Jump to content


Why Release of Captive-Kept Fish is Unacceptable


23 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_jase_*

Guest_jase_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 April 2008 - 10:04 AM

I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I agreed back in 2006 to write up a summary of all the reasons that releasing captive-kept fish back into waterways is unacceptable in any situation. This came out of a discussion back on the old NANFA-L email list where I was playing Devil's Advocate. I still have some minor concerns that transporting collecting gear from place to place without proper sterilization can be *worse* than releasing fish under certain situations, but I am fully convinced that releasing fish is never an option once you choose to bring them home.

With VHS looming here in the Northeast, this argument is easier to make than ever. But... if you have some well-worded arguments for why releasing is never an option, can you share them here? It'll help me to put together a good article on the topic, which I assume we'll pin in one or more of the forums here. Of course it's in the code of ethics that we never release, but it's a much more powerful argument if you can say exactly *why*. For someone new getting into the hobby, it's hard to understand. When I started 5 years ago, *I* thought that natives were great because I could just release them if I moved or went on vacation. Even though I was collecting only from the stream 10 ft out my door, I now know that wasn't a reasonable argument.

If something like this already partially exists somewhere, please let me know. A lot of the discussion I plan to base it on is in the August 2006 archive ( http://nanfa.org/arc...aug06/0257.html ), starting with my message "Releasing native fish back to the wild -- EVER acceptable?"

I'd also like to hear comments about collecting gear. I know some folks sterilize, but don't think *everyone* does. With VHS and didymo (rock snot) on the prowl, this isn't just an academic discusson anymore.

I'm also curious to hear any input on what we should think about live bait issues. I went ice fishing once this winter with shiners and suckers as bait, and it *really* sketched me out to be bringing those guys from wherever the bait dealer caught/raised them to an inland lake -- especially since the guy I was with wanted to dump them in the lake when we were done (didn't happen, but would have if I wasn't there).

Thanks for the help! -Jase

#2 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 April 2008 - 11:24 AM

Bait bucket releases are far and away the biggest threat. As a fisherman and icefisherman, I can plainly state that you nonfishers have no idea just how severe it really is. Dumping the bucket at the end of the day is standard. So is culling the sick and weak bait from the bucket and "feeding the bass" by tossing them in the pond.
I fear this will remain to be the case far into the future, even with heightened awareness and public education on the dangers.
Recently fishermen in Vermont and New York were hit with what, to them, were the most insane and ridculous restrictions on the use of bait. I monitered several fishing forums and put in my $00.02 trying to explain about VHS. Even after they understood, they remained opposed, often violently so. Several openly claimed intentions to ignore the law and many others claimed the time limit on using bait would only cause them to release even more as they had no intention of killing bait with expired time limits.
One need only to drive around on a sunny Saturday during icefishing season and observe the number of icefishermen. Multiply that by number of lakes across the region and number of fishing days per season and you'd have to realize just how daunting the problem is.
For another illustration, open a fish atlas on any state in the country and count the number of introduced species. Then count the number of times "bait bucket release" is listed as the route of introduction.

As far as nets go, outside of known VHS areas, introduced plants is probably the biggest threat. The place where I get my banded sunfish is infested with water chestnut. The seed pods from that crap LOVE to come home with me tangled in my nets. I could easily imagine someone moving from one pond to another and picking the seeds out of their nets and tossing them carelessly into the water.
It's a shame too. My pond recieved it's first chestnuts and exploded into a weed chocked mess in my lifetime. I can still remember canoeing as a kid and being able to see the bottom in several feet of water and fish everywhere in the pond. Now it's hardly more than a wet pasture. I will admit however the banded sunfish seem to do really well in it.

Edited by mikez, 15 April 2008 - 11:26 AM.


#3 Guest_jase_*

Guest_jase_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 April 2008 - 11:52 AM

Recently fishermen in Vermont and New York were hit with what, to them, were the most insane and ridculous restrictions on the use of bait. I monitered several fishing forums and put in my $00.02 trying to explain about VHS. Even after they understood, they remained opposed, often violently so. Several openly claimed intentions to ignore the law and many others claimed the time limit on using bait would only cause them to release even more as they had no intention of killing bait with expired time limits.

I know. I'm in Vermont, and that's where the the guy I was icefishing with wanted to dump the bait bucket down the hole just a month ago. I actually have bait 5 suckers from this experience in my freezer. They died in a way that caused all of their eyes to become really bloodshot -- I'm trying to figure out who at the State to contact to see if they want to test them for VHS.

The part that is weird about this situation in VT is that you're allowed to bring *purchased* bait onto a lake, but you can't catch your own bait from the lake. This rule exists for enforcement reasons (you need to have a receipt indicating where you bought the bait and where you're using it), but it clearly doesn't make much sense from the standpoint of actually preventing the spread of the disease.

http://www.vtfishand...ife.com/vhs.cfm
(click "Personal Baitfish Use FAQ")

If they were actually serious about preventing spread of VHS, they would have simply disallowed use of *any* fish as bait until they figured the situation out. Clearly, what I'd consider to be short-sighted concerns about loss of revenue for the State and fishing industry won out over a scientifically valid emergency measure.

Edited by jase, 15 April 2008 - 11:55 AM.


#4 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 April 2008 - 07:11 PM

Outlawing bait fish would effectively eliminate 90% of icefishing and a great deal of open water fishing. Besides the thousands of irate fishermen storming the state house, a great deal of businesses would be severly impacted.
That would be one heck of a tough sell.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It just is.

#5 Guest_mander_*

Guest_mander_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 April 2008 - 01:18 PM

I will be the first to admit my ignorance on the fish topic in general... but here is how I see it. (and this is not meant to be political, just historical.)

Andrew Jackson thought of the American Indians as little more than wild animals and had no qualms about annihilating them entirely if he could and forcibly removing them when he couldn't. The Trail of Tears is an example of displacing people from one area to another. Thousands died, and those who didn't, weren't exactly welcomed where they were placed, because, guess what? It was already inhabited by others. Now whether you consider human beings as being "tougher" or "weaker" than the rest of the living organisms here on the planet, the fact remains, moving a living being outside of its known environment will have consequences.

You have to balance the goals with the consequences to see which is the least harmful.
Is the release part of a revitalizing project? Or, simply because you're tired of the fish you have and want to move on? Is there an adequate food supply, or will the fish being released BE the food supply? Has the fish been in a natural enough setting that he/she/it might have a clue as to how to survive? IE, was it a planted tank with other fish, or just something bare and uneventful?

I am not without sin on the releasing of animals into the wild, did it once, but I have since learned my lessons and have my strong opinions. I am struggling greatly at the moment with what I believe to be right and what I want to be right on a related topic and would love to hear your opinions on it.

The high school I work at has an enclosed garden. In this garden is a pond. In the pond are Oregon Red-legged frogs. These frogs have been there, oh, a decade? They have been breeding in small numbers with a stable population of about 12. I love this garden and have devoted considerable time to it's conversation, planting over a hundred natives and naturalizing it. I am currently upset with the teachers because they don't "get" it.

Recently, the BIOLOGY teachers took the frogs out of ice cold water (stirring up the water and muck, depleting the oxygen.) They brought the frogs in to a nice toasty warm classroom for the day to watch them breath, then returned them into the ice cold water. Found a dead frog the next morning, which is how I found out what they'd done.

I had had hopes of doing a "trade" with a local pond, swamping out some of our frogs for some of theirs to keep the gene pool a little more diverse, but now, I want to take all the frog out of that pond and "forget" to bring any back. Technically, it isn't my pond to do that with. Also, after years of no predators, the frogs aren't that savvy. I want to sneak them into my own yard, but it really isn't set up for frogs, and whatever I create will be artificial, there are no wild running streams outside my door.

I'm plexed. I feel whatever I do, I'm deciding the nature of the frogs' deaths. Death by Biology Teachers, Death by Predators, or Death by lack of habitat.


***

I consider the "bacteria" threat the weakest part of the argument because to stop bacteria from spreading we would have to close all the rivers and lakes to all human contact. Not likely going to happen.

#6 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guest_Irate Mormon_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 April 2008 - 06:00 PM

Death by Biology teacher. That's how _I_ want to go out!

#7 Guest_Newt_*

Guest_Newt_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 April 2008 - 06:09 PM

Have you tried just bringing the issue to the teachers' attention? That seems like the best course. Besides, if I'm not mistaken red-legs are pretty well protected. You might get in some legal mess for moving the frogs.

#8 Guest_mander_*

Guest_mander_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 April 2008 - 08:50 AM

Have you tried just bringing the issue to the teachers' attention? That seems like the best course. Besides, if I'm not mistaken red-legs are pretty well protected. You might get in some legal mess for moving the frogs.


Actually, we could be in a bigger mess keeping the frogs but they are kind of "grandfathered in." No one really knows when and how they got there, or if they do, they aren't saying. My experience with teachers is, they get paid to talk, some of them seem to think by the word, and listening is something students do. They have schedules that have nothing to do with the weather outside. If this is what is being taught today, this is what is being taught today, they can't wait three weeks for better weather.

As a whole, I think it is better to improve the conditions of the site than it is to move a living thing from it's home, but somethings are not easily changed. The only thing keeping this garden from being "remodeled" into a classroom with a floor and a ceiling is the biology teachers insistance that they need it for lessons instructions. If I take that away from them, the whole garden will be gone. Life can be frustrating.

Irate, be sure to write your death preference in your living will! :-D

#9 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guest_ashtonmj_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 April 2008 - 10:21 AM

Some abstracts, summaries, or uploaded published articles will serve this topic well; lets try to keep it on track.

#10 Guest_ChannelCat2008_*

Guest_ChannelCat2008_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 April 2008 - 10:03 AM

I understand that if you release the fish back into the wild that it carries the VHS into the wild and spreads and kills off everything.

I was curious though, is there a way to reverse the effects of the VHS? In other words, is there a way to extract that bacteria or virus thats laying dormant in the aquarium fish? Is there a way to cure the fish of that dormant virus? If so, can the fish then be re-released into the wild safely without any consequence to the wild stock?

Is there an actual cure to VHS on an individual basis? In other words can we cure a single fish showing symptoms of VHS?


Thanks again

#11 Guest_nativeplanter_*

Guest_nativeplanter_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 April 2008 - 12:22 PM

The high school I work at has an enclosed garden. In this garden is a pond. In the pond are Oregon Red-legged frogs. These frogs have been there, oh, a decade? They have been breeding in small numbers with a stable population of about 12. I love this garden and have devoted considerable time to it's conversation, planting over a hundred natives and naturalizing it. I am currently upset with the teachers because they don't "get" it.


I'm confused when you say "enclosed garden". Do you mean in a greenhouse? Otherwise, if the pond is outside, it is surely getting some genetic exchange with the surrounds. I can't tell you how many tadpoles have appeared in my outdoor plant tubs over the years.

About the teachers that dont "get" it, perhaps some educational signage would help. Geared towards the kids, of course, but the teachers would probably learn some things or at least realize that it is good for the kids' educations.

#12 Guest_jase_*

Guest_jase_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 April 2008 - 01:25 PM

I understand that if you release the fish back into the wild that it carries the VHS into the wild and spreads and kills off everything.
I was curious though, is there a way to reverse the effects of the VHS? In other words, is there a way to extract that bacteria or virus thats laying dormant in the aquarium fish? Is there a way to cure the fish of that dormant virus? If so, can the fish then be re-released into the wild safely without any consequence to the wild stock?

It's not just VHS. VHS is just the latest and scariest in a long list of potential nasties that could be transmitted from aquarium fish to wild stock. Even if you could *cure* VHS (which I don't know about, but doubt), you have no idea what other, hidden infections or parasites the fish might be carrying.

I used to think that you could potentially release if you kept your fish separate from any others in captivity, but anyone with any background in high-school/college microbiology knows that "aseptic technique" is very, very hard. For all practical purposes, there's no such thing as isolating a tank of fish from any of the potential diseases they could acquire while in captivity. As an example, look at how easy it is to spread ick -- and that's a protozoa. Bacteria and viruses could be potentially be transmitted by something as simple as touching the aquarium water in an "infected" tank and then touching a "clean" tank.

In the end, it's simply not worth the risk. If you absolutely cannot keep the fish and cannot give it away to a good home, euthanization is the only option. Releasing on "animal rights" grounds might seem better for that one organism, but to risk introducing disease to an entire ecosystem so that one fish can be "free" is pretty hard to defend.

-Jase

#13 Guest_jase_*

Guest_jase_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 April 2008 - 01:30 PM

Some abstracts, summaries, or uploaded published articles will serve this topic well; lets try to keep it on track.

Yes, thank you Matt. I'm trying to collect information here. NANFA's code of ethics makes it clear that release isn't an option, so that's not up for debate. If folks want to chat about it or ask questions about specific situations, please find a more appropriate thread or start a new one. (They're interesting discussions, just don't belong here).

I'm looking for some of the science-minded folks and aquatic biology pros to offer up specific basis for *never* releasing here (Uland, Neely, etc. wink, wink).

-Jase

#14 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guest_ashtonmj_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 April 2008 - 02:08 PM

If someone would like a nice book read, not so bogged down in science jargon of a journal article, "Killer Algae" is a great book about the release, spread, and effects of Caulerpa taxifola off of Monaco and you might be surprised to find out the person responsible.

#15 Guest_scottefontay_*

Guest_scottefontay_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 April 2008 - 03:35 PM

QUICK LINK TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED...

http://www.press.uch...ago/519228.html

Edited by scottefontay, 28 April 2008 - 03:36 PM.


#16 Guest_mander_*

Guest_mander_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2008 - 06:35 PM

I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I agreed back in 2006 to write up a summary of all the reasons that releasing captive-kept fish back into waterways is unacceptable in any situation.

Thanks for the help! -Jase


I guess I'm misunderstanding something. Why be embarrassed if you agree with what is being written?

And if it is unacceptable in any situation... how is it that the Department of Fish and WildLife stocks rivers and lakes? Are they robbing other rivers and lakes to do this? Aren't they releasing captive bred fish into the wild?

Our school hasn't, but it is my understanding that it is becoming very popular for schools to raise trout fish eggs to be released into the wild rivers. I've been in far too many classrooms to believe each and every teacher/classroom that participants in this program knows what they are doing.

I'm considered something of an ogre at school because I remind people, staff included, to wash their hands after using the bathroom, because, guess what, they often don't otherwise. It isn't that I don't agree with the law, that isn't what I question, it's how is anyone planning on enforcing it?

I have struggled for years trying to get others to understand it isn't okay to release any animal into the wild. Cats, dogs, snakes, raccoons, mice... you name it, the moment it stops to be convienant to house and care for this animal, out it goes into the wild. There are all sorts of wonderful laws out there, but unless there is some sort of consequences, the behavior isn't going to change all too soon.

Look forward to more on this thread. I would love a tactful way to tell people to stop and think.

#17 Guest_mander_*

Guest_mander_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2008 - 09:51 PM

If you absolutely cannot keep the fish and cannot give it away to a good home, euthanization is the only option. Releasing on "animal rights" grounds might seem better for that one organism, but to risk introducing disease to an entire ecosystem so that one fish can be "free" is pretty hard to defend.

-Jase


But those are the very people you do have to appeal to. For the most part, it isn't the science and biology types who are going to be opposing what you have to say, nor are they the ones who are most likely going to be doing the offenses.

You have to understand your opponents thinking if you want to change it.

My experience is, the average person cares about the animal/fish "somewhat." They say they don't want it to die, but really, they don't want to be the one "responsible" for killing it. (And yes, we are American's and from birth we are programmed to believe that the individual is more import than the whole and to suggest otherwise is communism and or socialism and we Americans all know how wrong and evil that is.) For these individuals and they are a huge percent of the population, euthanisa is NOT an option. But, even if they did kill it first, where would they put the dead body? Flush it down the toilet? Isn't that a no-no, too? Bury it in the yard for the cat to dig up? Put it in the trash where the bacteria will multiply and be taken to a landfill that is probably near a water source?

It isn't the fish that is the problem, but the bacteria and you have to offer a solution for that first.

You also have to start offering an alternative for the individual. To the best of my knowledge the Audobon Society does not take fishes. Maybe they should, if not to quarantine and release, than to quarantine and feed to their hungry birds. A lot of people would gladly take their fish to a Game Quarantine facility if they felt that relieved them of the responsibility of the individuals care. They don't care if a hungry bird eats it, the bird has to live, too, just so long as the fishes death is NOT blamed on them.

I don't know the consequences of dumping animals/fishes. It should something other than a fat fine and/or jail time. It should be so many hours of work in a community service program that helps injured animals/fishes.

#18 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2008 - 06:09 AM

And if it is unacceptable in any situation... how is it that the Department of Fish and WildLife stocks rivers and lakes? Are they robbing other rivers and lakes to do this? Aren't they releasing captive bred fish into the wild?


A closer look at the history of F&G stocking programs actually serves as a perfect illustration of why it is such a bad idea. The list of native species impacted and the list of pathogens introduced, not to metion the compromise of genetic stocks from mixing farm raised, genetically inferior "native" species into the gene pool, goes back for over 100 years. Much of the damage done will never be repaired. In other cases attempts are being made to fix problems at great expense to the tax payers. I don't have time or inclination to provide references but if you're interested, and if you have an afternoon to kill, google it. There's lots of information out there.

I'm a sportsman and enjoy fishing for stocked trout but I'd be the first to admit, F&G introductions of "exotic" species has been extremely detrimental in case after case. The power of the revenue generated by fishermen far outweighs that of those concerned with nongame native species. Some state and federal F&G departments are starting to become enlightened, but the problem in the big picture is here to stay.

#19 Guest_jase_*

Guest_jase_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2008 - 11:45 AM

I guess I'm misunderstanding something. Why be embarrassed if you agree with what is being written?

I'm embarrassed that I agreed to do it in 2006, and I'm working on it nearly 2 years later. That's all. :)

#20 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2008 - 12:56 PM

In most municipalities it's already illegal to release birds or mammals. From working as a volunteer with Huntsville (AL) Animal Services, if someone is suspected of releasing rabbits or cats an Animal Control officer will show up at their door and possibly arrest the perp. Fishes are seen in a different light; it's "just" a fish and it'll be fine in a local stream or pond, of course(!). What makes us weird on this list is thinking otherwise, and also being aware that such an introduction can have multiple bad effects. The effort to educate owners of mammalian pets about taking care of their charges and neutering them in most cases has taken decades, and is still ongoing (at least in the South...). We have a long way to go with the issue of releasing fish.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users