Common Carp is not an invasive species

[NADO]

What about the part where they clearly state carp ARE an invasive species? Do you have your carp goggles on again?

And dont worry about your precious tax dollars, they are a volunteer organization....God forbid any tax dollars get spent on the fishery, who would want that??? :neutral:

If you want to know who they are just ask the MNR, they are referenced directly in the regulations.

 

[JimCanuck]

Everyone's opinion is biased and skewed. If not, what is the point of having a opinion?

After all if it was not biased and skewed, why bother with talking, arguing, and one eyed selections of facts? Cause we all do it, regardless if we wish to admit it!

Jim

 

[hammercarp]

Jim
I get your point and perhaps I should have thought out my post in reply to post # 39. a little better. Please let me rephrase my response.
" Nobody should EVER be advocating the release of Common Carp, it just makes absolutely no sense!" It makes a lot more sense than hair brained schemes that are illegal, pose a health risk and are completely impractical. This kind of ill thought out grasping at straws is nonsense based on someone's desperation to prove themselves right no matter what the facts are and the consequences there of.
Oh and I agree about the Humber. It has a real healthy population of carp. So how is it that it has been restored if the dreaded invasive carp are still there? Surely this cannot be.

 

[fishermandan420]

maybe they need a new list-invaded species
nado- they are a few studies that show migratory salmon and trout are beneficial to native trout populations,and even general stream health. i think even the CRAA s latest report says the credit tribs where steelhead make it to have healthier brook trout pops than the ones with no steelhead allowed. i dont have the links on hand,and im not saying its fact, but worth a read for sure .
not trying to be a d***, but i think you will be hard pressed to find any info to say that 'introduced ' carp benefit natural fish populations.i could be wrong though

 

[JimCanuck]

the credit tribs where steelhead make it to have healthier brook trout pops than the ones with no steelhead allowed.

Or is it because the tribs with steelhead get more attention and care then the ones with only brooks?

After all, several organizations that have spent a lot more time and effort trying to keep the Rainbow and Chinook populations healthy over keeping brook trout populations healthy in the history of the Fisheries of Ontario. No one wants to catch a tiny brook when there is a larger and there for "better" Rainbow or Chinook waiting for them.

Jim

 

[fishermandan420]

Or is it because the tribs with steelhead get more attention and care then the ones with only brooks?

After all, several organizations that have spent a lot more time and effort trying to keep the Rainbow and Chinook populations healthy over keeping brook trout populations healthy in the history of the Fisheries of Ontario. No one wants to catch a tiny brook when there is a larger and there for "better" Rainbow or Chinook waiting for them.

Jim

from what i have read they transprt the steel from norval to mostly private and 'secret' creeks. other clubs do not want steelhead in the main branches where the brookies are more accessable, and those rivers definitely get lots of attention .the replanted atlantics are"allowed' in that section, and time will tell if migratory fish help

. there are lots of clubs that focus on resident trout(TU, isack walton fly club etc) it is even the mnrs stance to work on native fish first. there is definitely moremoney spent on the fish in the lake, but there are many millions of dollars at stake in great lakes salmon fishing.

i know what you're saying about 'big' fish, but i for one get more out of a 14" spec in southern ontario than a 20 pound shinny
dan

 

[fishermandan420]

ana i dont think carp would help in any brook trout stream

 

[hammercarp]

maybe they need a new list-invaded species
nado- they are a few studies that show migratory salmon and trout are beneficial to native trout populations,and even general stream health. i think even the CRAA s latest report says the credit tribs where steelhead make it to have healthier brook trout pops than the ones with no steelhead allowed. i dont have the links on hand,and im not saying its fact, but worth a read for sure .
not trying to be a d***, but i think you will be hard pressed to find any info to say that 'introduced ' carp benefit natural fish populations.i could be wrong though

Carp were stocked here to help take the pressure off other species. They can and still fulfill that function. If you are targeting carp you are not fishing for anything else. I know that seems obvious but it is true.
How carp benefit other species. Here is one way.
I used to fish for channel cats in the Grand River at Dunville . I would go towards the end of May and into June. Some " old timers " told me that after the cats spawn they stick around and eat the eggs of carp . I thought " How the heck can they do that"
One morning after I set up I noticed a fin sticking out of the water very close to shore. I thought it was a carp and quietly snuck up on it. I was very surprised to see a 10 - 12 lb channel cat apparently grazing on algae that grew thick on the rocks along the shore there. I had seen carp use this algae to spawn on. Later on I grabbed a handful of it and it was loaded with carp and white perch eggs. The cats came up from the lake to spawn and afterwards took advantage of the plentiful food supply to regain their strength after spawning. Both common carp and white perch are non native.
I kept a couple of smaller cats to eat. 3-4 pounders. Both had their stomachs full of algae.
I know this is anecdotal evidence but it is a glimpse of how non native species are still part of the food chain that benefits other species.

 

[JimCanuck]

it is even the mnrs stance to work on native fish first.

there is definitely moremoney spent on the fish in the lake, but there are many millions of dollars at stake in great lakes salmon fishing.

Yes, and all Great Lakes salmon fishing is fishing of non-native Pacific Salmonids, our natural Lake Trout and Atlantics are effectively dead at the moment.

Fact is the Pacific Salmonids and the spreading of Bass in waters that did not natively have them in the first place was done to restock waterways that were losing its native species due to human pressure (aka over fishing, both sport and commercial fisheries).

And what do both groups of these fish have to offer? Quick returns on investment. Same reason why the MNR's predecessor agency released Common carp in our waters. Fixing our native species, to levels that are sustainable for sport fishing, let alone commercial fisheries, would take many more millions of dollars and many more years to have a positive effect.

When you release a bunch of Chinooks in the water, you know they will spawn in 4 years, and die off so regardless of the number of fisherman taking them out of the water, you'll more or less have semi-healthy populations with large daily catch limits, when you release Atlantics it takes a longer time period, and since they do not die after spawning, its harder and more unpredictable to control their life cycles.

Its the easy way out, this is what our Fisheries management has always been, Chinook Salmon, Carp, and Rainbow Trout, followed by the spreading of thousands of Bass in waters they were never native to, were all done to achieve a quick fix on our fisheries, and as a group, we have done nothing to fix this situation, or really help the native species. We have put bandages on our fisheries, but have not stopped the bleeding at the artery.

Jim

 

[fishermandan420]

the cats got a snack for sure, but the damage that was caused by the herd of carp that laid those eggs probably outweighs the good. we will never know, either way, for sure though.

carp are here to stay and no amount of bow fishing, or farms, will ever eliminate them. i think we can all agree the only way to better fisheries is zero harvest, but that wont happen for a long time. c%r section are popping up everywhere,and there fishing can be awesome.
. i myself practice about 95% catch and and release. nothing wrong with a feed of clipped whitefish from simcoe or sunfish from the local pond

 

[fishermandan420]

as a group, we have done nothing to fix this situation, or really help the native species. We have put bandages on our fisheries, but have not stopped the bleeding at the artery.

Jim

i think a lot is being done! from tighter limits, stream rehaband dam mitigation to modernized sewage and stormwater treatment facilies and increased recycling and 'green' initiatives in the comercial and industrial sectors. probably the worst offenders are us-the general public.

it is only a start though,we have a long way to go

i have to look at the glass half full. my son is 1 and i hope there is still such thing as a "brook trout" or "walleye" when he is my age. he'll have to be the "carp master" if we dont keep working at it!

 

[LogJam]

ana i dont think carp would help in any brook trout stream

this year on trout opener, i seen many brooke trout right beside schools of carp and sucker, just waiting for them to spawn. the trout love to eat sucker and carp roe.
this was in the nith river!
so in a way the carp and suckers did help the trout in that river!

 

[JimCanuck]

i have to look at the glass half full. my son is 1 and i hope there is still such thing as a "brook trout" or "walleye" when he is my age. he'll have to be the "carp master" if we dont keep working at it!

Your not a glass half full kind of guy, actually your the opposite, your a glass half empty kind of guy. People have been claiming that now, for decades. Fact is, Common Carp have been in our waters longer then most Canadian's can trace their Canadian Heritage to! They are not going to go away, and it was a fisheries management strategy to put them here in the first place for the then new immigrants.

Either way, until the MNR and other organizations put our native fisheries first, and really do, not just selective choosing of what needs attention and what doesn't need attention, you have no argument, no amount of protection of the fisheries, no amount of regulation changes, no amount of habitat repair or fish stocking, changes the fact we care more for non-native fish then native fish because it suits our needs. Just as releasing Common carp 132 years ago suited our needs.

Jim

 

[NADO]

This article probably applies more to this thread than the other thread I posted it in.

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/features/article/149176--biodiversity-is-returning-to-humber-river-wetlands

Really sums up Common Carp from the ministries point of view in a nutshell. They arent going anywhere but that doesnt mean conservation effors shouldnt be taking place to help minimize their effect on the fishery. Just look at this great success story from the Humber River.

 

[kaministiquia]

Wow both a good and a long read and so is this...Exotic Species in the Great Lakes: A History of biotic crisis and anthopogenic introductions...
http://activities.mbolduc1.ep.profweb.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Millsetal.pdf
Common Carp are on page # 9 of 10. :smile:

 

[salmotrutta]

According to the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA), common carp are an invasive species that was introduced to our waters by unintentional release in 1879.

http://www.cloca.com/lwc/streams_invasive.php

I'm not going to pick sides on this debate, just wanted to post this link as I have seen signs up in Durham Region listing common carp as an invasive species.

 

[JimCanuck]

salmontrutta,

This is a good read,

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@letsfish/documents/report/stdprod_068673.pdf

I don't know where your link got the information from, but the release of Carp into multiple bodies of water here in Ontario in 1880, was completely intentional. Even the MNR isn't hiding that fact.

Jim

 

[JimCanuck]

By the way as recently as April, the MNR co-sponsored a "get rid of the invasive carp" type of fishing along with Seneca College.

http://www.senecacollege.ca/media/ecocarpfest.html

http://listserv.senecac.on.ca/senecainthenews/entry/seneca_mnr_anglers_host_eco

Cut the carp out.

That’s exactly what Seneca College, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Chinese Anglers Association are attempting to do.

Carp are deemed an invasive species in King, particularly in Lake Seneca and its channels and all three organizations are working towards restoring a balanced eco-system in the area.

On Sunday, Seneca hosted the Seneca King Campus Eco Carp Fest, which sought to teach young girls from various organizations how to fish, while at the same time, teach them different ways to cull the invasive species.

“We want to help balance the ecosystem in the lake,” explained Carmen Schlamb, an environmental teacher at Seneca, and event organizer. “We try to pull carp out once a year to balance the population so native fish don’t have as much competition for food.”

Jim

 

[NADO]

WOW, I think a tear just came to my eye! lol

“We try to pull carp out once a year to balance the population so native fish don’t have as much competition for food.”

Thats exactly what I was hoping to get going on a local lake here. Some sort of Carp angling tournament on a local lake where all Carp caught are harvested and used as fertilizer or whatever sort of use is deemed best. It could be an annual event and it wouldnt cost the Ministry anything.

Im all about controlling the Carp population, not eliminating it. One of our problems with Carp in Ontario is that you dont have anglers who target the fish for food. And then you have groups like the CAG that promote the release of Carp!!!

I'd like to know what the CAG's thoughts are on this type of event that is clearly sanctioned by the MNR. I guess the group that screams the loudest doesnt always win, thank god.

 

[JimCanuck]

I'd like to know what the CAG's thoughts are on this type of event that is clearly sanctioned by the MNR. I guess the group that screams the loudest doesnt always win, thank god.

Yes thank god for that. :lol:

Jim