7366 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Aquatic Sciences The posItIOn approved in 1972 by the American Fisheries Society concerning introductions of exotic fishes ;Ippears to have been largely ignored by North DaKota in its initi;i\ in- volvement with zander. In fact, zander were brought from Europe to North Dakota, but were ordered destroyed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when the fish were suspected of carrying disease organisms. 6~ Concerns expressed by South Dakota and Missouri, obvious secondary recipients of the pro- posed introduction, prompted preparation of a summary of research efforts on zander. ,,' This research plan called for in- troduction into landlOCKed lakes, primarily to study survival, growth. and possible impacts on other fishes, particularly other percids (walleye, yellow perch [Perea f1a\'escensJ) and north- ern pike (Esox //lci/ls). Investigation of potential hyoridization of zander with native Slizostedio/l was mentioned, but not included as part of the research plan. Prior to this plan, how- ever, North Dakota's attitude toward introducing zander seemed to he one of state's rights. somewhat reminiscent of Arkansas' initial position regarding grass carp. K Specifically, North Dakota failed to establish a strong ra- tionale for introducing any exotic fish, including zander, to supplemcnt or replacc a native species, in lieu of oetter man- agement of its existing fishcry habitats, including that for wall- cye. The prcliminary asscssment of impact'" was concerned primarily with possible impact on other game species. There was no mention of or aHempt made to study the fish in ils native biotopc, but live specimens were brought into North Dakota from Europc. Publicity and review were apparently avoided, until South Dakota and Missouri learned of the planned introduction and expressed concern. Thus, although the first four steps of the position statement of 1972 were mostly sidestepped, the North Central Division of the American Fish- eries Society, at its Dccember 1987 meeting, passed a reso- lution requesting North Dakota to follow the American Fisheries Society Policy Statement on Introduced Aquatic Species, as amended in 1986, concerning the proposed introduction of zander. A policy of a professional socicty may oe ignored again in this instance. Is North Dakota prepared to pay damaL:cs to, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri should this introduction occur and later prove to be detrimental to resources of those states? Project Zander, as it is called, was carefully considered and won praisesw in some circles. Yet important biological ques- tions are unanswered. Is S. lucioperea sufficiently close, ge- netically and behaviorally, to S. \'itrculIl to permit hyhridizat ion and possibly alter genelic stocks of the native S. I'itrellln: The obvious disagreement in evaluation of Project Zander empha- sizes the need for independent peer review and involvement of the appropriate agencies in jurisdictions which will con- ceivably be affected - in this instance most of the upper mid west. This is especially important because South Dakota has successfully introduced chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus lshall'ytscha) at Gahe Reservoir and plans introduction of a strain Df rainbow trout, which grows r~ip\dly and tokra\cs rd- alively warm water.'"' This is a cl;\ssic eX<llllplc of" two ~;~;I:C, t;lKing dilTncnt appnlaches to 111;1Il;\gell1l~nt of impol!l\ded w;ll,:rs in the same drainage basin. VI. THE CICHLA SCENARIO Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission bioiogists have shown interest in introducing South American fishes of the genus Cich/a as sport species for more than 2 decades. 11\ 1964, without prior experimentation to assess either bcnefiei;d or possible detrimental effects of utilizing these fishes, IO,GOO peacock cichlids (Cich/a ocellaris) were introduced into open waters in Dade County, southeastern Florida, but faikd to survive. In the early 1970s, after the COl11mission cstablished its Non-Native Fish Research LaboratolY in Boca Raton, Cielt!a, imported from Guiana,"'; were held in ponds at that facility. but brought indoors c;lch winter to prevent them fmm heing killed by cold weather. Thcrmaltokrance tests were conducl,~d and peacock cichlids did not survive below I Soc."" In the early I <JHOs. personnel at the IaboralOl'Y again hecame interested in introducing Cie!JIa, and a proposal was developed to release two species, peacock cichlid and speckled pavon (e. lelllensis), also called painted pavon, into canals in southeastern Dade County. Canals into which Cieh/o were to be introduced are dOJllinated by introduced neolropical cicillids a:1(1 Olil~ or two species of Ti/opia. Furthermore, the canals ;:rc cut inti) the lower end of the Biscayne Aquifer, and \vinter temperatures rarely fall to levels lethal to Cich/a, as canals located farther inland are reported to experience. Copies of the proposal to introduce Cich/a in Dade County"" were circulated, perlJ;lj1s selectively, to persons outside the Game and Fresh\\"ater Fis)l Commission for review and comment. \Y c presume the re- sponses were mostly favorable because both eichlids wcrc~ in- troduced into Black Creek and some nearby canals beginning in late 1984. To pique interest of fishermen in these introduc- tions, Commission pcrsonnel have used the names pe;\cock bass for C. ocd/aris and butterfly cichlid for C. fCIl/cl1sis Sport fishing for Cich/a in Dade County is presently discouraged. but restricted to catch-and-release activities and will probably remain so through at least 1989 to allow populalions to in- crease."7 Courtenay and Kohler'" stated that Florida's rro]10~;\1 to introduce Cich/o did not exactly meetlhe Americ!n Fisheries Society's position statement of 1973 on criteria for introducing exotic fishes, but it did undergo some cxtra-agency r,:vic\\ prior to the introduction. It cannot, howevCl", be assumed 10 be an introduction without impacts. One of the assumptions favoring an introduction of a pred- atory cichlid in systems dominated mostly by nonprec!atllrv introduced cichlids is the use of the latter as a ror~:gc h;!Sl~. This is perhaps an incorrect assumption, at least until the Iess- defensive, native forage base has been exh;lllsted. l\ativc cell- tran:hicls, including 1;lrgemoulh has~, occupy thc Sa!llL' can;i!s. 1989 1 G~)