Sunfish stupidity in New Jersey
#1 Guest_Pumpkinsteve_*
Posted 29 May 2014 - 08:27 PM
http://www.state.nj....c_invasives.htm
"Green sunfish and warmouths have a larger mouth than the state's native sunfish, thus have the ability to outcompete native fish. "
New Jersey has the legal right to do this, no question. But I call them to the mat ethically for the Green Sunfish, where they clearly have not done their discovery due diligence.
First, their reasoning is flawed. In Eastern Pennsylvania we have an abundance of Green Sunfish. They do not out compete their smaller mouthed cousins. I've never seen a pond or lake containing both Greens and Bluegills where the Bluegills did not outnumber the Greens by a large margin.
Next, looking at the Green Sunfish distribution, they have a strong presence in the Delaware River watershed, and have had one for many years. Looking at old distribution maps, they did not extend further east than the Susquehanna watershed, but that has not been the case for ages. They are abundant and thriving in Eastern PA. They are in the Delaware River, to get to NJ they only need to swim across it. New Jersey has 0 percent chance of stopping this incursion, and is needlessly killing these animals.
I have no strong opinion on the Warmouth, but will note the inconsistency between NJ and PA. In PA they are on the endangered list, in NJ the invasive list. This includes the Delaware River Watershed, where the fish has been found, and both States share this watershed.
So, is there Sunfish stupidity in NJ, or am I missing something?
#2 Guest_Skipjack_*
Posted 29 May 2014 - 08:54 PM
#3 Guest_Erica Lyons_*
Posted 29 May 2014 - 08:56 PM
Although PA and NJ share a border, there's a mountain range in between the native distribution of warmouth in PA and the fish found in NJ.
http://www.rom.on.ca..._type=map&id=86
I agree with you, though. I think it's a waste of taxpayer money to list a species natively found in the state next door as 'invasive' and to spend money trying to eradicate it.
#6 Guest_Subrosa_*
Posted 30 May 2014 - 05:04 AM
#7 Guest_Skipjack_*
Posted 30 May 2014 - 07:00 AM
I think the intent is to control human mediated spread. Wording of law is simple and prevents confusion. Both species are also preferred bait for large catfish making transport for such reasons more likely despite legality issues.
I bet you hit the nail on the head here.
#8 Guest_Pumpkinsteve_*
Posted 30 May 2014 - 03:50 PM
Yeah, if they do not belong there, and are introduced, the state is probably doing the right thing. They may never cause a problem, but simply if they are not native, they deserve no protection whatsoever, and should in my opinion be treated like any other invasive.
Yes, I agree with that logic. But I don't agree that all of them are introduced. Native ranges do change over time, and I believe NJ is fighting a losing battle with this fish.
The problem is that the laws are drawn up around state lines which are artificial political boundaries, when the invasive/protected laws would be much better done on the regional/watershed level.
#9 Guest_Pumpkinsteve_*
Posted 30 May 2014 - 05:10 PM
I think the intent is to control human mediated spread. Wording of law is simple and prevents confusion. Both species are also preferred bait for large catfish making transport for such reasons more likely despite legality issues.
Wording of the law is something that NJ and PA share. In both states the wording is specifically chosen to make the rangers job on the water as easy as possible. I believe allowances for hobbyist are intentionally omitted for this reason. If a hobbyist catches a Warmouth in NJ and wanted to take it home and put it in an aquarium in PA, they would be breaking the law it two states.
#10 Guest_Kanus_*
Posted 31 May 2014 - 07:58 PM
Not sure what you mean by "Native ranges change over time" unless you are speaking in terms of geologic time i.e. tens of thousands of years or more. Green sunfish are absolutely not, in any way, native to the Atlantic slope, and should not be given any kind of protection or sympathy.
#11 Guest_centrarchid_*
Posted 31 May 2014 - 08:59 PM
I'm not sure I understand the problem. Carp are also an invasive with no hope of eradication, but It seems to me like any carp biomass removed from the water and converted to fertilizer is only positively impacting native species. Likewise, carp may be in nearly every water body imaginable, but it is still good practice to discourage their movement from one body of water to another.
Not sure what you mean by "Native ranges change over time" unless you are speaking in terms of geologic time i.e. tens of thousands of years or more. Green sunfish are absolutely not, in any way, native to the Atlantic slope, and should not be given any kind of protection or sympathy.
I can see the natural range expansion issue with many species and it often does not require geologic time. I can see current expansions here involving not only fish but also mammals and birds. Insect range changes are even easier to see.
The green sunfish and other species should not have been moved around but once they get past a given barrier at the hands of humans, if no further natural barriers exists, then blocking their expansion by killing individuals will be futile for stopping further expansion.
#15 Guest_MichiJim_*
Posted 05 June 2014 - 12:58 PM
#16 Guest_mikez_*
Posted 05 June 2014 - 05:33 PM
I'm against it mainly because it's unenforceable and many people will ignore it, making it a sham law that weakens respect for all laws.
Reply to this topic
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users