When is a fish British?

[geoffmaynard]

Having a chat with cg74 on another thread and we got bogged down with what each of us considered indigenous, or native. We know that common/mirror carp were introduced here, and so were grass carp, so why do we generally consider one a native and the other an alien invader, and how many years does an alien invasive species have to be here before we accept it as a British fish? Think ing here of zander etc but it could also be mitten crabs and signal crayfish. When will we accept they are here to stay?

[barbelboi]

According to EA guidelines 150 years I believe.
Jerry

[beerweasel]

I will consider the Carp to be British when they are covered in batter and sold with chips.

[little oik]

Have asked that question myself many a time (only way to get a sensible answer)Seriously though .We have the Chub over here and although they are an invasive species and the fishery boards have so far spent obscene amount of time and money trying to eradicate it hopefully to no avail.We have been asking whether it would be classed as a fish at weigh in for a match .Answer dependant on organizers .
The Record committee of Eire state on their website that for a fish to be recognized they need 10 specimens (could be 5 cannot remember offhand)to be sent to them so they can be collated and identified .Then and only then will they set a specimen weight and a record .Not entirely sure this is a trustworthy way of doing it as they have also said relating to the chub ,that any caught should be killed and sent off to them with details of where caught so they can identify the fish and the area caught and deal with them in the appropriate manner for an invasive species .
Is the Rainbow classed as an English fish over there I wonder, or is that in the same class as the others like the Zander .
Or is it because its a game fish then its got to be alright as it is over here

[Ron The Hat Clay]

Species such as rainbow trout, wels and zander are certainly not British and to an extent can be regarded as interlopers. However rainbow trout are the basis of a food industry and from an anglers point of view can be regarded as the fishy equivalents to pheasants. They are stocked to be caught and eaten.

The carp is different in that most of the fish we catch today are the result of evolution by artificial selection by man. They are not natural species, yet have been here a long time.

Most can be regarded as native, yet there are some, and they are probably the biggest fish, which can be considered to be non-British

[The bad one]

The strict ecological definition is they must have been present since the retreat of the last ice sheet. Ergo been here for about 12,000 years.

Whilst the EA do claim a 150 years for fish, Natural England don't and use the ecological definition.

So take your pick?

Personal view, I go with NE's given the total cock ups the EA make

Oh and Ron you really should sort out Evolution and Adaption.
Evolution a process that happens naturally over long periods of time.

Adaption a modification by man for his purposes.

[Ron The Hat Clay]

"Evolution" - "Adaption", more or less the same thing as far as I can see.

Both mean gradual change to suit circumstances and the environment.

The Darwinian concept is evolution by "natural" selection.

Another way animals evolve is by human selection, or as it is termed: "selective breeding"

Just semantics!

[The bad one]

No Ron it's not semantics

Evolution happens over many Melania and many thousands of offspring by natural selection until nature arrives at the right specimen for that environment.
Adaption by man for his purposes happens over 10s of offspring in a relatively short space of time, untill man gets what "he" considers the right specimen dependant his requirements.

Nature

He and his
and requirments
Are the key differences

Ergo it not semantics

[Ron The Hat Clay]

Originally Posted by The bad one

Evolution happens over many Melania and many thousands of offspring by natural selection until nature arrives at the right specimen for that environment.

Do you mean that Homo sapiens has stopped evolving?

Will we look the same in say 2 million years hence? That is if we haven't killed ourselves off by then.

[cg74]

I disagree on any time scale being a prerequisite to the title 'indigenous' It simply has to get here unaided and like I pointed out (tongue in cheek) to Geoff; by 'true' definition that makes Cormorants 'indigenous' to inland Britain.

The term 'native' is purely a term used by man to somehow justify/legitimise an alien introduction; the EA's remit says 150 yrs, whereas NE go down the idigenous criteria.

So IMO anyone can decide for themselves what is/makes a native species and do so according to their wishes!!
(Which makes the term native a joke)