Jump to content

Xenodiversity In Washington State

5 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_vasiliy_*

  • Guests

Posted 24 August 2007 - 09:40 PM

When the first settlers to my state arrived, they wanted something familiar in the lakes and ponds, so they brought with themselves lots of things from the east: bass, crappie, bluegill, bullheads, etc. People back then did not know about their impacts, so what is the case here now? If you go to pretty much ANY lake or pond (excluding reservoirs) there you won't finany natives. Perch, pumpkinseeds, bullheads, and, most importantly, rainbow and cutthroat trout that are native to rivers have driven them out so you wouldn't have any idea what natives once lived here. Then I thought, was anything native to them at all? Recently I found a field guide titled "Inland Fishes of Washington" and it turns out that there were quite a lot of species living in those lakes, which now only survive in rivers because rivers weren't stocked when the settlers came. The game department doesn't care because those natives aren't sport fish and the department is busy hatching salmon for the ocean and stocking trout into lakes.
But, you see, those trout are able to survive in those lakes, but there are no spawning grounds appropriate for them, so they all either get caught or die. If, however, the department stops stocking those trout, gets rid of the exotics, and stocks natives (at least in the medium to large lakes) they would save money in the long run. First, few people would go fishing, then some of those people would get bored, Some people just HAVE TO go fishing, and without the rest it leaves more solitude and fish for the people who go fishing. Could this be a good idea?

But what do I do right now at this moment? I really don't know how to reduce the exotic population and how to get the department to do something. Please, any ideas would be appreciated. I really like the natives here.

#2 Guest_edbihary_*

  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2007 - 10:33 AM

If, however, the department stops stocking those trout, ... they would save money in the long run. First, few people would go fishing...

I'm betting the department would not save money, it would lose money. The department probably gets most, if not all, of its revenues from the sale of fishing licenses. That's why they stock the exotics; it's what most of their customers are paying for.

In order to change this, you need to convince the sportfishing public that natives are suitable sport fish, and the exotics are bad. It will be a hard sell to a sportfishing community that is set in its ways. And until you convince them, the agency will continue in its ways, in order to maintain its cash flow.

#3 Guest_vasiliy_*

  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2007 - 02:11 PM

The game department stopped stocking exotics like bass, crappie, bluegill a Long time ago.

But you are right, people would need to change their opinion on which sportfish are "sport" fish.
So, how do I (or we) convince the public that natives aren't that bad?
Some might think that convincing them is impossible, but cyprinids don't taste that bad, yes, they are bony, but so are bass.

Again, any ideas on convincing people that natives would make good sportfish would be appreciated.

#4 Guest_edbihary_*

  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2007 - 02:57 PM

I think part of the problem is that people are already well convinced that natives are good sport fish. Your native rainbow trout make such good sport fish, that people here wanted them too. Our yellow perch make such good sport fish, that people in your part of the country had to have them too. People already know that native fishes make good sport fish, they're just not content with the ones they have, they have to have the ones other people have, too.

I wish I had a good answer to your question, though.

#5 Guest_vasiliy_*

  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2007 - 04:17 PM

I meant the other natives, like pikeminnow, peamouth, suckers......

#6 Guest_vasiliy_*

  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2007 - 10:05 PM

I don't know how old this article is, but I doubt that it's too old.

I found it here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/f...coho_impact.htm

Effects of Introduced Fishes on Wild Juvenile Coho Salmon Using Three Shallow Western Washington Lakes
By: Scott A. Bonar, Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, U.S. Geological Survey
Bruce D. Bolding, Marc Divens, and William Meyer, Inland Fisheries Research, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife


Pacific salmon declines have been blamed on hydropower, overfishing, ocean conditions, and land-use practices; however, less is known about introduced fish impacts. Most of the hundreds of lakes and ponds in the Pacific Northwest contain introduced fish and many of these water bodies are also important for salmon production, especially coho salmon. Over two years, we examined predation impacts of ten common introduced fishes (brown bullhead catfish Ameiurus nebulosus, black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus, bluegill Lepomis macrochirus, golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas, green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus, largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus, rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, warmouth Lepomis gulosus, and yellow perch Perca flavescens) and two native fishes (cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki, and prickly sculpin Cottus asper) on wild juvenile coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch in three shallow western Washington lakes, all located in different watersheds. Of these species, largemouth bass were responsible for an average of 98% of the predation on coho salmon in all lakes, but total impact to each run varied among lakes and years. Very few coho salmon were eaten by black crappie, brown bullhead catfish, cutthroat trout, prickly sculpin, and yellow perch, while other species were not observed to eat coho salmon. Juvenile coho salmon growth in all lakes was higher than in nearby streams. Therefore, food competition between coho salmon and introduced fishes in lakes was probably not limiting coho salmon populations. Largemouth bass are widespread, present in 85% of lowland warmwater public-access lakes of Washington (n=421). Future research would help identify impact of largemouth bass predation across the region, and prioritize lakes where impacts are most severe. Nevertheless, attempts to transplant or increase largemouth bass numbers in lakes important to coho salmon would be counterproductive to coho salmon enhancement efforts.


This should have at least some impact. =D>

Reply to this topic


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users