Re: NANFA-- reducing exotic pops by fishing pressure
Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:41:02 EDT

In a message dated 9/24/00 10:54:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

<< You mentioned the Great Lakes fishery for the introduced salmon, and how
you find it contemptable. And I agree. >>

I could be wrong, but I think that the introduction of exotic salmonids would
seem to be at least partially responsible for the 1995 Lake Michigan yellow
perch population reduction. I would be interested to know how it impacts lake
and brook char pops as well as any other native commercial and angling fish
species. I think that most people on the list would agree that it certainly
wouldn't help the native commercial and game fish pops to introduce exotic
game fishes which would compete with and prey on the natives. I would be
interested to find out how they have impacted them.
I think that this should be a good line of reasoning for keeping out exotic
gamefishes; the fact that it undoubtably impacts native and commercial
species. If this could be demonstrated, perhaps State game officials or
whatever would cease stocking at least some exotic species. Like Michigan and
other states nearby were known for their perch as far as fishing and and
cuisine goes; what sense does it make to introduce exotics and reduce the
game/comercial fish pops that in one sense define the area to the people who
go to fish there and eat those fish in local restaurants? Salmon are already
native to the Pacific Northwest; why transport them here and eventually
change the fish fauna here? So we can make this the "new Pacific Northwest"?!?
I think that the state officials in approving of bringing salmon here just
so some local fishermen would have new species to catch was shortsighted;
they shot themselves in the foot trying to improve fishing. Instead they're
probably making the fishing that was previously available worse than it
allready was, and who knows if these introduced fishes pops won't crash
mysteriously like some other exotics have. If people want to catch salmon,
they should have to go to where they are native to and could be found, not
have them brought where they are not native to and have them released in the
wild. It seems like this would help boost some states' tourism; having
out-of-state fishermen visit to catch fish that are not found in their
states. But maybe I'm wrong; perhaps there is more money to be made by the
states which have those fish to have them shipped out of state and stocked in
other states.

/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ For a digest version, send the command to
/ instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,