fliptheslop Posted June 28, 2007 Report Posted June 28, 2007 Hers some facts: FRom the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service The exact locatin and year of introduction of common carp, Cyprinus carpio, is unknown, but sources from Fuller(1999) say the common carp came from Eurasia for use as a food fish. Sources report that the common carp was transported to the U.S. around 1831 from France into New York, into Connecticut in the 1840s, in1872 from Germany into California, and in 1877 from Germany into several states in the U.S. The international release and escape of carp into several other water bodies has also helped this species to multiply in almost every state except Alaska. The common carp can thrive in lakes, rivers, and streams and is a well known bottom feederthat roots up vegetation and stirs up sediment on the bottom of water bodies. This creates poor water clarity and light penetration for other fish. Common carp are very produtive spawner and can over populate an area rapidly. Fishermen see the common carp as a nuisance fish because it depletes good fishing habitat and crowds out sport fish. And contrary to what you believe it is a fact CARP DO EAT FISH EGGS. Photz before you go calling someone stupit maybe you should get the facts, but im sure an expert like yourself has all the facts and knows that carp are great for our lakes, so that gives you the right to call someone else stupit. So I guess if having a clue as to the adverse affects carp are having on our lakes that your right IM as stupit as they come. And I dont care what the brits do, I care about the lakes in CANADA and the carp are hurting them. So with that said, I can find all kinds of info that shows carp are not good for lakes, do me a favor and show me how much smarter you are and lets have a little info on why carp are good for our lakes. And quoting a bunch of mags from Britian that are trying to sell people trips to Canada for thousands of dollars aint to scientific, But hey Im the stupit one
ccmtcanada Posted June 28, 2007 Report Posted June 28, 2007 (edited) I dont have a problem one way or another when it comes to Carp. Do I fish for them...yes...why? Because they are there. Some anglers I have talked to will kill any carp that they catch because they believe that they are "destroying" the fishing in their area. I'm not one to just kill anything based on one person's word, so I have been doing some searching on the web and although there very few studies when it comes to common carp, there are a few interesting things that have come up. Carp are non-native fish to say the Great Lakes...that is true...but so are chinook salmon, rainbow trout, brown trout and coho salmon. They were all, carp included, introduced intentionally by man....dating back to 1879. The ironic thing is that it was one of the US Fish Commission's mandates back then to raise and release them into the waterways....now the Fisheries are trying to figure out how to control/eradicate them in certain areas. General concensus is that common carp are regarded as a nuisance species. They uproot vegetation and lower the visibility in waters, potentially driving out native species. In areas like Hamilton Harbour, the Carp are seen as a big problem in trying to restore the area. In reading studies on Hamilton watershed area, I found it interesting that it was because of man that species like the Carp are thriving there. It all had to do with the urbanization of the area in the early 1900's that made Hamilton Harbour prime carp breeding grounds. Bad watershed management back then effectively drove out native species....the carp just "moved in". There is another site that studied the common carp and the zebra mussel problem. It found that Carp "clearly demonstrate the ability of the common carp to prey on zebra mussels". Here's the quick summary of that study... Zebra mussel predation by common carp F. Cronin, J. Tucker, D. Soergel INHS researchers examined gut contents from 31 common carp collected at Mississippi River Mile 217 in August 1995 for evidence of predation on zebra mussels. We found between 1 and 407 zebra mussel beaks in 83.9% of the fish we examined. For all fish examined, common carp contained 118.2 beaks per fish or about 59 zebra mussels per fish. We found that large fish tend to prey more on larger zebra mussels than do small fish. These preliminary results clearly demonstrate the ability of the common carp to prey on zebra mussels. Considering that common carp are numerous in the Illinois and Mississippi rivers, they may have had an effect on zebra mussel demographics. More interesting info on invasive species can be found at http://www.marinebio.com/Oceans/Conservation/Moyle/ch10.asp So the question that has NEVER been answered...are they detrimental overall to the fisheries? No one knows because they have been here for so long!! 128 years...and still here after attempts to eradicate it from North America. True scientific studies didn't happen back in the early to mid 1800s...so there is not really any "base' to start from. The way I look at it, if the OFAH includes them in the Angler Awards as a sportfish, then I'll return them when I catch them, since the OFAH are supporters of catch and release. Anyhow, just wanted to put up a "non biased" view of carp. Bottom line for me is that the carp thing is just another example of how "man" thought we could control our environment by introducing new species to an ecological area without understanding the implications of those actions. Will we ever learn???? Feel free to jump all over me on this one...haha. Edited June 28, 2007 by ccmtcanada
fliptheslop Posted June 28, 2007 Report Posted June 28, 2007 Good post ccm, and you didnt even have to call anyone stupit
Photoz Posted June 28, 2007 Report Posted June 28, 2007 (edited) When conjuring up 'FACTS' you could at least get your information correct . . . . get someone to read this too ya! Yeah . . . . I'd say I got you pretty well pegged! HISTORY OF CARP IN THE UNITED STATES Prior to 1900, most native fish were viewed as vital food resources. Fish designated as sport fish today were harvested commercially and shipped by rail to the cities. The results were gravely declining stocks of river and lake fish at a time the U.S. population was greatly expanding. In 1871, Ulysses S. Grant and Congress ordered the formation of the U.S. Fish Commission to oversee the nation's fisheries interests. By 1877 the studies of European fish farming techniques indicated the carp would contribute to the strength of the nation. By 1874, the commission after long study issued a report entitled, "Fishes Especially worthy of Cultivation." It went on to say that no other species except the carp promises so great a return in limited waters. Cited were advantages over such fish as black bass, trout, grayling and others "because it is a vegetable feeder, and although not disdaining animal matters can live on vegetation alone and can attain large weight kept in small ponds and tanks." In 1876, the commission enumerated other good qualities such as high fecundity (a count of ripe eggs in the female fish), adaptability to artificial propagation, hardiness of growth, adaptability to environmental conditions unfavorable to equally palatable species, rapid growth, harmlessness in relation to fish of other species, ability to populate waters to it's greatest extent and fine table qualities. By 1877, citing the above reasons and adding, 'there is no reason why time should be lost with less proved fishes," the commission, convinced of the value of carp, imported 345 fishes of scaled, mirror and leather carp from German aqua culturists. On May 26th, they were placed in the Druid Hill Park ponds in Baltimore, Maryland. The ponds proved inadequate and some were transferred to the Babcock lakes on the monument lot in Washington, D.C. the following year. So did they somehow escape from these confines to populate nearly everywhere? No. Now state governments get involved. Records indicate about 6,203 fingerlings were produced in the Babcock lakes in 1879. These were shipped to 273 applicants in 24 states. About 6,000 fingerlings were produced in the Druid Hill ponds that year and were stocked primarily in Maryland. One year later, 31,332 carp were shipped to 1,374 applicants. In 1882, carp production increased to 143,696 fish and distributed in small lots to 7,000 applicants. In 1883, about 260,000 carp were sent to 9,872 applicants in 298 of 301 congressional districts and to 1,478 counties. During the years 1879 to 1896, the U.S. Fish Commission distributed 2.4 million carp, some of which were sent to Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Mexico. By 1897, the Commission discontinued the stocking because carp had been distributed nearly everywhere and many states assumed the task of propagation and stocking of carp. Edited June 28, 2007 by Photoz
fliptheslop Posted June 28, 2007 Report Posted June 28, 2007 (edited) QUoting things from 1897 and you call them facts, and you have me pegged, get someone to bring you into the the twenty first century, what a freekin joke. 100 years before they even knew the problems the carp could cause and thats what you have to call me stupit, wow your right your far to smart for me. IM done go catch your carp take a nice picture and throw them back (cus they arnt good for nothing) and let them live longer and cause more damage And my facts were a direct quote from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, but I guess they are stupit to and they just hate carp I guess the problem is my reading is just fine and I have the mantality to be able understand,but hey go with the name calling and such cus it really seems to be the only come back someone that doesnt have a clue resorts to, good thing I get it or I would have to act like a 2 year old as well Edited June 28, 2007 by fliptheslop
Squid Posted June 28, 2007 Report Posted June 28, 2007 not good news at all. What will the muskies eat if the carp are dying
Fishnfiend Posted June 28, 2007 Report Posted June 28, 2007 Hmph - some really heated opinions here. Did someone mention British anglers loving carp fishing? I was under the impression that the reason the brits fished for carp is because they fished out all of the good species of fish... Sure, we should encourage them to come over and fish for carp. Just keep it quiet that we still have some fish left that are actually worth fishing for. Okay, fire away.
Hellfish Posted June 28, 2007 Report Posted June 28, 2007 Hmph - some really heated opinions here. Did someone mention British anglers loving carp fishing? I was under the impression that the reason the brits fished for carp is because they fished out all of the good species of fish... Sure, we should encourage them to come over and fish for carp. Just keep it quiet that we still have some fish left that are actually worth fishing for. Okay, fire away. HAHAHAH that was good, not much of a opinion here, other than a carp is a fish thats all that matters to me they might be destructive but i dont know enough either way but it seems this has just turned into a pissing match
Recommended Posts