Bass Vs. Carp

= Posted using GrabIt =-- ------= Binary Usenet downloading made easy =-- -= Get GrabIt for free from http://www.shemes.com/ =-

Instead of saying that carp is crap, look at it from another way and try to catch one! i have been fishing for both and enjoy them. Do not follow what the TV and big stores tell you and do what you find more interesting.

I do however have a show planned on carp fishing. Not everyone has access to good bass water, but millions of anglers around the U.S. have carp in their backyard. I'm a firm believer in "if you only have lemons, make lemonade."

Aside from that, your argument is complete drivel. Bass was a premier sport fish in the US long before it got "marketed" and there came to be money in it.

I guess the meaning of "advanced and sophisticated" must lie in the eye of the beholder. Carp are a fun diversion once or twice a season, and an occasional pleasant and strong, but accidental pull on the other end of the line. So are catfish, bowfin, drum and gar. But the idea of investing a lot of thought, effort and/or money into angling for any of them just doesn't hold any attraction to me.

Feel free to enjoy them more than bass. Perhaps you should spend your time reading and participating in the rec.outdoors.fishing.carp newsgroup instead of the bass group. Oh -- wait. Never mind.

Also, I strongly advise everybody to read John Madson's great book "Up On the River". Nice part of it is about introduction of carp into the USA. Every outdoorsman will find this book extremely interesting.

And bass are fun to catch! So as pike and everything else swimming in these waters here :) you guys take care!

Many states have laws that forbid you from throwing any carp back into the water.

Carp are a non native fish that has hurt many natural fisheries in the US, They can , do, and have, destroyed the fish habitat in many small impoundments. the flesh is tolerable table fair, but just barely, I rate it on the bottom of all fish.

The problem with carp is the are prolific reproducers, they grow very quickly, and are only threaten by natural predators (in US waters) the first few months of their life, then they have nothing in nature that prays on them. In small lakes it only takes a few years and the only fish in the lake is carp.

To raise them to a game fish rating is a major mistake, then people will be returning them into the water when they get caught, instead of trying to control their numbers.

Ask any state game bioligest what they think about carp,, they to, call them "CRAP". DO a Google on the damage they cause to fisheries

Sure they are fun to catch,, any fish is fun to catch, that's why we fish.

don't you think people just like you do much more damage to the fisheries and to our World? Are you native here? Have respect. Killing them will not change the number at all, but just give terrible example to people going just by and children who see killed fish on the bank.

I find it hard to believe that any state would make it mandatory for people to kill a fish like that.

Many states? I'd bet against that...

Warren

And it makes me sick even more when I see people killing gar. Worse - some target them only to kill them. This fish survived 170 millions of years and now is disappearing (like the alligator gar) because some redneck idiots believe that they are dangerous. I read an article (on-line) some times ago that also carp is dangerous and can jump 3 meters high (sic!!!) and land in your boat and even hit you in the head falling. The summary was - kill the carp. Some people just cannot think reasonable. Some people just do not have anything better to do. And of course some people are just plainly dumb.

Natural History of Common Carp

While common carp are native to Asia, they are also widespread and abundant in Europe where they were introduced in the 11th or 12th century (Eddy and Underhill 1974). With pressure from European immigrants to bring the fish to U.S freshwaters, carp were first introduced into the Hudson River in New York in 1831. Massive stocking occurred before fishery administrators realized that U.S. anglers preferred the native fishes and were not harvesting the carp. This realization led to the first attempt to control carp in 1891 in Lake Merced, California (Wydoski and Wiley 1999).

The common carp is very adaptable and despite initial theories that cold waters would prevent its spread northward, carp have spread throughout most of the stream systems in the U.S. and into Canada. They thrive in shallow mud-bottom lakes and large streams, avoiding swift, rocky streams characteristic of trout streams (Eddy and Underhill 1974).

Common carp dominate wetlands and lakes because of their long life spans and large size (Bonneau 1999). They are the largest of the Cyprinidae (minnow) family and can weigh well over 9 kg and span more than 60 cm. Highly prolific, they crowd into shallow bays or headwater sloughs to spawn in April and May. Eggs hatch in 10 to 20 days and grow rapidly, reaching lengths of 20 cm or more in the first year. Adult carp have no natural predators and are not sought by anglers so they have a low mortality rate and often comprise the majority of fish mass in a water body. Fertile lakes can support up to 1125 kg of carp per hectare, which is three times the mass of game fish that can be supported in the same area (Eddy and Underhill 1974).

The effect of common carp domination on wetland and lake ecosystems is complex. Carp uproot aquatic macrophytes when spawning and feeding. These activities also suspend bottom sediments and nutrients, limiting light penetration needed for macrophyte growth. Carp also reduce zooplankton and macroinvertebrate populations by predation and by eliminating macrophytes that provide cover. Phytoplankton populations increase due to increased release of nutrients and reduced predation by zooplankton. Fish and wildlife are adversely affected by the loss of zooplankton and macroinvertebrate food sources, and loss of aquatic macrophytes that provide cover for larval and juvenile fish and substrate for eggs and invertebrates (Kahl 1991).

Once carp are removed, algal production declines due to reduced nutrients, macrophytes increase due to decreased turbidity, and zooplankton increase due to increased cover of macrophytes (Meijer et al. 1990). However, the change from a turbid state dominated by phytoplankton to a clear state dominated by macrophytes may be temporary. To sustain the new state, the resilience mechanisms that maintained the turbid state must shift to those that favor the clear state (Carpenter and Cottingham 1997).

Impacted Ecosystems

Examples of restored systems affected by common carp include Swan Lake located in Carroll County, Iowa. The shallow manmade lake was restored in 1982 as part of the U.S. EPA Clean Lakes Program. Swan Lake was deepened, an aeration system was installed to prevent winterkills, two new water sources were added to maintain the water level, and it was chemically treated with rotenone to remove all existing fish for subsequent restocking. Carp entered the lake between June 1990 and July 1993 when the lake overflowed and carp adults were able to jump from a stilling basin into the lake. The carp population increased from 27 kg/ha in 1990 to 230 kg/ha by 1996. Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass) and Lepomis macrochirus (bluegill) standing stock decreased significantly over that same period (Hill 1999).

After carp entered the lake, the water became more turbid and algal blooms increased, resulting in decreased growth of aquatic macrophytes. Excess nutrients were most likely entering the lake from the watershed and the feeding habits of the carp resulted in suspension of sediment and nutrients. The nutrients fueled the algal blooms, which reduced water quality and ultimately eliminated the submerged aquatic vegetation. With the loss of submerged vegetation, the lake’s water quality continued to deteriorate and fishing quality declined (Hill 1999).

Another example is Metzger Marsh, a coastal wetland on the south shore of western Lake Erie. The marsh provides spawning, nursery, and feeding habitat for Lake Erie’s native fishes. The area was degraded in the late 1800’s with the draining and filling, diking, and increased nutrient loading that resulted from urbanization and industrialization. Esox lucius (northern pike) populations, which had been abundant in Lake Erie, declined with coastal wetland loss. In the 1920’s most of the remaining coastal wetlands in western Lake Erie were diked to enhance managed production of aquatic vegetation and waterfowl. Northern pike populations were further diminished because they could not access the remaining wetlands for spawning and feeding (French et al. 1999).

Metzger Marsh further degraded when carp were introduced. Carp entered the wetlands as fry through the pumps and gates when the wetlands were filled and could not return to Lake Erie after they increased in size. The carp disrupted the wetlands through their spawning, uprooting, and sediment-stirring activities (French et al. 1999). The marsh was protected from storm activity by a heavily vegetated barrier beach until 1940 when the beach partially eroded. The barrier beach was totally lost by 1973, increasing the marsh water level and greatly reducing the emergent marsh area. By 1990 it was an open water bay with scattered islands of Typha and Phragmites. In 1994 the Metzger Marsh Wetland Restoration project was initiated to restore fish habitat. Since the wetland is connected to Lake Erie through a protective barrier, one of the challenges is to control the passage of carp from the main body of Lake Erie (French et al. 1999).

A third example is Lake Christina, a shallow eutrophic lake in central Minnesota. Prior to restoration, the lake had become highly turbid, suffered from high chlorophyll-a levels, and had lost nearly all of its submergent macrophytes, greatly reducing its suitability for migrating waterfowl. In the fall of 1987, virtually all of the lake’s fish were eliminated, with subsequent restocking in the spring of 1988 with piscivores to establish a more favorable ratio of piscivores to benthivores and planktivores. For the first few months following restoration, the chlorophyll-a concentration dramatically declined and water transparency, macrophytes, and zooplankton populations significantly increased. The result was increased waterfowl feeding on macrophytes in 1988 (Hanson and Butler 1990).

Management Techniques

Fish removal projects have been practiced for hundreds of years, evolving from control of a single species to an approach that considers entire fish communities (McComas 1993, Wydoski and Wiley 1999). To be successful, control methods need to be cost-effective and have minimal impact to other fish (Bonneau 1999). Other factors that need to be considered in selecting a method include size of the water body, water temperature and quality, public opinion, ownership of water, and environmental concerns (Wydoski and Wiley 1999).

The basic methods of control are chemical, mechanical, and biological. Chemical methods are preferred because of ease of application, short time period required to achieve results, and lower cost when compared to other controls. The majority of projects focus on complete removal as partial treatment has varying success. Biological methods consist of using predatory fish, pathogens, and biomanipulation. With biomanipulation, various chemical and mechanical methods are used to adjust the interrelationships among plants, animals, and their environment to achieve a balanced food-web structure. In general, the ratio of piscivorous to planktivorous fish species is the key to stabilizing an aquatic system. Mechanical methods include barriers, commercial fishing, water level manipulation, and traps. Barriers are the most commonly used mechanical method because of their one-time expense and potential effectiveness over several years, whereas most other mechanical methods are considered labor intensive with limited effectiveness from 1 to 5 years (Wydoski and Wiley 1999). Following are the most frequently used methods for controlling common carp.

Rotenone

Rotenone was first used in North America in 1934 and is the most commonly used fish toxicant (Wydoski and Wiley 1999). It is a natural chemical extracted from stems and roots of several tropical plants and is non-selective when applied at dose rates necessary to eliminate carp (Fajt and Grizzle 1993). Absorbed through gills, it inhibits oxygen transfer at the cellular level resulting in suffocation. Rotenone is available as a powder or liquid and can be applied by pump sprayer, boat, aircraft, and constant-flow drip stations in streams. The powder form is less expensive and can be mixed with sand, gelatin, and water to form a paste to use in harder to reach areas such as heavily vegetated shorelines and deep waters. Rotenone is thought to be nontoxic to waterfowl and humans and is also environmentally non-persistent (Wydoski and Wiley 1999). Restocking of fish can occur in the same season of treatment. However, effectiveness only lasts for about ten years unless other steps are taken to prevent return of the lake or wetland to previous conditions (McComas 1993).

Seams the "real" experts hate them more than I do.

Sorry to destroy your beliefs with a few FACTS

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,615152300,00.html

Click it to read the whole story

Utah Lake is overrun with carp

Harvesting 'bullies' could aid endangered suckers By Sara Israelsen Deseret Morning News OREM — Holy carp, there are a lot of fish in Utah Lake. Millions, in fact. Although it's difficult to reach an exact figure on the moving aquatic wildlife, a recent study indicated there are almost 7.5 million grown carp in Utah Lake. But there's something fishy about the situation because the millions of common carp are quickly becoming the majority — approximately 74 percent of the lake's population.

< Snip >

So to help the June sucker, one idea is to start harvesting the carp — en masse. The price tag for such an endeavor: some $6.6 million over six years. Such a harvesting would decrease the carp population by 75 percent. If done according to plan, 33.1 million pounds of fish would be gone from the lake.

Now that is killing them in mass,,, I like it :-)

How would you like your favorite bass lake to have 1 or 2% bass and 75% carp ?

And it makes me sick even more when I see people killing gar. Worse - some target them only to kill them. This fish survived 170 millions of years and now is disappearing (like the alligator gar) because some redneck idiots believe that they are dangerous. I read an article (on-line) some times ago that also carp is dangerous and can jump 3 meters high (sic!!!) and land in your boat and even hit you in the head falling. The summary was - kill the carp. Some people just cannot think reasonable. Some people just do not have anything better to do. And of course some people are just plainly dumb.

Damn right some can jump. Wake up and smell the fish. They are an invasive non-native species that should be wiped out! IMHO Joe Z. http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/pubs/center/pdfDocs/Asian_carp-2-2004.pdf

Koi, may be pretty to watch swim in back yard ponds....but keep them out of my lakes!!!!!!

Just my opinion!

JK

In my opinion it is only a matter of tradition and the poor reputation that fish have in the USA. If it was less common, it would have been a target for many fisherman. And since it has such a bad reputation, even, if someone is lucky enough to catch 20-30 pounder, in the USA there is still nothing to brag about. In Europe that would be a day to celebrate.

"John Kerr" <jbkbub@webtv.net> wrote in message

It's highly likely the reason those "paylakes" are stocked with carp is that they're cheap to acquire and just about impossible to kill. The primary reason that carp are such a celebrated species in Europe is, it's the only game in town, unless you have the money to pay for membership into some other fishing club! That's not the case in the U.S. where the majority of the available fishing waters are open to the public and we have a wide variety of gamefish to pursue. While it is fun to tie into a carp, I'd rather fish for other species.

And of course a 20-30 pound fish would be reason to celebrate. In Europe it's quite common to fish for species like chubs. We use those for bait!

bill

There are NO states that require anglers to kill carp in public waters.

People fish for & enjoy carp fishing here, not just overseas. I'm not tooting the carp's horn, as I'm aware of the problems they can cause. But if you think tossing a few carp on the bank to rot is going to solve any of them, you're sadly mistaken.

Warren

Just look in the mirror.

Warren ;-)