Invasive fish (northern pike) threatens Maine lakes. Huh?

[Glenn MacGrady]

“'It was very common to get a 5-pound salmon out of Long,” said Jason Seiders, a fisheries biologist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. “If you lived in the Augusta area, you didn’t have to go all the way to Rangeley to go catch a nice salmon.'

"But the number of salmon has plummeted in the Belgrade Lakes over the past 40 years. And the trend is spreading across Maine.

"The illegal introduction of invasive species, especially northern pike, has transformed Long Pond. Anglers can catch huge pike there now, but the salmon are long gone."

Invasive fish that took over lakes now threatens the rest of Maine

All it takes is one person dumping a few northern pike into a body of water to change a Maine fishery forever.

www.bangordailynews.com

I can understand the harmful characteristics of "invasive" fauna and flora in extreme cases, but in many cases I don't quite get it. I mean, the species that is "invasive" in Place 1 is "native" in Place 2, and the folks in Place 2 are probably usually perfectly content with that plant or animal.

Relatedly, I often don't understand why some plants are desirable and others are "weeds." For example, I like the dandelions on my property for a week or two. To me, they are just as pretty as many other wild flowers. I've also planted lots of non-native trees on my property, which I find more interesting and aesthetic than the ubiquitous native ones.

Presumably, there are fisherman in many places who like fishing for (and maybe eating) northern pike. So, what's so evil, other than personal fish preferences, if they displace salmon in some lakes in Maine? Or vice versa?

I'm not a fisherman, fish eater, biologist or ecologist, but maybe some of you can discuss in an educational way the specifics of pike vs. salmon, or the more general issue of why an "invasive" species is worse than a "native" species.

 

[yellowcanoe]

Because it competes with salmon and crowds out even the unwanted lake trout
The salmon fishery is very prized and my town claims to be home to the landlocked salmon
Of course this is maintained at considerable state expense and maintained only by stocking .
It was bad enough when togue showed up as they compete for salmon . The purpose of midwinter fishing derbies was to reduce the population of togue
Then around here someone threw in a pike some ten years ago and now anyone can catch any size pike and never ever release it
You must kill it.

 

[Alan Gage]

Native ecosystems evolved over thousands and thousands of years with some being more fragile than others. The introduction or removal of one or two key species can be devastating to that ecosystem.

Most of us like and appreciate diversity in nature so it's sad when those special ecosystems are lost because they'll probably never come back. Sometimes it's something as small as one watershed containing or not containing a certain species of fish because of the way the water flows and the land was formed. This can result in something uniquely different that can quickly be destroyed and become the same as everything else if that species is then introduced.

Invasive species, even if attractive to us, are generally invasive because they don't play well with the rest of the ecosystem. They often don't provide a good food source for native insects/animals and are resistant to the diseases that keep the native population in check. This allows them to run rampant and crowd out the natives that made up the ecosystem that's fighting to survive.

Personally I do what I can to take care of the natives. Most of them need all the help they can get and go completely unnoticed because they're small, not showy, and are not common. But they can have a huge impact on all the other small, not showy, uncommon flora and fauna in the same ecosystem.

Alan

 

[memaquay]

As a newly minted science teacher (God help the children), I have spent a fair amount of time teaching about invasive species. They are not always horrible, but for all the reasons Alan stated above (nice job Alan, A+), they are mostly always horrible.

Keep in mind that I love all my American friends, but when it comes to pike........

All of the Americans that I meet up here during the spring and summer, and there are many, are all pike fanatics. They are fanatical in the religious sense, when they see a group of us camped on Burrows lake, they always stop by and innocently ask if we would mind if they have a fish fry, but in reality they are on a fish conversion mission. Of course we accommodate, and ply them with the wonderful waters of Bud Lite (well, maybe not this year, seems like it's quite a trigger in the lower 49). After the suds loosens their tongues up a bit, they almost always try to get us to eat a plate of fish, and tell them which one is pike or walleye. They make bets that we won't be able to tell.

Being Canadian, we are too polite to tell them when we eat a piece of one of those slimy b*st*rds, so we just excuse ourselves for a minute and spit it out. We then say "well, that was a wonderful feed of waaaall-eye, surely there was no pike in there" and they laugh heartly and tell us we just ate a piece.

This is when the tequila comes out, to toast our new found friends, but in reality, I despise tequila and would rather get a mouth full of syphoned gas from a rotten rubber hose, but it cuts the taste of the snake meat pretty well. They usually depart after the tequila, no harm done, everyone is happy. In fact, I would like to give them a medal for destroying as many of those axe handle slimers as possible, every pike down helps out the walleye.

As far is Maine is concerned, I would be very upset by a pike invasion. We had a summer camp only a few miles from the St. Stephen border into Maine, and it had landlocked salmon in the lake. A landlocked salmon is a thing of beauty, and has a fairly fragile existence that can be terminated quickly in lakes. I have eaten many landlocked salmon, and never once spit a piece out. In fact, I always ask for more.

The new found giant pike fishery will soon diminish in those lakes to a bunch of cannibalistic skinny slimy snake sized basturds, once they are done gorging on the salmon and any other members of the Salmonidae family, they will only have each other to eat. They will over-populate the lake and turn it into a pike only lake. We have hundreds of those up here.

I apologize if I have offended any of my American chums, and I know some of you have come to appreciate the Canadian preference for "any type of fish other than pike", but each to their own, live and let live.

(PS - it was probably a pissed off New Brunswicker who dumped the pike in the lake, probably got done by border security when he was trying to get his weekend liquor on the other side, and they made him pay full)

 

[tketcham]

...the more general issue of why an "invasive" species is worse than a "native" species.

Introduced species, especially aggressive flora, e.g., knotweed, and aggressive fauna, e.g., northern pike, are steadily destroying the ecological balance of countless streams and water bodies and the riparian and wetlands associated with them as well as a staggering number of terrestrial ecosystems. To get a sense of why it's important for us to repair and maintain natural ecosystems, read Douglas Tallamy's book "Nature's Best Hope". It can be overwhelming to think of what we've done to the earth, but he puts it in perspective and gives us hope that we can ALL be part of the solution in our own small way.

Here's a link to one of his presentations that's worth watching if you're interested in better understanding why it's so important for us to pay attention to the problem of introduced species. (Skip to ~11:00 for the beginning of his presentation.)

 

[yellowcanoe]

Mem. your tale reinforces the Am idea that bigger is better. If its a bigger fish it's gotta be better.
But I don't think it was a fella from NB
Probably from Mass
I'll be polite here and not use that nickname

 

[alsg]

I believe it was a Canadian that released Muskies into the St. John. The only thing stopping them from destroying what's left of the Allagash trout fishery is Allagash Falls. Never tried Pike or Muskie.

 

[Gamma1214]

For some unknown reason, the PA Fish Commission seems to love stocking toothy species in the lakes here. As far as I'm concerned Muskie, Northern Pike & Chain Pickerel should all be thrown into the weeds to feed coons & bears. (Carp too while we're at it although they are fun to shoot with a bow)

 

[VernAK]

Memaquay and Gamma have summed up my thoughts beyond my capability. If you can find those slimy buggers spawning in a creek, a 22LR does wonders on em. Pike lovers moved pike to the south side of the Alaska range into our best salmon areas including a few lakes of the Kenai River system. AND NO we don't need whitetail deer in Alaska.

 

[Robin]

I think it would be a shame if pike were introduced to lakes that hold salmon and trout here in Maine. There are some lakes here in Maine that are loaded with Pickerel (a smaller cousin to the pike) that I wouldn't mind if they became pike lakes, but of course, those decisions are better left to those who are in the know.

I always enjoyed catching pike as a kid in Ontario, when my wife and I returned with our kids, catching pike and pike fish fries were great family events. I'd rather eat walleye, but I have no problem eating pike, especially from those clear cold Canadian lakes.

 

[ppine]

Alan Gage has done a good job of laying out why introduced fish species create problems. There is no more problematic exotic species than northern pike. They are extremely pescatorious, in other words they eat other fish. They are freshwater sharks and prey on the native fish species.

I have caught em in the BWCA where they are native. A northern pike is the only freshwater fish I have ever caught the size of my leg. It is the only fish I have ever been afraid of. They are fine to eat once you figure out the Y shaped bones. Very exciting to fish for them in dim light when they come out of the shadows to hit surface lures.

Pike have been introduced into one of California's best trout lakes twice. Davis Lake grows big trout. Pike found in the lake where feared to possibly make their way into the Sacramento River system which has a major king salmon fishery. CA Fish and Game decided to use Rotenone and extinguish the fishery. It happened twice. And there was great resistance to the idea, since the lake is used for local water supply. Currently the lake has returned to its glorious state of growing large rainbow trout. There are no northern pike around.

Rotenone has been shown to be effective in killing fish, but has a short residence time in lakes and degrades quickly.

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

I'm not convinced.

First, let's assume a lake that has only salmon and a lake that has only pike. Which is better? Isn't the answer simply a matter of taste, or money, or sporting fun?

Mem humorously points out a literal "taste" issue: Salmon is more edible than pike. I'm not a fish eater, but that seems true to me. All my life I've seen salmon on menus and in markets, but doubt I've ever seen northern pike. So, more people would rather have a salmon lake than a pike lake because they'd rather eat salmon.

Which brings up money. I'm sure commercial fishermen and markets can make more money selling salmon than pike, so of course they would prefer salmon lakes. From what I read, salmon are "artificially" introduced into waters, including Maine's, for this very commercial purpose.

Finally, which is more fun fun to catch, salmon or pike? Here the story changes over time and age. As the article linked in the OP discusses, it is the sport fishermen themselves who are introducing the pike because it's more fun to catch big fish than small fish:

"Anglers who are in their 20s and 30s never saw salmon in the Belgrades or had an opportunity to catch them, he said.

“'[They] don’t know what it was like. Pike are the best thing since sliced bread, because they get huge,' Davis said. 'A lot of people don’t care what the fish is, they just want a big fish.'"

Black bass were not native to Maine either. They were introduced about 100 years ago and now are extremely popular, the article goes on:

"Black bass, smallmouth and largemouth, have been in Maine for more than a century. They were introduced, both legally by fisheries managers and illegally by anglers, into numerous Maine waters.

"Over time, bass have achieved popularity among sport anglers, which led to more illegal introductions. Smallmouth bass and largemouth bass ranked second and third, respectively, in angler popularity, according to a 2016 study conducted by the state."

Maine artificially stocks waterbodies with bass, trout, salmon and probably other things in a bureaucratic effort to balance the supposed piscatorial tastes of various interest groups. So do governments all over the world, for all I know. They do the same with animals, vegetation and even forest fires (either extinguishing them or starting them, according to the taste or supposed science du jour). I don't trust government bureaucrats or their supposed understanding of "science." All sciences are only dimly understood at any given point of time, and most scientific hypotheses du jour are, historically, usually refuted by later empiricism.

I believe Gaia can adjust itself to just about any sort of imbalance, but that means Gaia will look differently as to animals, plants and geology over the long run.

Now, if an organism like a pike is such a voracious apex predator that it would literally eat every other fish and faunal life in the lake, then that might be an objective evil to avoid. But that also leads to a Darwinian paradox: How could the species survive if it can only eat itself? Surely, pikes must coexist with other fish species in many places. Stated differently, all waters can't be either all-pike or no-pike.

Can't we all just get along? Fish or humans. Kumbaya.

I've enjoyed the discussion so far, but just want to stir the lake a bit more to be a devil-pike's advocate.

 

[Gamma1214]

A lot of people don’t care what the fish is, they just want a big fish

It's really not hard to catch pike as they are voracious eaters and, yes, they can do a lot of damage to trout, bass and other game fish populations. They're basically just slimy eating machines that will strike hard at any flashy (especially white) object that one drags through the water. Yes, like Muskie, they get quite large but I know very few people who care to eat them so they almost all get released so they can eat more, get even larger and, someday, make some dolt feel he did something special by catching a swimming trash can.

IMO these are probably the same people who, with their 10 second attention spans & need for constant action would rather watch some washed-up corner outfielder who can no longer field his position bat for the pitcher and have now made MLB a little less worth watching.

(there: lake stirred... you're welcome).

 

[yellowcanoe]

Biodiversity is good.. Pike eat everything! I have had one bite a trailing painter line.. Almost knocked me out of the boat.

Small mouth bass are another threat to salmon but probably inevitable with warming waters. You can blame Bass Masters.. when they have tournaments I think they illegally stock

here is what the State does

https://www.maine.gov/ifw/docs/current_stocking_report.pdf

 

[Boreal Birch]

yellow canoe……
That is a a lot of brook trout.
The prettiest fish in the world in my opinion. Even prettier when all dressed up for their annual autumn extravaganza.
……B. Birchy

 

[Alan Gage]

I can agree with Glenn to an extent. What makes one artificial ecosystem better than another? Why salmon over bass? Why bass over pike? Why "gamefish" over non-gamefish? In the end it probably all comes down to money. If the people want (to pay for) salmon then give them salmon. If, 10 years from now, people want (to pay more for) bass than give them bass. If the fishery/forest is created and destroyed at will then I don't have as much remorse over its loss.

Up to my early 20's I was a hardcore fisherman and my ideas of how a fishery should be handled are radically different than the ideas I have now. Who's to say which is better or correct? Maybe neither of them are. I do know that when I was 18 I wouldn't have been able to comprehend the reasons behind the opinions I have now, which, as with most things, seems to be why people butt heads.

Alan

 

[DougK]

in reality, I despise tequila and would rather get a mouth full of syphoned gas from a rotten rubber hose, but it cuts the taste of the snake meat pretty well.

great, now there's coffee all over my screen.. ;-)

The new found giant pike fishery will soon diminish in those lakes to a bunch of cannibalistic skinny slimy snake sized basturds, once they are done gorging on the salmon and any other members of the Salmonidae family, they will only have each other to eat. They will over-populate the lake and turn it into a pike only lake.

that's the bottom line on introduced/non-native species. The long-established balance of the ecosystem is overwhelmed and descends into chaos, with all kinds of unpredictable effects, most of them undesirable.

 

[yellowcanoe]

page 16 handbook for courtesy boat inspectors.. ( I am in training)

https://mainelakes.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023-CBI-Handbook-Final.pdf

the handbook may be of interest overall as it discusses ID of invasive plants

 

[Mason]

I'm not convinced.

First, let's assume a lake that has only salmon and a lake that has only pike. Which is better? Isn't the answer simply a matter of taste, or money, or sporting fun?

Mem humorously points out a literal "taste" issue: Salmon is more edible than pike. I'm not a fish eater, but that seems true to me. All my life I've seen salmon on menus and in markets, but doubt I've ever seen northern pike. So, more people would rather have a salmon lake than a pike lake because they'd rather eat salmon.

Which brings up money. I'm sure commercial fishermen and markets can make more money selling salmon than pike, so of course they would prefer salmon lakes. From what I read, salmon are "artificially" introduced into waters, including Maine's, for this very commercial purpose.

Finally, which is more fun fun to catch, salmon or pike? Here the story changes over time and age. As the article linked in the OP discusses, it is the sport fishermen themselves who are introducing the pike because it's more fun to catch big fish than small fish:

"Anglers who are in their 20s and 30s never saw salmon in the Belgrades or had an opportunity to catch them, he said.

“'[They] don’t know what it was like. Pike are the best thing since sliced bread, because they get huge,' Davis said. 'A lot of people don’t care what the fish is, they just want a big fish.'"

Black bass were not native to Maine either. They were introduced about 100 years ago and now are extremely popular, the article goes on:

"Black bass, smallmouth and largemouth, have been in Maine for more than a century. They were introduced, both legally by fisheries managers and illegally by anglers, into numerous Maine waters.

"Over time, bass have achieved popularity among sport anglers, which led to more illegal introductions. Smallmouth bass and largemouth bass ranked second and third, respectively, in angler popularity, according to a 2016 study conducted by the state."

Maine artificially stocks waterbodies with bass, trout, salmon and probably other things in a bureaucratic effort to balance the supposed piscatorial tastes of various interest groups. So do governments all over the world, for all I know. They do the same with animals, vegetation and even forest fires (either extinguishing them or starting them, according to the taste or supposed science du jour). I don't trust government bureaucrats or their supposed understanding of "science." All sciences are only dimly understood at any given point of time, and most scientific hypotheses du jour are, historically, usually refuted by later empiricism.

I believe Gaia can adjust itself to just about any sort of imbalance, but that means Gaia will look differently as to animals, plants and geology over the long run.

Now, if an organism like a pike is such a voracious apex predator that it would literally eat every other fish and faunal life in the lake, then that might be an objective evil to avoid. But that also leads to a Darwinian paradox: How could the species survive if it can only eat itself? Surely, pikes must coexist with other fish species in many places. Stated differently, all waters can't be either all-pike or no-pike.

Can't we all just get along? Fish or humans. Kumbaya.

I've enjoyed the discussion so far, but just want to stir the lake a bit more to be a devil-pike's advocate.

Glenn, you're presenting a very anthropocentric position. "If people want it, why not?" Well, there are a lot of other things going on besides what tastes better, which science, in a very evolutionary method (meaning science itself evolves), elucidates as investigations go forward. At no point does any scientist believe they have THE answer, rather they find a bit more information which better guides further investigations, as well as management scenarios (commonly put in place by the "government bureaucrats"). Hopefully the decisions are made with the best scientific information available, of course tweaked by socioeconomic/political issues.

But back to anthropocentrism. Wildlife management (ironically, fisheries are usually treated as something different, but I'd posit along the same vein of thought) comes down to a philosophy whereby natural processes have an intrinsic value, e.g. biodiversity, the avoidance of native species extirpation (species conservation), the effective function of an ecosystem, are all things to strive for, perhaps at the expense of human enjoyment. Predator control, whether wolves or coyotes, is usually used to increase ungulate populations (deer, elk, moose, caribou) for people to harvest, and so represents an anthropocentric management program. Predator reintroductions represent the opposite--an effort to increase biodiversity, contribute to species conservation, potentially reduce unsustainable ungulate populations, etc. etc. Research provides the information that might predict the consequences of whatever management program you consider--personal philosophy directs the weighting of the competing values--sustainable ecosystem vs better tasting fish.

"I believe Gaia can adjust itself to just about any sort of imbalance, but that means Gaia will look differently as to animals, plants and geology over the long run." Sure, the world will adapt if we do nothing. But we might not like the results, and non-humans will pay a greater price than us. Do you have good recipes for Quagga or zebra mussels? Snakeheads? Have you ever fed cheat grass to cattle? The list goes on and on.

 

[recped]

Ash is a popular wood in canoe world for gunnels, thwarts etc. Due to an invasive species (Emerald Ash Borer) the only ash you will find in 20 years will be private stashes, there will be no more ash trees in most of the US/Canada, they will follow the path of the elm which pretty much no longer exists naturally in Canada due to Dutch Elm Disease (a fungus from Europe spread by beetles from Asia).

If Asian Carp make it through the Chicago Canal into the great lakes you can kiss the great lakes fishery goodbye.