|
Boundary Waters Quetico Forum Fishing Forum When is walleye an invasive species? |
Author
Text
07/16/2019 10:48AM (Thread Older Than 3 Years)
This paragraph is from an MPR article: "The DNR often stocks lakes to repair ecosystems after winter kill or over fishing, but Vanderbosch said the bulk of his job involves creating walleye fisheries where they don't naturally exist. Thanks to stocking, most Minnesotans live less than half an hour from a good walleye lake. In all, there are 1,400 walleye-rich lakes in the state, only 270 of which are naturally self-sustaining. The DNR stocks the rest so people can enjoy hauling walleye into their boats."
So, if a walleye is non-native to a particular lake, but native to a region, is it invasive?
Here's the article.
So, if a walleye is non-native to a particular lake, but native to a region, is it invasive?
Here's the article.
I will paddle eternal, Kevlar and carbon.
07/16/2019 11:22AM
Non-native and invasive are not synonymous terms. A species can be non-native to an area but not be an invasive species, that is, a population that reproduces and spreads so rapidly that it displaces native species and alters the species composition of the local ecosystem.
As an example, consider the white pine in Iowa. It is a native species in the northeastern portion of the state. However, it is widely planted as an ornamental species across the state. The species does not become invasive anywhere in the state that it is planted, and in fact, does not reproduce and spread on its own.
Such is often the case with walleye. My parents had a cabin on a lake in western MN, and that lake had no walleye reproduction. It was necessary to stock the lake to support the sport fishery of walleyes in that lake. The walleye were incapable of building a population that would displace other species.
As an example, consider the white pine in Iowa. It is a native species in the northeastern portion of the state. However, it is widely planted as an ornamental species across the state. The species does not become invasive anywhere in the state that it is planted, and in fact, does not reproduce and spread on its own.
Such is often the case with walleye. My parents had a cabin on a lake in western MN, and that lake had no walleye reproduction. It was necessary to stock the lake to support the sport fishery of walleyes in that lake. The walleye were incapable of building a population that would displace other species.
"Said one of these men, long past seventy years of age: 'I could carry, paddle, walk and sing with any man I ever saw. I have been twenty-four years a canoe man, and forty-one years in service; no portage was ever too long for me. Fifty songs could I sing. I have saved the lives of ten voyageurs. Have had twelve wives and six running dogs. I spent all my money in pleasure. Were I young again, I should spend my life the same way over. There is no life so happy as a voyageur's life!'"
07/16/2019 11:31AM
In both biological and political contexts, there is a distinction between "non-native" and "invasive", where not all non-native species are invasive species. To be invasive, something needs to cause or be likely to cause harm to the environment of some kind, by eating, crowding out, starving, or otherwise disrupting some other species or the physical environment around them. As far as I know, walleye haven't met that criteria anywhere, partially as evidenced by the need to *continually* stock them in most places - they have trouble even surviving in their introduced range, much less thriving to the point of harming others.
Now, whether it's good policy to do that anyway can still be up for debate - I'm merely chiming in on the terminology part of the question. :)
Now, whether it's good policy to do that anyway can still be up for debate - I'm merely chiming in on the terminology part of the question. :)
07/16/2019 02:18PM
bobbernumber3: "missmolly: "Two informative answers! Thanks for the education. "
Yes... and I thought by your title that this was the start of a joke thread!"
Not this time, but just you wait!
I will paddle eternal, Kevlar and carbon.
07/16/2019 07:51PM
Walleye are not Invasive. Although they might not be native to that lake, they are probably native to the lake next door. They do not cause harm to nature and that is the deciding factor.
Side note, I just read that a Minnesota scientist just mapped the entire Genome of the invasive Zebra Mussel. I really hope they find a weakness in the reproductive code and eradicate them.
Side note, I just read that a Minnesota scientist just mapped the entire Genome of the invasive Zebra Mussel. I really hope they find a weakness in the reproductive code and eradicate them.
"So many lakes, so little time." WWJD
07/17/2019 06:29AM
Here's a map of the original range of smallmouth bass: MAP
You can see they're a native Minnesota species.
Consider thebotanyguy's point: "A species can be non-native to an area but not be an invasive species, that is, a population that reproduces and spreads so rapidly that it displaces native species and alters the species composition of the local ecosystem."
tonyyarusson addressed this too: "To be invasive, something needs to cause or be likely to cause harm to the environment of some kind, by eating, crowding out, starving, or otherwise disrupting some other species or the physical environment around them."
Do smallmouth do that?
I ran some searches, but couldn't find any studies that answer this. I have been fishing TGO-style many times and caught a smallmouth, then a walleye, then a smallmouth, then a walleye, and on and on, which suggests there are times when they're sharing forage. Bass target crayfish, but walleyes do too. Both eat fish, of course.
The 1000+ Minnesota lakes where walleyes are stocked and not found originally also have walleyes eating fish that the original species, like pike, would eat. There's finite forage.
I fish the boreal forest just north of Quetico and at this site, I read of guys catching many small smallmouth in the BWWCA. If I catch a small smallmouth, it's such a rarity that I'll take a photo of it. They average 17 inches and you'll catch a dozen 18-inches in a day. A lake swarming with small smallmouth wouldn't be nearly as much fun as those 2.5 to 3.0-pound smallmouth, but the size of those BWWCA smallmouth is on the fishers, not the bass.
You can see they're a native Minnesota species.
Consider thebotanyguy's point: "A species can be non-native to an area but not be an invasive species, that is, a population that reproduces and spreads so rapidly that it displaces native species and alters the species composition of the local ecosystem."
tonyyarusson addressed this too: "To be invasive, something needs to cause or be likely to cause harm to the environment of some kind, by eating, crowding out, starving, or otherwise disrupting some other species or the physical environment around them."
Do smallmouth do that?
I ran some searches, but couldn't find any studies that answer this. I have been fishing TGO-style many times and caught a smallmouth, then a walleye, then a smallmouth, then a walleye, and on and on, which suggests there are times when they're sharing forage. Bass target crayfish, but walleyes do too. Both eat fish, of course.
The 1000+ Minnesota lakes where walleyes are stocked and not found originally also have walleyes eating fish that the original species, like pike, would eat. There's finite forage.
I fish the boreal forest just north of Quetico and at this site, I read of guys catching many small smallmouth in the BWWCA. If I catch a small smallmouth, it's such a rarity that I'll take a photo of it. They average 17 inches and you'll catch a dozen 18-inches in a day. A lake swarming with small smallmouth wouldn't be nearly as much fun as those 2.5 to 3.0-pound smallmouth, but the size of those BWWCA smallmouth is on the fishers, not the bass.
I will paddle eternal, Kevlar and carbon.
07/17/2019 09:07AM
ZaraSp00k: "Bushpilot: "Stop this now. It is 2019 and ALL species are welcome. This fish hate has to stop."
but that is a good point, only the mixing of people is good?
the science that proves that please
since this is all so new, we really don't know the final outcome, and keep in mind, invasive species are the result of people movement, the fish didn't fly or swim from Europe, Africa, or wherever to get here, neither did the plants or whatever"
Some good can come from invasion. The alewives that arrived in ballast water and that once died on Lake Michigan's beaches gave birth to a salmon fishing industry, once the salmon were transplanted, employing many and feeding even more. The round goby has produced impressive numbers of five, six, seven, and even eight-pound smallmouth in Lakes Erie and Ontario. If only someone can tweak Asian carp into something useful.
I will paddle eternal, Kevlar and carbon.
07/17/2019 12:31PM
I had read an article a few years back that said that Smallmouth had started to eat Zebra mussels in Lake Michigan. Cant for the life of me remember where I read it. Most of the time mother nature can take care of herself just fine it's us humans that F*** it up.
07/17/2019 01:24PM
missmolly: "This paragraph is from an MPR article: "The DNR often stocks lakes to repair ecosystems after winter kill or over fishing, but Vanderbosch said the bulk of his job involves creating walleye fisheries where they don't naturally exist. Thanks to stocking, most Minnesotans live less than half an hour from a good walleye lake. In all, there are 1,400 walleye-rich lakes in the state, only 270 of which are naturally self-sustaining. The DNR stocks the rest so people can enjoy hauling walleye into their boats."
So, if a walleye is non-native to a particular lake, but native to a region, is it invasive?
Here's the article. "
How many of the 270 naturally self-sustaining lakes are in the BWCA? Like, 250 of them?!?!
"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders."
07/23/2019 11:16AM
Big Moose Lake was once a lake full of large pike-even trophy size. In the early 80s the DNR started stocking it with Walleyes. Years later, no more pike. Also, Ed Shave Lake met the same fate. So in these cases, Walleyes are invasive.
07/23/2019 12:42PM
egknuti: "Big Moose Lake was once a lake full of large pike-even trophy size. In the early 80s the DNR started stocking it with Walleyes. Years later, no more pike. Also, Ed Shave Lake met the same fate. So in these cases, Walleyes are invasive. "
I find it very difficult to believe that stocking walleye eliminated the Pike population. It would be more likely the other way around. Northern Pike feed on Walleye. I do believe the two species co-exist. Many times over the years, I have seen a Pike attack and spook a school of Walleye. In my humble opinion Walleye are never an invasive species, but I can't say that about Smallmouth Bass.
How fish are you deepin!
07/23/2019 05:41PM
bruleman: "egknuti: "Big Moose Lake was once a lake full of large pike-even trophy size. In the early 80s the DNR started stocking it with Walleyes. Years later, no more pike. Also, Ed Shave Lake met the same fate. So in these cases, Walleyes are invasive. "
I find it very difficult to believe that stocking walleye eliminated the Pike population. It would be more likely the other way around. Northern Pike feed on Walleye. I do believe the two species co-exist. Many times over the years, I have seen a Pike attack and spook a school of Walleye. In my humble opinion Walleye are never an invasive species, but I can't say that about Smallmouth Bass."
I must clarify, the pike didn’t totally disappear, but the size did. My family and I fished this lake for many years before and after the introduction of walleye. Dramatic difference in pike size. The same can be said for the small mouth that are in there. Take a look at the lake surveys on Big Moose. I believe the first one was 1986. Look at the walleye and pike. Continue through each survey. What conclusions can be drawn?
07/23/2019 06:27PM
That question can be answered simply by defining the word "invade":
"enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect."
And "invasive":
"(especially of plants or a disease) tending to spread prolifically and undesirably or harmfully."
"enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect."
And "invasive":
"(especially of plants or a disease) tending to spread prolifically and undesirably or harmfully."
07/23/2019 08:09PM
KarlBAndersen1: "That question can be answered simply by defining the word "invade":
"enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect."
And "invasive":
"(especially of plants or a disease) tending to spread prolifically and undesirably or harmfully.""
Based on this definition, I’d say Walleyes in these lakes had an intrusive effect.
Subscribe to Thread
Become a member of the bwca.com community to subscribe to thread and get email updates when new posts are added. Sign up Here