Yipeee..party time

Now they are spreading in North Carolina:

An alert has been generated that matched your criteria from the Nonindigenous Aquatic Species database:

Channa argus (northern snakehead) was found in a new County
Details:
State: NC
County: Mecklenburg
Drainage: Upper Catawba (3050101)
Location: South Fork Catawba River at HWY 74 bridge in Gastonia


More information on this specimen can be found:
http://nas.er.usgs.g...ecimenID=238390

Got to read the species report for the best stuff....

Comments:
Was released back to the site after the fisherman was mistakenly advised it was a bowfin. Identification based on voucher photos. Electrofishing by the state the following day found none.

Oh yeah and Mitten Crabs are in Lake Erie

Eriocheir sinensis (Chinese mitten crab) was found in a new State, County
Details:
State: OH
County: Lorain
Drainage: Lake Erie (4120200)
Location: Lake Erie at Lorain Harbor, Lorain, OH [~10 miles west of Cleveland]

 Die_Kitten_gun.jpg   15.03KB   0 downloads
It is never going to end is it?????????

Im believe the only thing that can be done to stop the invasive snakehead.... BOOT STOMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No Brooklamprey, it's not ever going to end. Not as long as there are stupid people being allowed to breed like carp.

No Brooklamprey, it's not ever going to end. Not as long as there are stupid people being allowed to breed like carp.

To be the devis's advocate...

One could argue that there are no such things as invasive species. Humans are a natural phenomenon. Nothing that we do is unnatural. Nuclear power, plastic...all natural. As humans are a vector for the distribution of species (starlings, snakeheads, rats, E.boli, house sparrows...) the populations of those species and "natives" shift. If you want to stomp invasive species, start with yourself. We did not get here naturally, like the ancestors of the native americans crossing the landbridge. We came on boats (with the housesparrows, rats and the flu). I don't like seeing native populations of animals impacted by invasives either.

I kill invasives that I encounter. Half the reason I have a bird feeder.

I wish that people could at least learn to tell the difference between snakeheads and bowfins... When I drift dove the Rainbow River in Florida last year, I saw tons of Amia. I mentioned this to one of the park rangers during small-talk, and his response was "Yeah, it's too bad about those snakefish. Gotta kill 'em when you find 'em". I was really hoping that at least the park rangers would be able to tell the difference

just like them carp snakeheads will become a part of the ecosystem thingy and we'll figure a way to cook them with gasoline too.

I hate anyone who puts in things like snakehead I mean you ruin lake wylie with snails great lakes with mussels and gobies far west with monsquito fish mountains with rainbow and brown trout what else do people have to destroy.

Robert

To be the devis's advocate...

One could argue that there are no such things as invasive species.

And you would technically be correct as animal movement and distribution patterns have been impacted for many millions of years and will continue to be by both climatic and more recently anthropogenic influence. Much of North America's Flora and fauna was directly changed over 10,000 years ago with climate shifts, man and above all man with fire...Since modern European colonization and more recently easy global trade the trend just continues.

Still however I do not see it as anachronistic nor reactionary to try to stop the destruction of a rather young indigenous ecosystem now (even if seriously disrupted) to preserve this unique biological resource for the future. Call it Ecologic Nationalism if you wish....I'm really sick of the unwanted Immigrant pests messing with my land, air and water...We (Humans) hardly even know what we have naturally but continue to just destroy it rather than live with it. Seems like we would have got intelligent by now with that big brain and all but then I also assume a level of intelligence.

One could argue that there are no such things as invasive species. Humans are a natural phenomenon. Nothing that we do is unnatural. Nuclear power, plastic...all natural. As humans are a vector for the distribution of species (starlings, snakeheads, rats, E.boli, house sparrows...) the populations of those species and "natives" shift. If you want to stomp invasive species, start with yourself. We did not get here naturally, like the ancestors of the native americans crossing the landbridge. We came on boats (with the housesparrows, rats and the flu).

If you believe in evolution (not that I do), then this would be exactly correct. Except, how is building a boat and sailing any less natural for an evolved human "animal" than walking across a land bridge? For an evolutionist to be self-consistent, he has to recognize ALL human activity (and the ecological results thereof) as natural. We evolved the intellect to build the boat (and everything else we've built, for that matter), and the hands to operate it.

Anyway, your statements "Nothing that we do is unnatural" and "We did not get here naturally" are not consistent. The first one is consistent with your evolutionary premise, the second is not.

Anyway, your statements "Nothing that we do is unnatural" and "We did not get here naturally" are not consistent. The first one is consistent with your evolutionary premise, the second is not.

You got me there...For it to to have read the same as it sounded in my head, I should have had another pair of quotations...We did not get here "naturally"

I wholeheartedly agree that invasive species disrupt the ecosystem. I would like to see them all disappear and go back home. But the argument exists that some are "bad" and some are "good." Zebra mussels initially cleaned up the Great Lakes after decades of phosphate laden effluent eutrophized the system. Try convincing the people to stop stocking Pacific Salmon in the Great Lakes, or Rainbow trout/steelhead or brown trout etc. When our envirionmental regulators cannot even be consistent in invasive control by stocking non-natives, how can we expect Joe Dumbass not to let his turtle go?

When I was doing levee work in CA I remember having to do an emergency repair to 50 feet of levee that was pretty close to failing a highway and flooding an island. Our Army Corps permit got hung up by NMFS and they wouldn't give us a permit because the increased sediment and turbidity would "adversely affect out-migrating smolt". It was winter, the water was high and looked like Willy Wonka's magic chocolate river anyway?!! On top of that, the CA Department of Fish and Game uses population statistics of STRIPED BASS as an indicator of ecosystem health. How many out-migrating salmon smolt does a 24 inch striper eat? Its a daunting task. All we can do is be responsible, and coming full circle....boot stomp!

Enjoy the long weekend and happy fishin'!

If you believe in evolution (not that I do), then this would be exactly correct. Except, how is building a boat and sailing any less natural for an evolved human "animal" than walking across a land bridge? For an evolutionist to be self-consistent, he has to recognize ALL human activity (and the ecological results thereof) as natural. We evolved the intellect to build the boat (and everything else we've built, for that matter), and the hands to operate it.

Anyway, your statements "Nothing that we do is unnatural" and "We did not get here naturally" are not consistent. The first one is consistent with your evolutionary premise, the second is not.

Ed do you have something to say about invasive species or are you just bashing evolutionist ideas again ??
If you are please spare us all that.....

scottefontay's statement of "we did not get here naturally" I very much understand as being: Not as a natural distribution or range extension and is specifically directed to the European invasion and colonization of the North American continent. (Which I would also consider not all that natural but that is semantics) Before this time of European invasion, Invasive or Exotic species from other continents did not exist as there was no vector (or transport) for them. This is why the definition of 'Native' also includes the words 'Pre-settlement' in many cases.

This does not mean that species where not being distributed before this time. It is well know that even in the paleo-archaic humans where readily moving seed around to new areas and establishing populations of food plants outside of the original distribution. They where also altering habitat to change or expand the natural distribution of game animals and indirectly (or directly) could have been responsible for the wholesale decimation and extinction of North America's Mega-vertebrate fauna.... This is largely irrelevant however to what it is we are facing today with Invasive and exotic introductions.

EDIT:

You got me there...For it to to have read the same as it sounded in my head, I should have had another pair of quotations...We did not get here "naturally"

OK I do see I read that right

In response to this devils advocate thing... The distribution of organisms beyond their native ranges has been happening for hundreds of millions of years, so in that respect you could consider "invasions" to be a natural process. However, in the past hundred or so years, the rate of these invasions has increased exponentially, primarily due to human activity. It is the huge increase in these introductions that is not natural, and it is throwing entire ecosystems into chaos. Back in the good old days, maybe a few types of organisms would get moved around every once in a while, but this was OK because the ecosystems would have the chance to adjust to the newcomers. Things would be different, but the ecosystem would still be functional. But with dozens of new organisms being introduced every year now, things are not able to stabilize themselves. So in a nutshell, that is the problem with what is going on here, and why we need to do something to stop the incessant introduction of non-indigenous species.

Ed do you have something to say about invasive species or are you just bashing evolutionist ideas again ??
If you are please spare us all that.....

If you want spared the critique of evolution, then spare me the evolution. The assumption of evolution has been made, both explicitly and implicitly, many times here. I find that to be offensive. I find it to be even more offensive that evolutionists feel free to make their statements, but then complain about being criticized. You can make statements about fish anatomy, behavior, distribution, etc. without the evolutionary assumptions/assertions. So why do they need to be made? And why does it offend you when I point out the inconsistencies in the applications of the assumptions? If you believe in evolution, then be consistent in applying your thinking. If you believe in evolution, then all things are natural, all human behavior is natural, fish distributions done (deliberately or inadvertently) by man are natural, and there are no such things as invasive species. All species had a point of origin, and migrated through natural means (including human activity) into their current ranges. Changing rates are irrelevant. Rapid alterations to ecosystems resulting in the rapid loss of species, and rapid introduction of species, are all natural events. Mass extinctions are postulated as having occurred due to meteorites, etc. These are believed to have furthered the cause of evolution, being the impetus for "upward" change. So why is this not also the case when man causes mass extinctions and rapid changes to ecosystems? The simple fact of the matter is, for an evolutionist to complain about invasive species, and mass extinctions, at the hand of man, he is inconsistent in applying his own belief system. If man is an animal, and evolved, man is natural and good, and all results of his activity are natural and good. I, on the other hand, believe that man was created, and made a steward over his environment. I also believe that he has been a very bad steward. Invasive species are a result of bad stewardship. If I am inconsistent in applying my belief system, please help me by correcting me.

Anyway, if you will read the text of my original statement, I was generally agreeing with scottefontay, that his underlying statement was correct, based on the unstated but clearly implied assumption of evolution. However, I do find the statements "Nothing that we do is unnatural" and "We did not get here naturally" to be inconsistent. And somebody please explain to me how adding quotes to "naturally" changes its meaning, because I don't understand the difference. I also find it to be inconsistent to correctly note that, according to the implied evolutionary assumption, there is no such thing as an invasive species, and then go on to complain about the effects of invasive species.

scottefontay's statement of "we did not get here naturally" I very much understand as being: Not as a natural distribution or range extension and is specifically directed to the European invasion and colonization of the North American continent. (Which I would also consider not all that natural but that is semantics) Before this time of European invasion, Invasive or Exotic species from other continents did not exist as there was no vector (or transport) for them. This is why the definition of 'Native' also includes the words 'Pre-settlement' in many cases.

Once again, please explain to me how "the European invasion and colonization of the North American continent" is not a natural event. You have previously stated on other threads that you are of American Indian ancestry. Does that affect your perception of the European migration? The truth is, American Indians are not "native" any more than European Americans. The American Indians are believed to have arrived in the Americas by the Bering Strait, boats from Polynesia, and perhaps other means, but they did not originate here. They undoubtedly brought "invasive species" with them when they migrated, and they are known to have caused the extinction of many species. They filled the land, conquered each other, killed each other, and took land from each other during their internal migrations, and during successive waves of migrations from Asia. The European migration was no more than one more wave of the same. Americans of European origin have done nothing that Americans of Asian origin (including American Indians) have not done, not only when it comes to conquest and colonization, but the movement of species. I suggest you read the latest National Geographic, the Jamestown 400th anniversary issue. It exposes the unpopular and uncommonly known truth, that the Jamestown settlers did not find unspoiled woods, but intensively managed lands, in nowhere near their "natural" state. There certainly was a vector for transporting species prior to the European wave; there were multiple vectors, including human activity, wind, water, ice, land bridges and isthmuses, etc. Even the term "pre-settlement" is not clear. Pre- what? European settlement? The conquest of one American Indian tribe/civilization by another? Or the arrival of American Indians? And we have not talked about the effects of the migration of the Inuit, either.

If you want spared the critique of evolution, then spare me the evolution. The assumption of evolution has been made, both explicitly and implicitly, many times here. I find that to be offensive. I find it to be even more offensive that evolutionists feel free to make their statements, but then complain about being criticized. You can make statements about fish anatomy, behavior, distribution, etc. without the evolutionary assumptions/assertions. So why do they need to be made? And why does it offend you when I point out the inconsistencies in the applications of the assumptions?

I am going a bit off topic here to address this issue...

I was under the impression that one of the primary purposes of this forum was to discuss North American native fish in a scientific context. Evolution is a relatively solid scientific concept supported by amounts of evidence too overwhelming to list here (I can recommend a few well-written books to anyone interested in exploring the subject further). Thus, it most definitely has a place on this forum and should play an important role in our discussions here.

It annoys me when people try to convert evolution into a religious or philosophical issue. There are many people out there (atheists and whatnot) who use it to justify their personal beliefs -- your problem is with them, not the science they often corrupt to suit their purposes. There are many devoutly religious people out there who are able to separate these things out and have no problem accepting evolution as a scientific concept.

So I am sorry if this offends anyone, but evolution needs to stay. It is almost impossible these days to discuss ecology without delving into evolution as well. Let us all try to keep our personal belief systems separated from our discussions here. It just creates a hornet's nest full of crap that nobody really wants to read about or deal with.

The simple fact of the matter is, for an evolutionist to complain about invasive species, and mass extinctions, at the hand of man, he is inconsistent in applying his own belief system. If man is an animal, and evolved, man is natural and good, and all results of his activity are natural and good. I, on the other hand, believe that man was created, and made a steward over his environment. I also believe that he has been a very bad steward. Invasive species are a result of bad stewardship. If I am inconsistent in applying my belief system, please help me by correcting me.

Umm....Ed
First: Evolution theory is not a belief system..It is a scientific theory. Any scientist will also tell you "we do not have the anwser to everything" that is why we are scientists we seek anwsers. We do not just "believe"...Science is not a religion..

Second: There is nothing written that says that if you follow scientific thinking that suddenly you have to throw ethical and moral thinking down the drain to be 'consistant' with it...Not all actions by man are 'good' and 'natural' Most constructs of man are actually very unnatural. Ethics and morals can be independant of religion and one can be an atheist and live a moral and ethical life with an ecological conscience.

Covalent bonds are only a Theory too. But I hope no one objects to it.

I am going a bit off topic here to address this issue...

I was under the impression that one of the primary purposes of this forum was to discuss North American native fish in a scientific context. Evolution is a relatively solid scientific concept supported by amounts of evidence too overwhelming to list here (I can recommend a few well-written books to anyone interested in exploring the subject further). Thus, it most definitely has a place on this forum and should play an important role in our discussions here.

It annoys me when people try to convert evolution into a religious or philosophical issue. There are many people out there (atheists and whatnot) who use it to justify their personal beliefs -- your problem is with them, not the science they often corrupt to suit their purposes. There are many devoutly religious people out there who are able to separate these things out and have no problem accepting evolution as a scientific concept.

So I am sorry if this offends anyone, but evolution needs to stay. It is almost impossible these days to discuss ecology without delving into evolution as well. Let us all try to keep our personal belief systems separated from our discussions here. It just creates a hornet's nest full of crap that nobody really wants to read about or deal with.

Disagree. Evolution is a religious philosophy, masquerading as "science". Plain and simple. There is no proof, just speculation, and a lot of missing links. Science is based on experimentation and repeatability. Show me the lab experiment that can be done repeatedly that will create a man from chemicals. It can't be done. You just BELEIVE that it happened. You did not observe it; nobody did. You can't repeat it. You apply your belief system to explain what you see. I apply mine. We all do. It is a logical fallacy to declare interpretations within the context of one belief system as "science", and within the context of another belief system as "religion". If it does not fall within the scientific method, then it is religion. Evolution does not fall within the scientific method. You believe it, and interpret within its context. It is a religion.

Kate, I respectfully disagree, evolution needs to go. All things that are discussed on this forum can be discussed without injecting evolutionary speculation into them. A fish's behavior, for example, is a phenomenon that can be repeatedly observed and reported; there is no need to inject an evolutionary interpretation, just report the behavior, and plan your fishkeeping in accordance with this repeatedly observable behavior.

Richard, I also respectfully disagree. Ethics and morals cannot be independent of religion. Evolution and atheism give you survival of the fittest. There is no morality in that, just "me first". If you have an ecological conscience then you have a belief system - you have religion. It may not be Judeo-Christian religion, but you definitely have some sort of belief system. And I'm glad you do.

Alright, let's step back from this debate. Nobody will win; everybody is persuaded in his own mind. Let's just look at the logic of the original statements, as they relate to one another. Regardless of your belief system, I assert that the statements that "Nothing that we do is unnatural" and "We did not get here naturally" are contradictory. I also assert that if you believe that "Nothing that we do is unnatural", then human transport of species is natural, and not an unnatural circumstance to complain about. Please correct me if I'm wrong. And have a nice day

Covalent bonds are only a Theory too. But I hope no one objects to it.

Nobody has seen them. They are a theoretical model that can be used to predict the behavior of many chemicals. In that context, no objection, Bruce. Someday somebody may come up with a better explanation, though. How many times has that sort of thing happened in the history of science? So why do people always think the current theories are the cat's meow, and irrefutable, when all preceding theories have supposedly been refuted?

We should start one of those meaningless polls: Evolution Yay or Nay.

Regardless of your belief system, I assert that the statements that "Nothing that we do is unnatural" and "We did not get here naturally" are contradictory. I also assert that if you believe that "Nothing that we do is unnatural", then human transport of species is natural, and not an unnatural circumstance to complain about.

I have already tried to explain to you this is mostly semantics which clearly went over your head...

I thought this thread was about Snakehead being found in North Carolina???
Ummm.

yeah that was what it was about....No body even brought up this subject of "evilution" until you decided to read it some how Ed where it was not really implied.

Good now that we have settled that I'm done...No need to say more..Well not quite all.....

There are some excellent forums to discuss contrasts in religion, evolution, science, satanism whatever....It is not here.

As Kate said you are going to be hard pressed to remove an established scientific concept and theory from what is essentially a scientific site....Can't do it Ed sorry....If your ever so offended all the time by this.. I can't help you. I do believe it is safe to say the majority of us are not with you on this subject. Your ideas and your Beliefs are your business and sorry but a scientific theory is not a religion or belief. You are applying your beliefs into your perception on this subject. I have already said it: Science does not claim to know the answers to everything that is why a scientist tests and studys things"..Religion claims it does know so why look further.....Religion is not science and science is not a religion. They can and do intertwine in someways but there are serious differences. No one that seriously works in the world of natural science thinks the theory of evolution is a completed fact. I do not know where the critics come up with us thinking all is answered and that all there is to know is known..Our evidence in many areas borders fact but we are not so naive as to not proceed in looking further.

That said...Ed one last reply from you to be fair and then I'm closing this and ending anymore comment on this thread.

We should start one of those meaningless polls: Evolution Yay or Nay.

Science is a process. It is possible to agree with the process without agreeing with the conclusion. And that's all I have to say about that.