As the SuperFreakonomics chapter on global warming suggests, solutions that are initially viewed as repugnant sometimes gain acceptance over time. Consider, for example, that environmental groups have supported a “last-ditch effort” by Illinois environmental officials to dump a toxic chemical into a canal. The purpose? To target and kill the giant and destructive Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes and potentially bringing about the “collapse of the Great Lakes sport and commercial fishing industry.” As the Associated Press reports, the effort was expected to kill about 200,000 pounds’ worth of fish. More details here. [%comments]
When It’s OK to Poison Fish
TAGS: environment
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Yeah, I don’t find that repugnant at all. It’s pretty much standard utilitarianism. Maybe I just don’t get what’s so awful about killing the asian carp, considering the economic damage it can do to the Great Lakes area’s $7 billion+ fishing industry.
In Chicago they just tried this. What actually happened is that they spent $3,000,000 on this project and killed 1 carp (yes, literally 1, I am not embellishing). Oh yeah, and they killed a bunch of other fish that they’re trying to save.
I guess the lesson is make sure your alternative solution is actually a solution before you implement it.
I wonder if carp tastes good. Anyone know?
I live in the town they did this, and almost everyone here fully supported the measure. The idea was not so much to really to kill the fish in the area, but it was to kill the fish during the few days they are doing maintenance to the electronic fences that are in place to stop them (and with one carp being killed, its evident that they can get around atleast one fence). They may have to do it again in 6 months when they do maintenance again.
There are some people that were against the idea, until they knew all the facts – ie, not harmful to humans when done properly, will not contaminate drinking water (which already does not pass state code), and will only last for a few days.
The fish are supposed to be edible, but they can so quickly take over the environment that they are a big hazard.
@William: 1 carp? If indeed it was $3 million, it was well spent. That 1 fish represents half of an ecological disaster.
And that one fish demonstrates what a dangerous game of Chicken the engineers are playing with the lakes. That canal should be filled in with concrete. What a terrible idea.
Thinking you can contain fish with an electric fence is arrogance and hubris at its finest.
who finds killing fish repugnant?- they’re not sentient beings
They did not kill any fish “they were trying to save.” This rotenone operation was to occur in the canal, to gain an opportunity to do maintenance on the barrier even before the eDNA evidence that there were carp (or a carp) near the barrier. The backup barrier that should be completed this spring is not on line yet, so to shut down the barrier before it shut itself down was critical. They could not take a chance that a carp might get through while the barrier was down. So they killed all the fish in a 5 mile stretch of river between the barrier and a downstream dam (which should impede movement upstream while the barrier is down). The carp don’t usually float when you kill them with rotenone, so we don’t know how many fish died, or really care much, as long as ALL of them are dead, be it 1 or 1000. The canal is not used for fishing. It is mostly sewage treatment effluent from Chicago, so you wouldn’t want to eat these fish anyway, or probably even touch the water – ugh) So there were not any fish anyone was trying to save there, and the fish that died were mostly common carp. There was no damage done to any sport or commercial fishery.
Bighead Carp have been pulled out of Lake Erie. Asian Carp DNA was found well upstream of the barrier/poison site.
Electric barriers, filling in canals, mass killings won’t stop the watershed crossover. The point of control was at importation into North America.
“All the Asian Carp were killed. But there is no way to verify this because they sank.” I think they call that a fish tale.
All poisons are problematic (anyone claiming otherwise is a fool) and the reason for the clean up of the fish carcasses was to prevent its spread into the food chain.
So they either knew they wouldn’t be able to account for hundreds of pounds of poisoned carp or they’re big, fat liars. That dead floating carp suggest the latter.
I have no problems with killing the carp, but since they are a food source, surely they could have just dragged a net, harvested the fish, and sold it (or even given it) to the hungry? It need not even be fresh — I’ve had fresh carp in Chinese restaurants — smoke them and distribute it to homeless shelters and food kitchens.