Three interesting pieces in the August 2009 issue of Fisheries magazine available to all for download (4.23MB).
Invasive Species policy at the Regional level: A Multiple Weak links problem
ABSTRACT: Policy is used to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species. For aquatic invasive species that can easily cross political boundaries, regional policies are needed. A weak link problem occurs when regulations of individual jurisdictions increase the region-wide risk of species introductions, especially in adjacent jurisdictions. Such cross-jurisdictional weak links may be compounded by another sort of weak link within jurisdictions: inconsistent regulation among multiple vectors that may introduce the same species. We used crayfish as a model system to study regulations for anglers, bait dealers, the pet trade, and aquaculture across the Great Lakes region. We identified a continuum of regulations ranging from no regulations to those that prohibit all use of crayfish. Furthermore, regulations differed depending on state and vector. Many states had regulations that specifically targeted the invasive rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus). However, these regulations were enacted reactively only after rusty crayfish had become established in the state. The lack of regulatory consistency among the Great Lakes jurisdictions is creating a multiple weak links problem and making success unlikely in efforts to slow the spread of crayfishes and other invasive species throughout the region.
On the Boots of Fishermen: The History of Didymo Blooms on Vancouver Island, British Columbia
ABSTRACT: In 1989 blooms of the river benthic diatom Didymosphenia geminata (didymo) first appeared and rapidly spread among rivers on central Vancouver Island, covering the bottoms with thick, woolly-looking mats. Although didymo is native to North America, extensive field surveys of rivers on Vancouver Island and other data indicate that didymo blooms are new. No known environmental changes were associated with the onset of didymo blooms. However the pattern of didymo spread among rivers on Vancouver Island correlates with the activity of fishermen and the commercial introduction and widespread use of felt-soled waders in the late 1980s. Since 1994 nuisance blooms of didymo have appeared in numerous other places in the Northern Hemisphere and South Island, New Zealand, all areas frequented by fishermen. Actions by government agencies to educate the public and restrict the use of felt-soled waders have been undertaken in some jurisdictions and at least one commercial manufacturer of waders will discontinue production of felt-soled models in the near future.
Are We Doing All We Can to Stem the Tide of Illegal Fish Stocking?
Would a $100,000 fine if caught be enough to make you think twice about illegally introducing a fish to your home lake? That's just one of the possible solutions recommended in this interesting commentary piece.
To me it depends on the kind of illegal fish being stocked. I think in most cases here in Minnesota illegal stocking consists of people putting established game/food/bait species into lakes/ponds that either don't have that kind of fish or have a low population of that kind of fish. Frankley I don't see anything wrong with doing this and I don't even think it should be illegal. The government can do it and so can lake associations and fishing groups that get a permit.
If you want smallmouth bass or muskie in a lake you fish often and are willing to catch and transport them from another location nearby, I don't see what business the State has in stopping someone. I think the odds of fish being vectors of disease from lakes or rivers where no fish diseases are known to be present are a neglible risk. Anglers who are paying attention these days are in a good position to know if there is a risk for diseases or not.
Invasive species such as the Goby and rough fish such as carp is another matter.
Posted by: BP | February 23, 2010 at 06:26 PM
I have now read the article "Are We Doing All We Can to Stem the Tide of Illegal Fish Stocking?" and I think in the beginning of the article he comes just short of admitting that in the big picture illegal stocking has been more beneficial than harmful.
Also I was shocked to read the responce of British Columbia to the illegal stocking of yellow perch in some lakes. There is a word for the action of the Canadian Governement in this instance and that word is tyranny, plain and simple. I'm sorry but in my world government DOES NOT have the perogative to take that action and deny what I consider to be a fundamental right. Note- Here in Minnesota the right to hunt and fish is Constitutionally protected.
In my view the author of this article is a well intended petty tyrant.
Posted by: BP | February 23, 2010 at 07:06 PM
Interesting thoughts BP -
The biggest issue I've seen in Indiana is the waste of money spent rahabbing a lake that then gets "ruined" again by reintroductions. In our case, several smaller impoundments (<1000 acres) have been drained and rotenoned to remove all carp and gizzard shad as the fisheries had gotten pretty bad. All new gamefish are restocked, then lo and behold, a few years later gizzrds show back up in the lake and the downward spiral sets back in again.
While it hasn't been confirmed in every case, restocking by individuals is the primary suspect in several of the lakes. As such, the hundreds of thousands of dollars it cost to renovate the lake basically just gets tossed down the drain so to speak. In one case there was a reward offered for any information that lead to the conviction of those responsible for the restocking, such was the degree of "unhappiness" with the situation. As I understand they got leads but never enough documentation/evidence to prosecute.
Posted by: Big Indiana Bass | February 24, 2010 at 09:46 AM