Sad days in S. Florida 2024

Went out on my lake a few times over the past week or so, and there was carnage everywhere, all of the exotic took a huge hit.  There were hundreds of dead fish from Peacocks, myan cichlids, spotted tilapia, blue tilapia, plecos, and I even saw and photographed a fairly fresh gigantic Clown Knife-fish.  There were a few really big peacocks like 5 plus pounders,  very depressing.  I think there was a survival rate though, the smaller fish that got into deep water probably lived.  As far a the LMB's I didn't see one dead and only caught 2 small ones in a days worth of fishing.  If these exotic species survive this kind of weather down here, they are here to stay.

The only ones i am sad to see are the peacocks.

  Quote

The only ones i am sad to see are the peacocks.

i am even glad to see the peacock population take a hit. all of the others like the cichlids, clown knifefish, and plecos need to be removed. nature has a funny way of balancing things out. only the strong survive.

  Quote

  Quote

The only ones i am sad to see are the peacocks.

i am even glad to see the peacock population take a hit. all of the others like the cichlids, clown knifefish, and plecos need to be removed. nature has a funny way of balancing things out. only the strong survive.

The human race being one exception of that rule... :-/

But I for one am saddened by the exotic fish kill, I was looking forward to planning a trip down there to try for all the different game fish and exoctics...

I see this as a good thing. Less competition for the Big girls.

Checks and balances, that's all.

Well, I'd like to see all the exotics killed off.

Cold weather doesn't kill carp around here, but

they don't do very well sunbathing on the bank

or with a hole in their head.

>

What's the big deal with exotics? Why do people hate them? I can understand not wanting to release them into your waters for fear of what they might do to the ecosystem, but if they're already there, why the hate?

Non-native species represent a "Clear and Present Danger":

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/82058727.html

>

  Quote

Non-native species represent a "Clear and Present Danger":

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/82058727.html

>

sure. Sometimes.

Are the cichlids or any of these other species threatening anything in Florida? Surely they can't be compared to the Asian carp because most of these species can't survive in climates outside of Florida so there isn't a risk of them spreading all over the place like asian carp.

Bass are non-native to pretty much everywhere I've fished. It sure would suck if people had thought the way you do when they were first introduced.

The largemouth bass is native only to North America, and its original range was generally the eastern half of the United States and southern Ontario and Quebec in Canada. The native range extended south from Iowa to Texas and northeastern Mexico, and east to the South Atlantic coast and western New York and Pennsylvania. Due to extensive stocking and the largemouth's adaptable nature, it is now abundant throughout the Appalachian and Ozark Ranges, most of the northeastern U.S. from Maryland to Maine, and easternmost Canada.

Since the late 1800s, its range has been expanded to include major or minor portions of every state in the U.S. except Alaska, and most of the southern fringes of Canada, as well as several regions in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, Central America, and the Caribbean.

8-)

Right...whatever you copy and paste doesn't change the fact that they are abundant because they have been spread as non-natives to new areas (they have been spread to bodies of water, states, and countries to which they are non-native), yet people view them differently than other non-native species. Is it just because they've been around longer? Is there a point at which we determine non-native to no longer be non-natives if they've been in a system for long enough?

My point is that the same thing was happening in the 1800s with bass as is happening now with the snakehead, carp, and other non-natives.

Most "pest" fish were introduced by accident

or to address a specific task (carp = weed control).

Peacock bass were introduced in Florida in 1984.

If the introduction is controlled or sanctioned,

I think that's a different story. German trout in

the White River is an excellent example.

On the other hand, this what can happen when

non-natives are introduced:

Peacock bass introduction in the Rosana

Reservoir and upper Paraná River, both

in Brazil, resulted in a 95 percent decline

in native fish density and 80 percent

decline in richness in only two years.

Few measures can protect native fish once

peacock bass have been introduced: reduction

in native species richness in lakes with

introduced peacock bass was observed in all

areas of each lake regardless of the presence

of macrophyte refugia. After initial increase in

abundance, introduced peacock bass often

deplete local prey and resort to cannibalism.

8-)

  Quote

Right...whatever you copy and paste doesn't change the fact that they are abundant because they have been spread as non-natives to new areas (they have been spread to bodies of water, states, and countries to which they are non-native), yet people view them differently than other non-native species. Is it just because they've been around longer? Is there a point at which we determine non-native to no longer be non-natives if they've been in a system for long enough?

My point is that the same thing was happening in the 1800s with bass as is happening now with the snakehead, carp, and other non-natives.

Dan,

You seem to be missing the point of what is native and non-native by definition. Bass are native to north America. The south american fish are not native to north America.

  Quote

  Quote

Right...whatever you copy and paste doesn't change the fact that they are abundant because they have been spread as non-natives to new areas (they have been spread to bodies of water, states, and countries to which they are non-native), yet people view them differently than other non-native species. Is it just because they've been around longer? Is there a point at which we determine non-native to no longer be non-natives if they've been in a system for long enough?

My point is that the same thing was happening in the 1800s with bass as is happening now with the snakehead, carp, and other non-natives.

Dan,

You seem to be missing the point of what is native and non-native by definition. Bass are native to north America. The south american fish are not native to north America.

I'll concede to the semantics, what I mean by "non-native fish" is a fish that is not native to a given ecosystem. But fish from North America can still have the same affect as fish from other countries. Does it matter if bass were native to the same continent when they were introduced to fisheries in the US if the result was that they took over new fisheries and became apex predators? Take my local fishery for example. Bass were not native to the Potomac. I'd be willing to bet that the fishery has changed a LOT since they were introduced. The fact is that any introduction of a new fish has the possibility to change or hurt an ecosystem, regardless of whether or not they are from the same continent, country, or state.

Dan,

How do you feel about the Snakehead?  Since you also fish the Potomac, I'm sure you've had several encounters with them.  My concern is that you now have a new predator competing for a limited amount of prey.  The carrying capacity of the Potomac will remain relatively constant so it seems logical to assume we will have fewer bass and more snakeheads.  I kill every snakehead I catch.

  Quote

Dan,

How do you feel about the Snakehead? Since you also fish the Potomac, I'm sure you've had several encounters with them. My concern is that you now have a new predator competing for a limited amount of prey. The carrying capacity of the Potomac will remain relatively constant so it seems logical to assume we will have fewer bass and more snakeheads. I kill every snakehead I catch.

I've caught two. They inhabit water with lower oxygen levels than bass. They aren't eating the bass but the bass are eating them. So far, they haven't seemed to affect the bass population. VDGIF doesn't seem to think they are as bad as previously imagined. Check the "other fish species" section for a couple threads about snakeheads if you want to hear more about what I think about them.

I second that about snakeheads. I'll kill every one I come across, but they have had NOWHERE near the detrimental impact that many had assumed and predicted. The Potomac is my current "home water" and has been for 10 years now, and the fishing remains excellent all-around, especially for a river system.

Also, going back to the original post about the dead exotics...do LMB eat tilapia down there like they do in Texas, etc? If so, wouldn't you want them as forage base? I'm asking not in a rhetorical manner, but because i have no idea what their impact is. Are they a real nuisance like carp?

Here is a Potomac question......Did the extreme cold weather kill any snakehead?

  Quote

Here is a Potomac question......Did the extreme cold weather kill any snakehead?

What extreme cold? It hasn't been any colder here than it has the past few winters. We've had more snow but it hasn't really been any colder than the past few years.

  Quote

  Quote

Dan,

How do you feel about the Snakehead? Since you also fish the Potomac, I'm sure you've had several encounters with them. My concern is that you now have a new predator competing for a limited amount of prey. The carrying capacity of the Potomac will remain relatively constant so it seems logical to assume we will have fewer bass and more snakeheads. I kill every snakehead I catch.

I've caught two. They inhabit water with lower oxygen levels than bass. They aren't eating the bass but the bass are eating them. So far, they haven't seemed to affect the bass population. VDGIF doesn't seem to think they are as bad as previously imagined. Check the "other fish species" section for a couple threads about snakeheads if you want to hear more about what I think about them.

I think it's a quick rush to judgement to assume that just because we haven't seen an impact on the bass population so far, there won't be one.  They've only been known to inhabit the Potomac for a little over 5 years and now they're in every major creek and yes also some main river grass beds.  In my mind that's pretty substantial growth.  As for low oxygen water, my buddy and I caught a couple in a main river grass bed just north of Arkendale last year.  I'm not concerned about them eating bass, I'm concerned about them eating what bass eat.  I don't care so much that they aren't native to the Potomac, but I do care about the impact they could have on the fish I love to catch. 

What will happen when we have another grass die-off?  I guess my point is I don't want to wait until it's a problem to find out.  I guess "outta sight outta mind" will always prevail though.   

Some good points here about snakeheads. So far the bass population doesn't seem like it has been affected, but that doesn't mean nothing will happen in the future. Honestly though, they have become so widespread I don't think there is anything we could do to get rid of them. Dan, I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm sure you know much more about snakeheads than I do, but I know for a fact they inhabit the same waters bass do. I believe you that they can live in waters with lower oxygen levels than bass, but that doesn't mean every snakehead will live in that lower oxygen area. Perhaps you weren't implying that, I apologize if I misunderstood you. I have caught snakeheads in the same areas and times while I was catching bass. I can also attest to the fact that snakeheads are on the main river now. I had one blow up on a Rage Tail Shad on a main river grassbed near the Gunston Cove area last summer. I don't know where you caught your two, if it was the main river then obviously you know this already. Regardless, I kill any snakehead I catch, if for no other reason than they often destroy whatever bait they hit.

Wow,  I didn't mean to start such a stink....  I was just saying I could only imagine what that rotten peacock of would  have fought like.  It probably would have fought like a 15 pound bass.  I estimate that dead peacock to be at 5.5 to 6 lbs.  The knife-fish was a total surprise I have never seen one in this lake or ever heard of anyone catching one, so there is probably not many of them in there.  the myan cichlids I could do without, they eat everything a bass eats and there are millions of them, the only positive is that bass eat them as well.  Oh well everything will balance out one way or the other.

  Quote

Some good points here about snakeheads. So far the bass population doesn't seem like it has been affected, but that doesn't mean nothing will happen in the future. Honestly though, they have become so widespread I don't think there is anything we could do to get rid of them. Dan, I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm sure you know much more about snakeheads than I do, but I know for a fact they inhabit the same waters bass do. I believe you that they can live in waters with lower oxygen levels than bass, but that doesn't mean every snakehead will live in that lower oxygen area. Perhaps you weren't implying that, I apologize if I misunderstood you. I have caught snakeheads in the same areas and times while I was catching bass. I can also attest to the fact that snakeheads are on the main river now. I had one blow up on a Rage Tail Shad on a main river grassbed near the Gunston Cove area last summer. I don't know where you caught your two, if it was the main river then obviously you know this already. Regardless, I kill any snakehead I catch, if for no other reason than they often destroy whatever bait they hit.

No, you're right, they do inhabit the same areas sometimes but for the most part they seem to stick to shallow, vegetation choked areas that bass stay away from. There's nothing we can do about them now but I'm not too worried. You're right that it hasn't been very long but they are doing very well and the fishery biologist in charge of the Potomac doesn't see them as having that much affect so far. Like I said, I'm not to worried.

I'm in agreement with Dan.

I am very sad to see this kill of peacocks, the bright side is the ensuing generations may adapt better to colder water.  Speaking only for myself I know which I'd rather catch, P vs LMB, the P wins hands down and I understand they are delicious too.  Perhaps they will evolve into the new Florida state fish.

Luckily in Florida we have options.

I find it interesting how if a species is desirable (largemouth) 'we' do not seem to care that it is non-native to our area, or what impact it might have had on the fishery. The snakeheads show up and we are collectively out to kill every last one of 'em. We really are selfish creatures that are in way over our heads.

A good visual example would be to look at the hyacinth clogged waters of Florida lakes, along with hydrilla both are exotics and provide a good example of what happens when a species, plant or animal, are introduced to any ecosystem that provides a similar environment. We spend millions trying to curtail the unwanted vegetation.   

Always look at the long term effect. The freeze did what nature wanted, cleaned a little house.

There is nothing politically correct nor environmentally sound about my feelings on the subject.   South Florida at least on the west side has been dessimated more by the influx of people than by the influx of exotics.   Tilapia have totally pushed out the bluegill/shellcrackers here.   The Mayans have now come in and for me are a fishery all in their own.   They grow to about 3lbs and fight better than bass.   When tilapia and Mayans are juvenile they fatten up the landlocked Snook nicely.   Florida will survive the exotics but it wont survive the influx of northern'ers moving in and consuming/polluting the little water we have left.

Dan,

Cold scale:

1 = Coldest

114 = Warmest

December 2009

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=nationalℑ=Statewidetrank&year=2009&month=12&ext=gif

Virginia 38th Coldest

December 2008

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/dec/12Statewidetrank_pg.gif

Virginia 94th Coldest

It seems like it is colder in my part of the country this year as opposed to last year.

  Quote

There is nothing politically correct nor environmentally sound about my feelings on the subject. South Florida at least on the west side has been dessimated more by the influx of people than by the influx of exotics. Tilapia have totally pushed out the bluegill/shellcrackers here. The Mayans have now come in and for me are a fishery all in their own. They grow to about 3lbs and fight better than bass. When tilapia and Mayans are juvenile they fatten up the landlocked Snook nicely. Florida will survive the exotics but it wont survive the influx of northern'ers moving in and consuming/polluting the little water we have left.

d**n for a minute there I thought you were going to say cubans.

The point is that some fish may be non-native but not be invasive. The fish that are here and are non-native may not have a big impact on native species i.e. grass carp. The Mayan cichlids and peacocks and tilapia have an impact on the native wildlife being invasive. Invasive fish out compete native fish for food, reproduce faster, and have larger amounts of offspring.

  Quote

The point is that some fish may be non-native but not be invasive. The fish that are here and are non-native may not have a big impact on native species i.e. grass carp. The Mayan cichlids and peacocks and tilapia have an impact on the native wildlife being invasive. Invasive fish out compete native fish for food, reproduce faster, and have larger amounts of offspring.

But new species don't even have to do things that significant to change or damage an ecosystem. To use your example, grass carp can actually affect very minute aspects of a body of water that can result in major changes to the whole ecosystem. Anytime you introduce ANYTHING into an ecosystem (plants, animals, bugs, etc...) there is a chance that they might affect some small, unforeseen piece of the ecosystem that can domino into larger problems. It's the law of unintended consequences.

Sure. The grass that the carp eat is invasive. It's a compounding problem.

  Quote

The point is that some fish may be non-native but not be invasive. The fish that are here and are non-native may not have a big impact on native species i.e. grass carp. The Mayan cichlids and peacocks and tilapia have an impact on the native wildlife being invasive. Invasive fish out compete native fish for food, reproduce faster, and have larger amounts of offspring.

Bingo!!!!!  Peacock bass would have never been introduced if it were for the "invasive" problem (mayans, tilipia, etc).  Therefore, I would have to agree that ideally all invasive and non invasive exotic species do more long-term harm to the local ecosystem than good. 

Sure the Peacock bass fights harder and I would rather catch one over a largemouth, BUT so does a Nile Perch!  If those of you who state you don't see a problem with exotics due to X reason (fight, economic impact, etc.)  Why not introduce a better fighting species into your local waters that has a better economic impact (i.e. Introducing Nile Perch into brackish and fresh waters of Florida for its sporting and economic impact).  This would be the extension of the logic correct?

Nevertheless, I am happy we have Peacocks and Oscars around or should I say had....they fight great, but in the back of my mind I will always think that someway these exotics are limiting my ability to catch the 15lb. monster largemouth since exotics have a a direct impact on total biomass a body of water can support.

previous topic

next topic