Jump to content


Pteronotropis welaka, The Blue Nose Shiner


55 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_drewish_*

Guest_drewish_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 September 2007 - 12:41 PM

If you have no clue what fish you are taking, I'd advise you not to use this method. You may be taking a protected species.

#22 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guest_Irate Mormon_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 September 2007 - 05:54 PM

A different way to find Welaka - the Jim Graham method.

Mysteryman,
Go collecting in Florida or Alabama in November or December. Collect in the nice streams that are outside the swamps / pools / lakes / springs. Keep all the stripy LSF's (little shiny fish). Raise the fish at home. Jim has found Welaka 3 times this way.

Note: Jim does not sell native fish; he is not a mercenary. Also, Jim still has fish from over 2 years ago. His house guests are frequently rewarded with a fishing trip to his basement.

:-"


Yeah, you can do it that way, but it's no fun 'tall.

#23 Guest_uniseine_*

Guest_uniseine_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 September 2007 - 09:10 PM

Welaka in east.

Mysteryman wanted to find Welaka in eastern Florida. I told him what I think is the best way.

The other way involves mucky bottoms in the heat of April and May.

#24 Guest_Mysteryman_*

Guest_Mysteryman_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 September 2007 - 12:40 AM

Uhm, I don't want to find them in eastern Florida; some other guy does. If anything, I want to find them in south Alabama. I can already find them in the FL panhandle, but that's pointless for my purpose, which is finding out whether they're still in my area or extirpated.
45 miles away is the closest I've been able to find them so far, but they should be a lot closer, I think, in the same river.

By the way, mucky bottoms are pretty much a given when collecting bluenoses. I for one would rather have hot weather for it, as that beats freezing my butt off. I don't think it's even possible to nab welakas without getting soaked. They don't even go into fishtraps, the little smartypantses.

Thanks for the tip, though. If I should have a big need to bag some I just might try it. Of course, if I ever did have such a need, I'd probably just go someplace where I would know for sure what I was getting. LOL

I'm gonna need some more space for a more dedicated effort before I try bluenose breeding again. They're a real pain.

#25 Guest_uniseine_*

Guest_uniseine_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 September 2007 - 10:29 AM

Oops. All you talk about "A correlation between Welaka, Florida and the Bluenose Shiner?" and "St. John's drainage and the east side of Florida" threw me.

I know a spot, restrooms, parking, lawn down to the water, 14 inch step into firm sandy bottom, were the method I described works. No mucky bottom. Other Pteronotropis too, try downstream. Hint - near Pounce de Leon.

I already have space designated for Welaka for next year - 450 gallons of pond.

#26 Guest_keepnatives_*

Guest_keepnatives_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 September 2007 - 07:00 PM

I don't think it's even possible to nab welakas without getting soaked. They don't even go into fishtraps, the little smartypantses.

I've collected welakas twice once in Fl panhandle and once in Mississippi neither time did I even get in the water. In Fl they were hanging out by some tree roots in a stream off a spring and in a small lushly vegetated stream in Mississippi. Used an umbrella net dropped it in and let settle and stood still till they'd come back over the net, a quick pull up and wala welakas. I rarely stay dry but the FL site was a bit deep and the Mississippi site was a bit too gator friendly.

#27 Guest_dredcon_*

Guest_dredcon_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 September 2007 - 07:17 PM

Its no fun to get into the water if the gaters are not around.

#28 Guest_Brooklamprey_*

Guest_Brooklamprey_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 September 2007 - 07:32 PM

Its no fun to get into the water if the gaters are not around.


Or the Snakes :P

#29 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guest_Irate Mormon_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 September 2007 - 08:41 PM

It's true, you can collect 'em (in MS/LA) without getting your feet wet. If you have the right spots.

#30 Guest_uniseine_*

Guest_uniseine_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 September 2007 - 10:05 PM

There are so many poachers in northern Florida that the gators flee when the gators see a human. You may have to sneak up on the gators if you want a real thrill.

#31 Guest_uniseine_*

Guest_uniseine_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 November 2007 - 04:57 PM

If you have no clue what fish you are taking, I'd advise you not to use this method. You may be taking a protected species.


I checked the Alabama endangered fish species maps on-line. Mysteryman only needs to be concerned about accidentally keeping sturgeon from his area.

#32 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 November 2007 - 09:06 PM

If you have no clue what fish you are taking, I'd advise you not to use this method. You may be taking a protected species.


That's funny, that is exactly what happened to me one time in Ma. I took a big bucket full of silvery striped minners and dumped 'em in a big tank. It took awhile for everybody to settle down and color up. Eventually I noticed something different mixed with the blacknosed dace, chubsuckers and juvie fallfish. Even with Inland Fish Of Massachsetts I was having trouble keying out the fish. Luckily I was able to snap a decent pic of the beast and email it to the author, a professor at Harvard. He confirmed what I had begun to suspect - Bridle Shiner, a protected species. Put me in kind of a fix. Couldn't keep it legally, couldn't release it and the Prof didn't want it [had plenty in jars on the shelf]. The upside is I got a decent pic. Made a damn good captive too. Too bad they're rare.

#33 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 November 2007 - 09:44 PM

That's funny, that is exactly what happened to me one time in Ma. I took a big bucket full of silvery striped minners and dumped 'em in a big tank. It took awhile for everybody to settle down and color up. Eventually I noticed something different mixed with the blacknosed dace, chubsuckers and juvie fallfish. Even with Inland Fish Of Massachsetts I was having trouble keying out the fish. Luckily I was able to snap a decent pic of the beast and email it to the author, a professor at Harvard. He confirmed what I had begun to suspect - Bridle Shiner, a protected species. Put me in kind of a fix. Couldn't keep it legally, couldn't release it and the Prof didn't want it [had plenty in jars on the shelf]. The upside is I got a decent pic. Made a damn good captive too. Too bad they're rare.

I'm surprised that Karsten at the MCZ didn't take the bridle shiners. As to P. welaka in Alabama, they don't have a formal protected designation in the state. But the species is listed as S2 by the Natural Heritage Program, meaning that it's Imperiled in the state and considered to be very vulnerable to extirpation in the state. So sure it's legal to collect it but I'd say that it's unethical (yeah, that word again...) to collect them. Your mileage may vary, of course.

#34 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guest_Irate Mormon_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 November 2007 - 10:08 PM

They're S3 here in MS. I don't consider collecting them necessarily unethical - bulldozers are more effective at killing them. But still, I haven't taken any in a number of years. I just like to look at 'em and then let them go. A full-frontal breeding male is guaranteed to increase your pulse rate, and in my sad shape I can't afford to raise it too much.

I do have a germ of an idea for a breeding program - I may never do it, but then again...

#35 Guest_fishlvr_*

Guest_fishlvr_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 December 2007 - 09:16 PM

Ahem, they were taken for a life-history study! Over 1000 specimens from this site. Why?


Is this what you were talking about?

A total of 822 individuals was collected[...]


Here's a link to the article:
Life History Traits of the Bluenose Shiner, Pteronotropis welaka

That, my friends, is a disgrace to science.

#36 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 December 2007 - 11:37 PM

That, my friends, is a disgrace to science.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge. Ichthyology has changed over the last 100 years so that fewer fish are collected. The former practice was to collect very large numbers of fish on the grounds that one could generate statistically significant data. With a species like P. welaka that's listed as S3, Vulnerable, with a range across several states it's worth doing a large collection once to study life-history traits, like the article's title states. I wouldn't endorse doing it again. Carol Johnston has a long record of doing good research on the life history of various fish, so now we know.

#37 Guest_fishlvr_*

Guest_fishlvr_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2007 - 12:55 AM

That, my friends, is a disgrace to science.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge. Ichthyology has changed over the last 100 years so that fewer fish are collected. The former practice was to collect very large numbers of fish on the grounds that one could generate statistically significant data. With a species like P. welaka that's listed as S3, Vulnerable, with a range across several states it's worth doing a large collection once to study life-history traits, like the article's title states. I wouldn't endorse doing it again. Carol Johnston has a long record of doing good research on the life history of various fish, so now we know.


You have a point. But still, did they really need 822 fish for their observations? Couldn't they do it with, say, 122?

#38 Guest_Brooklamprey_*

Guest_Brooklamprey_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2007 - 01:22 AM

You have a point. But still, did they really need 822 fish for their observations? Couldn't they do it with, say, 122?


NO... 122 would not do...the larger sample size gave concrete results.
Not going to need to do that again now as the data is solid.

Nothing about that study was a "disgrace to science". It is some of the best info we have on these fish.

#39 Guest_fishlvr_*

Guest_fishlvr_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2007 - 01:54 AM

NO... 122 would not do...the larger sample size gave concrete results.
Not going to need to do that again now as the data is solid.

Nothing about that study was a "disgrace to science". It is some of the best info we have on these fish.


I agree that it is very informative and is very well documented and has more information than all of other articles I've read on P. welaka combined, but you would think they would try to breed at least some of them alive instead of just preserving all them. If they would have tried to breed them themselves, then they might have also had their own eggs to hatch and preserve as larvae, instead of having to take them from nests. Maybe I'm crazy, or I'm just not seeing what that y'all see, but with 822 fish, they could've set up a tank with some longears, gave the bluenoses a ton of vegetation to hide in, let the longears breed and observe them breeding in the tank. I'm sure they would have easily been able to set up a large enough tank. I don't know. Maybe I'm just crazy. :wacko:

#40 Guest_Brooklamprey_*

Guest_Brooklamprey_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2007 - 02:42 AM

I agree that it is very informative and is very well documented and has more information than all of other articles I've read on P. welaka combined, but you would think they would try to breed at least some of them alive instead of just preserving all them. If they would have tried to breed them themselves, then they might have also had their own eggs to hatch and preserve as larvae, instead of having to take them from nests. Maybe I'm crazy, or I'm just not seeing what that y'all see, but with 822 fish, they could've set up a tank with some longears, gave the bluenoses a ton of vegetation to hide in, let the longears breed and observe them breeding in the tank. I'm sure they would have easily been able to set up a large enough tank. I don't know. Maybe I'm just crazy. :wacko:


I'm not quite sure you are understanding the difference between your hobby and the needs of scientific investigation.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users