Colbert on Carp: Can Kentucky Tuna keep invasive species out of the Great Lakes? Ummm, no.
Posted July 9, 2010 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places
I've blogged previously on re-branding, Asian carp, and the re-branding of Asian carp. This week, in inimitable fashion, the Colbert Report brought them all together in a segment about a Kentucky State University effort to re-brand the invasive fish as "Kentucky Tuna." Frankly, I think the State of Louisiana's effort to hang the name "silverfin" on Asian carp sounded a ton better...
Call them what you will, but Kentucky tuna, silverfin, Midwest mahi-mahi (that's my contribution), are moving too fast for us to rely solely on our knives and forks to make the problem go away.
More problematic, this "eat 'em all" concept creates the false notion that this problem will be solved without real policy and infrastructural change. Thankfully, there are some very powerful voices out there calling very loudly for quick action.
But, as we watch the action in DC and statehouses throughout the Great Lakes region, Colbert reminds us there is still plenty of fun to be had with this otherwise serious issue.
Kentucky Tuna comes in at the 2:21 mark, enjoy:
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Thought for Food - Kentucky Tuna & Grilled Cheese Burger Melt | ||||
| www.colbertnation.com | ||||
|
||||
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Matt Chew — Jul 12 2010 01:38 PM
Truly profound political and economic changes would be required to stop the flow of biota entrained in the currents of global commerce. Far more profound, say, than weaning Americans off fossil fuels. Any species that's already occurring widely enough (or in large enough numbers) to get press coverage is going to be around for the foreseeable future. If 'Asian' carp persist in American waters, eating them into oblivion may be less important than building a sustainable fishery on them.
Kim — Jul 14 2010 09:28 AM
While I do agree that huge changes would be needed to completely stop and reverse invasive species in this country, I disagree about building a sustainable fishery on them. As with many invasive species (zebra mussels, milfoil, etc) their very presence in our local environment is not sustainable. Obviously we cannot "eat them into oblivion". We can, however, try to cull their population. As many of the KSU researchers have pointed out, this is a chance for people to make a bit of money, and a chance for both rich and poor people to eat US-grown food. Also, these fish out-compete our native sport fish populations, and considering the massive industry that operates on sport-fishing, I think there is just cause to try to eliminate these fish from our waters. This solution may sound strange, but it is one (hopefully of many) that has more merits than simply waiting for nothing to happen in the Congress.
Josh Mogerman — Jul 14 2010 11:30 AM
Matt and Kim---
Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment. I don't have a problem with aggressive fishing of Asian carp---no doubt it is a very positive tactic to limit the pressure forcing the fish towards the Great Lakes and will buy us time to put a real solution in place. That said, my concern comes from the words "sustainable fishery." That means we are managing these invasive fish in a way that ensures they persist in our waters. We don't want to operate a fishery, we want to eliminate Asian carp from our waterways---fish them to oblivion. With a fishery, we create groups that have a financial incentive to keep the fish around. While anything that lessens the carp's numbers in the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers is good, we cannot allow that to also continue the threat to another ecosystem---the Great Lakes.