Apparently...The TPWD has done some studies, and disagrees with many of the often outdated studies listed about.

That is, the TPWD does not believe the common carp are at all harmful in the vast majority of waters in the state of Texas.

Case in point, in last years TPWD Regulations Handbook, they printed an article about, of all things...

Catch and release troph carp angling. In which the author recommends that ALL trophy sized carp are returned to the water unharmed.

Now, honestly, if TPWD thought carp were the least bit harmful to their precious cash cow, the nearly fight-less Largemouth bass, they would not print an article suggesting people return large common carp to the water in their own regulations handbook.

Obviously, that is not the case.

Zach, you act as if it surprises you they're all coming from roughly the same place...lol.

Now, keep up this discussion if you want, that's fine, so long as it stays civil, and posts are not made entirely to inflame other forum members.

No, as said before "it's about recreational opportunity and ecological integrity." Stop abusing your position as a moderator and stick with calling me COttus Man.

I've read stuff. More importantly, I've heard stories. I heard that in California stripers are killing the bass.

I don't care what TPWD says, I'm going to do my what I can to rid the lakes of these nuisance fish. But don't worry, there's plenty more.


I'd like to quote papers concerning the dangers of Striped Bass introduction:


Nash, V.S., W.E. Hayes, R.L. Self, and J.P. Kirk, 1987. Effect of Striped Bass Introduction in Lake Wateree, South Carolina. Proceedings of Annual Conference Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 41: 48-54.

Filipek, S. & L. Claybrook, 1984. Stripers and Hybrids, What Do They Really Eat? Arkansas Game and Fish Magazine. Volume 15, Issue 4. September/October 1984. pp 8-9.


Matthews, W.J. and L.G. Hill, 1986. Annual Report For Year 1 for the Project "Potential Interactions Between Striped Bass and Black Bass in Reservoir Environments". Sponsored by the Bass Research Foundation. University of Oklahoma Biological Station, Kingston, Oklahoma 73439.

Ok, now I think I follow you. So following your logic I am correct in assuming the below to be true in texas as well....we are talking about the highly invasive Micropterus salmoides after all...even though these studys aren't done in texas....they would apply. right?

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2006ENV0074-001047.htm

http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?fr=1&si=94

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs...journalCode=jfb

believe it or not, I'm completely behind you on that. Not necessarily because they're harming another non-native gamefish, but because they are detrimental to native CA fishes. Excellent work.

The whole native vs. naturalized question is a smokescreen. If we only want native species in Texas, we should get rid of horses, most cattle, etc. And if we only want species that don't change the environment, we should get rid of ourselves.

The real question is whether we, as a citzenry, want certain species of fish in our waters. If someone owns a pond, they get to do whatever they want to with their fish. In public waters, however, we are obligated to obey the laws of the State, or change them through appropriate means. TPWD makes regulations that govern how we interact with fish. If someone wants to catch a carp and eat it or make legal use of its carcass, they are within their rights. However, wantonly killing a fish caught from public waters (even if the fish is of species that someone dislikes) is not within anyone's rights.

Again, from your logic, due to problems in California, and studies done in the Carolinas, gutting fish in Texas seems logical?

This speaks volumes.

Brett, this whole argument is a smokescreen. The barstool biologist have a bloodlust, and they hide behind words such as conservationists and sportsman, when in truth they are neither.

As a general response to the turbidity question, I suspect that lakes and rivers in Texas are far less prone to being "changed" by carp than lakes and rivers in other parts of the world.

If you introduce carp into a northern lake with gin-clear water that allows you to see walleye, pike, and trout at depths of 25 feet, the carp might indeed increase the turbidity of the water. However, most Texas lakes and rivers are somewhat turbid by nature, and I doubt adding or removing carp would affect them very much. There are individual exceptions, of course, but I believe this is generally the case.

I've caught carp out of plenty of crystal clear lakes up north, and they didn't seem to have diminished the water clarity one bit lol. And, I've caught carp out of some of the Highland Lakes, including Lake Austin, which by Texas standards is just about as clear as they come! That lake has a HUGE population of Carp, and has since it was impounded. After all, Barton Springs near what's now Lady Bird Lake was the first Commercial Fish Hatchery in Texas...Carp, by the way, for food. And even with having a huge, and more importantly, HEALTHY and balanced population of Carp...Lake Austin stays crystal clear.

Brett, I agree whole heartedly with you about the smokescreen tactics used by these under educated youngsters. They post links and hide behind studys that are based on specific ecosystems and think they apply to all. That my friends is stupidity and not ignorance. These guys have knowledge they just misuse it. That's as plain and simple and as civil as I can put it.

These smokescreen tactics is exactly why I asked for Texas studies and not some study of a foreign ecosystem. Carp do not pose a problem in our waters and should not be killed for the sake of killing.

I'll be the first to admit that some bodies of water do need some measure of control due to overpopulation issues but that applys to only specific circumstances and is not a blanket problem.

Brett,

Forget not that the common carp were stocked here long before we had any lakes.

Endemic was awarded the TFF scholarship money....he is working on his master's in aquatic biology there is a full resume on the scholarship thread did some cool stuff with the Guadalupe Bass....so its not a lack of education but perhaps a lack of the proper information�.

Another important thing to consider. Many of the above-quoted studies are based upon introducing carp into existing lakes that have never had a population of carp.

Yes, that will affect those lakes.

However, in almost all lakes in Texas containing carp...Those carp have been there since the lakes were first created. They were already in the rivers, having been stocked as food fish, and so when each new lake was created by damming up a particular river or creek...

...A brand new ecosystem was created.

Carp became a part of this new ecosystem as it developed, along with largemouth bass, white bass, smallmouth buffalo, spotted gar, and all the other native fish.

As the lake grew, and the ecosystem developed, the carp population developed alongside it, and in the vast majority of cases, developed a very healthy balance with all the other fish.

In those "new ecosystems", carp are as native to that lake as any other fish in it. They were there at the creation of the lake, and so, have become another part of it's balanced ecosystem.

Again, case in point...Lake Austin. Town Lake.

A much more recent example?

Lake Fork. Carp were there when Lake Fork was created. That lake was completely left alone for many years in order to help develop the bass fishery. Now, that lake is less then 30 years old, but already, it has developed a very, very healthy balance, including the Common Carp.

It's arguably the best largemouth bass fishery in the state, and yet, it maintains a very, very healthy population of carp, including some very large fish over 30lbs and larger.

Carp were not "suddenly introduced" into that lake, they were there at the time of the lake's creation, and so, developed a healthy balance within that particular lake's ecosystem.

That is the case for almost all Texas lakes, and that is why many of those studies do not apply to many Texas waters.

That's also why the TPWD has already concluded that in most cases, the Common Carp is not damaging Texas fisheries.

Yes I knew that he did get the scolarship money and said under educated and not uneducated. He may be lacking the proper information but neither has he developed the skills to apply it correctly. Hopefully furthering his education will correct both issues.

I would hate to have someone one with his current mentality in a position of authority.

Scarry thought.