Dr. Brett Johnson, Professor
Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology
Colorado State University
As I see it, there are three reasons that can explain the apparent lack of effort that agencies are devoting to the problem of illegal stocking of aquatic organisms:
- They don’t see illegal stocking as a serious problem compared to other environmental issues of our time.
It is surprising to me that the penalty for illegally stocking fish in many jurisdictions (<$100; Johnson et al. 2009) is less than the fine can be for littering.
This suggests that regulatory agencies are not as concerned about deterring an action that can wreak havoc on entire ecosystems as others are about the appearance of our highways. Or, agencies simply refuse to acknowledge that illegal stocking is a very widespread phenomenon.
For example, Kerr et al. (2005) evaluated eight pathways of invasion by aquatic species into Ontario. They minimized the importance of illegal stocking, stating:
“In some cases, private individuals have illegally moved fishes from one water to another to create a new fishery or enhance the forage base. These are usually isolated occurrences which are difficult to prevent.”
Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case as Vander Zanden et al. (2004) reported: (more…)
Jean R S Vitule, Carolina A Freire and Daniel Simberloff
Certainly, not all fish introductions have catastrophic consequences, but many do. Knowledge about problems that may arise from biological invasions into aquatic systems is growing rapidly, but invasion biology is still a new science. However, we can expect to understand older impacts and to detect new ones in the near future. Still, aside from the potential ecological problems (and the many that have already been demonstrated) that occur in the short-term, we may be causing changes that will be perceived only in the longterm (for instance, in evolutionary time), at a global scale (see Rahel 2000). As these consequences are still largely unpredictable, a precautionary approach is the best option. (more…)
Polluter Pays
By Dr Jim Cambray (March 23, 2009)
When most people see the phrase “Polluter Pays” we think of industries pumping toxic chemicals into aquatic ecosystems. We must revisit this impression. Many toxic spills (but not all) are once off leaks caused by poor management or equipment failure. If the toxic waste gets into a river system it may be flushed along the system killing aquatic organisms until it is diluted enough to not be lethal to living organisms. This is quite easy to comprehend and yes the polluter must pay and due to the nature of the spill its chemical makeup can be traced back to a specific source. (more…)
