Northwest Dive Club

60south wrote:All joking aside, how do you know there isn't another one out there? How do you know it doesn't already have eggs? How do you know it doesn't have a disease or parasite? This is how disasters like the lionfish invasion on the east coast started. The first one is "Oh, isn't that cute! Let's let it live!" And suddenly there's millions of them causing havoc.

Kill the bug!
Kill the bug!
Kill the bug!

Arguments from silence always cut both ways. How do you know there is another one? How do you know it does have eggs, or a disease or parasite? We don't. IIRC, the lionfish problem on the east coast was actually the result of a hurricane that swept a large number of them into a new area. I seriously doubt that's the case here. Why not study the situation for a while and find out what's really going on before overreacting?

dwashbur wrote: Arguments from silence always cut both ways. How do you know there is another one? How do you know it does have eggs, or a disease or parasite? We don't. IIRC, the lionfish problem on the east coast was actually the result of a hurricane that swept a large number of them into a new area. I seriously doubt that's the case here. Why not study the situation for a while and find out what's really going on before overreacting?

You're messing with the health of Puget Sound, the ecosystem, shellfish industry, etc, etc. If you want to introduce a new species into the ecosystem you should thoroughly study the impacts first, not blindly do it and then wait until something goes wrong and say "OOPS!".

Haven't we learned anything?

I tried to get it for you Spatman! Apparently the mere sight of a dead crab wasn't enough to lure it out of hiding. I'm sure we all know that sooner or later "something" is gonna eat that BUG.

I'm in the "remove it" camp too... eat at your own risk.

Invasive species start with just a couple, and no doubt if this one is being released there may have been others, or will be in the future. Nobody knows how it will affect the ecosystem, but we HAVE already seen what other invasive species can do.

Here's an idea, we can remove it from Redondo, and transfer it to the Edmonds Oil dock. That way we can feel like were saving the environment (by removing an "invasive species"), and the critters( by not killing and eating the lobster), while in the back of our minds, we know it's all going to be removed or destroyed at some point anyway? (When the state turns the Oil Docks into a moonscape.)

Seriously, I don't know why I didn't get better grades in school!

Pez7378 wrote:Seriously, I don't know why I didn't get better grades in school!

i don't know about your school grades, but i can see why no one asks you out to a lobster dinner.

Hmmmm......There is a lobster at Redondo and there is a seafood restaurant that serves lobster at Redondo. Don't you think that someone that works at Salty's just decided to toss one into the sound?

cardiver wrote:Hmmmm......There is a lobster at Redondo and there is a seafood restaurant that serves lobster at Redondo. Don't you think that someone that works at Salty's just decided to toss one into the sound?

...and where's there's one, there is probably more which could cause a problem.

Hmmm ... what area is Redondo? Is lobster harvesting in season?

Anybody know if Nemo's been visiting Salty's lately?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

cardiver wrote:Hmmmm......There is a lobster at Redondo and there is a seafood restaurant that serves lobster at Redondo. Don't you think that someone that works at Salty's just decided to toss one into the sound?

I was wondering how long it would be until some thought that...

-Valerie

personally, i'm hoping for a *huge* lobster infestation and a major invasive species issue, along with a year-round open season on divers catching and eating them...

60south wrote:

dwashbur wrote: Arguments from silence always cut both ways. How do you know there is another one? How do you know it does have eggs, or a disease or parasite? We don't. IIRC, the lionfish problem on the east coast was actually the result of a hurricane that swept a large number of them into a new area. I seriously doubt that's the case here. Why not study the situation for a while and find out what's really going on before overreacting?

You're messing with the health of Puget Sound, the ecosystem, shellfish industry, etc, etc. If you want to introduce a new species into the ecosystem you should thoroughly study the impacts first, not blindly do it and then wait until something goes wrong and say "OOPS!".

Haven't we learned anything?

First off, I'm not messing with anything. And to answer your question: one thing we have NOT learned is how the damn thing got there. You're assuming far too much, and then overreacting to your own assumptions. That's not a healthy way to make policy, either.

Zen Diver 2 wrote:

cardiver wrote:Hmmmm......There is a lobster at Redondo and there is a seafood restaurant that serves lobster at Redondo. Don't you think that someone that works at Salty's just decided to toss one into the sound?

I was wondering how long it would be until some thought that...

-Valerie

Just seconds after I saw it. But why take all the fun out of it.

dwashbur wrote:And to answer your question: one thing we have NOT learned is how the damn thing got there.

Just like Ciona, it only takes a few.

The one thing we HAVE learned is that this is NOT a native species of Puget Sound. The other one thing we HAVE learned is that invasive species can do terrible things to delicate ecosystems.

I also HAVE learned that there is no law against harvesting LOBSTER from Puget Sound. Additionally, I HAVE learned that there serious ecological concerns with ANY invasive species.

Sure, a storm brought the lion fish onto the Atlantic coast... and there's open season for spearfishing on them in an attempt to remedy the problem. While I hope this isn't the beginning of a bigger problem, if there is, I look forward to Lamont's relentless eradication of them through an "open, unlimited season" on them.

Believe me, if lobsters start showing us off Redondo Beach, I have no doubt the REEF AAT and other agencies will be looking into it swiftly and strongly. Why? Because, if we just "leave it be and see what happens," we could end up with another problem like various other invasive species have caused.

Janna? Jan? Georgia? Other AAT team members? - What's YOUR take on this?

Pass the butter ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Sounder wrote:

dwashbur wrote:And to answer your question: one thing we have NOT learned is how the damn thing got there.

Just like Ciona, it only takes a few.

The one thing we HAVE learned is that this is NOT a native species of Puget Sound. The other one thing we HAVE learned is that invasive species can do terrible things to delicate ecosystems.

At that, I must step in with an argument that NOBODY has thought to pursue yet. OCTOPUS! LOTS OF OCTOPUS! Ciona and other invasive Tunicates and Sponges thrive here because they HAVE NO NATURAL ENEMY here. While there is a ubiquitous threat to ALL CRUSTACEANS. Octopus and lord knows there's plenty of those in the Puget Sound. My personal opinion as a frequent Scuba Diver and hopefully future Marine Biologist is to let it be. If there's another of the opposite gender out there, which statistically would be near impossible unless the person that released the two peeked, then we don't have a problem.

Quite frankly, I think you are panicking over nothing, especially since we only have theories as to how it was brought here.

Another thing we don't know is if it can survive on the food source here. How do we know there isn't something in Maine that it can't get here? It may die of nutrient starvation.

My main point here is this: If it was brought here by human hand, then it is more possible that it is just the one than more than one. If it was brought here by nature, then it was blown here by some freak tornado that the news forgot to mention. Either way, we're just guessing and don't. Know. The facts. Until we know the facts, let's leave the poor creature alone and just take pictures of it.

we did a dive at Redondo, earlier this year, and saw a Marbled Snail fish and the either a different kind of Snail fish or a Clingfish.
Both are in the Lamb book but not very likely to see around here. Someone told me, "I think it has something to do with the Diver's Pier / Aquarium or what ever that thing is there."
It seems Redondo has a history of strange sightings.
Oh ya, on my last dive there I saw an aquarium,the kind you would have at home, sitting on the bottom.

Anyone else see that? Or was I narced at 40 feet?


Keith

BASSMAN wrote:we did a dive at Redondo, earlier this year, and saw a Marbled Snail fish and the either a different kind of Snail fish or a Clingfish.
Both are in the Lamb book but not very likely to see around here. Someone told me, "I think it has something to do with the Diver's Pier / Aquarium or what ever that thing is there."
It seems Redondo has a history of strange sightings.
Oh ya, on my last dive there I saw an aquarium,the kind you would have at home, sitting on the bottom.

Anyone else see that? Or was I narced at 40 feet?


Keith

I saw the fish tank on Saturday. There was a starfish attached to it on the outside. It had at least one leg hanging over the rim of the tank and looked like it was hanging there for dear life. Sure wish I had my camera :(

Did anyone get a photo of it by any chance? Spatman?

-Eric

You weren't narced.......Bassman might have been though!

Sockmonkey wrote:Did anyone get a photo of it by any chance? Spatman?

sorry,amigo, but no pic this time. i did see the same tank at the club dive, though. it's certainly a new feature...

Chenari wrote:

Sounder wrote:

dwashbur wrote:And to answer your question: one thing we have NOT learned is how the damn thing got there.

Just like Ciona, it only takes a few.

The one thing we HAVE learned is that this is NOT a native species of Puget Sound. The other one thing we HAVE learned is that invasive species can do terrible things to delicate ecosystems.

At that, I must step in with an argument that NOBODY has thought to pursue yet. OCTOPUS! LOTS OF OCTOPUS! Ciona and other invasive Tunicates and Sponges thrive here because they HAVE NO NATURAL ENEMY here. While there is a ubiquitous threat to ALL CRUSTACEANS. Octopus and lord knows there's plenty of those in the Puget Sound. My personal opinion as a frequent Scuba Diver and hopefully future Marine Biologist is to let it be. If there's another of the opposite gender out there, which statistically would be near impossible unless the person that released the two peeked, then we don't have a problem.

Quite frankly, I think you are panicking over nothing, especially since we only have theories as to how it was brought here.

Another thing we don't know is if it can survive on the food source here. How do we know there isn't something in Maine that it can't get here? It may die of nutrient starvation.

My main point here is this: If it was brought here by human hand, then it is more possible that it is just the one than more than one. If it was brought here by nature, then it was blown here by some freak tornado that the news forgot to mention. Either way, we're just guessing and don't. Know. The facts. Until we know the facts, let's leave the poor creature alone and just take pictures of it.

Invasive species, period. Sure, we might just be fortunate enough to have an octopus eat it, but bottom line it's an invasive.

I heard.....***Uuuurrrrp***..... that it wasn't there anymore.

Pez7378 wrote:I heard.....***Uuuurrrrp***..... that it wasn't there anymore.

Seriously???...... No .. really ? SERIOUSLY??!! I was hoping to cut out of work early tomorrow to see it.....

Sounder wrote:

dwashbur wrote:And to answer your question: one thing we have NOT learned is how the damn thing got there.

Just like Ciona, it only takes a few.

Sorry, but this is nothing more than guilt by association. It's not even remotely based on science of any kind. One of the big problems with the Ciona savignyi is that it multiplies like the proverbial rabbits. AFAIK, lobsters don't. Second, as Chenari pointed out, it has no predators. Crustaceans have plenty, and several folks have already pointed out that the GPO that hangs out at Redondo is probably going to have a fine meal, if it hasn't already.

Sounder wrote:The one thing we HAVE learned is that this is NOT a native species of Puget Sound. The other one thing we HAVE learned is that invasive species can do terrible things to delicate ecosystems.

No, it's not a "native species," whatever that means. In the current lingo, it seems to mean "It doesn't normally occur there at the moment." Have there ever been lobsters in Puget Sound? We don't know, because we haven't been monitoring the place all that long (in migratory or geological terms). And yes, we've learned from Ciona savignyi that "invasive species" CAN do terrible things. But we haven't learned that they inevitably WILL. Once again, and I wonder how many times we have to say this, WE DON'T KNOW. We don't know how it got there, we don't know if there's more than one, we don't know if establishing a population in the presence of natural predators like the GPO if it would in fact be a "bad" thing (however one chooses to define that, and there are lots of possibilities).

Sounder wrote:I also HAVE learned that there is no law against harvesting LOBSTER from Puget Sound. Additionally, I HAVE learned that there serious ecological concerns with ANY invasive species.

No, you haven't learned the second one. What you have actually learned is that there are "serious ecological concerns" with some of the CURRENT invasive species we've seen, specifically of the tunicate kind. Jumping from that to "ANY invasive species" is not a legitimate extrapolation. It's an assumption, nothing more.

Sounder wrote:Sure, a storm brought the lion fish onto the Atlantic coast... and there's open season for spearfishing on them in an attempt to remedy the problem. While I hope this isn't the beginning of a bigger problem, if there is, I look forward to Lamont's relentless eradication of them through an "open, unlimited season" on them.

Thanks for bringing that up, because it points up a major inconsistency in some folks' thinking. I mentioned the hurricane that dragged the lionfish up to the Atlantic coast because 60south said this:

This is how disasters like the lionfish invasion on the east coast started. The first one is "Oh, isn't that cute! Let's let it live!" And suddenly there's millions of them causing havoc.

How many things are wrong with this statement? I can't even count them. First, as I pointed out, a hurricane was the cause. And obviously that hurricane brought several of the fish to the area. So there was no "first one." Second, the statement at least implies that humans had something to do with it. But the event that brought them there was NATURAL. It was a hurricane, a naturally-occurring event that's part of the whole cycle of nature thing. So if we're really interested in letting nature take its course, then we're defying the natural order by trying to remove the lionfish. If "nature," whatever one conceives it to be, brought them there, then it would seem that "nature" wants them there. Why are people trying to eradicate them? Because their presence is screwing up some human activities, especially economic ones. It has less to do with nature and the ecosystem than it does with a lot of people's livelihood or their desire to see the ecosystem remain static. But let's get real for a moment: ecosystems change. Climates change. Species change location, diet, and everything else. Change is the only real constant. If we don't like that, we need to find a different planet.

Recently, down here in the Monterey area, Chenari discovered an organism that has never been seen this far north before. She's been talking with experts from a couple of major universities to help establish its identity with reasonable certainty, and they're excited about finding that particular creature in a whole new area. In the terms you and 60south are using, this organism is "invasive" because it only recently appeared there, and nobody's quite sure how. Should it be eradicated because of that? This is the reasoning I'm seeing here. Instead, the experts we've been talking to are so excited they can't sit still. It appears this creature is expanding its territory, which means its population is thriving. That's a GOOD thing, and it's part of the natural order. We could conclude the same thing about the whole lionfish thing. If it needs to be eradicated because it's interfering with the CURRENT ecosystem that humans depend on for livelihood and/or recreation, then let's at least have the cojones to admit that this is the real reason, and drop the environmental smokescreen.

Having said that, if a lobster population gets established in the Sound, it will be good for the octopus, good for other animals that eat crustaceans, and good for humans who can go hunt them and have a wonderful meal on occasion. There is no evidence at all that such a population would be harmful. All we hear is "invasive species" as a hot-button term, and words like "can," "could," "may," "might" and the like. Let's take a step back and find out what we're talking about before we act, how about it?

Sounder wrote:Believe me, if lobsters start showing us off Redondo Beach, I have no doubt the REEF AAT and other agencies will be looking into it swiftly and strongly. Why? Because, if we just "leave it be and see what happens," we could end up with another problem like various other invasive species have caused.

Janna? Jan? Georgia? Other AAT team members? - What's YOUR take on this?

Looking, sure. I'll be glad to help. Acting? Why? Once again, we don't have enough info to act intelligently. The fact that you keep using words like "could" just proves my point. We "could" end up with another problem. Then again, we "could" end up with something terrific that not only tastes good, but "could" contribute in unforeseen ways to the ecosystem and the economy of the area. Let's stop all the knee-jerk stuff over the word "invasive" and try to get some real information to work from.

The other day we saw a Lobster in a place it shouldn't have been. Last night I saw a nice T-bone steak over in the chicken section. I HAD to eradicate it. Three words,

Surf and Turf