Washington Post Article On The "benefits" Of Gambusia

Below is the link to today's Washington Post article on the "benefits" of introducing Gambusia any and everywhere to control mosquitos. The mosquitofish lobby is bigger and worse than I had dared think. I've already left one hostile comment at the Post about this disinformation.

Washington Post Mosquitofish Article

I had no idea there was a Gambusia lobby... I wonder how much the industry is worth?

There is a little ray of hope in this quote from the article:

"Still, experts are divided over how well the mosquito-killing fish get the job done. "Their efficacy in many situations appears questionable at best and is likely to result in a false sense of security," says the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.

The whole idea of mosquitofish makes that department uneasy. For starters, someone could release Gambusia affinis , known as the western mosquitofish, which experts say isn't native to Virginia or Maryland, potentially altering habitat. The department also worries about Gambusia holbrooki , the eastern mosquitofish, which is used in the Washington area and is native to eastern and central Maryland and eastern Virginia. That fish could find its way to certain bodies of water -- small salamander and frog breeding ponds, for example -- and do damage."


How about this quote:

"But residents in Northern Virginia are getting their hands on them. If they call into the Arlington County Environmental Health Bureau, mosquito disease specialist Aftab Hussain recommends that they try the fish -- as long as application is limited to small, contained water bodies."

At least Aftab Hussain has the right idea about keeping them contained. The problem is, can they truly be kept contained?

Damn, I should have called him instead of collecting my own.

Being in Northern Virginia, arnoldi and I can tell you that we've found Gambusia holbrooki in just about every water impoundment in the area.

Actually, EVERY water impoundment in the area. I can't think of one place I have sampled that didn't have them.

shocked up a couple hundred in a 75 m stretch in the sassafras river on the MD/DE border today. See em quite a bite the last few weeks. I heard about the article on the radio today. The post has been week after week with articles like this.

I've sent a letter to the Post with NANFA's objections to the Gambusia article, and it looks like it will be published in the next several days. Below is the edited version of my (our) letter which will appear:

Re: the August 9 article, “Putting the Bite on Mosquitoes”:
Although mosquitofish do consume the aquatic larval form of mosquitoes,
it is doubtful that they do so in greater amounts than do other small
fishes.
Indiscriminately stocking mosquitofish threaten local fish populations
and reduces the number of game fish and other desirable species.
Mosquitofish are not native to all parts of Maryland and Virginia. They
naturally occur only in flat, low-lying areas in swamps, floodplains and
low gradient rivers. Mosquitofish stocked in upland waters compete with
local species for food and may introduce disease to local fish populations.
Mosquitofish are voracious predators and prey on the young of game fish
and other local species.
If mosquitofish are stocked in manmade basins and small ponds, it
should only be in ponds that do not have any outlet to natural bodies of
water.
Fishes often escape from garden ponds and other habitats during heavy
rainfall and flooding. Whenever mosquitofish are used for stocking they
should be obtained only from a local native population.
BRUCE STALLSMITH
President
North American Native Fishes Association
Huntsville, Alabama

Any response from these guys, or are they just going to publish it and let the reader comments fly?

I'm sorry, what I was trying to say is that what I presented as the letter in my previous message is what the Post intends to publish, which is very similar to the letter we sent them. Thanks to Bob Bock for some serious copyediting to say in 200 words what most of us would use 500 words for.

And I suppose some readers of our letter might wonder why we're such pencilneck morons, but hey, we've already decided to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

I'm sorry, what I was trying to say is that what I presented as the letter in my previous message is what the Post intends to publish, which is very similar to the letter we sent them. Thanks to Bob Bock for some serious copyediting to say in 200 words what most of us would use 500 words for.

And I suppose some readers of our letter might wonder why we're such pencilneck morons, but hey, we've already decided to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

I can edit your response to Irate's question down to two words:

The latter.



I assume that's the right answer. What he means (correct me if I'm wrong, Irate), is, Will the letter be published along with some sort of commentary from the editors?

Please let us know when it is published. It will be interesting to see what kind of responses it gets.

No, I expect our letter to be published as a typical letter without response from the editors or the author. At least I haven't heard anything else. I know that all of us would be happy to debate them on the issue forever and a day, but I doubt the editors have that interest.

I assume that's the right answer. What he means (correct me if I'm wrong, Irate), is, Will the letter be published along with some sort of commentary from the editors?

Yup, that's about it. Just wondering if the editors take any responsibility for their evil ways. Not to mention the author, who hopefully will respond.