>>1168886>Because this species has beenpresent in many areas since the first surveys, its impacts on many of the native fishes are difficult to determine.
I do see the additional studies pointing to harmful affects that the authors attribute to carp, but individual case studies on certain lakes is not an all encompassing description of the behavior or effects of Common Carp in any given body of water.
Obviously Carp are introduced. In certain conditions they may be detrimental to native species.
I could go down a long list of things that are more harmful to native fish, and aquatic ecosystems before I came to the introduction of common carp.
Aquatic Ecosystems are much more complex than "new fish bad fish". A new species isn't an uncommon occurrence. New Species occur naturally in nature, over various time frames.
I guess my main problem with discussing carp, is a lot of people start the discussion with a set of axioms that are simply not true.
A lake/river with carp in it does not mean reduced native populations
A lake with carp in it does not mean reduced water quality
A lake with carp in it does not mean the extermination of all vegetation.
Most Rainbow Trout stocking programs are not stocking native fish. The same goes for most enhancement programs.
At what point do Common Carp stop being considered invasive?
They've been in most Watersheds for well over 200 years. And eradication is impossible. It would be Emu War 2 Electric Boogaloo.
