As luck would have it last year the wife and I each caught a walleye under the 93 bridge, up from the Lawrence ramp, on the Merrimack. Also about 10 years ago they were all over Barton's Cove on the Conn. and I must have caught 8-10. Unfortrunately it was a Bass tournament.
@bassmonkey21
Any animal which is not indigenous to the area into which it is introduced is typically regarded as an invader.
Here is a link that shows the native range of walleye in the United States:
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=831
So while there are walleye in Massachusetts waters they are not native to them.
An animal which is not indigenous to a given area is not a native species, which is entirely different than an invasive species. People who vacation to the United States are certainly not indigenous people, but they are not invaders. Species introduced into a new ecosystem ie) walleyes are done so in a controlled manner, sometimes, in an effort control an invasive species. Decisions to introduce such species are carefully calculated and will have natural limitations (shortened optimal growth seasons for instance) and/or man-made limitations (such as the sterility of the tiger muskie) to their success in their new environments. They are often an ends to a means, varying from pure enjoyment, as in the case of an enhanced fisheries, or perhaps population control of certain organisms that display cyclical over-population patterns. Invasive species are either accidentally or maliciously introduced to areas where they often have no natural predators, and in turn are highly prolific, which often has a devastating effect on local flora and fauna.
@bassmonkey21
Up until this point I have refrained from responding to your posts on the topic of invasive species. My silence was my attempt to maintain the spirit of cordiality that we seem to have here at mafishfinder.com.
However, when you compare tourists to migrating animals that is a statement that needs to be corrected. Migratory animals don't travel around just to see the sights…most of the time they migrate to reproduce. If the ultimate invasive species homo sapiens (of European decent) had not in its ignorance disturbed and destroyed the habitats of the native animals and plants then we just might have preserved a land of wild beauty and abundance.
To have some idea of what type of fish inhabited the waterways of this area prior to the 1800s I recommend that you download and read the article in this link:
www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife.../WJ_d02_NH_Native_fish.pdf
Technically speaking we are now fishing waters that were over fished about 200 years ago. All of the "still water" fish that you like to champion are replacement species used to fill the void left by the collapse of the native fishes that used to inhabit the local waterways.
Up until this point I have refrained from responding to your posts on the topic of invasive species. My silence was my attempt to maintain the spirit of cordiality that we seem to have here at mafishfinder.com.
However, when you compare tourists to migrating animals that is a statement that needs to be corrected. Migratory animals don't travel around just to see the sights…most of the time they migrate to reproduce. If the ultimate invasive species homo sapiens (of European decent) had not in its ignorance disturbed and destroyed the habitats of the native animals and plants then we just might have preserved a land of wild beauty and abundance.
To have some idea of what type of fish inhabited the waterways of this area prior to the 1800s I recommend that you download and read the article in this link:
www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife.../WJ_d02_NH_Native_fish.pdf
Technically speaking we are now fishing waters that were over fished about 200 years ago. All of the "still water" fish that you like to champion are replacement species used to fill the void left by the collapse of the native fishes that used to inhabit the local waterways.
@bassmonkey21
Any animal which is not indigenous to the area into which it is introduced is typically regarded as an invader.
Here is a link that shows the native range of walleye in the United States:
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=831
So while there are walleye in Massachusetts waters they are not native to them.
@bold: This just simply isn't true. Just because something is not indigenous doesn't make it "typically regarded as an invader"... Can something that is not indigenous to an area be considered an invasive species, absolutely, but just because they are in fact not native certainly does Not make them invasive.
example? a local example in fact... Northern Pike in the Concord River system... back in 2000 (may have been the year before or year after but anyways) Mass decided to stock Northern Pike into the Concord River. The Pike took very well to the waters, establishing a terrific presence in the river. Have them become invasive? absolutely NOT. Bass, Perch, Catfish, Carp and other species still flourish in this system alongside the Pike.
Now could the Pike have become invasive, absolutely, it has happened in many lakes and rivers in this country. (There is some places in the country where it is a law to kill any Pike you catch because of how invasive they are in those waters!). Mass knew better than to stock Pike in the River again because they did their research and determined the Pike that they stocked back in 2000 have successfully breeded year after year and the system adapted to their presence.
How about we all agree to disagree about the term invasive species.
I would rather be fishing then posting arguments and rebuttals about the term.
Well the last thing I want is this website to be host to a blanket false statement like the one you made. I felt obligated to correct it.