# Are we past the point of no return with Asian Carp?



## raisinrat (Feb 9, 2006)

I just got ths email from my friend over at Angler Activist not good!

NO MORE TALKING NO MORE STUDIES WE WANT ACTION :rant:
write your reps boys! I just got done writing mine.








More Evidence That Asian Carp Beyond Point of No Return for Great Lakes


----------



## JBooth (Sep 21, 2009)

out of curiousity are you writing reps on national or state level? Which would be better?


----------



## raisinrat (Feb 9, 2006)

I wrote both


----------



## someone11 (Mar 15, 2009)

As a fisheries management student (4th year) and a worker of the USGS Great Lakes Science Center in Ann Arbor MI I would like to throw my 2 cents in here. Just because they have found carp DNA does NOT mean the carp are past the electric barrier and like the article stated it does not mean they are in the great lakes. DNA from fish can be carried many ways. And the 3 reports of that DNA are not 100% accurate from what I have heard from sources higher up. They are working on ways right now to make the barrier better and more efficent for ships to pass through while keeping the carp out. We are not to the point of no return...yes they are definately a big threat right now but they are not here.


----------



## sfw1960 (Apr 7, 2002)

*YES, *they are and the damn gov't will be the LAST to admit it.


----------



## raisinrat (Feb 9, 2006)

someone11 said:


> As a fisheries management student (4th year) and a worker of the USGS Great Lakes Science Center in Ann Arbor MI I would like to throw my 2 cents in here. Just because they have found carp DNA does NOT mean the carp are past the electric barrier and like the article stated it does not mean they are in the great lakes. DNA from fish can be carried many ways. And the 3 reports of that DNA are not 100% accurate from what I have heard from sources higher up. They are working on ways right now to make the barrier better and more efficent for ships to pass through while keeping the carp out. We are not to the point of no return...yes they are definately a big threat right now but they are not here.


I think what everyone has a huge problem with is that it looks like to the public that the government is gambling with a billion dollar a year fishing and tourism industry. 

I am normally on the side of lets get the facts and act off of those. But the more I learn about the economic impacts of leaving the lake open has it is now VS closing up the passageway to the fish. The more I am leaning towards close down that waterway from the lake. The impact is less and will be less.


----------



## fathom this (Feb 10, 2008)

raisinrat said:


> I think what everyone has a huge problem with is that it looks like to the public that the government is gambling with a billion dollar a year fishing and tourism industry.
> 
> I am normally on the side of lets get the facts and act off of those. But the more I learn about the economic impacts of leaving the lake open has it is now VS closing up the passageway to the fish. The more I am leaning towards close down that waterway from the lake. The impact is less and will be less.


It was probably too late when they got loose in the first place. The government is at the so called fore front of the fight against these invaders and we all know how they work! The canal has to be closed if we have any chanhce of stopping them. The 
complacency I see on governments part appals me.


----------



## someone11 (Mar 15, 2009)

raisinrat said:


> I think what everyone has a huge problem with is that it looks like to the public that the government is gambling with a billion dollar a year fishing and tourism industry.
> 
> I am normally on the side of lets get the facts and act off of those. But the more I learn about the economic impacts of leaving the lake open has it is now VS closing up the passageway to the fish. The more I am leaning towards close down that waterway from the lake. The impact is less and will be less.


I agree completely, but I have my doubts about it ever being completely closed off.


----------



## fisheater (Nov 14, 2010)

As a resident of Michigan I would like to see the Chicago Shipping and Sanitary Canal closed, but I see very little possibility of that happening. The President is from Illinois and commercial interests in that state are heavily opposed to closing the canal. My understanding from the recent Free Press article on the subject is that the lion share of federal dollars spent on asian carp control is being spent on keeping them out of the Great Lakes. I've lived long enough not to believe what the government claims to be the truth, but I've also lived long enough to understand political reality. It was only two years ago that we had southern politicians that campained against aid to the auto industry. Most people in this country have no idea or concept of what the Great Lakes are. How many of you have taken out of state guests to the Lakes only to have them completely surprised that they can't see the other side? 

I have gone through my head evaluating our congressional representatives. I am independent politically, but view a letter to either of our two senators as a useless exercise. Maybe John Dingall or Candice Miller would be interested in this cause, but I doubt they have enough political power. Post back or PM if you have suggestions, but I am not confident of increased federal action.

Thank you for the new information, please provide more, both good and bad as you receive it


----------



## mkroulik (Jan 14, 2003)

I heard a guide on the Mike Avery show over the winter who guided on the mississippi River, and he said that their other local fresh water fish have actually got bigger and healthier. The reason being is that all the other fish eat the baby asian carp and absorb it so much better as it's pure protein. He also thought that the fish would not at all stay in the great lakes due to the depth and coldness of the water. I'm not saying I believe all this but it's something to think about. I'm still for shutting it down. Why risk it is my feeling.

Mike


----------



## Ralph Smith (Apr 1, 2003)

mkroulik said:


> I heard a guide on the Mike Avery show over the winter who guided on the mississippi River, and he said that their other local fresh water fish have actually got bigger and healthier. The reason being is that all the other fish eat the baby asian carp and absorb it so much better as it's pure protein. He also thought that the fish would not at all stay in the great lakes due to the depth and coldness of the water. I'm not saying I believe all this but it's something to think about. I'm still for shutting it down. Why risk it is my feeling.
> 
> Mike


Thats what I keep thinking. We have way more fish that are big and eat other fish than the Mississippi does. Atleast in the upper water column where the carp seem to hang. Would be nice to close canal, but I think they'll make it here somehow anyway. The thing is, they are not a plague, and are not the only fish in the system where they come from. I think they should study the areas where they are in check over seas and find out why? Since stopping them is inevitable, controlling them may be the best time spent right now before thats too late. I still think our fish will fair much better at making them a food source up here than the shallow rivers of the south. jmo. Just imagine how many small asian carp a 30lb. plus salmon or laker could eat! And the carp don't eat any of our fish.....


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

While I support control efforts, There are many ways for invasive species to spread, regardless of what happens with the canal. Its a matter of WHEN not if.


----------



## raisinrat (Feb 9, 2006)

This is what the experts are saying:
*What happens if Asian carp enter the Great Lakes?*

The presence of Asian carp in the Great Lakes could cause declines in abundances of native fish species. Asian carp will compete with native fish for food&#8212;native fish like ciscos, bloaters, and yellow perch, which in turn, are fed upon by predator species including lake trout and walleye. Under the conditions found in some areas of the Great Lakes (such as water temperature and food abundance), Asian carp could outnumber all other native species, as is happening in parts of Illinois, Mississippi, and Missouri Rivers. 

The Great Lakes are home to federally and/or state listed threatened or endangered fish, mollusks, plants, mammals, insects, and reptiles. Other Great Lakes invasives have been implicated in adverse effects upon up to 46% of the local federally listed endangered plant and animal species. Introduction of Asian carp to the region could further harm these organisms and perhaps lead to their disappearance from the Great Lakes. 

Risk assessments carried out by officials from the U.S. Department of Interior and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and overall experience with biological invasions, provide ample reason for considerable concern. First and foremost, these assessments conclude that the carp will certainly tolerate the Great Lakes basin&#8217;s climate, as the basin is well within the fishes&#8217; native climate range. Mean annual air temperatures range between -2ºC and 22ºC for bighead carp and -6ºC and 24ºC for silver carp, a temperature span that would support Asian carp populations in much of the United States and Canada, including the Great Lakes.

These risk assessments also suggest that the Great Lakes would offer the carp an abundant and varied food supply. Bighead carp would consume zooplankton in the Great Lakes and silver carp would prey heavily on phytoplankton. This feeding would place the carp in direct competition young and mature native species (Hansen 2010). More troubling is that Asian carp appear to be highly opportunistic when it comes to feeding. For instance, bighead carp diet in the Mississippi River is more varied than in their native range, showing the carp take advantage of the food that is present. By feeding on plankton, the Asian carp feed on the &#8220;low end&#8221; of the food web, and few people doubt that the carp would have significant negative impacts on the food web. 

The Great Lakes also offer the Asian carp suitable spawning habitat. The risk assessments show that the Asian carp require 30-60 miles of unimpeded rivers to spawn. The carp also thrive in areas with vegetated shorelines; areas that provide habitat for feeding. The Great Lakes basin contains numerous streams with suitable spawning habitat and large areas of vegetated shorelines, particularly large bays, wide river mouths, connecting channels (e.g., the Saint Marys River), wetlands, and lentic areas (areas of still waters). The carp certainly will not thrive in all portions of the basin&#8212;for example, in the deep, cold, open waters of the lakes. However, ample habitat for spawning and feeding exists in all five of the Great Lakes, including Lake Superior.

*The Asian carp invasion of the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers has indicated that recreational users are at risk. The &#8220;flying carp&#8221; have caused serious bodily harm. The Great Lakes is a haven for boaters, water-skiers, and others who take to the water for pleasure or work. Indeed, the Great Lakes Commission estimates that nearly 1 million boats and personal watercraft operate on the lakes, which means millions of people will be in direct contact (literally) with the silver carp, should the fish become abundant. Knowing the hazards of boating, Jet-skiing, waterskiing, and biological work on the Illinois River system, the risk to people would be compounded on the Great Lakes by a significantly larger boating population in the region.*

*Do Asian carps have any predators? *
In the Yangtze River of China, there were historically many large predators that presumably fed on Asian carps. These include the Chinese paddlefish, which, unlike the North American paddlefish, was a fish-eating fish with large teeth, and possibly the world&#8217;s largest freshwater fish, *achieving lengths of up to 23 feet*. The Yangtze River also was home to two species of freshwater dolphin, which could presumably prey on adult Asian carps. There are no North American fishes large enough to eat an adult Asian carp. White pelicans and eagles, however, have been seen feeding on juvenile or smaller adult Asian carps. Largemouth bass have often been observed feeding on small juvenile Asian carps, and many other native predators probably also feed on them before they grow too large. In aquaculture, juvenile Asian carps are perceived to avoid predators poorly and grass carp stocked for vegetation control must be stocked at a fairly large size to protect them from predation. However, Asian carps produce many offspring which grow quickly and if conditions are good, they rapidly become too large to be eaten by North American predators. Juvenile Asian carps are also known to move into very shallow water where they are inaccessible to many large predators.


----------



## loony pier (Oct 19, 2009)

I worry more about Snakeheads. They eat fish and can survive cold temps.


----------



## Ralph Smith (Apr 1, 2003)

loony pier said:


> I worry more about Snakeheads. They eat fish and can survive cold temps.


Maybe they'll eat the Asian carp:lol:


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

raisinrat said:


> This is what the experts are saying:
> *What happens if Asian carp enter the Great Lakes?*
> 
> The presence of Asian carp in the Great Lakes could cause declines in abundances of native fish species. *Asian carp will compete with native fish for foodnative fish like* ciscos, bloaters, and* yellow perch*, which in turn, are fed upon by predator species including lake trout and walleye. Under the conditions found in some areas of the Great Lakes (such as water temperature and food abundance), *Asian carp could outnumber all other native species, as is happening in parts of Illinois, Mississippi, and Missouri Rivers. *


But I thought the perch would thrive, from eating all of the baby carp?


----------



## Crazy Axe (Mar 11, 2007)

Here's a solution: Locks. If they designed locks that only fill from Lake Michigan water, and only drain into the canal, then there should be no way water (+ fish) could flow from the canal into Lake Michigan. They don't only have to be used for bodies of water of different levels.


----------



## Ralph Smith (Apr 1, 2003)

Crazy Axe said:


> Here's a solution: Locks. If they designed locks that only fill from Lake Michigan water, and only drain into the canal, then there should be no way water (+ fish) could flow from the canal into Lake Michigan. They don't only have to be used for bodies of water of different levels.


 They'd have to pump the lock dry after entering from the carp water before filling with non carp water. No way a ship can get out of the water. Unless I'm missing something here Josh


----------



## Crazy Axe (Mar 11, 2007)

Yeah, that's true.. It would work for ships going from the lake to the canal, just pump the water out before filling with carp-less water for another ship to enter the same direction. It's a little more complicated for a ship to move from the canal to the lake. Gotta put my half-fried brain back to work :lol:


----------



## Ralph Smith (Apr 1, 2003)

Maybe a big elec. shock to the water to float up any fish that entered with ship. Scoop out the carp and the ship could be on its way. Would definately be a big expensive project, and by the time completed, it won't matter since theyr'e already here. Just a waiting game now to see what happens.


----------

