Jump to content


gonna stock FL coppernose in MO


13 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_centrarchid_*

Guest_centrarchid_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2008 - 03:49 PM

I am gonna stock some pure coppernose bluegill acquired from a fish farm within the the Manatee River drainage into a Missouri farm pond. Perfectly legal. Any nature lovers have problems with that?!

Edited by centrarchid, 25 August 2008 - 04:39 PM.


#2 Guest_Newt_*

Guest_Newt_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2008 - 03:51 PM

What problem could there be? Unless the pond is connected to a stream, or people will be transferring fish from it to other waters...

#3 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2008 - 03:51 PM

We're already dealing with hugely altered gene pools, I'm not sure you could mess it up more even if you wanted to.

#4 Guest_centrarchid_*

Guest_centrarchid_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2008 - 04:08 PM

Looks like I put a fire under your goats! Not sleeping as bad as I thought.


Such an action is perfectly legal in this state and many others. What is to be be done about it? The conservation authorities (within) give contrasting views as to what is okay according to departmental policy. In the end subspecies are not recognized, so if northern and coppernose just considered to be subspecies, and northern is native and fair for trade, then so is the coppernose fair for trade.

Edited by centrarchid, 25 August 2008 - 04:21 PM.


#5 Guest_Newt_*

Guest_Newt_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2008 - 04:20 PM

Honestly, as far as genetic pollution goes, I doubt coppernose from FL would be any more disruptive than northerns from Virginia or New England; the gene pollution might be easier to see, but not necessarily more significant.

#6 Guest_centrarchid_*

Guest_centrarchid_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2008 - 04:27 PM

Honestly, as far as genetic pollution goes, I doubt coppernose from FL would be any more disruptive than northerns from Virginia or New England; the gene pollution might be easier to see, but not necessarily more significant.


I am not certain the "northerns" of the eastern seaboard are the same as the Mississippi River drainage northerns. They are colored similarly but that is as far as I will go unless the the former is derived largerly or in part from stockings of the latter.


Even within the state of Missouri, some of the bluegill derived from different major drainages (White River versus Fabius River) perform very differently even when reared under identical conditions.

#7 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guest_ashtonmj_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2008 - 05:35 PM

What is the purpose of this thread other than to incite opposing opinions?

#8 Guest_centrarchid_*

Guest_centrarchid_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2008 - 05:55 PM

What is the purpose of this thread other than to incite opposing opinions?


I wanted to know if people were aware of this reality and is it regarding as a problem. And does anyone have altrnatives to promote for stocking a pond that has less potential for negative impacts. Still looking for querry as to why such an option considered.

I expected to read some though provoking alternatives. The subject appears taboo.

NANFA has guidelines regarding repatriation of captured animals. Why not in regards to legal purchases and stockings which in the longer term best not be done.

#9 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guest_ashtonmj_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2008 - 06:09 PM

I don't see the topic being taboo, that's just basic fisheries management practice, it is how you worded things that have put it in a taboo context. People stock ponds, plain and simple. The number of NA natives that have been transfered outside their native range is incredibly high. As has already been mentioned, this does not preclude negative impacts. Should it be done everywhere, such as when a closely related, imperiled, or unique genetic population could be at risk, probably not. On the whole there other and greater concerns to aquatic ecosystems. NANFA doesn't advocate fisheries policy, that is AFS's job. (Native) Alternatives and the goals of a pond manager typically aren't compatible, you of any of us should know that best. Did I just hear someone volunteer to write a fact sheet?

#10 Guest_centrarchid_*

Guest_centrarchid_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2008 - 06:30 PM

I don't see the topic being taboo, that's just basic fisheries management practice, it is how you worded things that have put it in a taboo context. People stock ponds, plain and simple. The number of NA natives that have been transfered outside their native range is incredibly high. As has already been mentioned, this does not preclude negative impacts. Should it be done everywhere, such as when a closely related, imperiled, or unique genetic population could be at risk, probably not. On the whole there other and greater concerns to aquatic ecosystems. NANFA doesn't advocate fisheries policy, that is AFS's job. (Native) Alternatives and the goals of a pond manager typically aren't compatible, you of any of us should know that best. Did I just hear someone volunteer to write a fact sheet?


What is the "basic fisheries management practice"? That may be the problem a the heart of this.

Wording intended to raise hackles. Ethics and conservation issues almost always do.

People do stock ponds but I think the process can be modified to the simulatanous benefit of the fisheries manager (pond owner), aquaculturist if one is involved and the environment.

The American Fisheries Society (AFS) is made up largely of professionals with vested professional interest regarding resources they are involved with caring for. I am a member with my own agenda which at times conflicts with conservation of natives. I doubt you will find others that can truley differ in that regard. Such a situation may at times limit our ability to think out side the box when our funding or short term good looks to the public are at risk.

#11 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2008 - 06:58 PM

There's obviously a continuum here ranging from mildly annoying to truly stupid as regards stocking. The state fish of Alabama is really the "Florida" bass, same with Mississippi and Georgia; spreading this strain around is less damaging than urging the farm pond cultivation of Tilapia. If people are stocking "greengills" in ponds, then spreading around Coppernose bluegills doesn't seem quite so goofy even though I'd oppose it if anybody asked me. I still deal with the situation where people want to stock koi in a springhead that supports the best population of flame chubs that I found. To my mind that goes beyond stupid to criminal and should be treated as such. But we don't live in such an enlightened society at the moment.

#12 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guest_ashtonmj_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2008 - 07:49 PM

Wording intended to raise hackles. Ethics and conservation issues almost always do.

People do stock ponds but I think the process can be modified to the simulatanous benefit of the fisheries manager (pond owner), aquaculturist if one is involved and the environment.


Then come out and flatly state that you think you can modify the process instead of stating it completley backwards with the intent make people scratch their heads or piss them off. I don't have time for that.

#13 Guest_centrarchid_*

Guest_centrarchid_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2008 - 10:20 PM

Please pardon my irritability. My charges (fish in pond) conspired to end me by getting the pond bank wet and slippery causing me to fall and nearly become discombobulated by the tractor power-take-off this evening. The good side is it could have stopped my stocking fishes.

There's obviously a continuum here ranging from mildly annoying to truly stupid as regards stocking. The state fish of Alabama is really the "Florida" bass, same with Mississippi and Georgia; spreading this strain around is less damaging than urging the farm pond cultivation of Tilapia. If people are stocking "greengills" in ponds, then spreading around Coppernose bluegills doesn't seem quite so goofy even though I'd oppose it if anybody asked me. I still deal with the situation where people want to stock koi in a springhead that supports the best population of flame chubs that I found. To my mind that goes beyond stupid to criminal and should be treated as such. But we don't live in such an enlightened society at the moment.


Fundulus,

We may differ somewhat on what fishes ,when stocked, can cause the most damage, but I do agree some sensitive locations should be made off limits for such stocking efforts. As for the enlightenment issue, that falls upon us until larger organizations like the AFS can see the wisdom of doing the same.





Then come out and flatly state that you think you can modify the process instead of stating it completley backwards with the intent make people scratch their heads or piss them off. I don't have time for that.


ashtonmj,

I have learned that if the readership does not get a little riled, little attention is paid to making a statement, especially if the author is obscure.


So getting to the point. My ideas are not going to agree with rules on law books but I think they are sound and some laws might need to be reconsidered from time to time. This pertains only to private ponds with likelihood of escapement reaching drainage. I list problems I can think of. Add more at you pleasure.

1). When stocking the pond with a self perpetuating species (i.e. bluegill, bass), the species must be native to the drainage and derived from the nearest, by stream miles, population from the same drainage. A problem with this in some states concerns ownership and subsequent fishing rights of the general public when such founded stocks are of public origin without evidence of being derived from an private aquaculture producer. Another problem is that some states out right forbid such actions with the intention that only state officials be able to do stockings with publically owned fishes.

2) When using stocks sourced from outside the drainage, effectively sterile populations should be used. Somebody has commented that even though hybrids exist, it is just that, they are not of significance. Sometimes, but not always I agree. An example would be something lie the greengill / hybrid bluegill (green x bluegill sunfish) that even though fertile may not be contaminate local stocks with escapement. The introgression potential I think needs to be looked at more closely. Some such hybrids are quite sterile but not given much consideration because the green x sop easy to produce. Somes hybrids I think will work, some like saugeye and some black bass hybrids probably will not. Private producers supplying such a demand might enjoy a more consistent market with repeat clients. The pond manager would benefit from greater control over recruitment and harvest quality.

Major problem for both options is that goverment hatcheries (operated by AFS members) might be devalued by public and being subjected down sizing. Selfish factor to be considered. My position would likley be different if I were a hatchery manager.


Brine shrimp are settled and ready to harvest. Will throw more sticks at hornet nest tommorrow.

Edited by drewish, 25 August 2008 - 10:23 PM.


#14 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 August 2008 - 05:33 PM

Way too big a can o' worms to engage in detail.
Even when states stock species that are technically "native", at times the genetic source is far enough away from wild stock that it's almost like stocking a non-native. The brook trout that are stocked in my state do not resemble the true natives and rarely survive to reproduce, even in streams where natives historically have inhabitated.
Who knows where the bluegills in New England came from? All I know is they are not native but are the most abundant sunfish here.
Which brings up the conflict I have as an angler. The majority of my favorite [for angling] freshwater species are not native. I'd really hate to give them up from an angling point of view.
On the other hand, I would rather see the native species restored from a naturalist point of view.
A moot point really, too few of our waterways can be restored to a level to support the original species.
If the powers that be aren't willing to knock down useless 150 year old dams, I may as well toss out an oatmeal ball and have me some carpin'. :twisted: It's better than golf! :laugh:



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users