When does an invasive species become an accepted part of the Eco system?
Full circle. Read my first post.
Also as far as I am aware what i suggested in that first post I have not read or heard anyone else suggest anywhere else and i came up with it myself.
You have actually therefore picked the worst possible example to suggest I am simply copying someone else.
Ironically however what you are suggesting (Carp are not indiginous blah blah) is clearly following what others say rather than think for yourself.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2009
- Messages
- 9,335
- Reaction score
- 1,692
Since carp are really warm water fish it's quite obvious they have been introduced. Even now they arnt the best at reproducing.
thecrow
Well-known member
So getting back to the OP how long before anything that is considered none indigenous ( I think that's always open for interpretation) is considered "native" are rhododendrons considered native/ we have some alpine plants in our rockery that I am sure are not native but have been in this country for a long time how about them. How about rainbow trout are they now native?
Imo whether something is considered to be native will depend on what it is, what it affects and the views of individuals that will be coloured if it affects them.
Imo whether something is considered to be native will depend on what it is, what it affects and the views of individuals that will be coloured if it affects them.
Ian you could be right but if they were "introduced" either naturally or by man more than @10,000 years ago then they are indiginous.
Man has been here for the best part of a million years....so there was 9990000 thousand years for 1 bloke to have transported 1 Carp and dumped it in some puddle were it survived the Ice age. And remember for some of that time the UK was connected via land bridges to mainland Europe as well.
I recon there is more than a small chance it happened & we simply have not found the evidence yet.
...and PS when and if it does happen I will take HUGE delight in coming back on FM and letting everyone know about it
:wh
Last edited:
barbelboi
Well-known member
All extensive research has shown that carp were introduced around the mid 1300's. Probably because folk were sick of eating snotties................:nightmare:
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2009
- Messages
- 9,335
- Reaction score
- 1,692
Ian you could be right but if they were "introduced" either naturally or by man more than @10,000 years ago then they are indiginous.
Man has been here for the best part of a million years....so there was 9990000 thousand years for 1 bloke to have transported 1 Carp and dumped it in some puddle were it survived the Ice age. And remember for some of that time the UK was connected via land bridges to mainland Europe as well.
I recon there is more than a small chance it happened & we simply have not found the evidence yet.
...and PS when and if it does happen I will take HUGE delight in coming back on FM and letting everyone know about it
No idea if they're classed as indininious to be honest.
Agree Jerry. However I am suggesting the possibility that could have been a (re)introduction.
I always thought Monks could have picked something better tasting to stock. Must have been all the beer I suppose...after 8 pints even a Kebab tastes like Michelin cooking..
I always thought Monks could have picked something better tasting to stock. Must have been all the beer I suppose...after 8 pints even a Kebab tastes like Michelin cooking..
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2009
- Messages
- 9,335
- Reaction score
- 1,692
I might be wrong BB, but didn't the Romans bring carp over along with pheasants and sponges to wipe your cracks?
They had some poor scrotes wipe theirs for em while the had chit chat about Boudicas ass lol
thecrow
Well-known member
Connected by what was called Doggerland that is now the bed of the North sea.
This bit from wiki is interesting on what were once indigenous and no longer are.
The archaeological potential of the area had first been identified in the early 20th century, but interest intensified in 1931 when a fishing trawler operating east of the Wash dragged up a barbed antler point that was subsequently dated to a time when the area was tundra. Vessels have dragged up remains of mammoth, lion and other animals, as well as a few prehistoric tools and weapons
Last edited:
barbelboi
Well-known member
I'd like to agree with you Ian but then we'd both be wrong.
In all the Roman excavations there was only the remains of one carp ever found that was attributed to a pet of a high ranking bod. France was the furthest west the Romans introduced carp for whatever reason.....
Last edited:
Keith M
Well-known member
I was always taught that the Carp was bought over to Britain for food probably by the Romans and their legions when they came over to Britain around 2000 years ago.
I think that after 2000 years surely it should now be on the indigenous list.
Although not my favourite species; I thoroughly enjoy catching decent sized Carp on waters that have a more natural stocking level of them and where they grow to a respectable size because of this. I get a lot of satisfaction when I catch decent sized Carp from this type of water.
But I hate fishing on commercial fisheries that are full of them, simply because it makes commercial sense as far as profits are concerned, and clubs that decide to turn a decent mixed fishery into a Carp puddle by often shortsighted club officials, but that’s just me, they are definately wanted by thousands of anglers whe enjoy having their rods bent double, and especially if they can do it in comfort, it’s up to them; I rarely if ever bother to fish these places anyway.
As well as America, nearly all Australians also hate Carp with a vengeance and they even make their plant fertiliser from Carp in Australia (see below)
Australia's Best Liquid Fish Fertiliser |Charlie Carp
This is an extract from Australia’s ‘Charlie Carp’:
Keith
I think that after 2000 years surely it should now be on the indigenous list.
Although not my favourite species; I thoroughly enjoy catching decent sized Carp on waters that have a more natural stocking level of them and where they grow to a respectable size because of this. I get a lot of satisfaction when I catch decent sized Carp from this type of water.
But I hate fishing on commercial fisheries that are full of them, simply because it makes commercial sense as far as profits are concerned, and clubs that decide to turn a decent mixed fishery into a Carp puddle by often shortsighted club officials, but that’s just me, they are definately wanted by thousands of anglers whe enjoy having their rods bent double, and especially if they can do it in comfort, it’s up to them; I rarely if ever bother to fish these places anyway.
As well as America, nearly all Australians also hate Carp with a vengeance and they even make their plant fertiliser from Carp in Australia (see below)
Australia's Best Liquid Fish Fertiliser |Charlie Carp
This is an extract from Australia’s ‘Charlie Carp’:
Keith
Last edited:
barbelboi
Well-known member
As stated earlier, I believe all know records point to the mid 14th century at the earliest. There are records that show prior to this time that carp were imported from France for banquets, social occasions, etc.
The Romans were responsible for the introduction of carp into Italy and many other colonies from the Danube area. The United Kingdom was not included this initial expansion of the carps territory. Following the decline of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Monastic life of the early Christians the carp became a domesticated food fish of the monks. During this period the first selective breeding took place to try and improve the carp’s growth rate.
Records suggest that carp were present in England from the late fourteenth century, and that by the I53O's they seem well established and much sought after. Despite extensive searches historians have been unable to find reference to carp being kept in ponds in England before c1350. Research has shown that the most popular freshwater fish before this date were bream and pike, particularly on the royal table, where it is thought contemporary trends would be mirrored.
The Romans were responsible for the introduction of carp into Italy and many other colonies from the Danube area. The United Kingdom was not included this initial expansion of the carps territory. Following the decline of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Monastic life of the early Christians the carp became a domesticated food fish of the monks. During this period the first selective breeding took place to try and improve the carp’s growth rate.
Records suggest that carp were present in England from the late fourteenth century, and that by the I53O's they seem well established and much sought after. Despite extensive searches historians have been unable to find reference to carp being kept in ponds in England before c1350. Research has shown that the most popular freshwater fish before this date were bream and pike, particularly on the royal table, where it is thought contemporary trends would be mirrored.
Another Dave
Well-known member
I once read a convincing case that the oak wouldn't have found its way back to northern europe after the ice age as quickly as it did if it was just Jays spreading the acorns.
O
O.C.F.Disorder
Guest
I heard that monks ate carp on a friday because they were not allowed to eat "meat" on fridays
Keith M
Well-known member
I read that Pike were valued a lot more (for the table) than Salmon in the distant past and that there were Gudgeon parties held on the banks of the Thames where the ladies and gents used to catch gudgeon and then get their servants to fry them up just like whitebait.
I should imagine that these parties used to be on the upper reaches out of London else there would have been too much human waste in the Thames surely.
Anyway I seem to be deviating from this threads title slightly; sorry.
I should imagine that these parties used to be on the upper reaches out of London else there would have been too much human waste in the Thames surely.
Anyway I seem to be deviating from this threads title slightly; sorry.
Last edited:
lutra
Well-known member
No, your doing a crow. I didn't say that. Thats just what you would have liked me to have said.
ps. Looking indigenous up in wiki don't scream carp to me. Way to much no human intervention stuff going on. Them things couldn't even manage a ham shank on their own.
no-one in particular
Well-known member
Its murky waters, when investigating the beavers reintroduction' 500 years is fine; they are still native. The rules legislation etc are different for re introductions of native species to introduction of non native species. The levels of permissions are different this is why the despoilers are so keen to point this out. What is the time limit, I don't know, I am not sure there is any official limit but 50 years would be my maximum, after which they are non native anymore.
But should it be 50 years the other way round, once here for 50 years it is considered native, I don't know, it must depend on numbers but trying to stop invasions or getting rid of them is probably fruitless anymore. The world is too global now and that includes the spread of diseases and flora and fauna.
In light of that I don't think re introductions by man is necessary or wise whatever the reason, even deliberately spreading what we already have; enough new species are here already, why deliberately add to it; whats the point. Nature is better at sorting itself out if it is given time to do so than we can control it.
I cannot think of one "native or invaded" creature or non human disease we have successfully "deliberately" eradicated!
However, keeping their numbers down when and where necessary, finding ways of preventing the spread of diseases when they get here is the best we can hope for; I don't think we should give it up completely but those that want to make it worse....
But should it be 50 years the other way round, once here for 50 years it is considered native, I don't know, it must depend on numbers but trying to stop invasions or getting rid of them is probably fruitless anymore. The world is too global now and that includes the spread of diseases and flora and fauna.
In light of that I don't think re introductions by man is necessary or wise whatever the reason, even deliberately spreading what we already have; enough new species are here already, why deliberately add to it; whats the point. Nature is better at sorting itself out if it is given time to do so than we can control it.
I cannot think of one "native or invaded" creature or non human disease we have successfully "deliberately" eradicated!
However, keeping their numbers down when and where necessary, finding ways of preventing the spread of diseases when they get here is the best we can hope for; I don't think we should give it up completely but those that want to make it worse....
Last edited:
lutra
Well-known member
From memory of another discussion along these lines, the EA uses a 150 year rule when deciding if something is indigenous to a water and only that water not the entire country.