If you're gonna kill carp..

[itchmesir]

At least do it for a good reason...

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/lifestyle...1cc4c002e0.html

[Deitz Dittrich]

seems like a great idea...

[itchmesir]

Quote:

The winning team had 1,600 pounds

that's a lot of f'in carp for one boat

[TruthWalleyes]

Sounds like it was spread out over 3 weekends. Great idea though!

[mainbutter]

I'm glad MN has laws about wonton waste. I know bow fishers and spear-divers in MI who literally shoot a few hundred lbs of carp and toss 'em in the dumpster. At least the carp in the article became fertilizer.

I've started composting my fish carcasses after filleting the ones I keep. Its good stuff for the garden and compost pile.

[Jmnhunter]

that is the standard procedure of disposing carp-fertilizer. mainbutter, carp in the dumpster eventually become fertilizer and is probably the cleanest thing in the landfills!

[not_nuf_time]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't it illegal to throw back rough fish into the water, after being caught. No wanton waste crime then. I thought it use-to be that way, maybe the law has changed.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't it illegal to throw back rough fish into the water, after being caught. No wanton waste crime then. I thought it use-to be that way, maybe the law has changed.

That is soooooooooo wrong. It's perfectly legal to throw roughfish back.

[HuskerBen]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't it illegal to throw back rough fish into the water, after being caught. No wanton waste crime then. I thought it use-to be that way, maybe the law has changed.

That law was removed from the books in 1981. 29 years ago. But there are still a lot of people who think rough fish must be killed.

[Schollmeier]

Originally Posted By: not_nuf_time

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't it illegal to throw back rough fish into the water, after being caught. No wanton waste crime then. I thought it use-to be that way, maybe the law has changed.

That law was removed from the books in 1981. 29 years ago. But there are still a lot of people who think rough fish must be killed.

I'm pretty sure that law only applied to Carp (non-natives) not Roughfish (natives).

[Brad B]

current law reads that ANY fish not kept must be returned to the water right away. The only exception to this is that netted carp can not be returned to the water or also fish that have been speared or shot with a bow can't be returned also. See page 12 & 59 of the 2010 regulation book.

[zdmiller]

When we were younger we would net those things in the spring at the local lake, bust their heads and leave them on shore. They are a destructive invasive species and should never be returned to the water. Now I do the same thing with hook and line. Im helping the local ecosystem by providing a nice meal for some critter out there. In the spring I'll use them as fertilizer for the berry patch. I would NEVER allow those things the chance to reproduce, anyone who releases them is just further degrading their local aquatic habitats. Releasing a carp would be akin to knowingly releasing zebra mussels into your local lake.

[bobbymalone]

Releasing a carp would be akin to knowingly releasing zebra mussels into your local lake.

not quite, considering they are already there.

you can bash all the heads you want and it might make you feel better but you aren't gonna accomplish anything. that's why the DNR has decided it's better to just throw them back rather than have dead fish all over the shore.

the key is to keep invasives out of water they aren't already in, once they are there you can't stop it.

with carp, do as you wish... but the native roughfish must be killed mentality is just plain ignorant.

[JimBuck]

Leaving them on shore to decompose is also hurting your local watershed. Ammonia and other chemicals are released from a decomposing fish and in turn wind up in the lake. The garden is a great alternative to just leaving them on shore.

[zdmiller]

It may not make a difference in extirpating them from a body of water, but if everyone disposed of them when they were caught, including those people who target the fish, and net them in their spawning areas; this will have a big impact in controlling their population within a body of water, and their degradation of the lakes substrate surfaces and water quality. To my knowledge I have never read a publication put out by the DNR that encourages the release of carp back into a body of water, its true it is not illegal to put them back in a body of water in which they currently exist but it is no means “recommended”. Why do you think the DNR, ACE, and USFWS spend millions of our dollars nationwide every year CONTROLLING lamprey, carp, and zebra mussel populations where they ALREADY exist aside from preventing their spread. Why are they studying ways to eliminate them from lakes that are currently suffering from populations? -http://www.startribune.com/local/west/37480574.html?elr=KArksD:aDyaEP:kD:aUg:oaEQDUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

“Population and management

Although European Americans introduced carp intentionally to Minnesota, today the DNR is trying to reduce populations and prevent them from spreading to other lakes. It is illegal to transplant carp in Minnesota or to use live carp for bait.” -http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/snapshots/fish/commoncarp.html

[zdmiller]

alright, well toss them in the weeds up the bank, any small biproduct of a decomposing fish will be filtered in the riparian zone and will never reach the body of water. Look all I'm getting at is that you don't need any "good reason" to kill carp, the fact that they are an invasive species that degrades our lakes and rivers is all the reason anyone needs.

[jeffreyd]

when i was a kid in the late 60's and 70's, when we were at the grandparents lake cabin in sd, if we caught a carp, it went straight to the garden. knocked on the head and she got the shovel to bury it. she knew exactly where she wanted it planted and did it each year for as long as i can remember. so this is not a new technology by any means.

[zdmiller]

I wasn't advocating killing native roughfish either, I believe they have their place in a fishery.

[Jmnhunter]

believe me, i'm trying to put a dent in the carp population with my fiberglass arrow

[fiddleFish]

After a century of modern fish management, we've come to the realization that the carp is here to stay and no amount of money or effort is going to make a significant impact on their abundance. In open or semi-open systems, intensive carp (and other rough fish) removal efforts (on the scale of 100's of thousands of pounds annually) typically do little more than cause compensatory decreases in mortality of the remaining population, along with massive spikes in recruitment.

Populations of carp typically rebound quickly to pre-removal biomass levels with a restructuring of the population from primarily large, old, slow-growing individuals, to more younger, faster growing carp. Younger fish have higher specific consumption rates, so the net result often is to increase the amount of total productivity in the system that ends up in carp biomass. This phenomenon was described in Gordon Priegel's classic 1967 paper on the Lake Winnebago drum removal experiment.

Perhaps the most we can do is to view the carp as an essentially unlimited aquatic resource that can provide food, fertilizer, or recreation for all who want it. While it might bum out some of us more dedicated roughfishers out to see large carp harvested for fertilizer or the dumpster, the recreational opportunity it provided to the harvester has value.

The unfortunate (IMHO) perception that other rough should also be exterminated is another story, fueled by generations of a fisheries (mis)management perception that if we remove rough fish from a system, all or much of that biomass tonnage will be diverted into more revenue-producing gamefish. In small, highly managed, closed systems, it can make a difference, but

[maj330]

Thanks for your post Fiddlefish. I hope you continue your thoughts. It seems that part of your post didn't make it onto the board.

[Jmnhunter]

fiddlefish, as you stated, most carp populations are here to stay, so the perception of "wasting" trophy size carp is not an issue as there are PLENTY of them!

if you have time, i think alot of people would benefit reading Sorenson's studies from the U of M on carp populations.

some key points he has mentioned is, although carp populations are here to stay, they CAN be managed to lower numbers to increase water quality, plant life, and game fish populations. So contrary to your beliefs of wasting money to taking out fish is wasterful, it actually is not. I would post links, but thats FM forum sucicide :-)

[fiddleFish]

JMNHunter - thanks for the reference to Sorenson's research. I'm going to request a couple of reprints from him. I have to admit I haven't kept current since I left the profession almost a decade ago and ground is being broken on several emerging fronts.

The field of hormonal/phermonal based population management shows some exciting potential. Achieving a cost-effective, sustainable means to control common carp on a medium- to large-scale basis would be a huge breakthrough. It boggles the imagination to think how many fishery careers have been spent battling this species with no appreciable successes in the field.

[fiddleFish]

maj330 - I was going to point to a few carp control efforts that were deemed successful, but these are pretty recent and haven't withstood the test of time. Examples include Lake Wingra, and Lakes Riley and Susan.

There have been some successes with inducing a "population crash" via intensive removal, coupled with denying access by new immigrants and access to spawning areas that have pushed carp populations to lower levels. Lake Winona is one success story that has endured nearly 40 years now. A "total" kill combined with access barriers knocked down carp levels and they remain low today. But this can't be accomplished on open systems.

It will be interesting to keep track of the Lakes Riley and Susan studies being done by Sorenson Labs. We'll take every success story we can get.

[MinnesnowtaWild]

I'm sorry but I disagree. If people never released the Carp they caught, it would have a very minor affect on total populations.

It would take much more than angler efforts to eradicate Carp populations. They do it every year on my local lake, a large Carp contest and they dispose of all the Carp after weigh-in and the Carp still thrive in this lake, reaching sizes well over 20 lbs.