Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations What makes a fish wild?

It can't be an argument cause I don't know what we're arguing about! I think we are on the same page, but perhaps playing devil's advocate from different perspectives...

These are my opinions… I hope others will share their opinions as well! As Bruce has already said, we can’t answer these questions, just speculate. Speculation is an opinion, however we can learn a lot when reading other people’s opinions/speculations!



This is a complex idea that is multifaceted. What is wild? Can feral be wild? Can an animal not native to an area be wild or is it just feral? In the case of the ringneck pheasant, its probably one of the toughest examples to take on. As I recall, ringneck pheasants are not truly a species but rather a hybrid of perhaps as many as 3 or 4 different parental species. So really, it’s a man made bird in a way.

The releasing of pen reared birds into wild/feral pheasants has been shown in some studies to be detrimental. The same has been shown in native wild bobwhite quail. Bobwhite quail that have been pen raised for years which are then released into the wild, can have detrimental affects on the native wild bird population.

I define a wild population as: A collection of inter-breeding organisms of a particular species which do not display the physical features produced by domestication.

I define a feral population as: A collection of inter-breeding organisms of a particular species which do display the physical features produced by domestication.

OK, so you have ringneck pheasants which are naturally reproducing in the wild. Are they wild or are they feral? That is a tough question to answer! They don’t really fit either definition IMO. They are not so easy to classify. They aren’t like the wild hogs found in Texas or Florida. These hogs may have a percentage of wild genetics in them, but most if not all have domesticated appearances. Whether that be white spots, curly tails, short legs etc… Now if the pheasants that are wild in the Midwest grasslands were white like some domesticated pheasants are, I'd call them feral. However, these birds don't have any phenotypical characteristics bred into them by man, so I would classify them as introduced wild birds. Much like wild turkeys that are introduced outside their native range.



What really is genetic change? Is it the frequency certain phenotypes/genotypes are expressed? How much does the ratio of phenotypes/genotypes displayed have to change before it is considered genetic change? IMO, I think the key point is whether it’s caused by man or caused by nature.

Bruce's insanely fast growing bluegills, if they somehow escaped, they probably would have little to any affect on the wild fish population. They’ve been selectively bred to grow fast on a pellet diet. In all likelihood, the genetic difference between Bruce's fish and the run of the mill wild bluegill isn’t much. In a generation or two of them being back in the wild, you’d never know the difference. Now if Bruce kept selectively breeding his bluegill for 20 or even 50 more generations, perhaps those genes would become more ingrained in the population and he'd have 10 pound bluegills.

On a larger view, where did Bruce's original bluegill stock come from? Did they come from the same drainage Bruce's ponds are located in? If from a different drainage, do they have slightly different genetics since they are from a distinct drainage which has had different evolutionary forces? Is there really that much difference in genetics between two adjacent drainages? How about drainages 300 miles apart? I think we see that there sometimes is noticeable differences even amongst the same subspecies from different drainages. Odds would have it that the further apart the drainages are, the more likely the same subspecies from each drainage will have a larger genetic divergence. We’ve all seen the product of Bruce's selective breeding program and that is after only several generations. Drainages are often genetically divergent by thousands of generations… Perhaps it’s a lack of difference in the evolutionary forces from drainage to drainage that makes the subspecies genetically less divergent. Things like stream capture/piracy probably also play into keeping subspecies genetically similar even among different distinct drainages.

I am a realist and know that for the last 100 plus years stocking programs by both governmental agencies and private individuals has mixed fish from one drainage with another. This makes the identification of some subspecies from some species almost impossible today let alone trying to see if there are genetic differences between adjacent drainages.

Even more of a detriment is when closely related species are introduced into a drainage they are not native to. Prime examples of this would be rainbow trout hybridizing with other closely related trout when introduced outside their native range. Or the red shiner introduced outside its native range and hybridizing with closely related species.



This is absolutely nothing more than opinion as there really is no way to prove or disprove this. What is the definition of unnatural? How do you truly define it? Humans are a part of nature, but unlike any other animal, we have extreme ways of affecting nature. Where do you draw the line? Beavers build dams and can change a habitat.

Are the dingoes in Australia natural? They were brought there by the Aborigines thousands of years ago. The migration of Aborigines to Australia is thought by most scientists to have caused mass extinction in Australia. Is that natural or is it ‘man made‘? The same can be said for when the first Asian people crossed the Bearing Land Bridge into North America. Human presence in North America no doubt had great affects on the flora and fauna of North America. Is that natural?

When Europeans first came to what is now the eastern United States and through over hunting and habitat change cause the extirpation or extinction of the gray wolf, the elk, the passenger pigeon or the heath hen? Is that natural? I would argue it isn’t… I think the activity of modern man gets special labeling because of our incredible ability unlike any other species to alter the world we live in.



I think this point is similar to what I spoke about before. Humans can affect the world like no other species. The world is nothing but a set of extinctions and the evolution of new species from more ancient species. Animals have been going extinct since the beginning of time. There’s nothing new there! What is new is the way species are going extinct, which most due to human activities…



IMO it would be a combination of “natural” and “unnatural” acts. Coyotes naturally prey on black-footed ferrets. However, before humans turned the grassland plains of North America into farm fields, cities and kept fires controlled allowing trees to take hold where they never did before and mercilessly hunted the prairie dog population the prey of black-footed ferrets, the population of black-footed ferrets was so high that coyotes could never eliminate them all. Due to the previously mentioned human activated that caused the extreme reduction of black-footed ferrets, coyotes could now possible eat them all since their numbers are so low. At one point there was only one small population left in the world. They were all captured and raised in captivity. There they were then released back into the wild and there are now several healthy populations of ferrets. Most extinctions caused by man are not caused by over hunting but rather habitat destruction.



We are fortunate in that we have the ability to think and reason. We can look at what our activities are doing and realize the consequences of what we do.

I think this thread is very timely with Mr. Lusk's recent post:


Mr. Lusk says it well... We as humans have a lot of power to help or hinder wildlife!

Humans, whether we like it or not have changed the natural landscape of North America more in 300 years than probably the last 30,000 years! The use of a bulldozer to move a lot of dirt and build a pond is not natural. However, we can do it in way that respects the land and turns it into a place that not only we enjoy but wildlife enjoy as well. We stock fish in our ponds that aren't native to that drainage or even that continent. I am a realist though, and feel that to try to make a big deal out of a bluegill from one drainage getting moved to another drainage or a small valley being dammed up to form a 5 acre pond is ridiculous. Far worse has already been done.

Living not more than a mile or two from the shores of the Potomac River not too far outside Washington DC I have become quite fond of this fabled river. What a history it has! What great fishing it provides. Many would argue it as the greatest tidal largemouth bass fishery in the world. Yet, I doubt many of the professional tournament anglers even know that largemouth bass are not even native to the Potomac River!

Oh how I wish I could go back to 1492 and fish it with modern fishing gear.

To see the river turn silver in the spring spawning season with anadramous shad and striped bass so thick you could nearly walk across their backs from one shore to another. Full of Atlantic sturgeon so big 6 men couldn't carry them! There wouldn't be any largemouths, nor smallmouths to fish for though. No bluegills, no channel catfish or blue catfish either... What a different ecosystem it was.

The Potomac River was the dumping ground in many ways. The USFWS had many reproduction ponds on it’s banks in the 1800's and with floods and actual stocking, much of what was raised in those ponds ended up in the Potomac. With all these new fish being introduced it truly is amazing that so few species have been extirpated from this river. Only one species has been confirmed as being extirpated, the lowly trout-perch. Who cares about a trout-perch anyways? 99.999% of the population who call the DC region home wouldn't even know what a trout-perch is!

The lowly Trout-Perch:


This is just referring to just the fish, not all the pollution, sedimentation and other man caused detriments the river has faced. In recent years, water quality has improved on the river. The anadramous shad runs seem to grow with every year with reintroduction efforts, the striped bass are coming back as well. The Atlantic Sturgeon no longer reproduce in the river but a stray one from another drainage may occasionally enters it’s waters. Then you hear about new challenges, male bass producing eggs, snakehead fish establishing a reproducing population in the river. How will these recent changes affect the river? Who knows...

The man made world we live in is still very wild. We must strike a balance between living a modern world and enjoy modern convenience buy also realize what we do does have an affect. Giving back to nature can be very rewarding, whether its putting up duck or bluebird boxes, planting native trees for wildlife, helping clean up your local river or financially supporting a conservation organization like The National Wild Turkey Federation or Trout Unlimited.