
Yes, I agree with that logic. But I don't agree that all of them are introduced. Native ranges do change over time, and I believe NJ is fighting a losing battle with this fish.
The problem is that the laws are drawn up around state lines which are artificial political boundaries, when the invasive/protected laws would be much better done on the regional/watershed level.
#9
Guest_Pumpkinsteve_*
Guest_Pumpkinsteve_*
-
- Guests
Posted 30 May 2014 - 05:10 PM
I think the intent is to control human mediated spread. Wording of law is simple and prevents confusion. Both species are also preferred bait for large catfish making transport for such reasons more likely despite legality issues.
Wording of the law is something that NJ and PA share. In both states the wording is specifically chosen to make the rangers job on the water as easy as possible. I believe allowances for hobbyist are intentionally omitted for this reason. If a hobbyist catches a Warmouth in NJ and wanted to take it home and put it in an aquarium in PA, they would be breaking the law it two states.
#10
Guest_Kanus_*
Guest_Kanus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 31 May 2014 - 07:58 PM
I'm not sure I understand the problem. Carp are also an invasive with no hope of eradication, but It seems to me like any carp biomass removed from the water and converted to fertilizer is only positively impacting native species. Likewise, carp may be in nearly every water body imaginable, but it is still good practice to discourage their movement from one body of water to another.
Not sure what you mean by "Native ranges change over time" unless you are speaking in terms of geologic time i.e. tens of thousands of years or more. Green sunfish are absolutely not, in any way, native to the Atlantic slope, and should not be given any kind of protection or sympathy.
Not sure what you mean by "Native ranges change over time" unless you are speaking in terms of geologic time i.e. tens of thousands of years or more. Green sunfish are absolutely not, in any way, native to the Atlantic slope, and should not be given any kind of protection or sympathy.
#11
Guest_centrarchid_*
Guest_centrarchid_*
-
- Guests
Posted 31 May 2014 - 08:59 PM
I'm not sure I understand the problem. Carp are also an invasive with no hope of eradication, but It seems to me like any carp biomass removed from the water and converted to fertilizer is only positively impacting native species. Likewise, carp may be in nearly every water body imaginable, but it is still good practice to discourage their movement from one body of water to another.
Not sure what you mean by "Native ranges change over time" unless you are speaking in terms of geologic time i.e. tens of thousands of years or more. Green sunfish are absolutely not, in any way, native to the Atlantic slope, and should not be given any kind of protection or sympathy.
I can see the natural range expansion issue with many species and it often does not require geologic time. I can see current expansions here involving not only fish but also mammals and birds. Insect range changes are even easier to see.
The green sunfish and other species should not have been moved around but once they get past a given barrier at the hands of humans, if no further natural barriers exists, then blocking their expansion by killing individuals will be futile for stopping further expansion.
#15
Guest_MichiJim_*
Guest_MichiJim_*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 June 2014 - 12:58 PM
I think I am with centrarchid on this one. I agree we need to avoid introductions of non-native species. I also agree that in some cases, they have been part of the ecosystem for a while and are not going anywhere. Carp in the Great Lakes is a close-to-home example. You would be hard pressed to describe any portion of lakes Michigan, Erie or Huron as pristine, or even representing historical fish populations. Much of that is human interference that was deliberate. See what happens when we suggest reducing steelhead or pacific salmon plants. Not a native fish by a long shot, but they are not going to be eliminated. Would I like to see common carp eliminated? Sure, but that's not going to happen. Might as well accept them and try to reduce their negative impacts. But I see no sense in just killing every one I see. As far as species colonization of new habitats, I can think of several that are occurring right now. Orange-spotted sunfish are becoming more prevalent in the Lake Erie watershed due to siltation of steams. Not sure when the first one was recorded, but many works I read list it as a colonizing species in this state - not native. Where I live in the Upper Peninsula, we are seeing more cardinals and red-bellied woodpeckers every year. They are not native to this area, but no one I know wants to see them go.
#16
Guest_mikez_*
Guest_mikez_*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 June 2014 - 05:33 PM
Will they also be implementing a "Kill On Sight" program for the other introduced predators with big mouths? Largemouth bass for example, or brown trout, or rainbow trout or northern pike etc? What happens when a fisherman throws an under sized trout up on the bank to die?
I'm against it mainly because it's unenforceable and many people will ignore it, making it a sham law that weakens respect for all laws.
I'm against it mainly because it's unenforceable and many people will ignore it, making it a sham law that weakens respect for all laws.
Reply to this topic
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
