Carping

The Hill's Elana Shor on Barack Obama's earmarks: "Obama’s earmark requests range from the general, such as $65 million for service improvements to his state’s Metra commuter rail, to the quirky, such as $8.5 million for an Army Corps of Engineers barrier intended to keep Asian carp fish from entering the Great Lakes." Quirky! But wait, I thought, why does Obama want to keep these carp out?

Well, it turns out that Asian carp populations have been growing extremely rapidly of late in the Mississippi River basin. As indicated by the name, these carp are indigenous to Asia rather than to North America and are exhibited one of these "invasive species"-type growth patters where they're so well-adapted to an ecological niche that isn't adapted to them, that the population booms and there's risk of substantial problems for the rest of the local ecosystem. In a November 2000 report the USGS concluded that "On the basis of past experiences (e.g., with common carp), a failure to address the exotic species problem will likely result in more introductions and potential harmful effects to native biota."

The EPA reports that "researchers expect that Asian carp would disrupt the food chain that supports the native fish of the Great Lakes" and "could pose a significant risk to the Great Lakes Ecosystem." So, yes, appropriating funds for the Army Corps of Engineers to keep carp out of the Great Lakes sounds a little silly, but a preliminary effort to research the issue seems to indicate that it's a perfectly reasonable thing to be doing.

Comments

Asian carp grow to 8-10 pounds (4 kg) in the Mississippi River area. When the are startled, they can leap out of the water up to 4 feet (1.2 m). What startles them? Well, one thing is powerboats powering peacefully toward them. Unfortunately, unlike dolphins the carp do not gracefully leap alongside the bows of the boat; they jump staight into the air. Resulting in occupants of said boats (often children, 'cause dad puts them up front) being smashed in the head by 8 lb bowling balls. Sounds funny until you see a video of a person being knocked unconscious by this.

That is in addition to the other ecological damage they do, which is considerable.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 22, 2007 11:22 AM

Not only an eco problem, they are dangerous. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS7zkTnQVaM&mode=related&search=

Posted by Kyle Young | June 22, 2007 11:31 AM

As indicated by the name, these carp are indigenous to Asia rather than to North America and are exhibited one of these "invasive species"-type growth patters where they're so well-adapted to an ecological niche that isn't adapted to them, that the population booms and there's risk of substantial problems for the rest of the local ecosystem.

And are exhibited?

Posted by Righteous Bubba | June 22, 2007 11:33 AM

Pretty much everyone in the Chicago area appreciates the dire consequences should those carp navigate the Chicago River and make their way into Lake Michigan. Quirky? Hardly.

Posted by mike | June 22, 2007 11:35 AM

There's a fairly large section of the aquarium in Chicago devoted to this subject. Apparently they electrocute a canal to keep the fish from coming across.

Posted by eriks | June 22, 2007 11:41 AM

I hope "Friday Asian Carp Blogging" becomes a regular feature.

Also, this refutes the simplistic viewpoint that earmarks are nothing but a bunch of worthless pork that we need to get rid of. Lots of earmarks are for wholly meritorious projects.

Posted by Steve | June 22, 2007 11:42 AM

Why do people think that this "look silly"? I mean, before any analysis, any instance of an offbeat-looking issue just highlights my ignorance of the subject matter. Thank God for Wikipedia, which can make you conversant in any subject within five minutes.

Posted by Sandrina | June 22, 2007 11:45 AM

Shor was looking for something negative to say about Obama and this was the best she could do. She had never heard of Asian carp, so when she saw something she didn't understand she made no effort to find anything out about it. It's use to her was as a way to ridicule Obama, and if she'd lifted a finger to understand it she would have defeated her purpose.

Posted by Bloix | June 22, 2007 11:45 AM

Jesus Christ, We should be spending even more money than Obama wants on getting rid of those horrible things! -- did you see Kyle Young's video?

Posted by Anrig | June 22, 2007 11:46 AM

A lot of worthy environmental issues get ridiculed by the mainstream media because they are too stupid to understand why something with a funny name might be important.

the classic california example is research on the "glassy winged sharpshooter" which has come up as a pork example several time. However, this invasive insect has the potential to destroy California's wine industry and the economic returns to research on the species are extremely high.

its amazing the journalist wouldn't just google asian carp and figure out that this is important, not quirky.

Posted by CalDem | June 22, 2007 11:48 AM

One would only have to be moderately aware of the issues with non-native species invasion to guess what this earmark was intended for. That the reporter assumes it's quirky speaks volumes about the level of ignorance of our press corps.

Posted by AJ | June 22, 2007 11:57 AM

This is often how it is with earmarks, which is why I'm not part of the crowd which shouts them down at every chance.

Posted by eRobin | June 22, 2007 11:58 AM

Glad Shor wrote the earmark is for "Asian carp fish." Asian carp birds are even worse.

Posted by jd | June 22, 2007 12:00 PM

For what it's worth, San Francisco's budgeting process has a step called "add-backs," in which each Supervisor (there are 11) gets to put in a certain amount of stuff which is generally accepted without debate by the rest of the Board and by the Mayor. Each Supervisor gets the same amount of "add-back" allocation. By doing this, the Supervisors get to put stuff into the budget which is important to their local constituents without having to have a big fight with the rest of the Board over its overall value to the city; the "pork" business is handled in the open; and some amount of stuff which is too easy to ridicule but which has actual value can be put into the budget without the usual pain and suffering associated with easy-to-ridicule policies.

Posted by PT | June 22, 2007 12:01 PM

When does an Asian carp story intersect with Katie Couric?

On her very first night as spokesmodel for the CBS Nightly News, she featured an Asian carp story, wherein several skiffs with outboard motors were plying a river. Asian carp were shown jumping out of the water and slapping people across the face and in the head, etc.

Why is this notable? Because one of the boats was flying an approximately 2.5' x 4' Nazi swastika flag - the ol' red and black - from the rear of the boat, flapping in the air.

Not only did Couric's piece show this particular boat repeatedly, both in distance and with multiple closeups, including long shots of the flag, but it showed this Nazi's boat almost to the exclusion of all the other boats! And the feature seemed to last a long three minutes.

Can someone tell me what the hell was up with that? A signal to Limbaughites and fascist-leaning and sympathizing American corporations that hers is one network news show that they should buy commercials on? Was it simply to get attention? Either way, and for whatever reason, it was sick, twisted, perverse, and very disturbing.

Posted by Larry Pilz | June 22, 2007 12:02 PM

So, an INVESTMENT of $8.5 MILLION is "quirky" in order to save a $4.5 BILLION industry in the Great Lakes - sport fishing.

The existing electrical barrier is rapidly corroding. This needs to be done now, or the Great Lakes are dead to native species in perpetuity.

(Of course, that pre-supposes those inside-the-beltway give a flying fish about anything west of Loudon County, Virginia...)

Posted by Roadmaster | June 22, 2007 12:08 PM

(Of course, that pre-supposes those inside-the-beltway give a flying fish about anything west of Loudon County, Virginia...)

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

Posted by Gus | June 22, 2007 12:12 PM

The republican response will be $8.5 Billion to Halliburton to hire snipers to shoot the carp in the moments when they jump from the water and before they hit the boater.

Posted by jerry | June 22, 2007 12:14 PM

Ya know, this could be a case where frickin' sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their frickin' heads would work just fine.

It would be nice to replace our depleted Atlantic Cod and Pollock resources with pre-poached asian flying carp fish.

I bet that Halliburton and KBR now have the logistics and food handling experience necessary to get those pre-poached asian flying carp fish from the river direct to McDonalds.

So my $8.5 Billion dollar proposal isn't so much an expenditure of taxpayer funds as it is an investment into Small Business.

Posted by jerry | June 22, 2007 12:21 PM

Only stoopid librulz care about the fishies and water.

-

Posted by Typical Beltway Media Whore | June 22, 2007 12:23 PM

Bush's interior Dep't imported more of these fish to stock in WMA and wildlife regufes area.

My local WMA(Big Lake and Mallard Lake WMA) were stocked with these at the century's turn, one of Bush's immediate Interior Dep't plans. Mike Huckabee welcomed the program to his state.

Wonder how much we paid CHina(in billions) for that environmental fiasco?

Posted by Mr.Murder | June 22, 2007 12:45 PM

Elana Shor gives out the Golden Fleece, Except I Don't Really Understand the Details So It Might Not Really Be About Fleecing Anybody Award. /proxmiring
-

Posted by QuentinCompson | June 22, 2007 12:46 PM

Do they taste any good?

Posted by blah | June 22, 2007 1:05 PM

This guy that used to live down the road from me would smoke them, he liked them anyway, I never tried it.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 22, 2007 1:18 PM

Carp are a major food fish almost everywhere but the US.

These carp are a new breed. The US has always had carp.

Posted by John Emerson | June 22, 2007 1:21 PM

The republican response will be $8.5 Billion to Halliburton to hire snipers to shoot the carp in the moments when they jump from the water and before they hit the boater.

Hopefully, they won't shoot anyone in the face.

Posted by David Eoll | June 22, 2007 1:37 PM

We have a similar problem in Australia with what is incorrectly called the European Carp. More correctly, these are Common Carp which also originated in Asia. They are classified as a noxious pest in Australia.

They've taken over most freshwater in SE Australia and exist in such numbers that in some areas you could more or less walk on a carpet of carp. I've caught 36 or so in even time (2 lb plus each) with a BARE HOOK! And tasty? I've tried, sorry, I would not feed that to a cat!

And big? These suckers grow so fast and so big you'd swear they were taking steroids, which they may well be.

Get rid of the carp, and fast, before it is too late!

http://www.murrayriver.com.au/members-club/fishing/carp.htm

Posted by fredfillis | June 22, 2007 1:41 PM

Sure, and the Metra earmark is easily defensible on these grounds, too: it's a good project, and it ought to be funded. But I have some sympathy for the argument that these kinds of projects (transit, environmentalist, etc.) ought to be prioritized in a more open and fair manner For instance, one could give the EPA and the FTA big blocks of money, have local governments submit proposals, and dole out funds according to need rather than political capital. Novel! I don't blame Obama for playing by the rules of the current system, but this is exactly the sort of policymaking best left to expert technocrats.

Posted by tom | June 22, 2007 2:30 PM

I'm surprised no-one in congress suggested putting that money to work on a carp gay bomb.

Posted by Jersey | June 22, 2007 2:32 PM

I think it's great that Obama's acting on an issue that doesn't have a lot of political pressure behind it. It's just something he took the time to learn about and now he's acting on it.

Posted by Lee | June 22, 2007 2:43 PM

The carp are Southern in origin, of course. They were introduced in the South to control some now forgotten pest and as a magic food source and escaped their holding pens to infiltrate the Mississippi River system.

Posted by JackD | June 22, 2007 2:50 PM

Also, this "local" eco-system contains a fifth of the Earth's fresh surface water and borders Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Ontario, Canada.

Posted by apm | June 22, 2007 3:40 PM

I never know what to make of predictions of "substantial problems for the rest of the local ecosystem."

Of course a new species will change the ecosystem, but it's not as if the whole thing collapses like a house of cards. You just have a different mix of species than you did before, and it's not obvious that the new situation will be better or worse than the old. And while some of the native species will decline from the new competition, it's not like you are going to have any major species actually going extinct or anything.

Posted by ed | June 22, 2007 4:11 PM

Hey Ed, you should see the documentary film, "Darwin's Nightmare," if you think that. Google is your friend, pal.

Posted by burple | June 22, 2007 4:27 PM

Hey Ed, you should see the documentary film, "Darwin's Nightmare," if you think that. Google is your friend, pal.

Posted by burple | June 22, 2007 4:27 PM

This guy that used to live down the road from me would smoke them

As a child of the 60's, I have to admit that I've done a lot of things to get high over the years, but smoking carp never occurred to me . . .

Posted by rea | June 22, 2007 4:44 PM

So what is it about "Darwin's Nightmare" that conflicts with what I said? I'd guess that Lake Victoria now has lots of nile perch, and fewer of the native species. It's possible that some minor species have become extinct (minor meaning, for example, species that live in small numbers and only in Lake Victoria.) It's probably difficult to say whether things are better or worse, depending on your values, I guess. I'll bet the lake still has lots of different kinds of fish swimming around in it, so it is still a functioning "ecosystem," just different than before. Is it a less pleasant place for humans? Is it a less efficient source of food?

I haven't seen the film. According to Wikipedia, the objectivity of the film is questioned by many, which wouldn't be surprising from what I know of documentaries. The Wikipedia entry on the nile perch says:

The fish's introduction to Lake Victoria, while ecologically negative, has stimulated the establishment of large fishing companies there. In 2003 Nile perch earned 169 million Euros in sales to the EU. The long-term outlook is less clear, as overfishing is now reducing Lates niloticus populations.

On the other hand, alteration of the native ecosystem has also had disruptive socioeconomic effects on local communities in the countries bordering the lake. Large-scale fishing operations, while earning millions of dollars from their exported Lates niloticus catch, have displaced many local people from their traditional occupations in the fishing trade and brought them into the cash economy.

Posted by ed | June 22, 2007 5:11 PM

Ed, New Zealand's old ecosystem is no more. Invasive species brought by European travellers destroyed what was there. Why do you think the Lord of the Rings movies looked like they were filmed in the English countryside instead of, say, the Australian outback? Because the species native to England took over. This also led to many of the Maoris major food sources to go extinct or see their populations dwindle.

Posted by Reality Man | June 22, 2007 5:31 PM

Are you saying New Zealand no longer has an ecosystem?

Are you claiming it would be a clearly better world if New Zealand looked like the outback (???) instead of like Middle Earth? Why?

Posted by ed | June 22, 2007 5:40 PM

Lee sez "I think it's great that Obama's acting on an issue that doesn't have a lot of political pressure behind it. It's just something he took the time to learn about and now he's acting on it."

I like Obama, but this is hardly a matter of him taking time to learn--it's a decade long issue in Illinois that has recieved a ton of media coverage. Illinois has put a lot of effort into slowing the carps' progress toward Lake Michigan, but our esteemed Guv'n'r and legislature have spend much more than all the money the state has, so there's some question about Illinois' ability to continue fighting back the carp. No chance that Illinois environemntalist, sportsmen and others would not make the issue known to Obama and the rest of the congressionmen.

The potentially devestating effect on the native species of the Great Lakes makes it a reasonble federal issue.

Posted by cj | June 22, 2007 6:11 PM

In addition, pursuant to the International Joint Commission, and other various treaties (for whatever they are worth anymore), the US has a positive obligation to Canada to protect shared waterways (of which the Great Lakes, last I checked, is one) from invasive species.

So Obama is being a friendly neighbour to us Canadians! See, he's already trying to repair the US reputation abroad...

Posted by 3pointshooter | June 22, 2007 6:21 PM

It's quirky like trying to eradicate the Mediterranean fruit fly or gypsy moth. Quaint like efforts to control SARS or keep out the bird flu. Gee, Obama's imagination must be fertile as kudzu or purple loosestrife. Picturesque like those pythons and komodo dragons people release into the Everglades. What'll that guy think of next?

My humblest apologies to present company, but it's always unwise to depend on a D.C. pundit's grasp of science.

Posted by Anna Z | June 22, 2007 7:10 PM

And I thought the reporting on this presidential race might be a little better than that of the last two races. Ha.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | June 22, 2007 11:30 PM

Good to know that Ed also has no idea why Australia feels they need rabbit-proof fences -- after all, the rabbits only make the ecosystem different, right?

Posted by Mnemosyne | June 23, 2007 1:15 PM

Ed, we're all working from ignorance on ecology issues. We plain don't know what will happen.

Kentucky used to be covered with cane marshes. Moist, swampy, lots of mosquitoes. They might have wound up real real valuable but before we found out they were gone. However, the kentucky bluegrass turned out very well. It couldn't have been predicted, we just lucked out.

Someday we'll learn how to read the abilities of native species to get a sense of the climate changes over the last 30,000 years or so. That's valuable, but we can only do it if those species survive. Imported populations that started from small gene pools and adapted over 20 years or 100 years won't be as much use for that.

If we are heading for a period of climate change, we might likely be heading into things that some of our native species are preadapted for. Some things that are rare now may find themselves in environments they like very well. But only if they're still around. Of course, it's an open question whether we'll like having them common, some of them might be worse pests than the imported species that tend to replace them in the short run. Luckily this is one of those things we won't get upset about -- if we drive some species extinct that would have been very useful to us if they survived, we'll never know it and so won't suffer regret.

We often get results we don't like in water. The chesapeake bay used to have lots of shellfish, but now there isn't much except in farmed beds owned by specific corporations and even those have trouble with imported predators. Maybe we can import new species that will be even more profitable than the old ones were, but we haven't managed it yet. When we introduce species that change things around we can't know ahead of time how profitable the new ecosystem will be. We of course try to avoid imports that will damage our crops because there's no particular reason to think that we can replace our current crops with import-resistant imports that will work as well for us. And that's what we're facing with this carp. Americans tend not to like to eat carp (though tilapia is an exception). I suppose if that's what we have available we might learn to like it.

If an $8 million dam can keep this import out of the great lakes for 10 years, it will have paid for itself maybe 2 times over -- assuming that the new ecosystem will be less than half as profitable as the current one. The reason that great lakes fish are only worth $4 billion/year is that commercial fishing there already collapsed mostly due to other imports. It's possible that this new import will actually improve things -- but it isn't the way to bet.

Oh well. I was really impressed when I backpacked on Mount Rogers in southern virginia. People talk like you're an inside-the-beltway guy, and this isn't so very far if you want to vacation there sometime. So the park was nice savannah, big open fields with isolated stands of trees. And some wild ponies, they have a couple of herds that live there. Don't feed them. One of them stuck his head in our tent one morning hoping we'd feed him and scared my girlfriend, but by the time we got the camera out all the photo showed was his feet. So anyway, it's sparse pastures and sparse trees and a lot of bare rock. And then some places it's more trees but still sparse groundcover. And then about 15 miles in we got to a place the feds put a fence around to keep out the horses. Trees so thick you often couldn't walk between them, you had to follow trails. Lots and lots of plants of a whole lot of different sorts. So many birds they kept flying away whenever we walked, and lots of different kinds. The trail markers explained that this is what the whole mountain was like before the horses.

Of course it's a multi-use area, and every now and then somebody rounds up the ponies and sells some of them at auction, and they pasture some cows on the lower slopes, and sometimes loggers get to cut down a few trees. But it's no comparison to the part without the horses. I suppose if we were seeing how much we could harvest, we'd get more horsemeat per acre with horses than we'd get total meat per acre without. And I don't know whether the much-increased lumber with the horses gone would make up for it. But if you go there, there's just no comparison between the two places.

Even when we wind up with more profitable land (or water) after imports have changed things around, we still have to figure out how to wring out those profits. And if the next import comes too soon then we have to figure it out all over again.

Posted by J Thomas | June 29, 2007 11:23 PM