View Full Version : The next 'exotic'
European researchers are warning of the impending assault of a "killer shrimp," D. Villosus, which they predict will be infesting the Great Lakes very soon. Sporting a huge set of chompers and an ability to adjust to drastic changes in temperature and water quality, this mini-beastie has made quick work of all other small aquatic creatures in its adopted environments. They've traced the shrimp back to Russian waters, and say that it has hitched rides in ships' ballasts to many parts of Europe.
Hans
Fin Addict
03-06-2001, 08:12 AM
I know they are supposed to drain the balast water from these ships prior to entry into the great lakes. Apparently it is not always done or does not work. What if ships were required to put bleach(very expensive if used in the necessary quantities) into the new balast water or better still require use of an ozone generator in the ballast water (cheaper and more environmentally friendly long term) to kill all the beasties? Probably an OSHA and environmentalist problem w/ both though. My thought is kill the exotics rather than flush them into the sea.
cisco
03-06-2001, 09:43 AM
Flushing ballast water at sea does work. The problem with the exotics is the simple fact that ocean going vessels do not comply with the law. They haul freshwater from foreign ports across the salt oceans, then dump at port in fresh water Great Lakes.
Enforcement of ballast water exchange has been nonexistant.
often they site saftey issues as the reason they don't exchange ballast water at sea.
Man The Torpedo's!
03-06-2001, 11:59 AM
How about a pipeline form the ocean to the major freshwater ports??
Wont the fishies eat the beasties? If they do they might taste better out of the great lakes than they do eating alewives. There is no comparison in the quality of the salmon on the west coast that eat shrimp to the ones in the great lakes.
Just looking for the silver lining.
"The optomist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds and the pessimist is afraid this is true."
ufda
where are you coming from?
Have you seen, heard, read about the effects of invasive species?
do you know that zebra muscles have single handedly exterpitated the native unioid bivalves (musscles)from lake Erie, other great lakes and some major river systems. Furthermore, do you realize that one species of sculpin is quite probably extirpitated from Lake Erie due to compitition with the round goby.
my father inlaw has a minnow trap at the end of his dock on lake mich. lately he catches more gobies(sp) than anything else in it. this trend started about a year ago and has been reported locally to the dnr. personally i fear exotics more than any other pressure on our fisheries.
"go outside and play"
sib
Exxxxccccuuuuuuuuuusssssseeeeee me! The alewife I mentioned, if you're not aware is also not a native of the great lakes. Yeah I know all about the zebra mussel. I also know about German brown trout, Chinese ringneck pheasants, talapia, and other "exotics" that have worked out fine. I don't agree with dumping bilge water in the Great Lakes. I just refuse to panic about something that nobody knows is going to be a problem and something that I can't do anything about anyway. But, if you would like to worry about things that you can't control I have some windmills you may wish to joust with (but, you probably wouldn't understand the Cervants reference would you?)
So, next time if you respond politely, so will I.
ufda
Oh, and just to make sure I don't appear anonymous, my email is 2ndresource@theriver.com
Sorry if you feel I was rude. but I and many other Aquatic Biologists hold the opinion that no exotics are good exotics. the brown trout, rainbow trout and carp have all found a place within our ecosystems, but not without cuasing the same types of problems as the goby, ZM, white pearch, purple lusistrife, and the spiny water flea. most exotic species introduced into foreign habitats do not suceede, or can not compete successfuly with the native species, however, those that do wreak havoc and disturb a natural balance (or harmonic) and cuase ir-reversible damage. so please forgive me for stepping on your sensitive toes, but there is no such thing as a good invasive species, period. Even if us stupid humans intensionaly introduce them to suit (attempt to suit) our selfish desires.
not including my email address has nothing to do with being anonomous, but with the fact that I am at work and my home email is not functioning
SUPERTROLLER
03-08-2001, 12:39 PM
cmb, I have to side with ufda on this one. Are you actually an Aquatic Biologist? I don't think so. You are not particularly well spoken on this topic, in my opinion. It sounds to me like you are expressing a personal opinion and not allowing ufda to have one as well. To make a blanket statement, stating that all exotic plantings of non-native species is bad, just seems too narrow minded for my liking. We lean toward a more open sharing of ideas and if you would like to give some facts to back up your statements, I am sure we would all consider them and give you a fair hearing. I think just because these exotics are changing our resources does not necessarily mean that the change is ALL bad. ZM's are cleaning up an awful lot of dirty water. I don't think that's all bad. I do wish we could slow their growth and distribution. How, I do not know but clean water is better than water overloaded by nutrients and causing massive algae blooms. Remember, this is just my own opinion. Please allow me to have one, too.
Perhaps oversensitive, but it bothers me when one presents themselves as an expert in a field, particularly by using the "technical" language, but doesn't know how to spell the words. The term is extirpated, not extirpitated; they are mussels, not muscles or musscles; it's a perch, not a pearch; the plant is purple lustrife, not lusistrife. So as a high school kid, you should go back to studying. No educated Aquatic Biologist would have made those mistakes nor would they have spelled the other words suceede, intensionaly, anonomous, compititive. So when you go to pretending, be aware that someone who knows may be reading what you write and call your bluff.
ufda
The European experience doesn't have many "silver linings". In the Rhine, which it invaded less than 5 years ago, it has pretty much exterminated native shrimp species, plus wiped out food sources for other non-crustacean species.
Hans
PS: No, I'm not a biologist, but I'm bright for my age.
sorry, but my oppinion on the issue of exotic-or invasive species is that they are bad period. yes ZMs have had a potentialy positive effect on water clarity(not overall quality-what they remove from the water collum is deposited on the bottom, or accumulated in the species that prey on them), however their overall efect on the natural balance of the ecosystem is bad, or harmfull. have they improved the Great Lakes ecosystem? no, they changed it and destroyed several native species.
yes, I am a Biologist, and yes I can't spell well(I lost a lot of points on college essays for it :-)).
I stated my opinion and stick to it. argumants can be made for exotic and invasive species, and change can be good, but not at any substantial cost to native species. the results of the ZM invasion may not be "all" bad, but it has had overwelming and perminant negative effects that far outweigh any small benifits.
increased Lake Erie water clarity has resulted in a major benifit for smallies, but has also effeted (possibly negativly)walleye.
easy now, do you have a problem with my opinion, ideas... or my lack of spelling ability? I rely heavily on spell check which, in your eyes may be a character flaw, or make me less credible, but so be it.
markb(loser)
03-08-2001, 02:48 PM
1 word....lamprey....every time we introduce some foreign
species we are flirting with disaster...it is only a matter
of time before a devastating spcecies such as lamprey turns
up...so far we have been relatively lucky...but keeping
fingers crossed and hoping for best is not a good
strategy...we have also done our share of exotic
introductions in foreign ports...blue crabs come to mind...
just my two cents...
PS I did not pass myself off as an expert, but as a Biologist.
THIS IS NOT MEANT TO OFFEND ANYONE SO PLEASE DON'T TAKE IT THAT WAY: (ie. please don't attack me for saying this):-)
I have noticed two types of people on this site
-the first group has constructive discusions and arguments without the need to make personal attacks on the character or competency of other posters
- the seccond group, for some reason, has the need to attack, at any level,the person posting when he(she) presents a different view.
I will not attempt to explain why "group 2" acts this way, becuase I would I end up stooping to that same level.
with this said, if anyone can offer a constructive and level argument to sway me from my opinion that "no exotics are good exotics" (primarily relating to invasive species and not those that our ancestors thought were a good idea, although these have caused ,and some continue to cause, negative impacts)please enlighten me with your opinion and argument!
SUPERTROLLER
03-08-2001, 04:55 PM
Hans, I didn't mean to imply that someone had to be an Aquatic Biologist to add meaningful dialog to the thread. I just thought it to be quite odd that a person putting himself into the category with "other biologist's" ought to be able to spell and construct sentences to show a higher level of learning. I am also apolgizing to cmb, right here and right now, for disbelieving in his credentials and possibly slamming him because of his spelling skills and hard to follow sentences because of said skills. I did not mean that as a personal attack but only tried to ask if indeed he was/is a biologist. Upon re-reading the posting myself, I realize I could have worded this much better and made that more clear. I will still stand by my belief that ALL things imported are not bad. Our world has been in constant change due to natural selection as long as microbes first coalesced(sp?)and took form. Man has made the interactions between species become a fact at an ever increasing rate. The evolution of every species will accelerate to keep pace and those that can change quicker through mutation and adaptation will be the victors. Man influences his environment daily and I do agree it isn't always for the better. But we got to get lucky sometime and do something right; Even if by mistake or blind luck.
Tracy
03-08-2001, 07:25 PM
Supertroller,
Go back and re-read your comments about the open sharing of ideas. ???? Was that not exactly what cmb or crnb was doing?? Or were his ideas not the "open ideas" that we all share here??
Just wondering
Tracy
Evergreen
03-08-2001, 07:54 PM
CMB: I too am an biologist, but I disagree with your premise that all introductions are bad, even though much of my job is to fight them. In fact, I would argue that "bad" and "good" are not biological terms. Maybe biologists should think in terms of diversity and ecosystem function. And yes, most often for a species that does "take" in a system, the effects are away from diversity and to a simpler system, but that is not true for all cases. In nature--say an island--there is a random process of what species colonize by natural processes. Each time a new one fits in it changes the system, just like it does when one is human-introduced. Is one natural colonization better than another or better than a human introduction? Colonizations and extinctions are natural processes, we have just sped them up a thousand-fold or so. There are introductions that increase species diversity, such as in the Pacific Northwest where smooth non-native smooth cordgrass increases habitat structure compared to a mud flat. A lot has to do with aesthetics: some people like clear water more than turbid water. I do like those pheasants. Species "naturalize" and natural is good, right? A huge number of species are "cryptogenic", that is nobody can tell if they are introduced or native because they are in various stages of adaptation to their environment. Which ones are "good" and which ones are "bad"? Salmon colonized the entire Pacific Northwest only abuout 15,000 years ago, and I dare say you would consider them good?? But some species of plants introduced by humans have been in place in functional ecosystems for tens of thousands of years. Never say never in biology.
cisco
03-08-2001, 08:02 PM
Ufda, ufda, ufda -- the plant is purple loosestrife.
markb(loser)
03-08-2001, 08:41 PM
what you say is true...no bad or good...given we assume
the destruction of walleye...or perch..is neither bad or
good...fact of matter is...the walleye..perch..etc...that
inhabit lake erie...are extremely important to many
people...when we consider things on a purely 'biological'
basis...the outcome is diff than if we consider things
in the context of human interest...and i think that
exotics...have to be considered in context of what
fishermen...or people in general...want...not simply
in the context of scientific bad or good...
GeeWhiz Evergreen. You sound like you know what you are talking about! Ever think about trying to make a living as a fish biologist? ;< )
I need to talk with you concerning our mutual interest. Email me your # again, would you? I've lost your old posting.
Take care,
mlc
STUMP
03-08-2001, 10:28 PM
Hey guys, as long as were all here having a pissing match allow me to yank down my pants and let a stream of my own flow!! This post is geared basically toward UFDA.As long as your throwing names around that you "might" know something about why not mention the Amur River Corbula or Eurasian Ruffie or the Rudd or maybe Blue back Herring,Teredo Navalis,New Zealand Mud Snail,Green crab or maybe the Green Mussel,Mitten Crab,Fish hook Water Flea,Siminoe Oyster as well as the Zebra Mussel, ##### the list goes on and on!!All of which are placed in the same classification...Invasive Aquatic Nuisance Species.Nuisance being the key word here!An exotic species which causes more damage than good!!AS for bothersome things...How about ignorant people who try to belittle people when they are only trying to pass on some knowlege to others.Do you think your ##### doesnt stink,well stick your head between your legs and take a good whiff..suprise..smells just as bad as everyone elses!!OH! and as for your spelling....Purple Lustrife as you "technically" put it is spelled LOOSESTRIFE.So when you go pretending,be aware that someone who knows may be reading what you write and call YOUR bluff!!Sorry to all else who had to read this crap but cant sit and watch a "EXPERT"like this cut someone down for trying to share their knowlege!Thats what this board is for isnt it??A sharing of knowlege??Shut up and fish..tight lines and bent poles to all!!JOHN
WAeyes
03-09-2001, 05:15 AM
We have an exotic species in the Columbia River system...it is the terrible walleye, along with bass, perch, catfish, bluegills, crappie and others. If it wasn't for these transplants, there wouldn't be much to catch.
cmb - sorry! You're right, I owe you an apology. I also owe an apology to everyone else on this board that read my acerbic commetnts. That is not what this board is all about. I seriously thought that some young sprout studying biology was yanking us around and I didn't appreciate it. I am not normally nasty or negative (after all I am a walley fisherman and we all are optomists) and I am truly sorry. I did attack you instead of your ideas. I still don't agree that native species are "always" bad, but must admit that the odds are not in their favor.
Please accept my apology and it won't happen again on this board.
And no, I did not hear from Golden )following up on his statement at the top of this board).
ufda :-(
EyeJacker
03-09-2001, 07:15 AM
Hans,
Do these exotic critters have any food value for humans?
Do you hail out of Minnesota?
If you're a gardener, yes. If you are a botanist it is lustrife.
Re:
http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/esi/1997/45/Talewet.htm
PLANT OBSERVATIONS:
An indicator of a healthy wetland, as determined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, is the diversity of plant life that is common to most
wetlands across the U.S.. Plants that we identified in our wetland area were:
phragmites skunk cabbage American lotus purple lustrife
iris hibiscus banana lily arrow arum
cattail wild rice blue flag arrow head
tear thumb jewel weed hydrilla spice bush
soft rush bulrush coon tail
water lily alligator weed East Indian hygraphila
These plants were identified by using information from the Center for Aquatic Plants and Plant Photographs, through the University of Florida.
good and bad are absolutes that are hard to use in situations like this where there are nearly infinate shades of grey. By saying that no exotics are good exotics I am taking a position that is imposible to defend in all situations. My opinion is a blend of science, conservation,logic, and to some extent ideology, nievity, and ignorance. But I am human and it is my opinion. Considering your points, I will change my position and state that
many, if not most, invasive exotic species have an overwelmingly negative impact to the ecosystems they invade.
On the subject of intensional human introductions of exotic species, I hold the position that although many such introductions have worked well in the long run most have too many unforseen negative impacts on the system to which they are introduced. Becuase of this, I have little respect for Lake Erie's non-native salmonids. I am not saying that they (exotics) are all bad, or that some are not "good", but that in most cases we should let nature take its course. Too often we try to fix things that aren't broken and make them worse. -the introduction of nile perch in Lake Victoria comes to mind-
cisco
03-09-2001, 07:25 AM
I'm just a fisherman landowner who happens to be located on a bay infected with what the MDNR labels "purple loosestrife." It's pretty stuff in bloom, but mighty hard to extirpate.
Evergreen
03-09-2001, 07:39 AM
CMB: I'm with you. When I put on a conservation biology hat, I would say let's do everything we can to prevent invasives--of any kind. The risk of unforseen consequences is beyond the pale of science, and usually falls on the down side. When I put on my hunting or fishing hat, it's a little tougher. (By the way I got carried away and used my hunting handle in this post by accident, I'm actually Spurdog). Walleyes in the Columbia River--that would be a tough call (they are introduced). To some people, including salmon fishermen and conservation scientists, they are a bad thing. To people on this board? I think I could predict their feelings. I grew up in Colorado fishing for brook trout in the wilderness (also introduced) and I wouldn't trade those memories for anything. But maybe if they weren't introduced the first place I would have been catching greenback cutthroats (now a listed species). Maybe Toughguy know answer to all this.
it's real easy to say something and walk away.
it's harder to critize ones own actions.
and harder yet, to offer an apolagy.
ufda, you're alright man! good fishing to you and cmb
"go outside and play"
sib
ps. is ufda an acronym, if it is...i think i've been called that before myself;-)
It's a very small shrimp -- can't imagine how you'd harvest it for human food.
And, yes, I'm from Minnesota.
Can't believe the fight I started here!
Hans
EyeJacker
03-09-2001, 08:26 AM
Hans,
I do believe that you provided me (via a sportsmans group) some GPS waypoints on a water that we both evidently fish extensively. I inquired about your GPS receivers datum as I recall.
Leechboy
03-09-2001, 11:57 AM
Any time an exotic is introduced we run the risk of negatively effecting the existing ecosystem. Sometimes it works out well(wheather intentionally introduced or not) enough to argue a positive result(walleyes in southern reserviors, brown and rainbow trout stocking, ect...), sometimes not so well(lamprey, carp in some waters, ect...). Bottom line is it's a roll of the dice. And the price of losing may be very high. I am surprised that some fishermen would take the attidude that exotics are not a great threat to the lakes we fish.
EyeJacker
03-09-2001, 12:58 PM
My overriding assumption is that this introduction may be inevitible. That being the case, is there anything positive that may come of it? If I could prevent it I would and also send the killer bee back to Brazil among other things. And then there is the matter of global warming..........
EyeJacker
03-09-2001, 12:58 PM
My overriding assumption is that this introduction may be inevitible. That being the case, is there anything positive that may come of it? If I could prevent it I would and also send the killer bee back to Brazil among other things. And then there is the matter of global warming..........
SUPERTROLLER
03-09-2001, 01:06 PM
Tracy I do see your point. What I was referring too was his blanket comdemnation of all exotic species, as an example of him not having an open mind to to see other peoples side of the issue. I hope you read my response further on in this thread where I apologized for myself jumping to conclusions as to his qualifications. I was wrong and should not have done that. I thought his response to ufda was hard to understand and asked for some facts to back up his opinions. This was the free flow of ideas I was trying to elicit from him. Ufda's comments on Brown trout, ringnecked pheasant, and alewives were valid and should not be dismissed by anyone only on the belief that "all exotics are bad." How are brown trout bad and why shouldn't we have pheasant's to hunt?
most is beyond our control, but here are some precautions i use:
1) always make sure my prop in clear of weeds when loading the boat. it helps the transfering of weeds from 1 body of water to the next.
2) cleaning the live well regularly can prevent micro-organisms off fish spreading to other fish.
3) I never dump my unused minnows in any body of water when done fishing. ya never know how healthy the minnows are, or sometimes if they even are natural occuring at that body.
"go outside and play"
sib
Tracy
03-10-2001, 05:12 PM
Supertroller,
The free flow of ideas benifit us all, whether we agree or disagree with them, as long long as these ideas are shared openly and honestly without condemnation of others.
Tracy
zcamp
03-10-2001, 08:40 PM
A very serious subject. The most compelling observation I'm left with from your arguements is that some of you need to get in the boat together and go fishing. Do all that you can. Be as informed as you reasonably can, make all the necessary efforts to execute those informed decisions, deliver the message to others... but most of all be sure to understand that with time every breath will be different.
Zcamp
Raybob
03-11-2001, 03:41 AM
Scientists to test ballast water for exotic species
http://www.cleveland.com/sports/outdoors/index.ssf?/sports/pd/s09exoti.html