GBW Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 I say ban that fish in North America all together. like someone else said, if you can get it in a can, fine have at it. these fish were far from being dead at the boarder and I bet the water tank would have been re-filled shortly after getting into Canada to bring the loss to a minimal number. why? they make more money that way... isn't that strike 3 for the person in Markham? if so, deport or jail time cause he doesn't care and doesn't respect the laws.
Billy Bob Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 If you have a bomb that is going to go off then you do as much as you can to minimize the damage. If it was going to kill 100 people and cause a building to fall then to me saving the people and not losing ALL of the building is classified as minimal impact. Any time you can keep the percentage of damage under 50% of uncontrolled damage is a win in most statistical issues. The cost of the damage( invasive species) needs to be weighed against the savings( moving products by water) of the product. What would be the cost to the nations long term if we never open the canal that allows commerce in? We would be spending the money on transporting in a different fashion that has equaled or passed the cost of the mussel removal. See you can't talk Black and White on some issues because the answers are dynamic and changing as we speak. The small mouth explosion was because the fish is a clear water fish and as the water cleared they prospered. The forage base increased as the water was cleaned up and the predator base Salmonoids became less intense. The smallmouth fisheries is something I am taking as true statements made from articles that I have read not because I have fished them. I know it is your area to fish so I might be wrong Bob. Art Art (my dad's name) you definitely don't give up and I like that........do you have some German in you ? ? ? I have to admit you're in a disadvantage residing in Virgina and have not experienced the problems we are discussing on a daily basis when it comes to Lake Erie....but you still put up a good fight. Since I worked on the RR I could EASILY contour that all the commerce on the St Lawrence seaway could be handle by rail without a problem....but that would be too easy.......Lake freighters come and go daily during the open water season on the Great Lakes but during the winter the railroads easily take up the slack......but during the shipping season on the Great Lakes ALL boats have to pass through the first down stream lock at the St. Lambert Lock. At this point with through vessel inspections most if not all invasive species could of been stopped cold from entering our fresh drinking water supply. DEMANDING that all vessels at this point contain ONLY salt water in their bilges would have been a EASY thing to do.....BUT WAS NOT DONE...to this day this is still not being done although it is required by law...... ...you see it is Black and White if correctly applied.... Now onto this quote.... ...."The forage base increased as the water was cleaned up and the predator base Salmonoids became less intense. The smallmouth fisheries is something I am taking as true statements made from articles that I have read not because I have fished them. I know it is your area to fish so I might be wrong Bob. Art, I don't know where you read this but it just jiberish at best...it counter itself with in itself. The water clean up better described as water clarity was a direct result of the zebra mussels....they are breaking down the amount of zoo planton within Lake Eries water column and that is not good, unless you like to just swim in Lake Erie...it's water is as clear a swimming pool... Salmon have no effect on our smallmouth population because they don't inhabit the same water column....in short, smallies are a mostly shallow water bottom structure fish while salmon roam the thermoclime feeding off of suspended alwives and smelt....The forage base of shad/alwives/smelt actually was WAY too much and that is why Pacific Salmon were introduce into all the Great Lakes. Balance has now been pretty much achieved. I have been fishing and catching smallmouth bass on Lake Erie since the 60's and they were always there......but now we have better equipment to access them more easily, even on some of the rougher days on the water..... and as I have already mentioned, the recent major bass tournaments and television has really spotlighted Lake Erie as the Worlds Best Smallmouth fishery.....but don't overlook our walleyes.... I'll give you the last word, sir....
mercman Posted March 11, 2011 Report Posted March 11, 2011 We seem to be stuck with these unwanted fish. Is there not a way we can fish the heck out of them and use them for animal feed, or human consumption Heck, everyone says they are an excellent tasting fish, and they are easy as hell to catch !! There are needy people all over the place who would love to have these added to their weekly diets. A whole industry could evolve around these pests. This could be done while strictly controlling the harvesting of the fish, and the transportation of live fish from place to place.Unlimited quotas would soon reduce the populations to a controllable level. I may have no clue what i'm talking about here, but it seems to me that it May be a possible long term solution.Just throwing this out there.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now