pest species.

[ving]

I dont know how you guys go with controversial topics and if the mods think this is likely to get out of hand in any way, shape or form then just pull it down... or maybe there is a logical answer.

Carp are introduced, few people like them, the govt considers them a pest, the majority fishermen insist that killing any caught is the right thing to do and certainly fine are handed out if you let one go where it wasnt caught. they dig up the banks causing erosion and dig up aquatic plants causing siltation of water systems. native species move on or die off due to this silt or starvation

trout are introduced, everyone loves them, the govt spends millions of dollars putting more in the water systems, they are protected during their spawning season, fishermen worship them (just about) and will return them to the water relatively unharmed... yet they are preditors that will eat any native fish, crustacean or insect small enough to fit in its mouth. studies (mostly ignored) about native galaxias populations show a drop with the introduction of trout.

so it is obvious that both species have negative impacts on the ecosystems they are introduced into, but why is the carp a pest and not the trout? surely its cant all be about money?

debate here

[PRED-ATOR]

Firstly, i am not arguing or trying to get any point across. Simply sharing my opinion based on my knowledge and that of the DPI.

It is evident the trout does not have the same environmental impact as the carp. If it were to have just as detrimental impact, im sure the DPI would consider them a pest.

Im not saying they wouldnt have an impact, as you have pointed them out (feeding on native crustaceans etc.) however; I do not think it is considered a risk at this point.

I had a read of this a few weeks before, you might find it interesting.

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/pests-diseases/freshwater-pests

Cheers,

[PM79]

I'd love to see trout eradicated from Australian waters.

[ving]

the only study i have ever found on the impacts of trout on native species is this one...

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/salmonids.pdf

it seem that now they treated as something greater than native fish species. it would seem to me that more money goes into making sure there are plenty of trout than into saving trout cod. this is of course perceived as i dont know how much money goes into trying to save the trout cod.

[AGP]

Carp will live anywhere and everywhere and tolerate an incredible range of water conditions all the while breeding in huge numbers taking over entire systems. Sure Trout may feed on small native species but Carp are far more destructive and the carp issue is a large one while the Trout issue would be confined to a much smaller amount of waterways. There are large scale efforts in trying to save Trout Cod/Murray Cod including hatchery bred fish reintroduced into the wild and Carp have had a devasting effect on the Murray river. The Trouts impact on Native fish and waterways would be very minor compared to Carp with them being in every state in just about every freshwater (some brackish) waterway. Hopefully one day science will see them extinct from Australia.

[Scratchie]

Are there trout out there? I went chasing them one time recently with two members from this site. We walked over 20kms and threw over 2000 lures. I thought they were just a MYTH.

Cheers scratchie!!!

[Dfishin]

The lakes in the snowy area are stocked with trout. I remember hearing that it is a controlled stocking to provide anglers a place to catch and keep a feed of trout. Also the numbers are monitored and stocking is adjusted each year to control the numbers ie. if the numbers start getting too high the stocking is decreased. I think this is correct but not %100.

Dave

[Jewhunter]

I'll admit to being a bit of a native snob.

I've caught plenty of trout, carp & redfin. They just don't float my boat.

I love chasing bass, barra & greenfish. I reckon they are more fun, but that's just my opinion.

Others love carp & trout. Reddies a top fun on light gear & good eating.

I feel that in general our fresh water fisheries are well managed & many areas have dedicated

local fish stocking groups that actively provide good fisheries for their area.

Cheers,

Grant.

[brettmann86]

Far as I'm concerned trout fall same category as carp, redfin, tilapia and any other introduced species.. They're not native. On some level they're causing damage regardless of minor or major.

[troutboy]

Hi all, trout may be a non native species and were introduced here well over 150yrs ago to satisfy english fishermans love of the species,whether that was the right thing to do or not is sadly out of our hands.Trout fisherman contribute so much money to the economies of local towns that they will never be classed as pest fish . otherwise plenty of shops, accommodation , supplies. bait lures etc would go under virtually overnight.Trout need to be managed appropriately and I for one would be ok with no closed season for trout. My 2 bobs worth ...cheers troutboy

[ving]

AGP, looking at the degrees of damage isnt what its all about either. carp cause a lot of damage so we want the out, trout cause a little so we'll spend up big restocking them.

I have a feeling it is all about money and tourism. i just cant think of a logical reason otherwise. but like troutboy said its probably no longer economically viable to eradicate them. I wonder that if an industry was created on the fishing of carp if they would become protected too.

maybe i should keep quiet about how hard they pull!

Edited August 6, 2013 by ving

[cameldownunder]

Are there trout out there? I went chasing them one time recently with two members from this site. We walked over 20kms and threw over 2000 lures. I thought they were just a MYTH.

Cheers scratchie!!!

Where's the LIKE button ? You made me laugh. Was thinking back at Oberon Dam.

If you really want to know where to find trouts, I have a "secret" spot, just PM me if you want to know. Happy to share with you.

Where I come from the Redfin perch is Indigenous, but still causes massive problems, as it goes after Other fishie's eggs. Some local councils at my home country have removed minumum size of the perch, and putting them back is not prohibited. In my favorite river, there are other species that dominate, because not desired, and when caught, they are put back into the water, while trouts are always kept. And the introduced rainbow trouts (They are from canada, I fI'm correct) are decimating many native species there too.

What I want to say is, that whenever you have human intervention in a system, it ends up screwed. And once out of balance it is really hard to bring back.

But if the carps would be nice eating like the trouts, my guess is that they would be "decimated" real quickly.

Edited August 7, 2013 by cameldownunder

[ving]

very interesting cameldownunder, no how do we make carp eating a delicacy? got any good recipes for mud?

[cameldownunder]

very interesting cameldownunder, no how do we make carp eating a delicacy? got any good recipes for mud?

Apparently you keep them alive, and leave them (alive) in your bathtub for 1 week, for them to "Cleanse". I've hard that then they are a delicacy. I think that's what people in Czech Republic do at christmas time.

[seacow]

I think that the big issue with non-native species is the ability of these fish to become the predominate biomass within a system over a short-medium timeframe. Yes trout do run and spawn however it is the stocking program that keeps the numbers artifically high (or low for those poor souls who can't get a fish at Thommos or Prejar.)

Carp on the other hand have no need for stocking and considering the differences of systems that they can live in, can quickly become the predominate biomass. I read one report that in some sections of the Murray they make up over 80% and rising.

I wonder if anyone has run the numbers to find out whether it was feasible to fish for them commercially as fish food, fertiliser or animal fodder.

[SargeRX8]

Apparently you keep them alive, and leave them (alive) in your bathtub for 1 week, for them to "Cleanse". I've hard that then they are a delicacy. I think that's what people in Czech Republic do at christmas time.

Interesting. I know people who have mentioned stuff like this in the past and apparently it really helps with mud crabs too.

Carp are more expensive per KG to buy in shops that many other fish now. Its quite interesting. I have nothing against either fish. Ive caught carp and its heaps fun. I returned them all back to the water unharmed. Unless the fish is gonna be eaten, I find no reason to kill it and I can't justify killing the fish just because. Humans have a more detrimental effect to the environment than any fish can. Just take the parramatta river for example. Its ruined beyond repair thanks to people flowing industrial waste into the waters. I can't kill a fish just because it tears the bottom. The water is the fishes environment. The land is ours. We've ruined the water for the fish, we've ruined the air for the birds and we've ruined the land for everything else.

[Jewhunter]

very interesting cameldownunder, no how do we make carp eating a delicacy? got any good recipes for mud?

Have a look in 'The Kitchen' forum.

There are a couple of interesting recipes in there.

Cheers,

Grant.

[Saboo]

Two words.......SPOTTED CARP!!

[abecedarian]

I like chasing trout and sometimes even catch one and I think it would be a shame to lose trout as a sports fish in Australia. Which is why I support the stocking programs.

What I don't understand or appreciate is the attitude that some fishos give towards those who choose to keep trout to eat and heaven forbid may not release that 6lb fish. I've come across it before when fishing and I think its crazy that an introduced species be considered so protected by some they are beyond keeping for a feed.

[ving]

I've come across it before when fishing and I think its crazy that an introduced species be considered so protected by some they are beyond keeping for a feed.

that's what I mean, treated better than some natives.

[VBCB]

Interesting things raised here, to come back to the first one, trout should be considered as a pest, even though its impact is not as important.

That said, trout looks good and tastes good, carp looks shit and tastes shit ! haha Pulling your leg ...

I'm coming from a country where carp saved the fishing industry and his from far the biggest economic market full stop, we cannot take that away from that fish. Besides, carp has been the trigger for a massive momentum of catch and release too, and this eventually inspired other fishermen.

I personally hate and always hated fishing for them, most of my friends love it big time, let's say it is a "game fish" for inland people, they are tough buggers especially when then crack the 10 kg, so you can imagine when they are 25 ????

I would not contribute in their invasion and if I was to catch one, I'd leave it to the rats and foxes, also introduced ! Haha Bloody Europeans !

[troutboy]

The reason some people can get a bit upset with large trout being taken for food especially in a river situation is because there might only be a few large breeding fish in a particular section of river,and there removal can cause future fish numbers in that stretch of river to quickly decline.Yes you are legally within your rights to take the fish and no one should cop any flack for doing so ,but in doing so you must realise that the fish is no longer there to be able to produce more fish for the future and be catchable for any other angler. Most trout fisherman will take a pan sized fish for the table or the smoker and release larger trout purely for the pleasure of catching the same fish multiple times throughout the season.In my opinion trout taste like crap and I am only too happy to return fish to the water to be caught again in the future. Some sections of the coxs river are invaded by the kill it and grill it brigade who take more than their limit and render the fishing dead for everyone else by taking everything they catch regardless of size. No one likes to donut ,if everyone took a breeding female every time they went out there would be no fish left in a very short period of time with little chance for recovery. just my 2 bobs worth cheers troutboy

[abecedarian]

Not true, a large trout in a stretch of river will kill the smaller fish in its territory and this reduce the stocks.

I used to fish occasionally with a guy involved with the stocking program of streams around Gyndabyne and later Oberon and every time he caught a big fish he'd keep it. A 6lb trout takes up a lot of space and keeps a lot of fish from living in that area.

The smaller fish breed too, it's not just the large ones...

[troutboy]

Gday abecedarian, I am not quoting facts in my above post, merely some observations i have made over a 5yr period of fishing a particular

river that i have seen go through many extremes in that time.The large and small trout i have seen in this river seem to happily co-exist with each other to the point of smaller unseen trout beating larger targetted trout to the fly on many occasions, or at least they used to.

I spent many days this closed season searching for actively spawning trout (not with a rod ) in the same locations as previous years and although seeing some activity, this years numbers were extremely low , despite prime conditions.This i believe was due in part to a certain magazine article published earlier in the season exposing this particular river and some access points in detail.On subsequent visits the amount of rubbish,bait rigs ,worm containers,broken bottles etc was unbelievable and the fishing suffered accordingly.Obviously many more people were fishing and taking more fish leaving fewer breeding size fish to spawn.

Those fish that i did observe spawning successfully were mostly smaller rainbows of 1 1/2 pounds on average and not the 2 to 5lbs browns this stretch regularly produced in seasons gone by. In the past it was not out of the question to land several fish of this calibre in a trip, but sadly it seems a lot of these larger fish have been removed and it will take quite some time for the remaining smaller fish to attain the same size.This is why i return all my fish to the water, so hopefully i or another catch and release angler has the opportunity to benefit from catching the fish again in the future

Each to their own,I release ,others can legally keep if they choose, neither is right or wrong,but this is what i choose to do as i believe it enhances my chances of catching good sized fish more often. cheers troutboy

[abecedarian]

I release them all because I don't care for them that much on the table, and putting back a big fish unharmed means another person has the opportunity to catch it.

Taking the big ones does reduce the numbers of big fish but trout can grow big pretty fast in the right conditions. Just look at TCD. When it was first open the average sized fish was about 5lb and they'd only been stocking it for a few years.

All I'm saying is the larger fish aren't the only ones breeding and can actually kill a lot of fingerlings released.

The big fish are trophies and I like the idea of them going back to get even bigger, but someone keeping them isn't going to reduce fish stocks, just the number of big fish until the little ones grow up.