It's insane that anyone would even consider the chance of doing this anywhere, let alone in pens in the Puget Sound. I can just see it now..."Man and Child Eaten by 10' Coho while Beach Fishing" The whole topic of Cloning and Geneticly altering species scares the you know what out of me. The worst thing is you know those S.O.B.'s are more than likely already doing it somewhere, and just how long is it before it's no longer safe to wade in the water. Some places have speicies of animals, fish, and insects that keep them from from being able to safely do the types of things we take for granted, if these types of experiments become a reality, we will allow the possibility of creating dangerous species and all will change for fishing as we know it.:bawling
>It's insane that anyone would even consider the chance of
>doing this anywhere, let alone in pens in the Puget Sound. I
>can just see it now..."Man and Child Eaten by 10' Coho while
>Beach Fishing" The whole topic of Cloning and Geneticly
>altering species scares the you know what out of me. The
>worst thing is you know those S.O.B.'s are more than likely
>already doing it somewhere, and just how long is it before
>it's no longer safe to wade in the water. Some places have
>speicies of animals, fish, and insects that keep them from
>from being able to safely do the types of things we take for
>granted, if these types of experiments become a reality, we
>will allow the possibility of creating dangerous species and
>all will change for fishing as we know it.:bawling
"IF I'M NOT GOING TO CATCH ANYTHING, THEN I'D RATHER NOT CATCH ANYTHING ON FLIES." quote by BOBLAWLESS
I must at least raise some questions here: would the world be a better place if scientists had not discovered anything? Would we all have profited by silencing these people of science? Should not, in fact, all men of learning, whatever it is that they might or might not have learned, be silenced? Is ignorance of anything bliss? How do we move forward unless we try? Is change always an enemy?
I would say no to all of the above. I see so many problems hurtling down upon us and they beg for an immediate solution and yet we have none to offer. Yet. science toils away to find answers.
In fish management, I suspect much could be done to improve things, and some of this might involve genetic tampering.
Certainly anyone who knows the first thing about hunting dogs knows that dogs have improved vastly over the years by carefully selecting the parents of each new generation. Only those that had superior traits (pointing, retrieving, stamina, nose, etc.)were allowed to contribute to the gene pool. Voila: the modern field champions. They didn't get that way because of chance, nor did they come to be champions by prohibiting selective breeding. The genes of the Spainsh terriers were tampered with to be sure.
Any scientific project worth the name should have appropriate safeguards built in to it. I trust that they will. If the world had remained unchanged, then there might be no reason to change the fish. Unfortunately, the world has changed and there is little we can do to force it backward. And these changes, environmentally speaking, for the most part, have not been good.
So what to do? Maybe our fish could be altered enough to withstand a degree or two of rise in the temperature of the water. The Snake R., for much of the summer, pours lethal water into the Columbia R., the mother of all salmon rivers. If salmonids could be engineered to withstand these high Snake R. temperatures, then the fishery would make a quantum leap forward. Example after example exists where some help is needed to save the resource. Science is working at this.
Bob, i think so! example : they breed a better cow for more output of milk, all doped up just for our greedy selves, really didnt help the cow. the species they speak of in the genetic fish is not in my opinion helping but competeing with the wild fish we have, therefore making it harder for the fish, but better for the human. we're so bad:beer2
It is a good to hear people talk about the future and science is a huge part of the future, we have come to far to abandone modern technolgy. I do feel we as humans cannot rely on science alone to save our native or wild stocks of salmonids. We have to use Common Sense! example: build a dam, the fish can't get up river to spawn, build a fish ladder.
There is a great quote but I cannot remember who said it--possibly Einstein,
"Those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Now if the snake river is truly important to sustaining anadramous salmonids, why are we not trying to breach those dams to allow passage? I know it is complicated especially with Water being such a vital element to agriculture. I think there has to be a way to find a solution, so we can have both. I applaud Governor Kitzhaber(Oregon) for remembering the past and trying to move forward in effort to reach a solution. Politicians have to work together with the people(ranchers, locals, biologists etc). David James Duncan does a good job detailing the issues and possible solutions on the Snake in his book of essays titled "My Story as told by water" a decent example of moving forward.
Bob. Your last post sounds like a one of those old "Better Living Through Chemistry" advertisements. The inbreeding of Dalmations has produced a beautiful dog, with side effects of being a crazy reckless dog. This crazyness is directly related to the dogs almost vertical family tree. Furthering this comparison: Golden retrievers are beautiful and obey well, but get hip problems. Genetic cows are produced to be huge, have weak immune systems, and are subject to all kinds of deaths.
Wild fish have strong genes that have allowed it to adapt to the special conditions for which they live. The idea being discussed is to create huge piscavorious fish that gobble everything in site for the benefit of the lucky angler who hooks into this beast. What happens when the prey fish are all gone? When they're gone, they're GONE. Bob, this is a bad idea.
Streams are made for the wise man to contemplate and fools to pass by.
(Sir Izaak Walton)
What is the one thing that is in common with all of the following?:
>We already have altered fish. Look to the triploid,Bred to
>get very big but not breed. Or the Atlantic's that are pen
>raised and supposed to be sterile. How about the
The factor that links all is that all the hybrids are in lakes that don't connect to rivers with wild trout or salmon populations. And when I say trout, I don't mean chars.
The purpose ideally is to kill two birds with one stone. You get bigger gamefish, and big fish eat little fish, which are hopefully the rough species that your trying to get rid of/thin out. This "environmentally friendly" theory is the new rage and has been applied to quite a few situations with success. In fact the first Tiger trout population experiment was performed on a random hi-lake called Olallie in Skamania County to control brookie stunting. That study is still in practice but should increase the size of the brookies. I know this year's Triploid plant at Leech lake produced spookier, but bigger brookies... However, I know of one specific situation where Tiger-Muskies in the basin were stocked in a "harmless" reservoir only to accidentally make their way into one of the columbia slackwater lakes. These hybrids are sterile(for these kind of accidents) so they will eventually die, but they will take their fair share of smolt before they do.
The point is, these lakes are controlled environments. You can add X-factors like hungry hybrids for a desired result for recreation and the result is good for recreation. Running water and anadromous fish situations you cannot control with any real authority. These fish are too subject to things like weather, run-off, siltation, human impact, etc...Thus, The X-factor applied to this situation could have devostating effects, and would be a completely irresponsible stocking practice. Look at what happened to the Apache Cutthroat when the larger more aggressive rainbows were planted in the same rivers for better recreation. Complete decimation! (Lets thank God some of them were found in funky headwater tribs in the middle of nowhere, otherwise no more Apache cuts.)
Streams are made for the wise man to contemplate and fools to pass by.
(Sir Izaak Walton)
You know the thing here that I feel they are after is a larger, faster growing fish for the commercial markett. Thats all fine and well, but when something of this proportion happens in an area as vast as the open waters, we're asking for trouble. I don't care if they harness a safe and predictable method of producing these fish for food purposes, hell, it could be our (as fisherman) answer to the impact that commercial fishing has on the population of wild stocks, as well as fish population as a whole. My main concern here is the fact of conducting these types of practices outside of a controlled enviroment! Change, Progress, whatever you want to call it, is the way the world has made the progress and achievements it has in the past 100 years, this is all good and fine, but the open waters give ZERO controll or assurance that things would be contained in a "controlled Enviroment". The saying "all it takes is one" puts the whole thing in perspective for me, Nothing is fool proof, accidents happen, if one of these fish escape into the open water things instantly change. The example of Animals, Plants, or whatever you choose to use as an arguement is comparing Apples to Oranges, we can kill a plant, cage and put down a Animal, but fish swim, and how in the heck is anyone going to be able to capture an escaped Salmon? The open water is not a place to take chances like this, make those who will profit from these advances pay for a containable facility to screw around with their pet fish,unless they can assure the world they can find one specific fish after it escapes into the ocean. You know I figured it all out, give the fish surgicaly implanted explosives that will detonate when it leaves the confines of its pen, yeh, thats the ticket......Right :beathead
ROBOT FISH JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG!!!(forgive me for writing this much...forum leaders delete me if I am too long winded or off base)
Come people unless you have just arrived from outer space you are already eating geneticaly altered food products. This occured about 10 years ago with veges and fruit. This is why ELF is doing the things they are doing. I don't personally agree with their methods, but they did get me to listen to the message of genetically altered foods and their potential for damaging the eco system
Hell, some of us are already eating away with cancer, but don't know it yet. Do you think the rise in cancer has anything in common with the food additive rise that occured in the 50's and still rages today.
Not only do the additives and genetically altered food stuffs hurt us but consider this. Do you have a nice green lawn, beautiful flower/food garden? Do you use chemicals to achieve this end result? I personally don't but all my neighbors do.
When I first moved here from Alaska I was horrified when I saw all the #### the Lower 48ers put on their lawns(some Alaskans do to but I am hold hope they will see the light when they see how the Lower 48 is dying). Do you really think logging, farming, dairy farming, even Native netting has done as much damage as the chemcial waste land that the Puget Sound land owner has done to the water shed to keep his or her lawn looking good?
I used to spear fish in the Sound back in the 70's. This was a major protein source for us, but I quit when tumors started showing up on the fish I targeted. Personally , I eat most of my fish that I catch as long as they come from Alaska, BC, etc, but NEVER from the Western Washington. I believe the fish on this side of the mountains are damaged goods. Catch & release is not an option it is SOP for Western Wasington fish in my family.:reallymad
Biologists have already found atlantic salmon fry in Rivers up in B.C. There was and usually is an escapement of these "triploid" sterile fish(my ass). Afew years ago 300,000 scaped from net pens in the sound!
Much of the science stemmed from Doc.Donaldson selective breeding(with rainbows) etc. Look at the German Brown, non-native and highly agressiv and brook trout propagated in the west. How about the "splake"(brook trout, lake trout cross wierd huh?
To much human intervention, but we got what we got, I guess leave the rest to the Bio's?
There are roughly 800 million people starving world wide. We produce enough food to feed 9 billion. Why do we need larger genetically engineered anything, to feed the masses? Why not distribute the food we already have?
My position is not that I want any robot fish or any other ecological disaster. I only ask that science be allowed to proceed. When they come up with somethig, then it is for us, the voters, to decide how or if it will be used.:dunno
sorry to think that $ would have maybe,just maybe, everything to do with it. sad isnt it. we do this because i think we as humans ,not all, but in general want bigger badder shinier what evers to impress ourselves , in the end the jokes always on us :beer2