Since this subject has already reared it’s head, I thought we might be able to formulate a list of reasons why this is bad for both the released fish as well as the harm that can be done to wild populations.
Releasing fish into the wild
Started by
Guest_teleost_*
, Oct 17 2006 08:09 AM
62 replies to this topic
#2
Guest_Brooklamprey_*
Guest_Brooklamprey_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 October 2006 - 11:16 AM
I'll start this off with a few.
One is that there are complex functions in a given ecosystem that we really are not fully aware of. By releasing a fish into that system it could very well disrupt that.
Some species have the ability to bump out existing species physically or genetically wreaking havoc to the balance of the system. This can have many consequences to both the natural system or in some cases it can have human economic impact.
In some cases differing localities of fish species have very different sets of genes that help them adapt to their particular locality. introducing the genes from one population into another can weaken or destroy the genetic integrity of a specific locality.
One case in study, is the stocking by the Wisconsin DNR of Muskellunge. The stock fish that where being released and stocked were genetically inferior to the "great lakes" strain of fish and set to Grow slow and small rather than grow fast and big. it also turned out that the stocked musky where totally unequipped to compete well when mixed un-naturally with Northern pike as they where adapted to spawning in shallow water rather than deep water. In areas Musky and northern pike naturally co-habitat Musky always spawn in Deeper water. We now know this above information. But 20 years ago we had no clue that this was going on in the genetics or behavior of the fish. In a way a Muskellunge is not just a muskellunge everywhere and they should not be haphazardly thrown about and stocked just anywhere from anywhere just because they are Esox masquinongy .
These days fisheries management officials do think about this and weight it before stocking fish.
In another case, some species of fish have very defined social orders and familial clan ties. When another fish is introduced to this group (even if related and of the same species). It is very likely that the invading fish will be attacked and killed or it will be predated on by being extracted from the protective group. Releasing a fish just because you caught it in the same locality does not mean it will survive or be accepted back by its own kind
Above are just a few of the many things to think about.
One is that there are complex functions in a given ecosystem that we really are not fully aware of. By releasing a fish into that system it could very well disrupt that.
Some species have the ability to bump out existing species physically or genetically wreaking havoc to the balance of the system. This can have many consequences to both the natural system or in some cases it can have human economic impact.
In some cases differing localities of fish species have very different sets of genes that help them adapt to their particular locality. introducing the genes from one population into another can weaken or destroy the genetic integrity of a specific locality.
One case in study, is the stocking by the Wisconsin DNR of Muskellunge. The stock fish that where being released and stocked were genetically inferior to the "great lakes" strain of fish and set to Grow slow and small rather than grow fast and big. it also turned out that the stocked musky where totally unequipped to compete well when mixed un-naturally with Northern pike as they where adapted to spawning in shallow water rather than deep water. In areas Musky and northern pike naturally co-habitat Musky always spawn in Deeper water. We now know this above information. But 20 years ago we had no clue that this was going on in the genetics or behavior of the fish. In a way a Muskellunge is not just a muskellunge everywhere and they should not be haphazardly thrown about and stocked just anywhere from anywhere just because they are Esox masquinongy .
These days fisheries management officials do think about this and weight it before stocking fish.
In another case, some species of fish have very defined social orders and familial clan ties. When another fish is introduced to this group (even if related and of the same species). It is very likely that the invading fish will be attacked and killed or it will be predated on by being extracted from the protective group. Releasing a fish just because you caught it in the same locality does not mean it will survive or be accepted back by its own kind
Above are just a few of the many things to think about.
#3
Guest_hmt321_*
Guest_hmt321_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 October 2006 - 02:00 PM
Disease
introduce new disease, spread more common ones
parasites
same as above,
I personally think that parasites and disease pose a great risk to our native fish.
people often think that it is ok to release a fish from one water way to another if that specie is present in both water systems, very bad idea.
when you catch/collect a fish you have resumed responsibility for that fish.
either keep it
eat it
or release where you caught it BEFORE you leave.
If we can educate people on why it is bad to release captive fish, we will have taken a huge step in the conservation of our native waterways and the fish in them.
perhaps we should have some sort of a sticky that would kind of jump out at a new member or just a casual surfer to this sight, that could explain the danger of releasing fish into the wild.
introduce new disease, spread more common ones
parasites
same as above,
I personally think that parasites and disease pose a great risk to our native fish.
people often think that it is ok to release a fish from one water way to another if that specie is present in both water systems, very bad idea.
when you catch/collect a fish you have resumed responsibility for that fish.
either keep it
eat it
or release where you caught it BEFORE you leave.
If we can educate people on why it is bad to release captive fish, we will have taken a huge step in the conservation of our native waterways and the fish in them.
perhaps we should have some sort of a sticky that would kind of jump out at a new member or just a casual surfer to this sight, that could explain the danger of releasing fish into the wild.
#5
Guest_drewish_*
Guest_drewish_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 October 2006 - 10:32 PM
it should be avoided, we can just say that. The only aception is if the fish came from that exact area or that stream.
Only return it to same waters *immediately* after catching it. Taking it home and then returning it is a no-no.
Only authorized/licensed persons should release any captive bred/raised fish into public waters.
#7
Guest_Brooklamprey_*
Guest_Brooklamprey_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 October 2006 - 10:38 PM
This is not actually an exception unless one Picks the fish out of a net then releases it at once.The only aception is if the fish came from that exact area or that stream.
In no way should any fish that has been kept in captivity (Definition of Captivity being: taken from the site for longer than 24 hours and housed in a contained system) Ever be re-released into the water it was taken. When you take a fish from it's enviornment it is then your responsibility to care for it and house it. If you feel at some point you can not care for it or house it then you should not remove it from its source.....If you find later you can no longer house it, you should properly dispose of it in a humane manner.
Release is truly not an option for a hobby kept fish under any circumstance.
#11
Guest_drewish_*
Guest_drewish_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 October 2006 - 10:46 PM
No serously, if I caught a fish and kept it I would keep ti forever, but I may just be a newbie, but what is actually wrong with keeping a fish for a while and then retunring it to the same spot again?
Read the above posts as they touch on it.
There is all the "only the strong survive" mentality. This is the case where you collect young fish. In nature, only the strongest healthiest fish live. This is why fish have hundreds if not thousands of offspring, not all are going to live. If you remove a specimen from the wild, you are almost guaranteeing it to live. If it is disformed or has abnormalities and you return it to the water you collected it from, you are passing this on to its offspring. You may never really know what changes you may have created which is why you shouldn't do it in the first place.
#12
Guest_drewish_*
Guest_drewish_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 October 2006 - 10:48 PM
I personally don't see anything wrong with kepeing a fish a month and putting it back, or I may just be stupid..
This is why this thread is here...
why is that therd there? I don't see anything wrong with my thread...
I was saying, the reason why this "Releasing fish into the wild" thread was started is because a lot of people don't understand why it shouldn't be done. The purpose of this thread is to show those reasons.
#13
Guest_blaze88_*
Guest_blaze88_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 October 2006 - 10:50 PM
I mostly agree with you and would never relise a caught fish unless it is immediatly after when I caught it.
However, one fish will not make a very big diffrence esp. if it is mutated/deformed, it will die soon anyway.
However, one fish will not make a very big diffrence esp. if it is mutated/deformed, it will die soon anyway.
#14
Guest_Brooklamprey_*
Guest_Brooklamprey_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 October 2006 - 10:52 PM
I personally don't see anything wrong with kepeing a fish a month and putting it back, or I may just be stupid..
This is why this thread is here...
why is that therd there? I don't see anything wrong with my thread...
THIS thread (The topic of the post)....is here specificly.....to educate one about.....the reasons....for not releasing ..... captive held fish.
Please wait just a bit and you will hear more than enough reasons on why it is very much not acceptable to release a fish after keeping it a month......
Fire proof pants will come in handy for you about right now by the way....
#15
Guest_blaze88_*
Guest_blaze88_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 October 2006 - 10:53 PM
well I just was stating what I thought. What a better way to teach people then to use me as a student example.
I do understand now why it shouldn't be done. The sence of responcibility of keeping the fish in the first place should go on. Just one fish may not make a diffrence, but if we all do that, then thats more then one fish.
I do understand now why it shouldn't be done. The sence of responcibility of keeping the fish in the first place should go on. Just one fish may not make a diffrence, but if we all do that, then thats more then one fish.
#16
Guest_blaze88_*
Guest_blaze88_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 October 2006 - 10:55 PM
I personally don't see anything wrong with kepeing a fish a month and putting it back, or I may just be stupid..
This is why this thread is here...
why is that therd there? I don't see anything wrong with my thread...
THIS thread (The topic of the post)....is here specificly.....to educate one about.....the reasons....for not releasing ..... captive held fish.
Please wait just a bit and you will hear more than enough reasons on why it is very much not acceptable to release a fish after keeping it a month......
Fire proof pants will come in handy for you about right now by the way....
Fire proof pants? What is that suposed to mean. Anywho, it doesn't matter. I already messed up my reputaion on this site. I think I ill have to leave now.
#17
Guest_hmt321_*
Guest_hmt321_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 October 2006 - 08:16 AM
even if you keep a fish only a month, you could still expose it to a disease, or parasite. which in turn could expose a large fish population. it is better to euthinize a fish kept for a month, than to release it.
No one here cares about reputation, we want to spread the interest of native american fish,
we want people to learn about this because it is very important.
Never release a captive fish back into the wild
No one here cares about reputation, we want to spread the interest of native american fish,
we want people to learn about this because it is very important.
Never release a captive fish back into the wild
#18
Guest_teleost_*
Guest_teleost_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 October 2006 - 08:18 AM
You've not ruined your reputation here. We're indeed here to learn so let's do that together. I suspect repetitive posts will occur here but I can think of no other subject that warrants repetition. Drewish brought up a good point about genetics. In a month you can put on quite a bit of mass on most young fish. This young fish could be genetically ill equipped for its surroundings. Mother nature might have taken care of this right after you collected that fish from the wild. Instead you made it grow (possibly increasing its mass X5). Now releasing this fish allows this fish to have an edge over the possibly superior offspring which had to actually compete for food and evade predators in that little pool/riffle. Disease is real. I know we try to keep tanks clean and healthy but parasites and disease are all around us. Even if your tank houses fish from only one pool of the same creek, you can allow existing disease to prosper in your tank. Again nature has a way of dealing with such problems but inside the tank we keep these fish safe from predation. This just scratches the surface on the subject but I feel confident in saying....Once you take a fish from the wild, you WILL house this fish for the rest of it's life. No exceptions to this rule for hobby types. It's almost impossible to predict all of the problems created by releasing fish even from the exact location once housed inside our tanks.
#19
Guest_nativeplanter_*
Guest_nativeplanter_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 October 2006 - 08:58 AM
So here's a question:
What would I tell my neighbors 7-year old kid who wants to take home a couple of minnows for a couple of days so he can watch them in a fish bowl (the family has no other fish). Minimal chance for exposure to disease, minimal growth, and 48 hours of learning for the kid who otherwise has nature deficit disorder.
I'm trying to bring up a hypothetical situation here for discussion. This would be a very realistic scenario in my extremely low income, under educated, forgotten about neighborhood. Let's assume that the world isn't perfect and his parent isn't going to be able to take him fishing or hiking and whatnot. The parent won't permit the fish permanently. Somewhat urban kid; lake is nearby. I'll be honest, even though my opinion may get me flamed: I'd tell him to take it home and watch it for a couple of days, but like all sleepovers, the fish has to go back to his own family at the end of the weekend. I would find this hardly an offense in a public lake where people use (and dump) store-bought live minnows as bait every day.
What would I tell my neighbors 7-year old kid who wants to take home a couple of minnows for a couple of days so he can watch them in a fish bowl (the family has no other fish). Minimal chance for exposure to disease, minimal growth, and 48 hours of learning for the kid who otherwise has nature deficit disorder.
I'm trying to bring up a hypothetical situation here for discussion. This would be a very realistic scenario in my extremely low income, under educated, forgotten about neighborhood. Let's assume that the world isn't perfect and his parent isn't going to be able to take him fishing or hiking and whatnot. The parent won't permit the fish permanently. Somewhat urban kid; lake is nearby. I'll be honest, even though my opinion may get me flamed: I'd tell him to take it home and watch it for a couple of days, but like all sleepovers, the fish has to go back to his own family at the end of the weekend. I would find this hardly an offense in a public lake where people use (and dump) store-bought live minnows as bait every day.
#20
Guest_teleost_*
Guest_teleost_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 October 2006 - 09:18 AM
So here's a question:
What would I tell my neighbors 7-year old kid who wants to take home a couple of minnows for a couple of days so he can watch them in a fish bowl (the family has no other fish). Minimal chance for exposure to disease, minimal growth, and 48 hours of learning for the kid who otherwise has nature deficit disorder.
I'm trying to bring up a hypothetical situation here for discussion. This would be a very realistic scenario in my extremely low income, under educated, forgotten about neighborhood. Let's assume that the world isn't perfect and his parent isn't going to be able to take him fishing or hiking and whatnot. The parent won't permit the fish permanently. Somewhat urban kid; lake is nearby. I'll be honest, even though my opinion may get me flamed: I'd tell him to take it home and watch it for a couple of days, but like all sleepovers, the fish has to go back to his own family at the end of the weekend. I would find this hardly an offense in a public lake where people use (and dump) store-bought live minnows as bait every day.
I hope we're not flaming people here. I would like to think we're simply letting others know how passionately we feel about the release of fish, any fish.
In your scenario I would not do it unless the following conditions were met: The fish bowl was sterile (and I mean sterile not a quick rinse in the sink) and only water from the lake used to house the fish. Since both of these things are pretty easy to do, I would say this is a go. Others may feel differently but this is a FORUM. Open ideas and thoughts should be shared it's the whole point of this place. Sound like a neat sleep over (for those outside the bowl)
.And I think those that release store bought minnows into the water should be made to eat a pound of live minnows everyday for a year.
Reply to this topic
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
