How One Man Changed the Ecology of the Great Lakes With Salmon 118
An anonymous reader writes During the sixties the Great Lakes were facing an ecological disaster due to invasive species and over fishing. Biologist Howard Tanner's solution to the problem was to bring in another non-native species, the Pacific salmon. Fishing boomed for many years but with the recent salmon crash in Lake Huron many wonder if the salmon were a band-aid on a ecological wound that's too big to fix. From the article: "Tanner's goal wasn't to just alter the species composition of the lakes; he wanted to change the public's relationship with the lakes themselves. Beyond pier fishing for perch and smallmouth bass, fishing in the lakes primarily had been the domain of relatively few commercial fishing crews using big boats and nets to harvest lake trout, perch, whitefish and chubs for restaurants and stores. But because these commercially fished native species had been so destroyed by overfishing and the lamprey and alewife infestations, Tanner inherited something of a blank slate — almost like a freshly filled reservoir in the West. He had little interest in trying to repaint the same old picture, but wanted instead to turn the waters over to large numbers of sportsmen who fished as much for thrill as fillet."
They should try Sharks with lasers (Score:3, Funny)
Because seriously, everything is better with lasers.
Everything
Fear the Asian carp (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Its all fun and games until you take one of those to the face.
Re:Fear the Asian carp (Score:5, Informative)
When it does, lay the blame squarely on the City of Chicago. Electric barriers are not going to keep them out.
Re:Fear the Asian carp (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, the ships could return the long way: around Florida, up the east coast and through the St. Lawrence Seaway. (I'm not saying is a good idea, but it's possible.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Asian carp is not going to destroy a 7 billion dollar a year industry any more than the zebra mussel did. The Asian carp will change the 7 billion dollar a year industry. The Chinese love Asian carp. I have had it, it's not bad. If it had a better name, I suspect it would sell better. Call it Asian Whitefish or Pekin Perch, some nonsense like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the canal were closed, it is a just a matter of time until someone with an evil bent or an adolescent sense of humor deliberately introduces a few carp into the lake -- that's all that's needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if the canal were closed, it is a just a matter of time until someone with an evil bent or an adolescent sense of humor deliberately introduces a few carp into the lake -- that's all that's needed.
To those who still claim that humans are far too small to effect the environment, the Great Lakes are a great counterexample. Three times in my lifetime I've watched the biological ecosystem of these lakes change dramatically. The 70s Alewife invasions made hundreds of miles of beaches unbearable, the zebra mussels cleared the water but gave small fish no place to hide and allowed sunlight through to cause the huge blue-green algae blooms that shutdown Toledo's water supply this summer. The Asian carp carp
Re:Fear the Asian carp (Score:4, Interesting)
If the Asian Carp shares the same fate as the rest of the invasive species that have infiltrated the lakes, expect walleye to start eating them sooner rather than later. Already walleye are eating zebra mussels and brown gobies. The downside is that the walleye fishery has changed a lot, because they're no longer interested in the bait that fishermen have to offer.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly!
I proposed a fix and they said I was mad. My fix would have completely cleaned up the Asian Carp problem and not involved any silly electric barriers.
You see, Bull Sharks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org] are fresh water capable. They have an organ that allows them to do salinity adjustments in their body so they can adapt to fresh water. In the early 1900s one was actually caught near Chicago.
So we start stocking the Mississippi with lots of young hungry bull sharks.
They will grow at amazing speed
Re: (Score:3)
Why did you post AC? I miss a /. friend now :-)
Re: (Score:1)
I am about the last one to defend the City of Chicago, but they have nothing to do with the electric barriers. That is the turf of the Illinois Dept of Natural Resources.
If you are going to sling mud mindlessly, at least try to toss it in the right direction.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You know you're going to up to your gills with people carping on about racism -- some out of ignorance, and some will do it just for the halibut.
chilean sea bass (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The answer to invasive species like Asian carp is to introduce seals into the Great Lakes. Of course, you will need some polar bears to keep the seals in check.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer to invasive species like Asian carp is to introduce seals into the Great Lakes. Of course, you will need some polar bears to keep the seals in check.
This might not be a completely bad solution if the seals preferred asian carp to salmon.
You don't need polar bears to keep seals in check. I'm sure humans can do a decent job there.
Re: (Score:3)
While I know the above is all for a good laugh, but there is a small solution to the carp problem that could stem the flow. Figure out if the fish is any good for pet food. Then, if it's viable, legalize the sale of it to processors for non-commercial fisherman. Once a fisherman knows he can legally sell his catch, he's going to think, fuel is paid from the processor and I've got myself a vacation.
While not the greatest solution, it's a simple and fun way to slow the fish down from crossing over into the la
Re:Fear the Asian carp (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
See, a person that is making an effort, While I know it's not a lot, it's a trickle.
Back when I fished freshwater, I would sponsor a fishing trip to the local lake for the boy club of America and my friends tackle store.
cost almost nothing, and introduced fishing to a group of about 15 kids.
if you don't mind sharing your spot, you should post it around,
less of these fish the better we all might be.
note: even if they are an invasive species, permits might be required to sell them to a processor.
here in flor
Re: (Score:2)
Being an outdoorsman I want things to be around for my enjoyment and for others.
Re: (Score:2)
Carp and suckers are fairly fatty fish, you don't want to fry or bake them really. They're OK grilled, but they're outstanding in a smoker. The fat drips down and burns and everyone in the neighborhood knows that something delicious is about to be available. You may become very popular for an afternoon . . .
Re: (Score:2)
You could be right, but the problem is ... How do you legally sell them the fish.
that's the big problem, how to sell it, document it, and track it.
In NJ and FL (those are the 2 that I know the laws in), you cannot sell your catch.
you can bring your catch and trade for smoked fish in NJ (well that was up to 2002 when I left)
Drop off 10lbs of fish, take 3lbs. Home.
In FL. You can bring the fish to a restaurant to be cooked for you.
Tracking the fish for non-human consumption might lead to better management of t
Re: (Score:2)
It goes pigeon, lizard, snake, gorilla.
When winter time rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.
Re: (Score:1)
Just like the economy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This story really surprised me - I expected that sort of behaviour from a Socialist Five Year Plan but not really from the US. Even the instructions from the Party Secretary fit: "The fish division hasn't done anything new in 20 years. Get out there and do something big and spectacular.". The main difference is that the fishing would at least initially have been reserved for party members, maybe top party members.
That story had a link to the next part [jsonline.com] which took a more modern approach. I found the whole
Re: (Score:2)
Has the situation of any native species ever improved because of the magical market forces? Ever? I can't think of one. Buffalo, beavers, wolves, condors, redwoods, otters, etc. would all be extinct if the top-down management had allowed "actors look out for their own interests". Individual people are myopic short-term actors, only when we band into larger organizations is anything worthwhile ever accomplished.
Great story of unintended consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
What a great illustration of ecosystem complexity and unintended consequences that involves salmon, alewives, lamprey, zebra mussels, quagga mussels, and round gobies, all of which are non-native to the great lakes. After half a century of unpredicted swings of boom and bust the fishery managers are gradually moving toward restoration of something that resembles, at least faintly, the original lake trout and perch ecosystem. I'm sure more unintended consequences will be revealed as this plays out, but the ride certainly reveals the pitfalls of messing with mother nature.
Wrong conclusion: not "unintended consequences" (Score:5, Informative)
This is totally not a story about unintended consequences. If you read all three parts (which is a great read), you'll see that the cycle went like this:
Native fish taken out by alweifes
Alewifes taken out by Salmon
Salmon taken out by too few alewives (overfeeding)
Native species recover, because of no alewifes
The original guy did exactly what he set out to do: destroy alewives with salmon and build a fishing economy. That was pretty successful. After that population crashed they eventually discovered that the original fish came back, due to the lack of alewives.
The unintended consequences in this case are positive - marine biologists were able to learn something totally unexpected by doing experiments on a large scale.
The original goal was never to get the native species back; it was to make the lakes back into a commercial fishery. Is the state today "better" because the native species are back? Who knows. Just because things are status quo ante doesn't mean it's better. That population is just as vulnerable to a die off as it used to be.
That's why it's better to read the article instead of skimming it.
Re: (Score:2)
my biggest problem with the fine article because it jumped around more than inception. it was not written in sequence or with suitable foreshadowing for the 'jumps' it made.
for maximum understanding and widest audience appeal it should only jump around when needed. the story should first use the first two paragraphs to sum the story, for the people who skim. after that it should have a clean flow of events in the order they occur chronologically. this isn't spider-man, and i realize how when writing you mig
Re:Wrong conclusion: not "unintended consequences" (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile here in New England, the alewives' natural range, shad and alewives are so endangered it's illegal to take one except in a few larger rivers. The springtime herring run are largely gone, along with the massive influx of marine nutrients they brought to fresh waters.
One of the things that always mystified me growing up fishing here was the incredible uniformity of freshwater fish species across water bodies with very little geographic connection. New England is dotted with thousands of small ponds, and they all have more or less the same fish. Even tiny little ponds of a few acres with no major tributaries and only seasonal outlets will have bluegill, yellow perch, and probably a few black bass lurking somewhere and reportedly some pike or muskellenge. How did they get there? And why aren't fish like bluegill from different watersheds distinctive, the way the finches Darwin found in different Galapagos islands were different? Surely natural dispersion of these fish across the whole region would have taken thousands of years.
I was recently reading about the history of dams in the US, and got the answer. In the late 1800s inland fisheries across the country were collapsing because of dam building for powering mills, so the federal government set about restocking ponds and streams across the country. The scale must have been mind boggling, because you can find the same fish in tiny, isolated ponds that don't show up except on detailed topographical maps. Even the neighbors seem scarcely aware of these ponds, but at some point maybe a hundred years ago the federal government planted fish there.
Looked at one way it was an astonishingly successful effort. There's almost no body of water in New England larger than a persistent puddle where a competent angler will catch *nothing*. And there are ponds not ten miles from Boston I can be certain of catching a half dozen crappie in a day and one or two largemouth bass -- certainly not trophy size, but enough to put up a game fight. But I often wonder what was in these waters before we crashed and rebooted the fish populations.
Re:Wrong conclusion: not "unintended consequences" (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile here in New England, the alewives' natural range, shad and alewives are so endangered it's illegal to take one except in a few larger rivers. The springtime herring run are largely gone, along with the massive influx of marine nutrients they brought to fresh waters.
One of the things that always mystified me growing up fishing here was the incredible uniformity of freshwater fish species across water bodies with very little geographic connection. New England is dotted with thousands of small ponds, and they all have more or less the same fish. Even tiny little ponds of a few acres with no major tributaries and only seasonal outlets will have bluegill, yellow perch, and probably a few black bass lurking somewhere and reportedly some pike or muskellenge. How did they get there? And why aren't fish like bluegill from different watersheds distinctive, the way the finches Darwin found in different Galapagos islands were different? Surely natural dispersion of these fish across the whole region would have taken thousands of years.
I was recently reading about the history of dams in the US, and got the answer. In the late 1800s inland fisheries across the country were collapsing because of dam building for powering mills, so the federal government set about restocking ponds and streams across the country. The scale must have been mind boggling, because you can find the same fish in tiny, isolated ponds that don't show up except on detailed topographical maps. Even the neighbors seem scarcely aware of these ponds, but at some point maybe a hundred years ago the federal government planted fish there.
Looked at one way it was an astonishingly successful effort. There's almost no body of water in New England larger than a persistent puddle where a competent angler will catch *nothing*. And there are ponds not ten miles from Boston I can be certain of catching a half dozen crappie in a day and one or two largemouth bass -- certainly not trophy size, but enough to put up a game fight. But I often wonder what was in these waters before we crashed and rebooted the fish populations.
That may be part of the explanation but It's not quite that simple. Canada and Scandinavia for example are dotted with isolated mountain lakes that also have various fish species living in them but in this part of the world there has never been an intentional large scale stocking effort which has long puzzled biologists. The current theory is that the eggs of the fish or the larvae are carried between lakes in in the feathers of water birds.
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting. I would just had assumed the ice left them behind :) (and more water/sea and fish.)
Re: (Score:3)
because you can find the same fish in tiny, isolated ponds that don't show up except on detailed topographical maps. Even the neighbors seem scarcely aware of these ponds, but at some point maybe a hundred years ago the federal government planted fish there.
The problem with your theory is that I know for a fact that those same fish show up in ponds that did not exist a hundred years ago. For that matter I know that those fish show up in ponds that the federal government (nor any other organization) ever planted fish in. The reason I know this is that I know the people who built the ponds and owned the land they were situated on when fish started to appear in them. And yes, some of these ponds now have fish in them, even though no one put them there and there i
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's that too. If there's an impoundment with houses on it some resident will have stocked it. But there's still no diversity; they're stocking it with the descendents of hatchery fish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you've just proved "spontaneous generation" exists. :-).
I would recommend that you reword your statement to "...were never intentionally stocked..." . It's quite possible that some species (or their larvae) hitchhiked on boats (as shellfish have been demonstrated to do).
Re: (Score:2)
I would recommend that you reword your statement to "...were never intentionally stocked..."
The word "stocked" contains within it the connotation of being done intentionally. Since, the general theory about how fish get into a landlocked body of water is that from time to time some fish eggs stick to the legs of waterfowl and rinse off/hatch in a different body of water. I have never heard that referred to as being stocked.
Re: (Score:2)
You are missing my point. Some of these ponds were never stocked by anyone, yet they have fish in them. As I said, I know this because I know the people who built the ponds and continued to own the land the ponds were situated on when fish were found in them.
Well, nobody that knew about it. Sounds like some of the stuff my uncles would do growing up on the farm. Stock a neighbor's pond because they'd rather fish there the next season than travel all the way to the lake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It only takes one predator carrying a pregnant fish from one pond to another to eat it and having the eggs wash into the pond to start. I'm sure they take off pretty quick with no large fish predators in the water.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not many fish live-birth, you would need a male to fertilize those eggs. Normally the fertilized eggs are carried on plant matter stuck to ducks, or occasionally the eggs stick to the birds themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Further, there is at least one example of non-human spread of fish species. The cut throat trout of Yellowstone Lake in Yellowstone National Park came originally from the Snake River watershed, but the lake currently drains into the Missouri River.
At one time during the last glacial period, the Yellowstone Lake was dammed by a glacier and drained into the Snake R
Re:Wrong conclusion: not "unintended consequences" (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the things that always mystified me growing up fishing here was the incredible uniformity of freshwater fish species across water bodies with very little geographic connection. New England is dotted with thousands of small ponds, and they all have more or less the same fish. Even tiny little ponds of a few acres with no major tributaries and only seasonal outlets will have bluegill, yellow perch, and probably a few black bass lurking somewhere and reportedly some pike or muskellenge. How did they get there? And why aren't fish like bluegill from different watersheds distinctive, the way the finches Darwin found in different Galapagos islands were different?
From Michigan here, lots of unconnected lakes and ponds here too.
It was always explained to me that they get there carried on the feet of waterfowl. Ducks and such land in the shallows and weeds, feet get covered in eggs. Ducks move on. Sometimes they're stocked by property owners or the DNR.
The fish *are* genetically diverse. Big fishing tournaments rely on this fact and do genetic testing on fish to make sure they came from the correct lake.
Re: (Score:2)
Ducks and other waterbirds carry fish eggs in their feathers. So they seed unpopulated new lakes with fish.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple answer is birds.
Fish tend to release lots of eggs into the water. Some stick to legs and feathers of water birds. When the birds land in body of water that has no fish those eggs have a very good chance of hatching and growing to full size.
Repeat.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not convinced of any altruism, and that the Salmon were necessarily for commercial fishing jobs (though that was stated as the Fed's intention and a well-known Pacific industry), but for Sport Fishing of larger fish, what, already being rediscovered in the 50s and 60s. It also appears that US fish canneries were well in decline by then. Already an outdoorsman haven and large tourist industry, the very notion of of the extreme profits to be made turning Northern Michigan even further into a Sports Fishe
Re: (Score:3)
"gradually moving toward restoration of something that resembles, at least faintly, the original lake trout and perch ecosystem"
The original ecosystem was a very large block of ice as of 25,000 years ago. The repopulation of the lakes after the glaciers melted back was very like the "freshly filled reservoir in the West." The upper Mississippi could repopulate from southern reaches, but how did the native (to humans) fish get back in the Lakes in the first place?
Re: (Score:3)
Fish eggs are sticky, and will stick to the legs of wading birds at one pond/stream/lake and wash off in another.
Re: (Score:2)
>After half a century of unpredicted swings of boom and bust the fishery managers are gradually moving toward restoration of something that resembles, at least faintly, the original lake trout and perch ecosystem.
Which will also be subject to unpredicted swings of boom and bust.
The idea that there's ever a balance of nature where the populations are stable is a complete fantasy, unpredictable swings are the norm. Ecologies are virtually always chaotic systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Lampreys in the Great Lakes (Score:5, Informative)
Four lampreys are native to the Michigan Great Lakes region. Two are parasitic; two not. The two parasitic species, while they cause deep wounds, rarely kill their hosts.
The Sea Lamprey is the relatively recent invader (1930s-40s) which has caused ecological havoc.
THE FIVE LAMPREYS OF MICHIGAN' 5 GREAT LAKES [umich.edu]
Why not fish for lamprey? (Score:2)
They are a delicacy in France and could probably be used as dog food or a protein enhancer for other food stocks.
Re: (Score:2)
Some dog food potential; same as most french delicacies. Don't even get me started on Chinese delicacies. My dog wouldn't eat sea cucumber.
Re: (Score:2)
My dog wouldn't eat sea cucumber.
Don't be too sure about that... [allnaturalpetcare.com]
Re: (Score:2)
My neighbor's dog will eat plastic if you don't stop her. Dogs aren't as picky as you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The article I read say they approximated squid, if less chewy. IMHO squid and octopus don't really have a strong flavor -- they really just represent whatever they are cooked in (the Greeks seem to have a flair for them, oil and herbal seasoning).
In fact, I think a lot of people could be served tripe if you cooked it like squid and never know the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure they're that closely related to eels. I've had eel in a Chinese restaurant and I didn't find it as good as squid and octopus.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really true? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like this guy's plan was a bit too large in scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like this guy's plan was a bit too large in scale.
Wait was that a pun? I thought this was the pun thread?
Perhaps your pun was just carp. Or maybe I am just being a pike-r.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like this guy's plan was a bit too large in scale.
Wait was that a pun? I thought this was the pun thread?
Perhaps your pun was just carp. Or maybe I am just being a pike-r.
With all of this angling for puns, it's time to give this thread the hook.
Re: (Score:2)
The original pun was definitely crappie.
There is one solution (Score:2)
The Salmon Cannon. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Airplanes also work [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, that is pretty freaking awesome too.
Next will be a Fish Rifle, and Fish Tanks... we can have a whole fish arsenal.
Genetic viability is also a long term concern (Score:1)
Out west, where the original Oncorhynchus (so called Great Lakes salmon and Rainbow trout) stock came from we are experiencing a decline in the viability of stocks because of hatchery methods [corvallisadvocate.com]. Perhaps the decline in stocks in Lake Huron is partly due to this problem as well as a drop in feed levels. The entire marine habitat of the Georgia Straight as well as the Straights of Juan de Fuca is losing resident native strains of Oncorhynchus because of the loss of viable in stream rearing habitat on the rivers
Re: (Score:3)
It talks a lot about the actual decision making process, which you did not reference. It also goes into great detail on how sport fishing has been a major driving force in fishery policy since the introduction of salmon in the late 1960's. It ends with the current dilemma of balancing between the re-emergence of trout as the primary sport fish vs the salmon, which are not doing well. The irony is that a trout friendly ecosystem is much closer to th
Re: (Score:1)
"You'd rather just whine in complete ignorance rather then read something interesting and become more knowledgeable. Pathetic."
A complete ignorance of native species within an ecosystem is the problem sir. The use of the word "trout" is symptomatic of the ignorance of the general populace, especially in the east. The native char species of the Great Lakes have a tendency to be slow growing variants, in fact the actual age of mature Salvelinus that were the predominant top shelf predators of Superior and Hur
The CARP WILL WIN (Score:2)
Credit where it's due (Score:2)
How One Man Changed the Ecology of the Great Lakes With Salmon
Seems to me like the salmon did all the hard work.
As a Queenslander.... (Score:1)
Salmon in the great lakes has been pretty good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Is biology no longer a science? Is this not relevant to issues in the bioTECH sector?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
A lot of people seem to think that Slashdot is only supposed to be about IT, even though IT is just the most uninteresting part of computer technology. It's the janitor part of computers.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people seem to think that Slashdot is only supposed to be about IT, even though IT is just the most uninteresting part of computer technology. It's the janitor part of computers.
It's because IT employees don't get anything else. Don't take their slashdot, too!
Some of us (Score:3)
This is relevant to nerds and technology how?
Some of us are eco-nerds.
Seriously. Planets and space habitats will need ecological engineering - the real stuff, not the eco-wacko knee-jerks.
Examinations of how this horrendously complex system works when tweaked are definitely "news for nerds" and "stuff that matters".
There are lots of different sorts of nerds, and lots of nerds geek out on many different technologies each. If you sometimes see nerd-fodder that isn't on one of YOUR subjects on Slashdot, suck
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us nerds enjoy fishing the very waters discussed in this article. If you think folks don't nerd out about fishing, you haven't spent much time around fishermen.