Lionfish In The Bahamas

[archman]

Ok, I found the quote I was thinking of. Not quite the same as what I previously posted, but similar.
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/brochures/invasive/ansprimer.html

Thank you. I can now direct my ridicule towards NOAA and their "general rules of thumb".

Don't listen to them. Here's my general rule of thumb.
"If you spot a plant or animal that's WAY outside it's distribution range, remove it!"


Kill the lionfish!

 

[Hank49]

Thank you. I can now direct my ridicule towards NOAA and their "general rules of thumb".

Don't listen to them. Here's my general rule of thumb.
"If you spot a plant or animal that's WAY outside it's distribution range, remove it!"


Kill the lionfish!

Whoa....is this the Archman? or an invader into his computer? There is, and has historically been unusual, natural migration of species across the globe. Fish crossed the Eastern Pacific Barrier by hitch hiking on a floating rubbish pile or whatever from the Western Pacific. It does happen so I've been told. How do you know this isn't a hitch hiker (well maybe a lionfish isn't)?

 

[archman]

There is, and has historically been unusual, natural migration of species across the globe. Fish crossed the Eastern Pacific Barrier by hitch hiking on a floating rubbish pile or whatever from the Western Pacific. It does happen so I've been told. How do you know this isn't a hitch hiker (well maybe a lionfish isn't)?

Natural migration is fine and dandy, but it takes a backseat to habitat preservation.

Typically, there is a two-step process when exotic species are reported.
1. Biologists stick thumbs up butts and take measurements.
2. Exotic species either dies naturally or becomes entrenched.

The potential catastrophic pitfalls of this practice are slowly being realized. A few offices (i.e. FKNMS) actually take aggressive action, and can be effective. I like these people, and work with them whenever possible.

Modern conservation practices don't have the luxury of giving the benefit of the doubt to invading species. The primary objective is to preserve what we've got. Vector agent aside, an invasive species is an ecological intruder. There's enough unnatural invasives entering our habitats to make up for the natural ones 10 times over. There's little point separating the two vectors apart, as they both deliver intruders, capable of causing no damage, or a huge heap of it.

It comes down to funding and personnel. If a management area has sufficient staff to either study 5 invasives, vs. work on eradicating 1 or 2 of the species, the obvious conservationist move is to go with the latter approach. Most biologists are smart enough to quickly prioritize which species to focus on. They just need the go-ahead to start pruning. Red tape and chicken-poo managers usually stall them.

 

[Hank49]

Natural migration is fine and dandy, but it takes a backseat to habitat preservation.

Typically, there is a two-step process when exotic species are reported.
1. Biologists stick thumbs up butts and take measurements.
2. Exotic species either dies naturally or becomes entrenched.

The potential catastrophic pitfalls of this practice are slowly being realized. A few offices (i.e. FKNMS) actually take aggressive action, and can be effective. I like these people, and work with them whenever possible.

Modern conservation practices don't have the luxury of giving the benefit of the doubt to invading species. The primary objective is to preserve what we've got. Vector agent aside, an invasive species is an ecological intruder. There's enough unnatural invasives entering our habitats to make up for the natural ones 10 times over. There's little point separating the two vectors apart, as they both deliver intruders, capable of causing no damage, or a huge heap of it.

It comes down to funding and personnel. If a management area has sufficient staff to either study 5 invasives, vs. work on eradicating 1 or 2 of the species, the obvious conservationist move is to go with the latter approach. Most biologists are smart enough to quickly prioritize which species to focus on. They just need the go-ahead to start pruning. Red tape and chicken-poo managers usually stall them.

But throughout the history of the Earth, there have been changovers in predominant species within any given marine or terrestrial habitat. This may be due to climate changes, birds flying off course during migration, coyotes swimming the Mississippe to get at the newly sprouted deer populations in the Eastern US...it goes on and on. Obviuosly if you find a kangaroo in Wyoming it's an obvious case of an escapee. But where do you draw the line? There is a huge gray area in which it would be hard to determine an "unatural" exotic introduction, vs natural. And then man is doing exactly what he is condemning. Toying with the natural trends in nature that would happen even if man were not on the planet in order to "preserve nature"?????

 

[idocsteve]

Here's a picture of the Lionfish that resides inside the Bond wreck off Providence Island in the Bahamas.

 

[Hank49]

Here's a picture of the Lionfish that resides inside the Bond wreck off Providence Island in the Bahamas.

That's a different species than the one in the first post.

 

[veggiedog]

What we've got is lionfish outside of their native habitat. If you mean we should go back to what we had, I'm all for that. We should kill off all species that aren't native to this area and that were introduced by humans. Maybe back to 1400 or so.

P.S. I am actually for controlling the influence of humans on the environment, I just felt like pointing out the problem is much more systemic, and it is not going away.

 

[archman]

But where do you draw the line? There is a huge gray area in which it would be hard to determine an "unatural" exotic introduction, vs natural.

Hence, it's more effective to not draw a line at all. If it's a newcomer, it needs to go. Natural or unnaturally-derived, it doesn't make much difference in the grand scheme. Only on evolutionary time scales may it conceivably matter, and even then, it probably still won't matter if the vector is natural or unnatural. Resource managers have concerns on much more immediate time scales.

Toying with the natural trends in nature that would happen even if man were not on the planet in order to "preserve nature"?????

Yes. That is exactly it. We are safeguarding our remaining ecosystems by helping to retain their present community structure. Invasive species can tamper with community structure. That's a no-no.

Natural immigration processes of the "true" invasive sort (biome or gamma-scale level, vs. beta-scale) are quite rare. The cost/benefit tradeoff of spending the time to figure out what is natural vs. unnatural intrusion is simply not worth it, when one considers just how thin on the ground our funding and personnel are. There are also cases where ecologies are so damaged already, that ANY outside perturbation (natural or unnatural) is quite bad. I volunteer my services at one such "critical habitat" in Texas. We're trying to restore a habitat to what we *think* it once looked like. Contemporary wildlife managers for land-based systems are fully aware of this need to keep the status quo, as evidenced by their much more advanced management techniques. Marine-based resource management is pitifully embryonic in comparison.

The very best technique known for habitat management is to leave the area alone. Sometimes in order to make this happen, we have to help with "border security". If it were possible to easily filter out natural vs. unnatural immigrants, we could be more flexible. But there is no such easy way, and unnatural immigration is altering ecosystems across the planet at a nightmare pace. Taking this last factor alone into consideration, the solution is clear. Allow no invasive species. Pull thumbs out of butts.

Kill the lionfish!

 

[Hank49]

Archman, I really respect your knowledge and willingness to share it. This is kind of radical to me. Come on down to Belize and I'll take you diving for 3 or 4 days and we can really discuss it. Are all science teachers in the US today as.....uhhhh...crazy as you? (just kidding amigo....except the diving part) Hank

 

[archman]

Are all science teachers in the US today as.....uhhhh...crazy as you?

I don't like to show away; my "science teaching" is actually college level biology, and it's part-time while I finish up the PhD. in marine ecology. That's where all the fancy lingo comes from. The "craziness" is a personality flaw. Most other U.S. educators are far more respectable, albeit duller. Ha, I've got two of them registered in my spring class. Boy, are they in for it.

If I ever drop down into Belize, I'll look you up. I've been meaning to get down there, but I always end up north of Cuba. I hear the reefs are much nicer in Belize.

Lord, I hate exotic species...

Hey did somebody say that there was another species of lionfish sighted in one of the posts? Dangit, there's more than ONE kind of these bloody things?