Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: pwn50m3 f15h3r on August 21, 2012, 12:27:22 AM
-
On wikipedia, I found a page about the List of the world's 100 worst invasive species, and rainbow trout were one of the species. Anyone know why?\
Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_world%27s_100_worst_invasive_species
-
This fish is native to Rocky Mountains but it was transplanted to the rest of the World and one can find it in almost all the countries. it is most farmed fish on all continents.
-
This fish is native to Rocky Mountains but it was transplanted to the rest of the World and one can find it in almost all the countries. it is most farmed fish on all continents.
Ok just curious about why it was on the list.
-
They are predatory fish and will eat anything they can fit in their mouths
-
Ok just curious about why it was on the list.
For example in Europe they displace native brown trout as they are hardy fish. Too much competition with native species. Right now in most European countries they don't enjoy any protection at all. Open season and no limit on them at all all the time in there.
-
This fish is native to Rocky Mountains but it was transplanted to the rest of the World and one can find it in almost all the countries. it is most farmed fish on all continents.
actually it was not native to the Rockies. Cutthroat trout were the native trout in most of that area. Rainbow were mostly from Pacific drainages. Waters flowing east had cutties. Rainbows rapidly displaced cutthroat in most rivers where it was introduced.
browns and rainbow do well together in many watersheds. Browns introduced to the Cowichan did quite well and in most of the famous Rocky Mountain streams such as the Madison, Yellowstones they do quite well together. The Bow is another case where the two co-exist quite happily.
-
--when does a flower become a weed?......when it isn't where you want it.
--It is not the species itself that is invasive... if it is transplanted to an area where it can reproduce and it displaces native species then it becomes invasive...not just displace of other fish but may feed on a plant or critter in the lake that has no natural defenses against the new intruder.
--some may coexist or fill a niche that may have little detrimental effect on other native species... in part one of the reasons in BC why many of the lakes are now stocked with sterile fish.
-
actually it was not native to the Rockies. Cutthroat trout were the native trout in most of that area. Rainbow were mostly from Pacific drainages. Waters flowing east had cutties. Rainbows rapidly displaced cutthroat in most rivers where it was introduced.
browns and rainbow do well together in many watersheds. Browns introduced to the Cowichan did quite well and in most of the famous Rocky Mountain streams such as the Madison, Yellowstones they do quite well together. The Bow is another case where the two co-exist quite happily.
Rockies stretch from Sierra Madre to Alaska and most of waters share Pacific drainage.
-
here's a map of the rainbows natural range in North America.
(http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/graphic/map-rainbow-trout-160-20158-cb1283356726.gif)
any description lists this as Pacific Drainage 'west of the Rocky Mountains'. They are also native to eastern Siberia.
the Rockies:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/RockyMountainsLocatorMap.png/272px-RockyMountainsLocatorMap.png)
-
--when does a flower become a weed?......when it isn't where you want it.
--It is not the species itself that is invasive... if it is transplanted to an area where it can reproduce and it displaces native species then it becomes invasive...not just displace of other fish but may feed on a plant or critter in the lake that has no natural defenses against the new intruder.
--some may coexist or fill a niche that may have little detrimental effect on other native species... in part one of the reasons in BC why many of the lakes are now stocked with sterile fish.
Does that mean that Stocked trout that aren't properely sterilized are also invasive?
-
Does that mean that Stocked trout that aren't properely sterilized are also invasive?
--Not likely to reach invasive status here as to be invasive they would need to have the capability to rapidly populate the stocked area to the detriment of other species in the lake.
--the use of sterile fish is a precautionary protocol which may allow us to more easily control the introduction if something unexpected occurred.. for example an unknown endangered minnow or other species that was unexpectedly affected by the stocking program..
--I think a real life example of potential harm when none was intended nor anticipated at the time was the stocking of eastern brook trout in many interior lakes mainly to allow ice fishing opportunities...now in some areas the brook trout have moved into rivers and are displacing native rainbows.
--Also to clarify... I am not a fisheries biologist so these are just my opinions.
--In Skaha lake mid 80's MOE stocked the lake with smallmouth bass to create a more diverse fishery in the warmer summer months... although now controversial.. I think many pluses to that program... in that all waterways downstream draining into the Columbia have bass in them... the bass seem to be coexisting with native species in the lake and have not displaced them..
-
Does that mean that Stocked trout that aren't properely sterilized are also invasive?
Technically yes. Read the book, "An Entirely Synthetic Fish." It will give a different view of the north american fly fisherman's favorite fish and the propaganda behind it.
-
As a person who enjoys rocks. It always amazing me about these invasive species talks.
Dont people realize the species travel around. There was a program on discovery channel the other night where they talked about the land bridge being created between north and south america, or how about the land bridge between Russia and alaska. Talk about invasive species and migration. Who are we to decide what's invasive and what's not, ever stop and think that we are part of the natural order of things. May be its just part of natures method of survival of the fittest. Thats what the rock record shows has been going on for millions of years, while man has been only aroudn for a few thousand and only about 100 years or so of proper scientific measurements. Thats such a small miniscule time frame to base decisions on.
Just a different thought guys.
-
As a person who enjoys rocks. It always amazing me about these invasive species talks.
Just a different thought guys.
-- Basic question we have to ask ourselves when giving our perspective.. are we apart of nature or do we manage nature.. with various shades of gray.
--I lean toward being part of nature thus in the big picture our actions are just part of the process... I try not to use that excuse though to justify some of the crazy things we do.
-
Yeah! The most invasive species are humans. :P
-
When the continents were being split apart some cod became landlocked and adapted to fresh water and became burbot. They still spawn at the same time as cod in the ocean. The world record burbot comes from Lake Diefenbaker in Saskatchewan, caught by the Konrad brothers of Alberta and Saskatchewan. They also hold the previous two world records for rainbow trout, also from Diefenbaker, an artificially created lake. Several escapes from a fish farm boosted the stocking program, but I think they're all sterile. The brothers, Sean and Adam, spent more time than the average bear learning how to catch fish like that. They call their company/website fishinggeeks.net.
-
--I think there should be an asterisk after those purposely sterile escaped farmed trout.. just like batting records produced by athletes on steroids.
--Nothing against Shawn and Adam who as you said have spent a lot of time to figure out how to catch those record sized fish. I recall quite a debate at the time over the validity of the record but it was given.
--I think more of an uproar if a record breaking Atlantic comes from BC both here and at IGFA.
--To be fair these larger than normal proportioned record fish can occure in nature are also may be less fecund or sterile thus in part explaining their exceptional growth.
--"Andre the Giant" and others have had growth not attributed to intended human intervention.
-
I don't think anyone should tamper with introducing fish to an area that aren't meant to be there. We think we know by observing and studying but in reality we haven't been around that long to see the real impact. 200 years is different than 1000. Who knows what will happen over longer periods of time. I bet you we will see some bigger problems soon enough.
No kidding; check what has happened to the fishery in most of the lakes where they have stocked Gerrards.