Jump to content


Carp Regulation Hearing-Austin, Tx


36 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_rjmtx_*

Guest_rjmtx_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 February 2008 - 11:06 PM

I think this is the right forum to post this in... On March 5th at 7:00 there is a public hearing on the proposed carp regulations for Ladybird Lake (Formerly Town Lake). The proposal is to place restrictions on the large "trophy" carp in the lake with a limit f 1 fish over 33" per day. This will also probably make the "not back in my river" carp policy of most fisheries workers frowned upon by the higher ups... I could turn this into a rant , but don't feel like venting right now (I've already gotten that over with today). Anyway, March 5th 7:00 at TPWD headquarters in Austin. If you're around and want to make a statement about this proposal that could be the start of a very ugly trend in management, or if you think it's the best idea since sliced bread, this is your time to be heard.

#2 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guest_Irate Mormon_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 February 2008 - 11:57 AM

Carp rock! I'm headed that way to lend my support for trophy carp management.

#3 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 February 2008 - 12:13 PM

That's a tough one.
As a native fish lover, I hate what carp have done as much as anyone.
However when I'm wearing my angler hat, I love carp for the sport they provide.
From a practical point of view, quite frankly, carp provide the ONLY sport from many bodies of water too compromised to support native gamefish. That is particularly true here in the over urbanized northeast. Even after 30 years of improvement under the CWA, many of our eastern rivers will never, ever be returned to their pre-industrialized condition. Not to mention that most of the game fish that do support angler activity are introduced anyway. How can we condemn the lowly carp while singing the praises of brown & rainbow trout, largemouth bass, bluegills and northern pike? Especially when we consider that at least the carp do not need to be farm raised on the tax payers' dime.
What you are seeing in Tx is the result of a large and growing contingent of dedicated carp fishermen who now have the numbers and the revenue generating power that gets the attention of legislators. It started in Europe where carp are accepted as legitimate gamefish [maybe for lack of better choices] and spread to this country 10 - 15 years ago. It's now big enough in the US to support TV shows, magazines and even organized tourmements. It's not going away anytime soon.
Let's face it, throwing carp up on the bank for the raccoons can never make a significant dent in their population any more than me giving my kid a pellet gun has made a dent in the local starling population. ;) It feels good, but is not practical in the long run.
Why not embrace the carp anglers and welcome their revenue? Save the rivers and lakes that have the potential but encourage the use of those bodies of water that are lost already.
Maybe a little more than $00.02 worth, but that's my story and I'm stickin to it. :twisted:

#4 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 February 2008 - 03:58 PM

Why not embrace the carp anglers and welcome their revenue? Save the rivers and lakes that have the potential but encourage the use of those bodies of water that are lost already.

Mostly because it encourages more exotic introductions.

#5 Guest_Nightwing_*

Guest_Nightwing_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 February 2008 - 07:16 PM

I am for the most part going to stay out of this argument..because to be honest I have a foot in both camps.
I love native fish, and in a perfect world..would have our watercourses returned to their pre-settlement flora and fauna make up(I would kill to fish for 50 lb lake trout, grayling, 300 lb lake sturgeon, and 80 lb freshwater drum..but alas..). However...I am also a lover of carp angling, and thus, understand that point of view also. Indeed, I am a member of an organization that is based on carp fishing. That being said...I am known within that organization for "going against the grain" and calling a spade a spade when it comes to the fact that carp DO at times cause damage..just not as often as they are portrayed.
At the same time...I've been tempted a few times to jump in this or that conversation here, and mention the same thing..the DO cause damage..but NOT nearly as often, or badly, as they are portrayed. The ironic thing is that the waters that have fewer, but larger carp are far healthier then waters with numerous small carp.
The bottom line is that if on some waters large carp are granted some kind of game fish status(just like a bunch of other NON NATIVE fish that it could be argued are just as damaging to the native populations), they, as noted, would likely in the long run provide a definite boost to the coffers of many state agencies..which could then use that money to (hopefully) better manage the remaining fisheries. At the same time, more then likely greater efforts would be made to transition waters with overpopulations of small, damaging carp into waters with far fewer, but larger, carp.
ALL that being said..I cannot for a moment argue that carp BELONG here...but they ARE here, and they are not going any place, so maybe it's time to consider their management in such a way that the end result is the same(fewer waters with vast overpopulations of potentially destructive small carp) as current eradication goals...with the added benefit of providing an at times unique fishery, and a likely revenue producer for the associated state agencies.
And yes, before anyone points out the obvious...I am no doubt predisposed to be more open to looking at this in a different light(given my enjoyment of the fish).but still, the points IMO are valid.
This all said with the greatest respect to even the anti-carp minded..again, I cannot fault your wishes, and certainly, won't get into an argument over them!
Just wanted to at least toss my 3 cents into the fire!

#6 Guest_farmertodd_*

Guest_farmertodd_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 February 2008 - 09:32 PM

At the same time...I've been tempted a few times to jump in this or that conversation here, and mention the same thing..the DO cause damage..but NOT nearly as often, or badly, as they are portrayed. The ironic thing is that the waters that have fewer, but larger carp are far healthier then waters with numerous small carp.


Just a point to make, because I don't really disagree with you otherwise... This is true only where certain soil conditions are of a large grain size. Where carp are found where clays dominate or high productivity lays down heavy lacustrine soils (a predacessor to clays) they prevent the reestablishment of other fauna (plants, fish, bugs) due to their habit of resuspending the clays, and just by being there and being "them". It's very difficult to get a system back with these soils with carp present, no matter how well you've remediated land use and or out-right pollutants. It seems that in these situations, they're their most destructive. Where you see them in glacial outwash in Michigan, you will not be continually reminded of this. In fact, they're quite enjoyable in those situations (really quite fun to dive with) and never become hyper abundant, and equally destructive by their presence :)

But in these other systems, they are nuisance like none other.

Todd

#7 Guest_Nightwing_*

Guest_Nightwing_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 February 2008 - 10:09 PM

Todd, that does make sense.
Now..my last bit of playing devils advocate here(and then I'll slowly wander off into the sunset on this one!), but even in that situation...wouldn't a population slanted toward fewer, but larger, carp be preferable? I again fully appreciate that there are areas where they are terribly destructive..but I guess my point is that they are here, established, and perhaps the two "sides" in this situation are ironically in a way, trying to reach a similar goal(for different reasons, of course). From what I've read...waters with fewer but larger carp tend to continue along that same trend(thus, reducing the total number of fish present to mess up the bottom!) ..but when there is a large die off, the few remaining fish tend to then breed nearly out of control and the results tend toward a large population of very small fish(which of course it opposite to the original goal of any control program, which is to end up with fewer fish!).
Anyway...again, no intent to disagree greatly here...just giving a bit of different perspective.

#8 Guest_farmertodd_*

Guest_farmertodd_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 February 2008 - 11:05 PM

Todd, that does make sense.
Now..my last bit of playing devils advocate here(and then I'll slowly wander off into the sunset on this one!), but even in that situation...wouldn't a population slanted toward fewer, but larger, carp be preferable? I again fully appreciate that there are areas where they are terribly destructive..but I guess my point is that they are here, established, and perhaps the two "sides" in this situation are ironically in a way, trying to reach a similar goal(for different reasons, of course). From what I've read...waters with fewer but larger carp tend to continue along that same trend(thus, reducing the total number of fish present to mess up the bottom!) ..but when there is a large die off, the few remaining fish tend to then breed nearly out of control and the results tend toward a large population of very small fish(which of course it opposite to the original goal of any control program, which is to end up with fewer fish!).
Anyway...again, no intent to disagree greatly here...just giving a bit of different perspective.


Yeah you get into population dynamics and maxium sustainable yield. But carp, in these conditions, where they've slanted the tables toward their success (interspecific inhibition, or inhibition of other species)... When a single female can produce a million and a half eggs... Yeah it doesn't quite work out that way. That single female's success changes from 0.5% to age 0 to 2% to age 0 because you've reduced intrapecific competition (with members of its own species), where does that leave you? In a big crappy mess again at age 3, that's what :)

And note that I totally agree with you Paul and Mike where the parent soils are large grain. What's the harm? They really don't appear to be invasive what-so-ever. They seem to be just another part of the fish community, perhaps taking some of the functional niche from similar species like Carpoides suckers.

And thus begins my rant...

It's funny to see how different people regionally respond to exotic species. Now that I kinda have the whole picture, I can guess with some accuracy who's going to see exotics as a REAL problem, and those who probably won't see what the fuss is about. I still have yet to meet a species that's invasive without some facultative history that allowed it to run amok. There's always some story to trace to geology, zoogeography (historical or contemporary rates of immigration and extinction), or disturbance/cessation of a disturbance that's really what's running the show.

Until we start to understand these things, we're getting nowhere in "managing" these species (like this was ever a reality!). And even then, once we understand these facultative histories (if we ever get there), we use that understanding to recognize what battles are worth fighting.

For example, if we're not willing, as a society, to change our behavior related to shipping practices and recreational boating, there's no sense in spending even a DIME trying to "protect" or "restore" the Great Lakes, besides for drinking water quality. They have depauperate faunas historically, they've been tremendously disturbed (esp Lake Erie and St. Clair, and guess where all these "invasions" start!), and then some generalist species shows up, goes wild, and we call IT invasive? All it did was exploit resources that weren't being used, or used inefficiently.

For aquatics up East, it's the same danged thing. Out West too. What are we doing? We're wasting money and time, that's what.

So take all that money agencies are wasting in those areas, FILL IN THE TOMBIGBEE AND CHICAGO SHIPPING CANALS, and use the capital to start overland railway travel where they used to just float their boats through. Take that money and buy out small scale coal interests in Kentucky and Virginia, use tax abatements for the big companies to stay off the Clinch and Cumberland Tribs. Take that money and buy riparian setbacks in Ozark forests 100 meters from any water way, to the point that the timber is worth more on the stand. Take that money to buy hardwood riparian replantings in the Gulf drainages, rather than jack pines to the stream edge, and get the fire regimes going again. And setup a wall around Utah Lake for goodness sake, that's it's only hope at this point! lol

And etc. etc. etc. We actually have a chance with these systems (well maybe not Utah Lake, but it's a nice thought for those out west :) ).

Todd

#9 Guest_nativefish_*

Guest_nativefish_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 February 2008 - 11:31 PM

you can catch up on the history of the issue on the www.carpbusters.com site stop the carp sanctuary section.

#10 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2008 - 12:45 PM

Just a point to make, because I don't really disagree with you otherwise... This is true only where certain soil conditions are of a large grain size. Where carp are found where clays dominate or high productivity lays down heavy lacustrine soils (a predacessor to clays) they prevent the reestablishment of other fauna (plants, fish, bugs) due to their habit of resuspending the clays, and just by being there and being "them". It's very difficult to get a system back with these soils with carp present, no matter how well you've remediated land use and or out-right pollutants. It seems that in these situations, they're their most destructive. Where you see them in glacial outwash in Michigan, you will not be continually reminded of this. In fact, they're quite enjoyable in those situations (really quite fun to dive with) and never become hyper abundant, and equally destructive by their presence :)

But in these other systems, they are nuisance like none other.

Todd


That's an excellent illustration of how carp really do cause harm under certain circumstances but not others.
It explains why around here carp can be found in crystal clear lakes with healthy populations of [introduced] gamefish. The glacial substrate of clean sand and gravel simply does not suspend, no matter how much bottom grubbing the carp do.
Even in the silty slow rivers I think the carp are blamed for problems they may contribute to, but do not exclusivley cause.
I have floated quietly in a canoe over large schools of carp feeding shallow, clear, silt bottomed coves. You can see the trails of mud each fish disturbs as it moves along the bottom. The puffs of silt, looking like smoke, billow up behind the carp then settle in few minutes. The carp can feed there all day and the water stays clear despite the small localized clouds of silt.
However once one bass boat goes by up on plane with the Merc 250 wide open, the waves turn the entire cove into a black mudhole with zero visibility. Even the carp retreat to deep water after that. As long as one boat or jet ski goes by every hour or so, the cove will not settle or clear for the rest of the day. After a bass tournement, it takes days for the river to clear.
The irony is that I have actually had bass boat jockeys complain that they had poor luck because the "damn carp stirred up the river too much".

I'm not sure why I just typed that here. Probably not the best venue for a carp appologist. I guess my reputation will be harmed as a carp lover among carp haters. Luckily the moderators won't let me get flamed as I would elsewhere. :twisted:
Just throwing out food for thought. Everybody should have their core beliefs questioned from time to time. It's healthy for the intellect. :tongue:

#11 Guest_nativefish_*

Guest_nativefish_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2008 - 01:20 PM

That's an excellent illustration of how carp really do cause harm under certain circumstances but not others.
It explains why around here carp can be found in crystal clear lakes with healthy populations of [introduced] gamefish. The glacial substrate of clean sand and gravel simply does not suspend, no matter how much bottom grubbing the carp do.
Even in the silty slow rivers I think the carp are blamed for problems they may contribute to, but do not exclusivley cause.
I have floated quietly in a canoe over large schools of carp feeding shallow, clear, silt bottomed coves. You can see the trails of mud each fish disturbs as it moves along the bottom. The puffs of silt, looking like smoke, billow up behind the carp then settle in few minutes. The carp can feed there all day and the water stays clear despite the small localized clouds of silt.
However once one bass boat goes by up on plane with the Merc 250 wide open, the waves turn the entire cove into a black mudhole with zero visibility. Even the carp retreat to deep water after that. As long as one boat or jet ski goes by every hour or so, the cove will not settle or clear for the rest of the day. After a bass tournement, it takes days for the river to clear.
The irony is that I have actually had bass boat jockeys complain that they had poor luck because the "damn carp stirred up the river too much".

I'm not sure why I just typed that here. Probably not the best venue for a carp appologist. I guess my reputation will be harmed as a carp lover among carp haters. Luckily the moderators won't let me get flamed as I would elsewhere. :twisted:
Just throwing out food for thought. Everybody should have their core beliefs questioned from time to time. It's healthy for the intellect. :tongue:



Mike,

For discussion sake Assuming you are absoulutly 100% correct that in some places carp do no damage and are a nice addittion to the local fauna ( I dont believe it myself but thats OK)

what makes you think the carp would stay put and not goto places where they do cause damage ?

Why would anyone want to manage a fishery in an open ended body of water for an invasive fish that by all accounts even yours can cause damage in many watersheds?

#12 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2008 - 02:27 PM

Mike,

For discussion sake Assuming you are absoulutly 100% correct that in some places carp do no damage and are a nice addittion to the local fauna ( I dont believe it myself but thats OK)

what makes you think the carp would stay put and not goto places where they do cause damage ?

Why would anyone want to manage a fishery in an open ended body of water for an invasive fish that by all accounts even yours can cause damage in many watersheds?


First, for the record, I DO believe carp cause damage and in a perfect world would wish they just weren't there. Of course in that perfect world, brook trout, atlantic salmon and american shad would still be present in the river I was discussing above.
Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world and those species, plus a few others I'm sure, were long gone before the first carp made its impact on that river.
The cold hard fact is, the carp are already here, and they're here to stay. They've already invaded just about every body of water that will support their needs. I don't believe anyone is advocating stocking carp in waters that they do not already exist in.
For the sake of your argument however, I will say I am dead set against putting any carp anywhere that they could access waters in which they do not already exist. That of course is already illegal in just about every state and I see nothing to make me believe anyone wants to change that.
As to why would anyone manage an open ended body of water for carp; well first of all, my understanding of the proposal in Tx was for designating a specific lake as trophy carp water. Without knowing details, I'm gonna assume it's NOT an open ended system and no carp can escape.
As to why manage carp at all; for the simple reason that the carp are already here and are NOT going anywhere. Go back and read what Todd wrote about carp fecundity and reproductive success. There is no way, no how, that anyone will ever make a significant dent in carp populations by forcing every carp angler to kill his catch. As I said above, it may feel good to try, but in the end it's like trying to empty the ocean by dipping out buckets full.
Since the darn things are here to stay, why not make lemonade out of the lemons? Carp anglers are a large and growing segment of the angling community. Like their prefered target, they're not gonna go away anytime soon. They spend plenty of money. A guy I know from another forum travels all over the country participating in carp tournaments. At each and every destination he buys food, gas and tackle and stays in motels. In many of the bodies of water he fishes, there are ZERO other game fish that support that level of attention. Couple that fact with the fact that it is impractical to impossible to eliminate the carp anyway, and it seems a no brainer to me.
Again, let me be clear, as a naturalist, I hate carp and wish they were never brought here. I KNOW they cause harm and I regret the harm they cause.
I would NEVER support any actions that would cause carp to gain access to waters where they do not exist.
However as a realist, I can face the fact that carp are here to stay and can never be significantly reduced in many of the waters they exist in. Further, I recognize that many of the waters they exist in are too compromised to support more socially acceptable species. Therefore, if it can benifit local economies as well as take some angling pressure off more vulnerable species, I see selective managment for trophy carp fishing to be good in the big picture.

#13 Guest_nativefish_*

Guest_nativefish_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2008 - 04:28 PM

Lady Bird Lake is an open ended Lake it is the primary water source for many towns down river.


http://en.wikipedia..../Lady_Bird_Lake

#14 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2008 - 05:27 PM

Lady Bird Lake is an open ended Lake it is the primary water source for many towns down river.
http://en.wikipedia..../Lady_Bird_Lake


What part of the Colorado River is currently free of carp?
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be argumentative. Aside from the general "carp are bad" point of view, I'm not understanding exactly what your objection is to the trophy carp concept.
The only managment change is a size and possession limit where none existed before. Just how many anglers do you think keep carp? Only a very few from Asian and European ethnic groups actually keep them to eat. The vast majority of carp landed are released anyway.
I really can't understand how this change can have an effect on a body of water already world famous for its carp population. It's purely a marketing ploy to attract even more carp fishermen.
Here's TP&W's point of view from the Houston Chronicle: http://www.chron.com...ns/5303250.html

"Ken Kurzawski of TPWD's inland fisheries division said the move is aimed at increasing the profile of Lady Bird Lake as a trophy carp fishery, promote the urban lake as a destination for serious carp fishers and protect some of the large carp while not allowing the exotic species to go unharvested."

I'm not seeing where the problem is. [Yes carp are still bad]

#15 Guest_farmertodd_*

Guest_farmertodd_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2008 - 07:18 PM

Yes, let me also make it clear that I am not a proponent of putting a species (any species, including TROUT and WALLEYE and SALMON and BASS) in a system where they did not historically occurr.

None the less, they are never a "nice" or "bad" addition to any fauna. They are JUST an addition at face value. However, in some cases, they're a very detrimental addition.

Unfortunately, there's really no places left where carp don't occcur. Here's the NAS map for the US.

NAS_Static_US_SF_FLGVWDMZ0145088554040702.jpg

And that is why they make a good model organism to illustrate the other factors that play into wether a species is invasive of its own merit, or if there's something else going on.

Note: these are not weighted ordinations of abundance. I thought about talking about that, but I'm going to do a water change instead :) Maybe later. Anyway, dark red just means they're found in a watershed all the way down to the HUC 8, which is probably a 3rd or 4th order stream. And it coulda just been 1 fish. I hate these maps. And I hate dots. Dots ARE "bad". They tell you nothing.

Todd

#16 Guest_Nightwing_*

Guest_Nightwing_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2008 - 07:38 PM

Todd, they missed a few spots on that map.
A good portion of Michigan is showing(if you look at the map) to be apparently "carp free)(the tan color, I take it, as most of Alaska IS carp free, and shows that color there).
I'm sure you know..carp are found in waters(not all waters mind you) throughout the areas showing "carp free) at least in Michigan.
I honestly don't think at this time, there is a river or lake that does not have them if it will support them.(many waters are just a bit too cold for them..and thus, some trout streams and many northern lakes don't have them..which is a GOOD thing, I'd like to point out).
Anyway...guess that backs up why you don't like such maps!

#17 Guest_Brooklamprey_*

Guest_Brooklamprey_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2008 - 07:40 PM

And thus begins my rant...

It's funny to see how different people regionally respond to exotic species. Now that I kinda have the whole picture, I can guess with some accuracy who's going to see exotics as a REAL problem, and those who probably won't see what the fuss is about. I still have yet to meet a species that's invasive without some facultative history that allowed it to run amok. There's always some story to trace to geology, zoogeography (historical or contemporary rates of immigration and extinction), or disturbance/cessation of a disturbance that's really what's running the show.

Until we start to understand these things, we're getting nowhere in "managing" these species (like this was ever a reality!). And even then, once we understand these facultative histories (if we ever get there), we use that understanding to recognize what battles are worth fighting.

For example, if we're not willing, as a society, to change our behavior related to shipping practices and recreational boating, there's no sense in spending even a DIME trying to "protect" or "restore" the Great Lakes, besides for drinking water quality. They have depauperate faunas historically, they've been tremendously disturbed (esp Lake Erie and St. Clair, and guess where all these "invasions" start!), and then some generalist species shows up, goes wild, and we call IT invasive? All it did was exploit resources that weren't being used, or used inefficiently.

For aquatics up East, it's the same danged thing. Out West too. What are we doing? We're wasting money and time, that's what.

So take all that money agencies are wasting in those areas, FILL IN THE TOMBIGBEE AND CHICAGO SHIPPING CANALS, and use the capital to start overland railway travel where they used to just float their boats through. Take that money and buy out small scale coal interests in Kentucky and Virginia, use tax abatements for the big companies to stay off the Clinch and Cumberland Tribs. Take that money and buy riparian setbacks in Ozark forests 100 meters from any water way, to the point that the timber is worth more on the stand. Take that money to buy hardwood riparian replantings in the Gulf drainages, rather than jack pines to the stream edge, and get the fire regimes going again. And setup a wall around Utah Lake for goodness sake, that's it's only hope at this point! lol

And etc. etc. etc. We actually have a chance with these systems (well maybe not Utah Lake, but it's a nice thought for those out west icon_smile.gif).


Thanks Todd I think you made anything I was going to say rather redundant... And you saved some electrons from being wasted.

To add to this though I will still kill every carp I find (Do not care where it is) and there is not a chance in hell I would support a Managed population of them for "trophy" reasons in my region.... Period

#18 Guest_farmertodd_*

Guest_farmertodd_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2008 - 07:56 PM

Anyway...guess that backs up why you don't like such maps!


Okay, so I had to eat dinner first, and guess where I'm eating it (bbq chicken, yum yum).

How hard would it be to do something like this that is a ordinal scale. Something where Red = Abundant, Yellow = Present, Green = Infrequent. You can base that off of CPUE's or abundances or biomass or something like that, and make it quantitative. Finally, we'd have maps we could read and meant something!

michigan_carp.jpg

I'm sure Brian and Nate can tell you all about this. This is what they did all summer. And for their effort, the people handling the data could at least do this. It's not like this is Milt Trautman doing this in 1957 by hand any more. Sheesh. M'man Uniseine whipped something like this up in EXCEL last year for the convention (metadata attached to a dot). Nobody was even paying him! :)

Todd

#19 Guest_rjmtx_*

Guest_rjmtx_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2008 - 10:03 PM

I scanned the replies (too tired to read them all-just got back from the Devils River), and am not surprised at what my post started. This subjuect always ignites heated debate. Here are a couple of points I'd like to make (living on the Colorado River, myself). Ladybird Lake does not allow motorboats, with very few exceptions. So the turbidity from the boats argument doesn't apply. The state record carp in Texas was caught recently without any restrictions on the lake. Why make restrictions if it already harbors a massive carp population that is not under any real pressure whatsoever? Personally, i thinks it's a publicity ploy pandering to a small subpopulation of anglers. It also sets a precedent by protecting what is one of the most invasive species on earth. I don't think it coincides with the purpose of TPWD, but that debate will never end becasue their mission statement is somewhat vague.

#20 Guest_farmertodd_*

Guest_farmertodd_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 February 2008 - 10:32 AM

It also sets a precedent by protecting what is one of the most invasive species on earth.


Well I'll give you "one of the most distributed species"... If you think about it, there's only ONE invasive species :)

And I don't expect everyone to hear me out, so I'll just shut up now that I made my point. Ten years ago, I probably wouldn't have listened to me either.

Todd



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users