My First Lion Fish Meal

[ggunn]

Undercurrent magazine has a recent article that says it is futile fight.

Of course it's futile if your definition of success is the reversal of the lionfish invasion; I have been saying that all along. There is much of the reef that divers cannot or will not visit where the lionfish are living and breeding. That said, however, the lionfish population in the areas where they are being taken by divers has been significantly reduced, and in those areas the native species have a better chance against them.

 

[mstevens]

Undercurrent magazine has a recent article that says it is futile fight. The article is not on the interwebz, but here is another one from undercurrent:

Is the Lionfish Really a Threat?: Undercurrent 10/2010

Here are a couple of short documentaries on how the lionfish is controlling the population and maintaining a healthy reef, and call for a real study & conservation, instead of mass hysteria.

Lionfish Impact part 1, they are not so evil after all - YouTube

Lionfish Imact, Part II, They are not so evil after all - YouTube

So you provided links to a magazine article and some videos to keep us occupied while you go rustle up some references to studies? Or did you think those are references and the things they referred to are studies? 'Cause they're not.

As others have pointed out, these basically say some version of "there's not much we can do about lionfish" or "lionfish may not be that bad." None says what you claim studies say: that humans hunting lionfish in the caribbean has an adverse effect on reefs.

The dismal misunderstanding so many people have of what a "study" entails, what "research" means, or even what "science" consists of is depressing evidence that America's War on Science (tm) is being won.

 

[DazedAndConfuzed]

So you provided links to a magazine article and some videos to keep us occupied while you go rustle up some references to studies? Or did you think those are references and the things they referred to are studies? 'Cause they're not.

As others have pointed out, these basically say some version of "there's not much we can do about lionfish" or "lionfish may not be that bad." None says what you claim studies say: that humans hunting lionfish in the caribbean has an adverse effect on reefs.

The dismal misunderstanding so many people have of what a "study" entails, what "research" means, or even what "science" consists of is depressing evidence that America's War on Science (tm) is being won.

No, the many articles (including the article on undercurrent's main page says it is futile to try to wipe out the lionfish. But they all say more study are needed, so no need to jump to conclusions and make the the 4l-Q4eda of fish species.

The video is the small scale study done by a scubaboard member, so it is not dug up via google. And his video does show his study indicated that human hunting of lionfish indirectly causes the reef to become less healthy.

 

[ggunn]

The video is the small scale study done by a scubaboard member, so it is not dug up via google. And his video does show his study indicated that human hunting of lionfish indirectly causes the reef to become less healthy.

That "study" is not worth the videotape (if anyone still uses it) it was shot on. It doesn't "show" anything but a few observations by an amateur videographer with an agenda. Is this what passes for science these days?

 

[mstevens]

No, the many articles (including the article on undercurrent's main page says it is futile to try to wipe out the lionfish. But they all say more study are needed, so no need to jump to conclusions and make the the 4l-Q4eda of fish species.

The video is the small scale study done by a scubaboard member, so it is not dug up via google. And his video does show his study indicated that human hunting of lionfish indirectly causes the reef to become less healthy.

You're completely missing the points:

1) None of the things you refer to is even remotely a study. This does not support your assertion that there are many studies that show what you claim.

2) None of the things you refer to supports your claim that hunting lionfish causes harm to reefs. They claim, but in no way provide reliable evidence to support, that doing so is futile. (Mind you, I suspect that claim is likely correct. It's just that these items do nothing to back that up.)

As ggunn suggests, I'm afraid this is often what passes for science these days: a few opinion pieces and anecdotal reports transmogrifying into a claim that "many studies show" this or that. This is most frightening when, in fact, many well-done studies do actually convincingly show something and a few opinion pieces and anecdotal reports are offered as "proof" to refute the scientific evidence.

 

[mstevens]

it is futile to try to wipe out the lionfish.

I tend to agree with that, but none of this directly pertains to the luscious deliciousness of lionfish, which is the original and most important point of this thread.

In order to eat them, they must be caught. They could be caught by trawling with nets (which I suspect almost anyone would agree is disastrous to reefs), line fishing (which cannot eliminate bycatch of scarce species and can foul the reef with line and gear), by spearing, or by waiting for them to leap into a boat spontaneously. Of these, I believe there is sufficient evidence to support that the last is completely implausible and that of the plausible ones spearing is the safest for the reef irrespective of which species is being caught.

Then there's the question of which fish. Are you suggesting that catching lionfish that have no natural place on a caribbean reef is, somehow, more harmful to the reef than catching snapper or grouper that do naturally belong there and have an established place in reef ecology?

There's the additional issue of prevalence. Lionfish are increasingly plentiful while other tasty reef fish are increasingly scarce. Are you claiming that it's somehow better for the reef if we avoid molesting the dime-a-dozen species while targeting the less common ones?

We have an unusual opportunity with lionfish. It's delicious and has characteristics that are highly appealing to the mass-market. Similar characteristics have led to significant depletion of other species. Efforts have been underway for some time to limit or end consumption of those species and to find commercially acceptable replacements, with very little success.

If the challenges in commercializing lionfish (including some method of catching commercial quantities and the presence of nasty, poky spines) could be overcome, that could help significantly with those efforts, avoid the ecological problems inherent in fish farming, and provide livelihoods for fishing families, seafood processors and packers, restaurants, and so on. To me, that seems win-win for both people and reef denizens, as long as you're not a lionfish. Since I don't think of lionfish as appropriate dwellers on caribbean reefs, I'm no more worried about any putative harm to that population than I would be about hurting the cobra population of Central Park.

Or are you simply opposed to eating fish at all and using the lionfish as a proxy for that more general position?

 

[tridacna]

Is the Lionfish Really a Threat?: Undercurrent 10/2010

Undercurrent? A looney posts a video on Youtube. Are you serious? These are your references? LOL. What a joke. Only an utter fool would believe that rubbish. Following your logic, we would all be creationists too. Lots of videos to support that I suppose.

 

[DazedAndConfuzed]

Undercurrent? A looney posts a video on Youtube. Are you serious? These are your references? LOL. What a joke. Only an utter fool would believe that rubbish. Following your logic, we would all be creationists too. Lots of videos to support that I suppose.

This isn't a loony video that doesn't prove anything. It is actual observational evidence by fellow DM and scubaboard member, whom discussed these issues at length. You can go call his videos rubbish yourself.

The point is that extensive studies on lionfish's affect on the reef is very rare, but eveyrbody seem to have jumped the gun and decided they must be wiped out at all cost.

Then there's the question of which fish. Are you suggesting that catching lionfish that have no natural place on a caribbean reef is, somehow, more harmful to the reef than catching snapper or grouper that do naturally belong there and have an established place in reef ecology?

There's the additional issue of prevalence. Lionfish are increasingly plentiful while other tasty reef fish are increasingly scarce. Are you claiming that it's somehow better for the reef if we avoid molesting the dime-a-dozen species while targeting the less common ones?

We have an unusual opportunity with lionfish. It's delicious and has characteristics that are highly appealing to the mass-market. Similar characteristics have led to significant depletion of other species. Efforts have been underway for some time to limit or end consumption of those species and to find commercially acceptable replacements, with very little success.

If the challenges in commercializing lionfish (including some method of catching commercial quantities and the presence of nasty, poky spines) could be overcome, that could help significantly with those efforts, avoid the ecological problems inherent in fish farming, and provide livelihoods for fishing families, seafood processors and packers, restaurants, and so on. To me, that seems win-win for both people and reef denizens, as long as you're not a lionfish. Since I don't think of lionfish as appropriate dwellers on caribbean reefs, I'm no more worried about any putative harm to that population than I would be about hurting the cobra population of Central Park.

Or are you simply opposed to eating fish at all and using the lionfish as a proxy for that more general position?

Lionfish will never be prevalent since they themselves are territorial and compete with each other so you wont be seeing a reef with nothing but lionfish.

I don't recommend we go eating other reef fish instead of lionfish. The reason lionfish are able to proliferate is because we have wiped out all the groupers and other top predator fish that would have kept lionfish in check. It cannot always be about which should we wipe out instead.

Currently, lionfish cultivating is unfeasible, given that it is almost scattered scarcely throughout the reef and requires a bit of searching for them before spearing them. If a market is created for them, who know what industrial fishing boats will do in order to catch them. They could go to unprotected reef all over the place and trawl the reefs flat for the few lionfish that might be there. You can see it happening with the Patagonian toothfish. You can also see that in fish markets where fish prices gets cheaper and cheaper, then all of a sudden, that fish is not in the market anymore because it has been fished out.

 

[ggunn]

Ah, well, let's cut to the chase, shall we? What agenda are you pushing? That we leave the lionfish on the reefs in Cozumel alone? It ain't gonna happen. We (most of us, anyway) don't agree with your premise or your "evidence" and neither do the authorities on Cozumel.

 

[mstevens]

It is actual observational evidence

That's what scientists call "an anecdote". Every other type of evidence is ranked as more compelling. Anecdotes, for example, include Elvis and yeti sightings, homeopathic cures, seeing people levitated and sawed in half, and my uncle making a quarter appear out of thin air from behind my ear.

...many studies...

...extensive studies on lionfish's affect on the reef is very rare

Which is it?

Lionfish will never be prevalent since they themselves are territorial and compete with each other so you wont be seeing a reef with nothing but lionfish.

Here's where you demonstrate that you are either trolling or hopelessly, irreparably ignorant. Prevalent means "quite common". Lionfish are, in actual fact, extremely common in many places. Prevalent does not mean "the only thing present", but there are places in Cozumel where they come close at times. It's entirely possible for a competitive, territorial animal to be the only type present.

The reason lionfish are able to proliferate is because we have wiped out all the groupers and other top predator fish that would have kept lionfish in check.

No, it's because the lionfish about which we are speaking have never before in the history of the planet lived in the caribbean, so they have no natural predators there. Attempts to teach local groupers and sharks to eat lionfish have failed miserably thus far.

You can see it happening with the Patagonian toothfish.

Patagonian toothfish do not live on reefs, so nobody's trawling a reef to get them. It is, though, a great example of a species that's been wildly overfished and needs a break. Let's replace it with lionfish.

You can also see that in fish markets where fish prices gets cheaper and cheaper, then all of a sudden, that fish is not in the market anymore because it has been fished out.

This is, of course, exactly what many posters in this thread would like to see happen with the lionfish.