
Help! Am I crazy?
#1
Guest_augustaranger_*
Posted 11 January 2008 - 08:28 PM
#2
Guest_Skipjack_*
Posted 11 January 2008 - 08:30 PM
#3
Guest_killier_*
Posted 11 January 2008 - 08:30 PM
#4
Guest_augustaranger_*
Posted 11 January 2008 - 08:40 PM
#5
Guest_killier_*
Posted 11 January 2008 - 08:50 PM
I said lowland because Pteronotropis species look alot like white clouds and you are in a big hot spot for lowland's
#6
Guest_augustaranger_*
Posted 12 January 2008 - 06:23 PM
#7
Guest_Skipjack_*
Posted 12 January 2008 - 07:20 PM
#8
Guest_tglassburner_*
Posted 12 January 2008 - 08:01 PM
I was going to say that!Out of curiosity, why don't you post a photo of it here before alerting the DNR?
#9
Guest_Mysteryman_*
Posted 12 January 2008 - 09:08 PM
If these ARE white clouds, which is an issue still in doubt because you still haven't shown us a picture, then your report to the DNR will only either
A: accomplish nothing,
B: get the whole waterway rotenoned and everything in it exterminated,
or C: get White Clouds banned, which will lead to their final extinction. Is that what you want?
Just kidding a little, but I sure wish that people would quit freaking out and hitting the panic button when they don't even know if there's any reason to, especially before considering any possible negative outcomes.
The shiners of the Pteronotropis group do indeed look very much like White Clouds at certain stages of their lives, and you are in the zone for finding them. The Lowland Shiner has coloration which I have yet to see adequately captured on film, so don't go thinking that the pale specimens you probably did find pics of online are truly representative of the species.
No, I don't think that someone dumped Whiteclouds in a Georgia creek for mosquito control. That would have been too stupid on too many levels to comprehend. There's plenty of much better choices available for the job, and anyone trying to accomplish that goal would have picked one of those if they had half a brain. Of course, they'd have to be pretty brainless in the first place to try it, but still.
Hey! I just figured out the solution to that sort of thing! Let's ban the keeping of horses! Yes! It's the damn horse owners who keep pulling stunts like that, fearing west nile. If we got rid of the horses, then their stupid owners would quit wiping out our aquatic ecosystems in their attempts to illegally wipe out mosquitoes!
#10
Guest_tglassburner_*
Posted 12 January 2008 - 09:19 PM
Hey! I just figured out the solution to that sort of thing! Let's ban the keeping of horses! Yes! It's the damn horse owners who keep pulling stunts like that, fearing west nile. If we got rid of the horses, then their stupid owners would quit wiping out our aquatic ecosystems in their attempts to illegally wipe out mosquitoes!
Is it now time to start an "ANTI-HORSE" campaign?


Seriously, good points though.
#11
Guest_augustaranger_*
Posted 12 January 2008 - 10:37 PM
http://www.fishforum...p;#entry1872654
#12
Guest_ashtonmj_*
Posted 13 January 2008 - 08:39 AM

I agree the panic button is pushed all to easily sometimes, sometimes though not enough.
The use of rotenone is pretty rare compared to 20-30 years ago and many state agencies don't even consider it an option anymore. Intensive seining, trapping, electrofishing while more labor intensive could be effective at knocking the population below viability. Even if rotenone was used, removal of natives could be done beforehand, and if the extent of the exotic is known could applied and nuetralized very specifically. Repatriation of natives removed and recolonizaiton could put things back to normal pretty quickly.
As for option C: So be it. As long as there are a few careless people dumping fish into streams and damaging native ecosystems this is the path that is being practically forced upon regulators. Banning possession of certain species is often the only option available; you try telling the pet industry (yes they have lobbysists too) to better regulate themselves, educated the public, or not to sell certain species.
#13
Guest_viridari_*
Posted 13 January 2008 - 09:56 AM

#14
Guest_ashtonmj_*
Posted 13 January 2008 - 10:50 AM
#15
Guest_teleost_*
Posted 13 January 2008 - 11:36 AM

#16
Guest_dsmith73_*
Posted 13 January 2008 - 12:14 PM
#17
Guest_butch_*
Posted 13 January 2008 - 12:50 PM
They are definitely white clouds. My suggestion would be to collect them all, pack them up and ship them to me. I love this fish and it does great with natives. There is a guy near here that breeds them with his goldfish in big outside ponds. He has thousands. This being said, we are at approximately the same spot as Augusta so it is safe to say that they are breeding in the wild there as well.
Agreed with you! I love this fish too and they make a nice feeder fish since they are willfully breeding in tubs and don't eat their fry often. Someday ill get these meteor minnows.
You need collect all of them as possible as you can then try to give them away to some folks in this forum. I was planning to add white cloud mountain minnows to my 55gal.
#18
Guest_Nightwing_*
Posted 13 January 2008 - 12:59 PM
Just playing devils advocate...while I am ALL for stiffer regulations as to the dumbing of fish...if we were to just ban any fish that could conceivably survive if dumbed, then we would literally have NO private keeping of fish...and what about domestic animals? Do we ban cat's and dogs, ferrets, many birds, most reptiles, and even if you take it far enough, many farm animals?(Feral swine are becoming a BIG problem in many areas!). Seriously...most common aquarium fish could possibly survive in at least some parts of the country(Florida, southern California), and many can survive further north...do we just ban anything that could escape and cause problems? Again..don't misunderstand, I am NOT in any way supporting release of anything, and if someone does and is caught, make it newsworthy! But if we start a "ban anything that could colonize our waters" campaign...we are on a terribly slippery slope, that may come back to haunt us all(Natives will be the FIRST fish banned in any such campaign).from the other forum ... "If they can't do any harm let them be" I love it
![]()
I agree the panic button is pushed all to easily sometimes, sometimes though not enough.
The use of rotenone is pretty rare compared to 20-30 years ago and many state agencies don't even consider it an option anymore. Intensive seining, trapping, electrofishing while more labor intensive could be effective at knocking the population below viability. Even if rotenone was used, removal of natives could be done beforehand, and if the extent of the exotic is known could applied and nuetralized very specifically. Repatriation of natives removed and recolonizaiton could put things back to normal pretty quickly.
As for option C: So be it. As long as there are a few careless people dumping fish into streams and damaging native ecosystems this is the path that is being practically forced upon regulators. Banning possession of certain species is often the only option available; you try telling the pet industry (yes they have lobbysists too) to better regulate themselves, educated the public, or not to sell certain species.
#19
Guest_Newt_*
Posted 13 January 2008 - 01:04 PM

#20
Guest_ashtonmj_*
Posted 13 January 2008 - 02:22 PM
Just playing devils advocate...while I am ALL for stiffer regulations as to the dumbing of fish...if we were to just ban any fish that could conceivably survive if dumbed, then we would literally have NO private keeping of fish...and what about domestic animals? Do we ban cat's and dogs, ferrets, many birds, most reptiles, and even if you take it far enough, many farm animals?(Feral swine are becoming a BIG problem in many areas!). Seriously...most common aquarium fish could possibly survive in at least some parts of the country(Florida, southern California), and many can survive further north...do we just ban anything that could escape and cause problems? Again..don't misunderstand, I am NOT in any way supporting release of anything, and if someone does and is caught, make it newsworthy! But if we start a "ban anything that could colonize our waters" campaign...we are on a terribly slippery slope, that may come back to haunt us all(Natives will be the FIRST fish banned in any such campaign).
Natives are already banned statewide in some cases. No collection/selling/importation as crayfish as bait, wild minnows as bait, it's already starting. Herps are facing major regulations. Modeling invasion potential and impacts is big time now, just ask Todd. Should we have banned the larger filter feeding carps before hand because of invasion potential and the fact we knew they could wreak havoc on ecosystems, yes, did we, absolutely not, and when federal and state bans were passed the aquaculture industry and their lobbyists cry foul and sue.
A certification for fish ownership would be vehemently opposed by pet stores at the very least.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users