Consuming Asian Carp

Before starting this particular post, I had recalled reading a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article from February 2015 pertaining to a chef at Potawatomi who offered Asian Carp as an option on the menu (it has actually been on the menu since 2012). My initial thoughts after glancing at the headline were that nothing sounded appetizing about eating invasive carp at Potawatomi Bingo Casino. It sounded like a horrible joke to me. However, after reading the short interview with chef Peter Gebauer, I was impressed by the approach he was taking in dealing with invasive species. I would certainly try Asian Carp if given the opportunity. Apparently Potawatomi is the only restaurant in Milwaukee which offers the fish. I have a strong aversion to said establishment, so I suppose I will have to hunt down other places that serve the carp.

The interview with chef Gebauer led me to wonder if there were other individuals, communities, organizations, establishments, etc. that have been encouraging the consumption of the carp and what the possible benefits of doing so may be. I have learned that there are numerous reasons we should consider utilizing the fish as a more regular resource for food, etc. The multitude of benefits that can possibly be derived through using Asian Carp to our advantage are the driving force for network governance.

For example, in Missouri, there is an initiative to eat more carp. Mark Morgan, a researcher at the University of Missouri is encouraging more people to try the invasive species. Some of the hangups individuals have with the idea of  consuming the Asian Carp involve their less than attractive appearance. Also, they are a very bony fish and are often confused with the bottom-feeding common carp. However, it is said that Asian Carp taste more like cod.

"The Missouri Department of Conservation has always tried to promote responsible harvest which means when you hunt when you fish you utilize what you take out of the wild ,” Francis Skalicky from the Missouri Department of Conservation says. "From a biological standpoint the more carp are harvested, the more they're taken out of our ecosystem, the better it is for our natural fish."
The Department of Conservation will be demonstrating how to filet the carp this weekend at the Bowfishing Tournament at Bass Pro in Springfield.  Also during this event on Saturday, Morgan will be selling carp food dishes from a stand in the parking lot.  It does not cost money to attend, and he encourages people to come give it a try."

The way in which the Missouri Department of Conservation and Morgan are coming together is a perfect example of a network form of governance. 

There is desire to use the Asian Carp as a food source to combat hunger issues in America.

The Eat Mo Carp project works to turn invasive carp into a healthy food option for hungry individuals. The Eat Mo Carp team, based at the University of Missouri, is working to expand culinary use of Asian carp, while studying the associated behaviors of consumers and business-owners through the lens of social science theories. 

“This fish is so good, I’d take it over tilapia,” said chef Philippe Parola of Baton Rouge, La., who has conducted Asian carp cooking demonstrations in Illinois in conjunction with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources’ “Target Hunger Now!” program. The initiative encourages hunters and anglers to donate deer and Asian carp to food banks in Illinois.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman also expresses how hunger is a reality in this country and that it’s time to educate and introduce Asian Carp into humanitarian food aid program.

There are many actors involved in the initiative to utilize Asian Carp as a viable food resource. For example, the Illinois DNR, chefs, researchers, the Missouri Department of Conservation, universities, etc. all play a role. Network governance is possible and has been effective in some cases mentioned. Other collaborative goals are still being shaped. What it comes down to, in terms of this initiative, is that people from various backgrounds understand the importance of protecting our ecosystem from this damaging species. In addressing the effect the carp have had on the environment, clever and resourceful ideas continue to emerge due to dialogue and collaboration among different groups/individuals.

 Sources:

http://www.jsonline.com/features/food/asian-carp-just-another-unusual-dish-to-try-for-potawatomi-chef-peter-gebauer-b99436383z1-292672681.html

http://www.ozarksfirst.com/news/mo-initiative-eat-more-asian-carp

http://cafnrnews.com/2014/12/eat-mor-carp/

http://digitalrepository.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=upjournal_research

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/carpe-eat-um-invasive-asian-carp-leap-into-restaurants-grocery-stores/

http://www.sj-r.com/article/20120808/News/308089913/?Start=1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the fight against the Sea Lamprey

In my last post I talked about how the Department of Natural Resources had put in place the Invasive Species Rule to prevent the spread of many invasive species including the one I discussed, the Sea Lamprey. For this weeks post I want to talk about the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service because in my research I’ve found that they work with several different groups in order to not only prevent the spread and increasing of Sea Lamprey populations but they also try to work with people to develop new technologies to decrease the threat of the Sea Lamprey. The different people and organizations that I’ll talk about in this post are all working with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service under the Sea Lamprey Control Program. 

       One of the groups the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service works with is the Great Lakes Fishery commission. Acting as an agent through the Great Lakes Fishery they try to prevent the growth of Sea Lamprey by using the chemical control such as the lampricides to kill off the larvae, they use the mechanical and electrical barriers to trap the Sea Lamprey but still allow other fish to make their way through. One of the more interesting ways how they use pheromones to attract the Sea Lampreys which than leads them into the barriers or traps. One factor that I found in my research is that once the Sea Lampreys are captured they are actually sterilized which increases the possibility that a female will mate with a sterile male and in turn will also decrease the populations. 

         The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service also works with the Marquette Biological Station and they have developed the Larval Assessment Teams. These teams go to different streams and tributaries that they know have Sea Lamprey larvae or ones that they think they could have made it to. These teams find streams and tributaries that could be harboring Lamprey larvae, and what these teams do is they use specialized electrofishers to irritate larvae which than causes them to leave their burrows and allowing them to be captured and identified. The data that the teams collected has several different uses. The data can estimate Sea Lamprey larval populations in infested streams, it allows them to know which streams can be treated wit lampricides the following year, areas where the lampricides will need to be applied and how much larval populations are distributed within each stream. These teams survey between the months of April and October at a total 428 different streams and waterways with a total of 3,082 different sites. One aspect of these teams that I really liked was that when they survey states that are along the U.S and Canadian border they will actually work with the Department of Oceans and Fisheries of Canada staff. I really liked that they work together to address this problem because only through cooperation will this problem be able to be appropriately addressed. 

          Another fact about the Sea Lamprey Control Program is that the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service also use it to work with people to develop new technologies to control the Lamprey populations. 

          One idea that has been developed is the use of pheromones and alarm cues which would influence the Sea Lamprey migration behavior. Using the pheromones they can pull the lamprey into particular areas that will allow them to be trapped and than treated with lampricides. The alarm cues in turn push the lamprey away from areas that can’t be treated with lampricides. 

Biological Science Technician Sean Soucy monitoring the push-pull study site where alarm cue and larval sea lamprey odor responses are being tested on the Upper Ocqueoc River (Lake Huron). - Photo Credit: Erica Adams, Michigan State University.

          Another interesting tactic is the idea of eel ladders. When trapping lampreys it’s difficult to trap them without also trapping other non-target species, the eel ladders allow it to be easier to trap and sort through the species caught and allow the release of non-lamprey species into better conditions. The eel ladders work by being placed upstream of fish passages and they have wetted ramps with vertical pegs that take advantage of the lamprey swimming style. When the lamprey’s scale the ladder they are than dropped into a retention basin, while the non-lamprey species are allowed to swim freely at the base of the ladder. 

Biological Science Technicians Matt Bach and Bruce Eldridge monitoring eel ladder style traps at the Cheboygan River (Lake Huron) trap site. - Photo Credit: Savannah Bell, Biological Science Technician, USFWS.

            Another technology is the Pulse Direct Current which is a portable and low-voltage fish guidance system called NEMO that directs the lampreys into traps. The advantage of using NEMO besides the fact that it has a fun name is that they have been found to be very effective. It’s also a great tactic because it’s portable, easily deployed and capable of handling high flow events and debris loads. 

Biological Science Technician Kevin Letson monitoring the Chocolay River (Lake Superior) study site where a low-voltage DC fish guidance system (NEMO) is being used to lead sea lampreys into traps. - Photo Credit: Jason Pynnonen, Biological Science Technician, USFWS.

Biological Science Technician Kevin Letson monitoring the Chocolay River (Lake Superior) study site where a low-voltage DC fish guidance system (NEMO) is being used to lead sea lampreys into traps. - Photo Credit: Jason Pynnonen, Biological Science Technician, USFWS.

           What I really like about the Sea Lamprey Control Program is that it works with several different groups and organizations to address the problem of controlling the lamprey populations. I think it was a smart idea by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service because it opens up room for several different opinions on the issue which can allow for different ideas that may not have been thought of by just one group, it could also lead to the further development of an idea already in place which could make it more effective. 

Sea Lamprey Control Program. (n.d.). Retrieved November 18, 2015, from http://www.fws.gov/

Silent Invaders: Sea Lamprey. (n.d.). Retrieved November 18, 2015, from http://www.youtube.com/

Zebra Mussel Monitoring Program

Volunteering as a network to combat the spread of invasive aquatic species is an initiative that the DNR loves taking advantage of. In general, the DNR recognizes volunteering as a productive way to get communities and a diverse set of actors involved in all sorts of Environmental problems. In 2014 the DNR has saved 7 million Dollars in active volunteering across all divisions. But, over the past 6 years MN DNR volunteering has dropped significantly, about 10,000 volunteers less in 2014 than they were in 2008. Although, volunteers for the Ecological and Water Resources division has gained about 1,500 volunteers in that time frame. The DNR is rolling out new volunteer opportunities that monitor the location and spread of aquatic invasive species.

The Zebra Mussel Monitoring Program is a citizen volunteer program that assists the DNR in the siting and geographical trends of zebra mussels. Volunteers act as an extension of the DNR, by reporting their findings directly to them. Volunteers mostly consist of residents who live along rivers and lakes, so this information is readily available in their backyard. These volunteers act as stakeholders since they are directly affected by AIS on their lakeshores, creating a proactive set of volunteers in the monitoring program. The reward of their voluntary actions is very direct by having a clean lake and recreationally usable lake, which also increases their lakeshore property value.

The classic tire in a river

 It’s required that registered volunteers submit at least one monetary report each year, but since monitoring is as easy as looking around the dock, many people go above and beyond that requirement. Volunteers can also set monetary devices, (basically an underwater buoy) to submit more controlled and specific data to the DNR. Volunteers are usually the first to discover the arrival of zebra mussels into new lakes, the significance of this cannot be understated because removal really only is possible in the early stages. If it wasn't for the diligence of the monetary volunteers, examples such as eradicating Christmas Lake (talked in earlier blogs) couldn't have been made possible.

The report for volunteers submit to DNR

The DNR has done monitoring techniques on their own but it is a really costly process and is unattainable to reach every lake or river in the state. Aside the Zebra Mussel Monitoring Program, volunteers can travel around and monitor lakes. There were 6 of these volunteers last summer and have saved roughly 10,000 in monitory costs. This just goes to show the economic importance of the Zebra Mussel Monitoring Program, so that spending can be focused on other aspects of the problem, such as the costs of herbicides and pesticides in the treatment process. It is also unfeasible for the DNR to obtain appropriate data on all lakes that are at risk of zebra mussels, so this network is a solution to monitoring a vast geographical area. The networking of these volunteers help connect a broader scale web and trends of AIS infestation across the state, a task that would be hard to accomplish by a single entity.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteering/zebramussel_monitoring/index.html

http://gradworks.umi.com/15/46/1546091.html 

Laws, Regulations, and Policies: Aquatic Invasive Species in Great Lakes Region.

I am going to focus on Asian Carp for the majority of this post. I am also choosing to touch on multiple examples of the how laws, regulations, policies, etc. have influenced the ongoing debates and concerns over these well known invasive fish. It is rather necessary to discuss a handful of factors that contributed (or contribute) to the very real threats our Great Lakes are facing, especially given the Bighead and silver carp were imported to the U.S. in the early 1970s. It is safe to say that all of these implications didn't occur over night.

As with most environmental dilemmas, there are typically other issues that end up overlapping (such as economics), thus resulting in disagreements and either insufficient, untimely, or improper action. I will discuss this in more detail shortly. 

Before I continue, I would like to mention that from the research I have done on laws and policies in relation to invasive species in general, but particularly Asian Carp, there seems to be major issues with effective laws/decisions/agreements at both regional and national levels in this country.

For example, we can start with The Lacey Act, which was passed by Congress in 1900. The initial goal of this Act was to prohibit any foreign wild animals or birds into the country without a permit.
Not surprisingly, the Act was modified over the years. Below is a nice little chart that puts into perspective the progression of the invasion of the Asian Carp under The Lacey Act.

A clear issue with The Lacey Act was that many of the injurious taxa that were acknowledged on the list had already been present in the U.S. and most continued to spread on. The Act was created to prevent the import and export of species, but uh yeah, if these species are already established it is not going to be any simple task to hinder their growth/movement.

In case you weren't familiar with the word in this context,  Under The Lacey Act, an injurious wildlife listing means the species has been demonstrated to be harmful to either the health and welfare of humans, interests of forestry, agriculture, horticulture, or the welfare and survival of wildlife or the resources that wildlife depend upon.

 The Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act (signed by Obama on December 14th, 2010)-Amends the Lacey Act to add the Bighead carp to the list of injurious species that are prohibited from being shipped or imported into the United States. 

A simple, informative website about Asian Carp from the Wisconsin DNR:

WI DNR ASIAN CARP: TIPS, RULES, REGULATIONS

Aside from some minor gestures from government, I have not been able to find any actual laws that address what the next crucial step(s) will be to prevent a seemingly possible Asian Carp invasion in the Great Lakes. I sense frustration in the articles I read because there are actual options to prevent the carp from getting into the lakes.

"Current state and federal strategies to prevent an Asian carp invasion center on the use of electric barriers. A December 2013 federal study concluded that there was “no evidence that Asian carp are bypassing the barriers.” However, that same study warned of evidence that shows the use of electric fields in the water doesn’t always stop the movement of fish.

A 2012 bi-national study found that, if Asian carp were to enter the Great Lakes system, they would likely spread to all five lakes within a decade and have a severe ecological impact."

 The region needs to come together on an action plan,” Eder says.
 ( http://www.csgmidwest.org/policyresearch/0214Asiancarp.aspx)



The big reason nothing is moving forward is due to the Chicago Area Waterway Systems.
I think the chart below puts some rather complicated options into a little more perspective. Overall, it is very clear that agreements need to be made and control needs to be taken in order to maintain our lakes.

 Sources

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/news/369.html 
http://www.csgmidwest.org/policyresearch/0214Asiancarp.aspx 
http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/the_lacey_act_failed_to_keep_asian_carp_out_can_new_bills_before_congress_d 





 

The Fight Against Invasive Species

   In the battle against invasive species there's many rules, regulations, policies and laws that are enforced to try and not only control invasive species that are already in Wisconsin but to also prevent new ones from establishing and calling Wisconsin home. One of those that I found is the Invasive Species Rule, specifically chapter NR 40 of the rule. The Invasive Species Rule chapter NR 40 makes it illegal to possess, transport, transfer or introduce certain invasive species without the possession of a permit, which must be obtained from the DNR.

   The Invasive Species Rule, chapter NR 40, prevents people from transporting, possessing, transferring or introducing invasive species by requiring them to obtain a permit. The process to obtain one of these permits is very intricate and a person must complete all of the steps before they will be granted a permit. The steps for obtaining a permit are as follows;

   1) The person applying must submit a written application that states what the invasive species is being used for transport, possession, transferring or introduction. They must describe any other permits that they already have and why they need this particular permit. They also need to state where the species will be kept and how they're going to dispose of them once they're finished.

   2) They must fit the approval criteria. They must know the proper management of the invasive species they're dealing with. They must have the proper facility to house them and that the species won't have any significant harm to it's environment or the people around it.

   3) Issuance and conditions which means that if there's a lot of public interest in the species the DNR will hold a public meeting before it makes the final decision on the permit.

   4) Records and recording which means the person who obtained the permit must keep accurate and complete records of all their activities, this is required by the DNR and can be taken by them at any point and subject to an inspection.

   5) The transferring or alteration of a permit isn't allowed unless the person has been given authorization by the DNR to do so.

   6) No one is allowed to violate these terms for any reason and if they do the DNR is allowed to issue them a citation, refer them to the department of justice for enforcement and even revoke any permit that they were issued under chapter NR 40.

   The DNR not only enforces the Invasive Species Rule through the regulation of giving permits and making sure people are obeying the standards that are in place for each permit, but they also enforce the precautions that are put in place by the rule. The precautions are as follows;

   1) people are required to notify the DNR if for any reason a invasive species or part of an invasive species has escaped or may possibly escape, and they must give them the location of where the species was and the name of the species.

   2) Immediate removal of aquatic plant or animal and the drainage of water. This means that any vehicle, boat, boat trailer or any other equipment must be cleaned of any plant or animal species that's attached to it and must also be drained of any water before it can leave the launch dock or the parking area.

   3) Transport of vehicles and equipment into Wisconsin. This states that any transport over land of a vehicle, boat, boat trailer, boating or fishing equipment must be cleared of any plant, animal or water that may be on or in it before it's allowed to enter the state.

   4) Illegal to launch, take off or transport. This states that no one can place or use a vehicle, water craft or other object of any kind in any wetland or non-navigable water of the state if it has any aquatic plant or animal attached to it.

   5) Quarantined materials, which means no one can transport an identified carrier of an invasive species from a department infestation control zone.

   6) Use of prohibited fish or crayfish as bait. This states that unless a person has a permit to do so they can't use prohibited fish or crayfish invasive species as fishing bait.

   7) Introduction prohibited. This states that unless a person has a permit to do so they can't introduce a nonnative algae or cynobacteria species in any state water.

  The Invasive Species Rule is more than just handing out permits to people and making regulations, its also about putting these regulations into act and doing what they can to stop the establishment of new invasive species and to also stop the spread of current invasive species that are already established. While the Invasive Species Rule deals with over 128 different invasive species, one in particular that they deal with that has a large impact on the native aquatic life of the Great Lakes is the Sea Lamprey. Like most other invasive species that have flourished in the great lakes the Sea Lamprey has devastated the ecosystem of the Lakes it has established itself into.

   The Sea Lamprey is a parasitic fish that is originally native to the Atlantic Ocean and it's thought that it's introduction first began in 1835 when it was first spotted in Lake Ontario. At first they were kept contained by the Niagara Falls which had served as a natural barrier to them, however, in the 1800's and early 1900's there were improvements to the Welland Canal which gave a bypass around the Falls to allow for a shipping connection, which in turn allowed the Lamprey access to all the Great Lakes and their population has since flourished. In it's native habitat of the Atlantic Ocean the Lamprey doesn't have such devastating effects because not only does it have natural predators but also because their food source has evolved through co-evolution which allows them to survive an attack with few consequences, while the fish native to the Great Lakes weren't able to co-evolve so they rarely survive an attack from a lamprey. When a Lamprey feeds it attaches its suction like mouth to the fish and grips it with its teeth, it than attacks the skin and scales of the fish with a sharp tongue which tears a whole in the host fish allowing them access to the hosts blood and other bodily fluids by secreting an enzyme that prevents their blood from clotting. Due to this aggressive attack it can cause the direct death of the fish or because the wound they leave behind is so severe it can cause the fish to die from infection. The Lamprey has devastated the Great Lakes fish populations because not only do they reproduce at a significantly faster rate than the native fish with a single female being able produce up to 100,000 eggs in their lifetimes. They also have a large food source because they're able to feed on several different fish species that are native to the Great Lakes.

  This image shows the suction mouth and teeth of a Sea Lamprey




This image shows the Sea Lamprey attached to a host fish.





This image shows the wound that is left behind by the Sea Lamprey


   However, even though the Sea Lamprey has caused serious damage to the fish of the Great Lakes, with the installation of the Invasive Species Rule enforced by the DNR which helps stop the movement of the Lamprey and by working with the Great Lakes Fishery, they have been able to put a dent in the population growth of the Sea Lamprey. They have implemented tactics that stop not only the spawning of larvae by using a lampricides that are specialized pesticides for Sea Lamprey's that prevent them from developing and migrating to lakes to feed. They have also implemented a barrier system that prevents the Lamprey's from reaching their spawning grounds by catching them in nets and allowing them to be than be removed, but still allowing other fish to migrate to their spawning grounds and reproduce.





Image of the barriers put in place to
prevent the movement of Sea Lamprey



sources:

Invasive Species Rule. (n.d.). Retrieved November 4, 2015, from http://dnr.wi.gov

Chapter NR40, Invasive Species identification,classification and control. (n.d.). Retrieved November 4, 2015, from http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/

Sea Lamprey control in the Great Lakes. (n.d.). Retrieved November 4, 2015, from http://www.glfc.org/

Combating the reproduction and dispersion of aquatic invasive species (AIS) can have many different solutions, but there is no such thing as an end all be all solution to aquatic invasive species. Proposed solutions so far can range from educating water-goers to a literally removing the invasive species. My scope of legislation in governing AIS is the recent amendments in the removal of aquatic invasive species. This law is especially important because it creates an accountability system when removing invasive species, and ensures the removal process runs efficiently and is reliable as a solution. These are state laws that are primarily carried out and enforced by the MN DNR, but have also been implemented on weed removal businesses. The goal of this law is to combat the arrival of new invasive species into lakes, which is oriented around the unintended transportation of AIS.

                    84D.10 Subdivision 3: Removal and confinement

To sum up the political jargon, you must have a license for removal of AIS. Also, it is unlawful to enter an uninfested lake with living AIS organisms on equipment used in the removal process. Equipment used in the removal process must either be dried out for 11 days or if any early must be pressure washed at high temperatures to kill any living AIS.

DNR decontamination station at a public boat launch

  You may ask, how could removing the invasive species ever do more harm then good? The simple answer is they're many different types of aquatic invasive species and individual lakes contain a differing number of invasive species (or non at all). The equipment used when removing invasive species can act like a vehicle for them, traveling from lake to lake on a days work. Sense removal companies or the DNR travel to many lakes on a daily basis, this is noted as being a big threat of dispersion of an invasive species. 

I feel like I owe you in explaining how AIS can attach on to removal equipment. For example, a milfoil stalk naturally fragments itself in order to reproduce; it only takes one inch of a stalk in order to reproduce another plant. A zebra mussel can lie up to 40,000 eggs each mating season and produce larva as small as 2 cm. These are just examples of the things that can attach or get tangled in equipment. The elusiveness of these species through their size and numbers cannot be understated. This is what this law tries to address, and I hope to have illustrated the importance of the regulations we have on removing invasive species.

Like a lawn service for your milfoil

Believe it or not, people don't like zebra mussels or milfoil on their lakeshores and there's big money in the removal of AIS which for-profit companies are taking advantage of. The DNR isn't the only actor involved, the emergence of these businesses are a reason for the recent amendments in the removal process. The Minnesota state legislature recognizes businesses as being an actor that must be governed and held accountable. Assumingly, the DNR abides by these regulations so the spotlight is on these companies to make sure they follow through with these provisions. 

 This past summer I worked at a business out of Long Lake Minnesota, called Waterfront Restoration LLC. Take a look at the website! http://www.waterfrontrestoration.com/ . This is an example of a business that is removing a host of invasive species from a large number of lakes. The company has adapted to the provisions into its practice by mandating their divers to decontaminate equipment daily, as they cannot wait out the 11-day dry period otherwise. Our mornings always start with using the “Hosty” which sprays highly pressurized water at up to 200 Fahrenheit, killing any living AIS that is attached to buoys or dive gear. Scheduling out a crews day is also held in high regard because of this law. Our scheduler’s job is to make sure that dive crews don’t infest clean lakes with AIS that may be attached to their equipment throughout the day. In short, there is a dichotomy of crews that go into zebra mussel infested waters and crews that go in lakes without zebra mussels. It sounds like an easy task but with 8 crews going to as many as 25 different lakes each day, it’s a job that is taken seriously so that they don’t run the risk of infesting clean lakes.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=84D

http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/1andy07292.jpg

 
www.aquarius-systems.com