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 
This is a pretty dumb idea. Why not use the fish as a potential food source?
And there are plenty issues with either act-utilitarianism or rule-utilitarianism. The same application for fish can be used for humans as well, no matter if one is a sentient being or not.
Here’s what the EPA has to say about it
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/invasive/asiancarp/
Kill fish so we can keep killing fish.
hmm…
I agree with Kent, drag the canal with a net. These carp are eaten in Asia all the time. And even if they are not used for food they could be processed into fertilizer instead of dumped into a land fill such as they were.
If they go through such extreme measures to prevent the carp from getting into the lake, they why don’t they build an additional five or so electric fences?
Can the carp be used as food? Yes, without a doubt. The problem the carp pose is not simply over population, though. True, the silver and bighead carp breed like rabbits and due to their large size have few predators, but the main problem they cause is in the natural food chain.
The carp feed on plankton, which minnows, baitfish, and basically the entire lower end of the ecosystem rely on as a food source. With the added competition from millions of fish thousands of times the size of the native bait fish, the presence of the carp create a huge problem. Less plankton= less baitfish, less baitfish=less food for larger predatory fish, who as juveniles also feed on the plankton the carp are devouring.
Rather than spend millions trying to exterminate the fish, why don’t they pay a bounty for each carp caught and brought in. It would probably be much less costly, would not require the addition of chemicals and would allow the fish to be eaten if the bounty is only on the head of the fish.