Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Laws about moving and stocking fish

Laws concerning the stocking and movement of fish can best be thought of in terms of risk management. Imagine a risk management company evaluating the following things.

The first risk is of fish escaping from our lakes to public waters. This risk must be evaluated for the length of time we have fish in our lakes. We have had threads about how fish get into our lakes. In all of these ways, fish can get out of our lakes. The risk of fish escaping during 5,10, 20, 50 and 100 year floods would be evaluated. The chances of someone moving fish from our lake to others would be weighed. They would look at birds, turtles, tornados, etc. carrying eggs or fish out of our lakes. I think that most people would consider the chance of fish escaping to be very high over the course of the life of our lakes. If we had to buy a bond to cover this risk, I doubt that many of us could afford it.

The next risk is that if a species should escape from our lakes, what are the chances of it doing damage? Meadowlark used the Little Red River in Arkansas as an example of brown, rainbow and cutthroat trout living and thriving with LMB and SMB. According to the “Fishes of Arkansas”, both blue and flathead catfish live there also. Meadowlark uses this as an example to advance the theory that because these species are compatible and desirable in this situation, they are in every other situation. We can test this theory quite easily by placing these species in other situations and see if we think they would be compatible and desirable. If we put all of these species into our own lakes, I think that few of us would consider them to be either compatible or desirable. In passing laws, I think that few people would consider this theory plausible.

There are a number of factors involved in evaluating the risk of potential damage caused by the escape of a species. The first factor is whether the species is already established in the watershed or not. Channel catfish entering a watershed where catfish are common would have a very low risk of causing damage. If a species is not established in a watershed, the best way to evaluate it is to see was has happened in other watersheds. Flathead catfish put into a watershed they haven’t been in before have been very destructive. Walleyes have severely degraded some trout fisheries. Black, bighead and silver carp degrade almost every body of water they are found in. We’ve had many examples of the damage that over stocking of grass carp can cause. This is exactly what happens with a free breeding population of grass carp. It is likely that snakeheads were deliberately introduced by people from Asia that remember them as a compatible and very desirable species. This is no different than what Americans have done with LMB in so many cases.

The third risk is in transporting species. There are a number of very undesirable species that are commonly transported by recreational boating including fishermen. Zebra mussels and Eurasian water milfoil are good examples of this. The movement of fish has spread diseases like whirling disease and LMB virus. Depending on the region, there are many other diseases, plants and animals that pose a danger to our ecosystems and fishing. While the chances of any one instance causing a problem are slim, collectively these actions almost certainly do cause damage.

In general, the person that caused problems or damage never has to pay for it themselves. They are seldom caught and even if they are, the fines are miniscule compared to the damage. If we had to buy a bond or have our property taken to pay to correct the problems caused, most of us would be much more conservative in our actions. It is the taxpayers or a degraded ecosystem that pays the price. That’s why taxpayers and sportsmen get these laws passed.

Norm,

Great post. I agree with it, for the most part. I used the term "reasonableness" previously and you correctly used a more descriptive and more accurate term "risk". Its all about risk management and trade-offs.

I would hope that you would also agree that sometimes the "risk" trade is made in favor of the sportsman for the better enjoyment of the great sport of fishing. That may include allowing species not normally present in the native watershed, and allowing boat trailers to transport boats with the risk of spreading unwanted noxious weeds.

Generally, people try to make the best decision they can based on the evidence they have and an assessment of the risks involved. We may or may not agree with those assessments.

Norm,

This is an excellent summary.

Aside from "risk" being subjective, I would add that the laws seem (to me) to be very inflexible. IE they enact regulations without measuring the risk of a given situation and therein lies the rub.

How big is the risk for me to move 1 fish from one pond to the next? It depends on the specific circumstances. In some cases - very little, in others - perhaps there is great risk.

Gator,

Another case that may be just as difficult...ever hear of Giant Salvina? It literally destroys small water bodies (and perhaps large ones) by chocking out sunlight completely. The water bodies become lifeless bogs and then revert back to nothing over time. A very serious concern to all of us with ponds and who fish public places.

It is a known fact that Giant Salvina can be transported and can survive on boat trailors that may be at Rayburn one weekend and Toledo Bend the next. How do we evaluate these risks? Do we "outlaw" boat trailors?

Its a very serious issue for all of us. Giant Salvina has terrible consequences...but I'm not in favor of restricting boats either. It is a tough issue.

Isn’t life about risk and our daily job risk analysis? Do people check the bottom of their boat and trailer each time they use it? How about testing all of the lighting equipment on their vehicle? Want to get crazy, when was the last time someone checked the air bag system in their car? Probably never, they may check the gas gauge and move on.
The best example of risk management, with regards to fish that I can think of, is the mosquito fish. They are every where, they are on the top ten most invasive animals. Funny, the mosquito was not on the list. Nobody died from a Mosquito fish bite.

Sorry, but is has been raining a lot which gives me toooo much free time.

These are some laws we have here in South Dakota.

It is illegal to import ANY live animal except for immediate slaughter without a current health certificate from a USDA licensed veterinarian. This includes worms, crickets, minnows, pets like dogs and cats and any other animal you can think of. Some ranchers have pastures that cross state lines. Every time a cow crosses from one side of the pasture to the other, it must have a current health certificate. Someone must have had some really bad hooch when they passed this. We are extremely aware of how many diseases, agricultural pests and other bad things are out there. This law is enforced selectively but has more than enough teeth to shut down anything at a moments notice. Since everyone would rather be safe than sorry, this law is applied much more broadly than most people would think. In the real world, it has very much slowed down cross border movement of animals bought and sold at wild and exotic animal auctions.

It is illegal to transplant or introduce live fish or fish eggs into public waters. After fishing, if you dump your minnows into the lake, you will likely be arrested. This law is actively enforced and supported by fishermen and anyone that makes their living from them. These Asian carp species are coming and people understand the potential they have to destroy our lakes and rivers. In watersheds they can’t swim into, they will be spread two ways. One is through people dumping their bait and the other is by people taking fish from one area and putting them into another to stock their lakes. The biggest worry is minnows that might be carp. If a person catches some catfish and puts them into their stock dam, they probably won’t have a problem.

It is illegal to release fish, reptiles, amphibians or crustaceans not native to South Dakota into public or private waters without written authorization from Game, Fish and Parks. Very actively enforced and not many permits are given. We don’t have a total ban on HSB like Michigan does but close. Most of you can put grass carp into your lakes without a second thought. It is very hard to get a permit to do so here. We have great fishing for the species we have and don’t want to take a chance of loosing it. The idea that it is my private lake and I can put anything I want in it doesn’t fly here.

Anyone importing fish for stocking must have a permit and must have a permit to transport fish. These permits are not automatic and many are turned down. Very actively enforced and again, supported by fishermen and people making a living from them..

Sanitizing our boats every time we go from one body of water to another is highly recommended but not a law. If we could figure out the logistics of doing it, I think this law would pass in a second. We understand clearly just how many things are out there that we don’t want here.

Does everyone agree with these laws? Of course not. And people ignore them all the time and don’t get caught just like every other law we have. But people do get caught and the results can be very costly. This is about as a conservative Republican state as it is possible get and yet, if anything, we would probably vote to strengthen these laws.

Some good posts. I think Norm points out that there really are some good reasons for many of the laws we have about stocking fish. Notice I said "many" but not all. In Minnesota we can't move a fish from one place to another at all without a permit. You can't even put a sunfish in an aquarium for the kids without a permit. We have to transport all fish dead. We can't import, raise, or stock HSB or grass carp at all. We can't import fish from any other state. All of these rules have reasons behind them I suppose. If there would have been similar laws in place everywhere in the past we may not have the problems we do with carp, milfoil, etc. Even though the laws seem too strict we also need to remember that they need to be enforcible. If you make a law that says something is illegal unless you get an exception then you spend a lot of time and money evaluating all the exceptions that people want and then we tax payers complain it costs too much. That's why we end up with laws that are hard and fast, like the cattle that can't cross the guys own field. I try to obey all the laws even if I don't like them, there might be a reason I don't know about. But we do have some laws here that seem just plain dumb. In my state I can't fish on my own pond without a license and I have to abide by the catch limits. I can't think of a good reason for that one and I can't think of any harm in violating it. But I abide anyway since I've always got a fishing license and I can't eat more than a limits worth of fish each day anyway. By the way I can hunt small game on my land without any license. Go figure.

Here's my two cents on moving and transporting fish:

The laws are there for a reason and I respect most of them. However from the perspective of someone involved in aquaculture you need to know there are some flies in the ointment. One is, the very agencies that are in charge of coming up with the laws and enforcing them have double standards and a conflict of interest. Some of the biggest violators of bringing in exotics and exotic fish diseases have been these same agencies that are in charge of enforcing these laws!

The common carp was introduced by the Federal government! At one time the Federal government planted and transported fish from coast to coast with no regard to the consequences to native populations.

A present day example of a double standard is Ohio came down with a serious disease known as IPN (Infectious Pancreatic Necrocis) in some of their salmonid hatcheries. Did they destroy the fish and start all over like the rules say they are required too? No, they cited economic hardship and decided the disease was not so serious afterall and planted those fish in Ohio waterways. An obvious cop out and a flagrant violation of the intent of the law.

My state of Indiana also came down with the same disease in a couple of hatcheries. Even though the fish tested positive they did not destroy all the fish, and made the statement that it was O.K. to plant the fish as there was no observed mortality. Another cop out. But you can bet as a private producer I would not have had that liberty to change the rules.

To have the same agencies that have a conflict of interest in charge of enforcing is a very bad idea. It's like the old adage of having the fox guard the hen house. A state's Dept. of Agriculture should be in charge of disease protocols not the very same people that have a conflict of interest.

Another problem I have is some of the rules are not always backed by good science. My state requires 3 years of consectutive testing of nine pathogens for trout imported outside the Great Lakes basin in 2005. Next year it will be four, the follwing five etc. One very noted pathologist I know says anything after two years is not backed by any good science. Another problem with this rule is if a hatchery outside the Great Lakes basin starts this very expensive testing this year he will always be two years behind until 2009. However at the same time any fish inside the basin only need to be tested for two pathogens for 3 years max.

Many of the laws have loopholes that help out the state agencies, are outdated, and as with many rules and permits they only keep the honest folks in check.

I have to jump through hoops to bring in trout to stock my pond. I've driven as many much as 24 hours round trip just to bring in trout that meet my state's disease inspection standards. It's crazy from the perspective of a fish farmer.