Florida Bans Lionfish

[Arachno]

MIAMI (Reuters) - Florida's ban on importing invasive lionfish, the first of its kind in the nation, goes into effect on Friday as wildlife managers look for a way to control the spread of the barbed, red-and-white striped fish.

Bringing the fish into the state is now punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and a year in prison.

Lionfish, native to the waters off Southeast Asia, are believed to have arrived in the region as pets for aquariums. Over time, some were released into the wild.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, which approved the ban in mid-June, also loosened fishing rules making it easier for recreational divers and fisherman to catch lionfish.

Scientists are concerned that lionfish will decimate other species found in Florida waters. The fish, which have few known predators, live in warm waters up to 1,000 feet deep and feed on anything from shrimp to other fish.

The loinfish, which can grow up to a foot in length, are covered in poisonous spines. While they are not aggressive, they can flare the barbs much like a porcupine if threatened.

"They're here to stay," said Roldan Muñoz, a researcher with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in North Carolina who studies the lionfish.

"If we can prevent more of them from getting dumped into the water ... as well as making it easier for people to harvest them it's a good start," he said.

The first lionfish sighting was in 1985 off the coast of South Florida, according to Pam Schofield, a fishery researcher for the United State Geological Service (USGS).

In the mid-1990s they began spreading up Florida's east coast and can now be found year-round from the shores of Venezuela to North Carolina.

Lionfish have been spotted on the U.S. East Coast as far north as Rhode Island, but aren't able to survive in the frigid winter waters.

A lionfish database operated by the USGS includes more than 4,000 sightings logged since 1985, though estimates of the total lionfish population aren't available.

In September, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission will consider additional punishment for breeding lionfish.

http://news.yahoo.com/florida-lionfish-ban-nations-first-goes-effect-204358216.html

 

[WebSlave]

Sigh... Another reason to keep me out of the water. Bad enough with sharks, barracudas, sting rays, jelly fish, sea nettles, Portuguese Man of War, flesh eating bacteria, etc., etc.

I sure do miss the days when I was young and ignorant.

 

[rcarichter]

The lionfish are a huge problem throughout the Caribbean. I've seen lionfish the size of a basketball guarding 'their' piece of reef. The have no predators, and eat everything. This isn't like the evil everglades pythons; these guys are thriving everywhere and destroying food chains. All we can do as divers is report them, unless you are very experienced with spearfishing AND venomous spines. They don't move very fast, so aren't much danger to people unless you try to touch they. I guess on the good side, you see them popping up on menus. I don't like fish, but I've heard they're quite tasty.

Noelle

 

[Helenthereef]

Surely the stable door has been well and truly open for so long now that this move is hopelessly late though?

What purpose can stopping people keeping them have now?

 

[rcarichter]

Certainly, a huge amount of damage has been done. Much of it can't be fixed in our lifetime, as reefs grow so very slowly. I can see the point of the ban, though. These fish are absolutely beautiful, and thrive in saltwater tanks. They are sold at a reasonable price, the size of a golf ball. However, they grow very quickly, devouring everything else in the tank, and are guaranteed to outgrow all but the largest commercial tanks. They are also quite venomous. As they become too large and scary, people are pretty much forced to release them or let them die at home. So, essentially every lionfish sold to halfway competent keepers will be released into the oceans.

Noelle

 

[Neidhardt]

In the Bahamas natives are learning to fish them traditionally and via spearing and eating them! The filets are nearly $25/pd. and they're delicious. If you see some filets for sale I would highly encourage you to buy them and support the effort.

 

[rcarichter]

Same in Turks and Caicos, Bonaire, Anguilla, and the BVI, from what I've experienced. Turning a problem into a solution.

Noelle

 

[WebSlave]

Heck, just put a decent bounty on them in economically depressed areas and problem will begin to resolve itself. Fillet the larger fish right on the spot of check-in and allow the bounty hunters to sell those fillets, or keep them to eat themselves, too.

Governments could solve some problems if they would just spend money wisely, I think.

Heck, how many programs have had to be put into place to keep some species of fish from going extinct from over harvesting? Shouldn't be too hard to purposely make a species go extinct in local areas if you put your mind (and money) into a honest effort.

For that matter, if even casual divers could make some money while enjoying their hobby, why wouldn't they take advantage of the offer?

 

[Arachno]

I really wanna try spear fishing for them, next time I visit Florida.

 

[rcarichter]

I think the problem is that these particular fish are covered in large venomous spines, so it's not as easy as say, killing a rattlesnake. You have to know how to handle them even after they're dead. Although, for money, I imagine a lot of folks would learn.

 

[sschind]

Surely the stable door has been well and truly open for so long now that this move is hopelessly late though?

What purpose can stopping people keeping them have now?

It gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling inside thinking they are doing something good and it opens the door for future bans.

 

[sschind]

Certainly, a huge amount of damage has been done. Much of it can't be fixed in our lifetime, as reefs grow so very slowly. I can see the point of the ban, though. These fish are absolutely beautiful, and thrive in saltwater tanks. They are sold at a reasonable price, the size of a golf ball. However, they grow very quickly, devouring everything else in the tank, and are guaranteed to outgrow all but the largest commercial tanks. They are also quite venomous. As they become too large and scary, people are pretty much forced to release them or let them die at home. So, essentially every lionfish sold to halfway competent keepers will be released into the oceans.

Noelle

I do think that too many are sold to people who have no business buying them just like any other living creature but these are not great white sharks or giant squid.

A full size lionfish can be kept quite easily in a 75 gallon tank. Not "all but the largest commercial tanks" As far as "essentially every lionfish sold to halfway competent keepers will be released into the oceans." what do those halfway competent keepers here in Wisconsin, or Montana or Colorado do with their fish (unless you mean all the halfway competent keepers in FLorida or maybe you mean landlocked states don't have any halfway competent keepers) They are also not that difficult to keep. Most species (especially the one I think they are talking about) can be readily trained to eat frozen foods and they are quite responsive to their keepers. The venomous spines are an issue if you are not careful but driving a car is an issue if you are not careful and salmonella with turtles can be an issue if you are not careful.

I do see that there is a problem, but the problem is not with the halfway capable keepers. The problem, as with any living creature, is with the irresponsible keepers who release them and the irresponsible sellers who don't care who they sell to.

I don't think this law will have any effect on the wild population of lionfish so I don't think it is anything but a warm fuzzy law. A law that unfortunately punishes the many due to the actions of a few.

That said I do see the apparent hypocrisy of having a problem with invasive species and still allowing them to be kept. Thankfully they didn't go off half cocked and ban them nationwide...yet.

 

[sschind]

I really wanna try spear fishing for them, next time I visit Florida.

Only if you go diving with a bunch of the politicians

 

[sschind]

I think the problem is that these particular fish are covered in large venomous spines, so it's not as easy as say, killing a rattlesnake. You have to know how to handle them even after they're dead. Although, for money, I imagine a lot of folks would learn.

Its not that difficult. Like I said in a previous post, you just have to be careful.

 

[rcarichter]

I wasn't implying that most keepers were half competent. I was referring to how easily these fish adapt to captivity, and therefore survive to grow into very large, venomous pets. Perhaps a poor choice of wording on my part. I will admit that my expertise is not in saltwater tanks, but rather in coral reefs, which I have seen the destruction of firsthand. I am also not familiar (firsthand) with the damage they they're doing in the US, but I do know they have been found as far north as NY. I have been on islands where divers were hospitalized by the paralytic effect of the neurotoxins. I have seen large stretches of reef disappear from one year to the next. I agree they are not great whites or giant squid; neither of those are doing irreparable damage or invading enormous parts of the world.

Please don't get me wrong. I know that banning animals is a slippery slope, that has to be carefully weighed and controlled. This is just an area I've personally involved in, and feel strongly about.

 

[sschind]

I wasn't implying that most keepers were half competent. I was referring to how easily these fish adapt to captivity, and therefore survive to grow into very large, venomous pets. Perhaps a poor choice of wording on my part. I will admit that my expertise is not in saltwater tanks, but rather in coral reefs, which I have seen the destruction of firsthand. I am also not familiar (firsthand) with the damage they they're doing in the US, but I do know they have been found as far north as NY. I have been on islands where divers were hospitalized by the paralytic effect of the neurotoxins. I have seen large stretches of reef disappear from one year to the next. I agree they are not great whites or giant squid; neither of those are doing irreparable damage or invading enormous parts of the world.

Please don't get me wrong. I know that banning animals is a slippery slope, that has to be carefully weighed and controlled. This is just an area I've personally involved in, and feel strongly about.

The great white shark and giant squid references were in relation to their ease of care in captivity not to the potential they have to do harm to the environment. I had a feeling that you most likely had more knowledge of the reef situation and that is why I didn't challenge you there but I do have to ask you this. You say you have seen large stretches of reef disappear from one year to the next. You are not suggesting that this is due primarily to lionfish are you?

I didn't mean to sound like I was taking you to task, well, maybe in a way I did, if I had posted my original version I may have gotten a warning. Its just that your post came across to me not unlike all these doom and gloom scenarios in the everglades with the pythons. Maybe that's just how I read it. Still, like all invasive species they are causing harm and they should not be there. I guess I am just glad, like I said, that Florida decided to deal with this on their own at the state level and still lets me enjoy my lionfish. Actually I don't really care for lionfish and I probably would never keep one unless I could get one of the Japanese ones but I was speaking from a collective salt water hobbyist perspective.

 

[Helenthereef]

I work as a coral reef ecologist, and I can see both sides of this - a newly invasive species can cause unforseeable problems down the line, as they have (as yet) no natural predators, and will inevitably upset the balance of the food chain in the short term.

Coral reefs are undeniably in trouble from large scale global changes, and while introducing Lionfish may not be immediately disastrous to the actual reefs, it cannot help - for example if they eat more herbivorous fish than native predators would, seaweeds are not going to be cropped back as they should, and this means that there are fewer places for healthy corals to grow.

On the other hand, and taking the long view, as we increase shipping around the world, more and more marine species invade areas they are not native to - many larvae get carried around in ballast water of ships and dumped out when bilges are pumped.

As we globalise we also homogenise, and it is my personal feeling that mixing of species from different parts of the globe, while not desirable, is inevitable. Lionfish were a highly noticeable addition (as were pythons in the Everglades) because it was relatively sudden, but there are many other, more gradual, invasions happening all the time.

Spearing them for lunch, and stopping pet shop sales, are simply bandaids that make us feel good, but they aren't going to stop this happening - eventually something on the Caribbean reefs will figure out how to eat Lionfish (Groupers and the bigger Lionfish do it over here in the Pacific) and a new balance will be found - but this may not be in human lifespan time.

Regarding their venomous spines - over here we simply recommend that divers do not pat the Lionfish and that seems to work...

 

[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. )



Helen: I think when the larger sharks and groupers on this side of the world learn to deal with them, we'll have some significant underwater allies. As of yet, the larger predators avoid them, while also losing food to them.

Synopsis of Participant discussions
Impact on coral reef ecosystems

Lionfish experts are in agreement that invasive lionfish populations will continue to grow and cannot be eliminated using conventional methods. Lionfishes have become established along the southeastern coast of the United States, Bermuda, the Bahamas, and throughout the Caribbean. This places swimmers, snorkelers, divers, and fishermen at risk from their painful, venomous sting and leaves native reef fish populations and coral reef community stability at great risk from their interactions with this species. In a five-week experiment, scientists in the Bahamas established that lionfish can cause significant reductions (by 79%) in the recruitment of native fishes. One large lionfish was observed consuming 20 small fishes in a 30-minute period.

Lionfishes may, directly and indirectly, cause harm to coral reef ecosystems. As aggressive ambush predators with few predators of their own in their introduced range, lionfishes can quickly and alarmingly reduce local native reef fish (and some invertebrate) populations to the point where native piscivores cannot compete for these prey animals. This in-turn can cause a reduction in the growth and survival of the native predators. Stomach content analyses of lionfishes reveal a wide diversity in prey species and size classes. As stated by one participant in the discussion, lionfishes are eating nearly anything that will fit into their mouths.

Most lionfish prey on crustaceans and small-bodied forage fishes, including commercially and recreationally important snappers and groupers. Compared to total local reef biomass, lionfishes consume a considerable amount of prey biomass from the reef. In addition, experiments have shown that native reef fish may avoid feeding on juvenile lionfish, probably because of their venomous defense apparatus. There is great concern about the effect of the invaders on commercial and recreational fisheries. Since lionfishes feed on smaller fishes that are usually consumed by groupers and other native fishes, their existence could negatively affect the food chain of many commercial and other species.

As lionfish colonize more territory in the Caribbean, they can have a devastating effect on coral reefs already stressed by climate change, pollution, disease, overfishing, sedimentation, and other stressors.

(top)

 

[WebSlave]

..... brought on by the global warming that many people continue to deny.

Not to change the subject, but I guess I will anyway.

I've been hearing a lot of this "global warming denial" being used as a sort of derogatory slur towards people who are not jumping on the bandwagon with the media for their rendition of a new way for governments to tax the populace. My take on this is that people are generally not taking sides because the evidence at hand is not conclusive. It's a hard sell for the pitch "global warming" when you have record snow storms popping up in the Winter months. So yes, perhaps people have reason to deny a THEORY because the evidence doesn't uniformly support it.

Secondly, there is also the premise that if there is, in fact, GLOBAL warming, that governments can do something about it IF they can tax us enough and we give them the power over another segment of our lives. There is an unease about this self promotional inference that government not only absolutely KNOWS what is causing the problem, but absolutely KNOWS how to fix it. The suspicion is that if there actually is a global warming problem on the rise, then perhaps the government is just using yet another crisis in order to further it's own agenda with increasing power and added taxes. So if the government controlled media is trying to paint people into a corner to admit global warming exists AND the government must thereby be granted the power to pretend to be able to do something about it, well yes, people are resistant to that hand in glove scenario. There seems to be a dead spot in the logic whereby yes, there may be global warming, but no, government can't do anything about it because it's a NATURAL process beyond our control

The reason the hard sell is not gaining traction is because many people who are raising their eyebrows over the sales pitch have done their own investigations into the matter and discovered that the earth's temperature is not constant. It has fluctuated quite a bit over the gazillion years the earth has existed and except for the current time period, global warming took place without humanity present driving cars and engaging in other affairs that put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So unless mankind has been able to affect the past, there are some real questions that need to be answered about the cause and effect relationship being touted. In actuality it's quite illogical for anyone to presume that the earth MUST remain at the overall general temperature it has been in recorded history (which is an extremely small period of time) just because it HAS been that way. I think anyone would be very hard pressed to come up with some natural law that supports that sort of thinking. Point of the matter is, the universe really doesn't care what we think or do. We just have to hang on for the ride.

Besides, doesn't anyone find it ridiculous that the same people who can't give us an accurate ten day weather forecast are the ones providing the modelling for the dire WEATHER predictions decades from now?

Humanity won't be the first species on this big ball of dirt to learn that yes, EVERYTHING about our planet can and will change. WE, as a species, have to adapt, not make futile attempts to stop it. Or we will simply perish.

IMHO, of course.

 

[AbsoluteApril]

Catastrophic climate change (aka global warming) happens and yes, has happened in the past, what appears to have changed with this cycle is how accelerated it's happening due to the influence man (humans) have had on the planet. Studies show we've already reached or passed the 'tipping point' for some of the changes (like sea levels rising) and even with change in policies and behavior and the way we treat the environment, it's too late to stop/delay. Why that has to automatically be linked to 'excess taxes from big govermenment' I don't get? Of course the government will use any excuse to get as much as they can from the populace, greed and misuse of funds is rampant and ongoing in all contries. But don't let that part of the conversation sway you away from the possibility that this is upon us and is happening.
Anyways, totally off subject now, sorry for the rant.