Florida Bans Lionfish

I will postulate that scientists really don't KNOW how long the changes took in the past. They will proclaim theories, but it seems that nearly everything about the past is measured by the yardstick of observable changes happening today. In other words, if a beach is eroding at a tenth of an inch today, then evidence of a beach having eroded in the past is merely extrapolated out using that same formula. It PRESUMES no other changes have taken place compared to what is happening right now. Catastrophic changes to the earth appear to be a forbidden topic, therefore ALL changes are measured in "millions of years" in order to sidestep any allowed discussions otherwise. If a beach eroded 300 FEET, then by the currently approved yard stick of today, that erosion had to have taken 3000 years to happen.

I do have to chuckle reading about stuff like the "big bang" theory. Probably pretty much like bacteria trying to explain a human body they are living within.

Sorry, but no one can authoritatively claim that any change seen today has NEVER happened before in the past. Simply because THEY weren't THERE then and have nothing beyond theories to analyze the past. There is ample evidence that catastrophic changes happened to our planet and did so RAPIDLY. Why science is reluctant to admit this is puzzling, to say the least. The holy grail of determining the age of anything on this planet is carbon-14 dating, isn't it? Why is it being studiously ignored that there are influences that can invalidate this process? Carbon-14 relies on "constants" that really have not been constant throughout the history of this planet. Heck, I read an article a year or three ago talking about the output of the sun having changed such that it is already skewing carbon-14 readings because today's "yardstick" is different than yesterday's. And our sun is supposedly known to be a "variable star". A HINT maybe?

Sorry, but I am just not buying into the government telling me that by instituting a carbon tax (and yet another bureaucracy that will result) is going to help in any way except line their own pockets. Heck, it wasn't all that long ago that the very same scientists yelping about global warming were yelping about a rapidly approaching ice age. But I guess that's what happens when you look at data points on a graph that might encompass a couple of hundred years (at best) and try to extrapolate that as a change that must maintain a linear path unless the government steps in and DOES something.

Is SOMETHING going on? Sure it is. Is the climate getting warmer? Yes, apparently in SOME places. Are we being given all the facts? Of course not. Can the government really do something about it to change the environment? Oh, are we talking about the very same government that can't even figure out what "budget" and "spending caps" mean and are already driving this country into bankruptcy? Puhleeze.....

Originally Posted by rcarichter

Below is an excerpt from a NOAA article. What stands out here is that, in 5 weeks, lionfish have been observed to decimate nearly 80% of a reef's natural occupants. As you're reading, keep in mind that these fish lay 30,000 eggs at a time, and guard them well.

Steve: No, the reefs aren't being destroyed by the lionfish alone. The destruction is aided by red algae and coral bleaching, brought on by the global warming that many people continue to deny. However, the initial loss of plant/algae eating fish on said reef is absolutely due to the lionfish where they are present. They make the fastest, most immediate impact, followed by environmental changes. (And...holy cow..I didn't mean to invoke an infraction-receiving response. I'm just discussing my experiences. )



(top)[/i]

No worries here. Its just that my initial reaction was a bit strong and unwarranted, that's why I reread and edited. It's a result of reading too many "pythons eating everything in sight type articles I guess.

Its an excellent discussion and in fact is very useful in pointing out connections that may not be thought of. People think of coral reefs dying as just that, corals dying, and they may know that lionfish don't eat corals so they don't see the connection. But, as you pointed out, if the lionfish eats too many algae eating fish the algae might overgrow the reefs or if the lionfish eat too many of a particular fish that may prey on coral eating fish the coral eating fish may experience a population explosion.

I know a little about coral reef ecology but not as much as you and Helen so I'm not going to pretend I do.

The bottom line is invasive species are bad. They may or may not be causing as many problems in all areas that some doom and gloomers are claiming but the fact remains they should not be there. I do think, like Helen said, sometimes stuff like this is inevitable. She mentioned the ballast in ocean going ships and that's the reason ships are no longer allowed to discharge ballast into the great lakes anymore. Unfortunately, I also think that in a great many cases it is something that we are just going to have to learn to live with.

I spear and eat lionfish when I see them, and they taste like any other mild white fish, kind of like hogfish or snapper. Plus, they are an easy target - they just sit there, and there is no limit on them. We don't have as many on the gulf side as they do on the East coast or the Keys but everyone I know shoots them when they see them, and everyone seems to have learned how to deal with the spines without much trouble (we just carry kitchen shears and cut them off before we clean the fish).

As for banning importation into FL, I don't really think it is a bad thing. If you want one for a tank, you can get one caught in FL waters.

Originally Posted by FireStorm

As for banning importation into FL, I don't really think it is a bad thing. If you want one for a tank, you can get one caught in FL waters.

Good point!