I’m curious why they would want to wipe them out. I grew up on a lake near Seattle and trout were the desired fish, but bass and especially catfish would take over and decimate the trout population to the point that every 4-5 yrs. they would poison the lake and start over with hatchery trout minnows. I thought that trout were the most desired.
Asian carp are the zoological equivalent to kudzu. People want them gone so that we can enjoy things other than asian carp in our waterways. How about the states (or better, the federal government) offer a bounty on asian carp? A dollar per fish, no limits, no size restrictions, no season. Just be sure to remind everybody that environmental regulations still apply, so you can’t nuke the ecosystem in the process of catching the fish.
Nuh uh! No True Environmentalist wants them gone for ANY reason that has ANYTHING to do with economics. True Environmentalists ONLY want them gone because they are a bunch of Gaia-worshipping tree huggers.
That’s why they were introduced in the first place, but then they started taking over, outcompeting all the native species. Note, by the way, that this is just one specific species of trout: There are other trout native to the lake that are also good eating, and are among the species being forced out by the lake trout.
If you keep practicing, you’ll actually perfect the sarcasm thing.
Not likely. As other posters have mentioned, there has been an almost complete eradication of common carp from a lake in Australia. But that would be a lot easier than the Asian carp, which are established throughout most of the Mississippi River basin. Even if you could kill them out of a section, they’d just repopulate. But there are models that indicate (note that models do not always accurately reflect the real world) that harvest of large Asian carps could lower the population and make them less damaging to more desirable species. Substantial efforts to increase harvest are under way. You could not do this very well with bounties (been tried - and would require a constant drain on taxpayer dollars, because eradication would never be achieved and these are very prolific fish). But if there is a real market for the fish, people will catch a bunch of them. Harvest of Asian carp, according to my interviews with the major buyers, were about 2 million pounds in the round in 2008, and probably were more than ten times that much in 2009.
They are pretty good eating, but boney. Search youtube for “flying fish great dish” for methods on dealing with the bones, and some info on contaminants, other relevant stuff.
By this logic, getting rid of crabgrass is not “good for my lawn”. I’m Ok with saying that whats good for me is good for the environment - at least the environment as I like it, which is the only thing important to me. just semantics.
'course - part of what I want in an environment is that it retain some of its previously existing species, and that environments differ as you move around the globe. I don’t want to go to China and find the same fish I had here, and come home and find the same fish I had in China. I happen to LIKE the fact that there are different environments and different species in different places.
In this case, the OP does not mean goldfish when he/she says Asian carp, I think. Usually the word has come to mean bighead carp and silver carp, and sometimes also black and grass carp, in the US. These species are not likely to be introduced by people flushing them, and because they cannot, with few exceptions, be purchased live. In NYC, you can buy live bighead carp in the Asian market, but they have to be dead before they leave the store. Not saying this keeps illegal actions from happening, but it limits them.
Grass carp are a bit different - you can buy sterile ones in many states, and fertile ones in a few.
Common carp and Asian carps are different in flavor - Asian carp is a lot better, and they are a lot meatier. I have eaten a lot of both, and there is no comparison. I only really like common carp smoked. Bighead and silver carp are delish, in a wide variety of preparations.
They are already worth about 3 bucks fish, with no subsidy, in a thriving and increasing fishery.
That does not mean it is a good thing they are here, or that if they get going in the Great Lakes that we could catch them there. Asian carps are really difficult to catch in deep water. They are pros at net avoidance. In shallow water, with longe enough nets, you can encircle them and drive them into the nets. But in deep water, you can’t do that. They swim under the nets. And they really know what nets are.
Nothing to add, but with Carptracker’s posts I’m in awe yet again at the level of expert knowledge that can be found on the SDMB.
Thanks, Keweenaw. Everybody’s an expert in something, I guess. I’ve been figuring for years that one day someone would ask about my specialty, but this is the first time it has come up, to my knowledge, on GQ. With this being to such a large extent a Chicago board, and with the current interest in these fishes, it really is surprising to me that it has not come up before. I guess that means that I have over-inflated idea of how important this issue is to the rank and file.
Hey, I was bitching about asian carp here back in 2006!
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7356417&postcount=50
thanks for your knowledgeable input!
The carp being talked about disrupt the ecosystem because the native plant species are not robust enough to stand up to their feeding techniques. The plants die out, and so do the critters that feed on the plants, and so do the critters that feed on those critters. Pretty soon, the ecosystem collapses and instead of a diverse array of species, you are left with niche survivors and opportunistic invasive species repopulating the waters.
I think you understand all of this though, and your objection is that people assign a morality to this outcome whereas you see no such universal “right” and “wrong” when it comes to these things. Your further arguments have talked about humans being a part of nature and that many of the things we are doing to systems would have happened naturally anyways. I have trouble subscribing to this line of thought, mainly because the rate at which human intervention causes invasive species dispersion is on a scale and timeframe previously unknown to nature. We just don’t know the consequences of our actions and so should take measure to curb the impact. As a practical matter, it only makes sense to focus on those areas which have direct economic consequences, so the $4 billion Great Lakes fishing industry gets such attention. That’s not to say that we should turn a blind eye to all human-caused environmental impact and just chalk it up to humans being a part of nature. We might as well throw toxic sludge into lakes and rivers as well, I mean we’re just sophisticated animals taking a really nasty shit in the pond, right?
I have eaten both common carp and Asian carp. Asian carp are better but saying they are good is a big stretch.
Like surrounding it in 5 lbs of beacon?
Hey! I was watching the latest episode of Life after People (a show that takes a look at the human products in a world where all living humans suddenly disappear) and the Asian carp problem was featured. This episode said that the electrical current would stop as soon as the power was turned off. The steel gates holding the carp back would break down after a few years and the smaller carp could jump through a six inch gap. The narrator stated that the average femal asian carp carried about a quarter of a million eggs. The program went on to say that the reason why the Asian carp wouldn’t overrun the Chicago rivers is that lamprey eels would latch on to the carp and suck out their bodily fluids. The show said it would be ironic that one foreign invasive species would be held in check by another foreign invasive species.
Well, only if you want to make it suitable for kings. When is dinner by the way?
Hah! Hilarious! You mean overrun the GL by the way, not the rivers, or at least they should have meant that. I declined an interview for that program, (I’m all over the tube all the time anyway, so this is no big deal for me) saying that I didn’t want to speculate on it too much, but in my declination email I couldn’t resist the comment about the lampreys - and it sounds like they went with it! I hope they didn’t use my name on that, though. It was just a WAG. I suggested some GL scientists that they might talk to. Maybe the other guys came to the same conclusion, or the history channel told them about my comments.
If we were to all croak, the lampreys, which are non-native but held in check by human applications of the lampricide TFM, would definitely rebound. In the forties we lost most of our large-bodied small-scaled fish from the GL because of the sea lampreys. I don’t really know if the sea lampreys would attack Asian carp, but it seems likely they would, since our native chestnut lamprey in the MS river basin does (but it does not kill them - sea lampreys, being many times larger, would probably be harder on them, though)
Boy we gotta disagree on that. I am a scout leader and on our annual MORIV float trip, the carp usually disappear at a quicker rate than the channel catfish.
I will say, though, that if you get a fish that has been losing weight, (a common problem now, because there are so many Asian carps that there is not enough food to go around sometimes) they won’t taste very good. Also, bighead and silver carp will eat bluegreen algae if it is prevalent, and that will give them a poor flavor. Catfish will also get a bad flavor if bluegreens are abundant, so that is not just a carp thing, but the carp feed directly on the algae, so it is a bit more obvious.
Some info on how to cook and contaminants concentrations
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
