Should non-native lionfish be eliminated?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Dave, the impact of this non-native species is such that we know the consequences of their introduction. Removing them would most likely return the system to its pre-introduction (and "natural") dynamic. What native species has come to rely on the lionfish? Although grouper apparently eat them, I doubt the removal of lionfish will affect their populations too much as they may be a food source only because the native species grouper formerly fed on are disappearing.

Jim... hard to make the argument ecologically or evolutionarily that lionfish are a "substitute" for the loss of polar bears. It just doesn't hold water. However, your comments do raise the issue of whether humans, and therefore their impacts, are part of the natural system.
 
We have brought a few species to the brink of extinction by hunting them down, it would be no difference with the lionfish. Once people find it as a good source of food (I've read the meat is like that of the flounder) It can be eradicated.

How they got here is not the point.

I couldn't disagree more with this statement!

While how they got here should not be the primary focus, we need to learn from previous mistakes so it doesn't occur again.

There are bans on fruit and animals in place to prevent such things from occurring on land. The same should happen with fish and aquariums. Non-native species shouldn't be sold as pets.

This happened before with oscars and now they are on every puddle fed by the Everglades, then they brought peacock bass to eradicate them. Now there's a great peacock bass fishery in the everglades too.:shakehead: Granted the oscars and the peacock are not threatening the ecosystem they are in, but had non-natives species been banned for sale after that happened, the likelihood of someone having a lionfish in their aquarium would be minimal!

Wiz
 
On my last trip to the Bahamas a few weeks ago, I saw no lion fish on the shallow 20 to 40 foot freediving areas I was in ( where I could legally use a pole spear), but on the deeper spots, like the tunnels off of Port Lucaya ( 65 to 80 feet) --you really need to be doing scuba to enjoy it, and it is not legal to have a pole spear on scuba--and this is where I saw several lionfish....So the Bahamas needs to create some kind of exclusion for scuba spearing if the only target is lionfish :)

Dan V
 
JimLap, you are entitled to your opinion, however much I disagree with it. I don't think you can say that nature will even this one out, and if you follow the sequence of events these may as well become fish that consume us in some way. Lion fish, unchecked, will almost certainly wipe out the reef fish and further the reef itself, and this will have other impacts that I'll let you read about elsewhere.

Whether intentional, accidental, directly or indirectly, it was man who introduced this species to a non-native environment, and now this introduction has the potential to have devastating effects on that environment. Doesn't man have an obligation to try and prevent that from happening? Lion fish may not rise from the water to eat us humans whole, but the effects may, in the end, be just as murderous!
 
Last edited:
I never said that I was against them being killed, but I did say that it is pointless,
you kill a couple and a couple more will just move in etc. etc.
Had this lionfish issue been addressed 8 years ago when the first one was spotted in
North Carolina, there may have been a chance - not now.
If people want to eat them, more power to you but watch those spines,
I've been stung and it really does hurt.
 
Among scientists, a contrarian point of view on invasive species, from today's NY Times:

“I hate the ‘exotics are evil’ bit, because it’s so unscientific,” Dr. Sax said.

Dr. Sax and his colleagues are at odds with many other experts on invasive species. Their critics argue that the speed with which species are being moved around the planet, combined with other kinds of stress on the environment, is having a major impact.

There is little doubt that some invasive species have driven native species extinct. But Dr. Sax argues that they are far more likely to be predators than competitors.

In their new paper, Dr. Sax and Dr. Gaines analyze all of the documented extinctions of vertebrates that have been linked to invasive species. Four-fifths of those extinctions were because of introduced predators like foxes, cats and rats. The Nile perch was introduced into Lake Victoria in 1954 for food. It then began wiping out native fish by eating them.

“If you can eat something, you can eat it everywhere it lives,” Dr. Sax said.

But Dr. Sax and Dr. Gaines argue that competition from exotic species shows little sign of causing extinctions. This finding is at odds with traditional concepts of ecology, Dr. Sax said. Ecosystems have often been seen as having a certain number of niches that species can occupy. Once an ecosystem’s niches are full, new species can take them over only if old species become extinct.

But as real ecosystems take on exotic species, they do not show any sign of being saturated, Dr. Sax said. In their paper, Dr. Sax and Dr. Gaines analyze the rise of exotic species on six islands and island chains. Invasive plants have become naturalized at a steady pace over the last two centuries, with no sign of slowing down. In fact, the total diversity of these islands has doubled.

Fish also show this pattern, said James Brown of the University of New Mexico. He said that whenever he visits a river where exotic fish have been introduced, “I ask, ‘Have you seen any extinctions of the natives?’ ” “The first response you get is, ‘Not yet,’ as if the extinction of the natives is an inevitable consequence. There’s this article of faith that the net effect is negative.”

Dr. Brown does not think that faith is warranted. In Hawaii, for example, 40 new species of freshwater fish have become established, and the 5 native species are still present. Dr. Brown and his colleagues acknowledge that invasive species can push native species out of much of their original habitat. But they argue that native species are not becoming extinct, because they compete better than the invasive species in certain refuges.
The full article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/science/09inva.html?8dpc
 
I tried doing a search on what the natural predator of the lionfish was and couldn't really find anything. I did a lot of diving in the South Pacific where there were lionfish but they seemed to fit into the reefs ecosystem just fine. If they are going to end up destroying the ecosystem on this side of the world, than I'm all for eliminating them. I will say they are actually quite fun to photograph and I always enjoyed it when I was able to spot one. As far as humans getting harmed by them, it's the same as anything else that can harm a human, don't touch and you won't be stung, it's just that simple.

Does anyone know what the natural predator of the lionfish is, besides grouper?
 
Kill the lionfish!!

DIE DIE DIE

and hydrilla too...
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom