I'm hearing that there is a concern about "invasive species" getting a hold over here that used to live in Japan.

I wonder how they can be considered as "invasive species" if they packed up and moved over via a natural event. Is that not au naturel?
I'm not referring to the boats, motorcycles, houses, and plastic grocery bags that floated across the ocean with illegal aliens, but the beach logs and kelp and other such floating things not man-made. Since they also carry the dreaded neighbor's creatures, are they not a natural result of a changing environment and wouldn't they have arrived here even if no humans were around?

just wondering where the line is........

kiss my a$$ KK, i know why its bad... pull yer head out yer tang fool...

Tsunami Invasives

Here are some critters we're already finding in my neck of the woods (bottom of page). The kelp and sea stars sound like they could be quite nasty.

Got it. I have no doubts that some of the plants and animals transported here could be devastating to our waters and shores as we know them. BUT, and it's a big BUT to me.....is their arrival here not a "natural" one? And if it is, who are we to say that things are not as they should be? It seems to me that we humans think that everything should stay in its assigned place and not wander about. Convenient thought for sure, but are we the best judge of what organism(s) are to be considered the survivors and the fittest? I'm not judging, just questioning. Where is line that determines what is native and what is not? "Native" Americans are descendants of Asians.....are they native? or an invasive species like us of other linage(s)?

Seems to me that crap has been floating across the ocean to our shores for as long as there has been an ocean, and that anything that could have hitched a ride over here and survived the journey probably already has done so many times before. Why is it different if it comes over here on a Japanese refrigerator instead of a log?

The Pacific Oyster is an invasive species!

I guess when it's a tens of million dollar a year industry it's cool

We should have a "Save the Olympic Oyster" rally

Good point! I posed a similar question a couple of years back to the Noxious Weed Board (I believe it was in Bellingham, but don't remember for sure now. I seem to remember it was somehow tied to WSU.....so I don't know.) Anyway, the question concerned the lack of listing and lack of action to eradicate Himalayan Blackberry. Her answer was intuitive and I remember her words. She described them as a "love/hate relationship".
Probably as well-put as anything I'll hear concerning the assignment of the term "invasive".

I think that is true......
Anybody got the answer?

At one time, WDFW (Wildlife Program) wanted to define native species as those present in the state (if memory serves) in 1900. When it was pointed out that there were natural invasions occuring today, such as the Scrub Jay coming north, they did back off. Don't know if they ever arrived at a useful definition.

This issue, like many others in resource management, is not amenalble to logic. When WDW was creating their list of deleterious species, like mouflon and mute swan, they defined deleterious as (among other things) preying on native species. At the same time, they were agressively using Tiger Musky (non-native) to eat native pikeminnows.

In our state, and amongst fishermen and hunters, the term "invasive species" is just like saying "activist judges" if you're into politics.

An "activist judge" is someone who writes a legal opinion you don't agree with.

An "invasive species" is an animal that disrupts your ability to kill as many animals as you want, or catch as many fish as you want.

A largemouth bass is an invasive species. It is not native here, and shouldn't be here, but you don't hear a lot of anglers yelling to have them eradicated.

Replace "largemouth bass" with wild turkey, tiger musky, or American shad and you'll see what I mean.

A pikeminnow, on the other hand, is a native species...but since it eats salmon and steelhead smolts (and has been for tens of thousands of years), it is an invasive species that must be eradicated at all costs.

Replace "pikeminnow" with wolf, sea lion, harbor seal, and you'll start to get the idea.

It's only an "invasive" species when it eats something that you, another non-native species, think you should get to eat instead.

Fish on...

Todd

The other thing to add is an invasive species is one that the state can't sell a license to harvest.

Really well done......by both of you.

Couple Pacu have been caught in WA. They'll live for a while, until winteras they don't take the cold well.

At 55 lbs, that quite the invasive offensive species.

That would be dirty pool.

Faaaawk!!!
My nut sack's gone !!!!!
Damn, that would suck.

American Shad were in before the lock.....pre 1900
As far as I know, I still need a license for shad fishing.
DFW would have a helluva time policing "incidentally caught" steelhead and salmon with free shad fishing going on, I suppose.

So I can gun starlings, nutria, etc. without a hunting license ?

Check the hunting and fishing regs. There are certain ones, like the Starling, for which there is no closed season or limit.

I've looked for English Sparrow.....which is deadly to our local species.....but popular with city folks (the are cute). Haven't found a listing as invasive. I trap the bastages. They almost totally wiped out my swallow population, but they are coming back now thankfully.

Add to that moving even the natives like rainbow all over.

Add to that Pheasant and Turkey, too.