# Daughterless carp program ?



## kritter67 (May 17, 2009)

Has anyone heard of the daughterless carp program ? CSIRO boffins are useing genetic technology to rid the murray of carp by altering their genes by produceing male only offspring . Started 2003 ,does anyone know how it is going ? K----------


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

Never heard of it but it would be great if it worked! Almost sounds too good to be true, imagine if they could do that with all pest species


----------



## kritter67 (May 17, 2009)

Barrabundy said:


> Never heard of it but it would be great if it worked! Almost sounds too good to be true, imagine if they could do that with all pest species


 YEAH , like tailgaters , morons ,and all the other numerous F#*Kwitts out there :lol: , no it would be a very good thing . No more rabbits , foxes and canetoads . Will have to email CSIRO if no-one here knows already. K----------


----------



## dishley (Jan 20, 2009)

Get onto it critter, i would be very interested to find out how it's going.


----------



## GoneFishn (May 17, 2007)

leftieant said:


> Saw a special on in on the ABC a couple of years ago. Looked very interesting and potential to be very effective.
> 
> Haven't heard anything of late though.


Same as Lefti cant remember to much about it though. Bring it on I say and get rid of all carp in all waters :twisted:


----------



## koich (Jul 25, 2007)

Has been trialled ok, project currently starved of funding last I heard.

It would take over 30 years to start noticing the difference due to the size of the carp biomass.


----------



## Big D (Apr 28, 2007)

koich said:


> Has been trialled ok, project currently starved of funding last I heard.
> 
> It would take over 30 years to start noticing the difference due to the size of the carp biomass.


Yeh I don't think I'd see them disappear in my lifetime. Life expectancy can be up to 100 years in good conditions. :shock:


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

koich said:


> Has been trialled ok, project currently starved of funding last I heard.


You beat me to it...I was going to make the comment that the powers-that-be have probably pulled the funding in their infinite wisdom.


----------



## kritter67 (May 17, 2009)

Barrabundy said:


> koich said:
> 
> 
> > Has been trialled ok, project currently starved of funding last I heard.
> ...


Why do they axe all the good things ? I suppose they cant make money out of it so it is not worth their while!


----------



## kritter67 (May 17, 2009)

Thanks for your replys all , i sent them [csiro] an email to get the official answer , and am awaiting their reply , K----------


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

Following on from the funding issue, and heading towards off topic. Apparently when it comes to genetic engineering, there are lots of legal issues regarding, not only the rights to the genes, the actually processes that are used in the lab as part of the research. This adds to costs to such an extent that anyone doind r&d on something has to pretty much partner up with the owner of the process/gene rights to get anything done. Obviously if there's potential value in what they're doing they can find a joint venture partner (who gets a slice of the action), if there's limited potential (for the rights owner) then the project stops.

Monsanto is the leader in this area and owns the rights to lots of different gene technology. Another is Dow. What is now happening in some cases is that these researchers are being offered a one way trip to a country like China and given free rein (with conditions obviously) to research their little hearts out. Why? because, with their system of government they don't really worry too much about legal challenges.

Thought some of you might find that interesting. There's lots of stuff sitting on shelves, I've seen it, which won't get to market until all those issues are dealt with.


----------



## CatfishKeith (Apr 17, 2009)

from what I understand of the carp issue is that the carp are a symtom and a degraded river system not the cause. Carp numbers reduce when condition no longer favour them. The problems with the system has been the removal of snags and the significantly decreased water flow has done the damage. We have reduced the system to a chain of skinking pools, the carp didnt do that. Increasing water flow and replacing snags makes conditions more favourable for natives and inturn less favourable for carp.

Science can provide fancy and expensive solutions to often simple problems. In this case its a political issue. Raping the landscape has been profitable and a lot of polies have their hand in that basket, its simplisting to point the finger at the carp while at the same time alocat more than 100% water rights to corperate/ Pitt street farmers in the catchment areas. there is one farm holding more than the capacity of Sydney Harbour! But its the carp....Maybe they should work on daughterlass humans, that seems to be the real problem.


----------



## kritter67 (May 17, 2009)

CatfishKeith said:


> from what I understand of the carp issue is that the carp are a symtom and a degraded river system not the cause. Carp numbers reduce when condition no longer favour them. The problems with the system has been the removal of snags and the significantly decreased water flow has done the damage. We have reduced the system to a chain of skinking pools, the carp didnt do that. Increasing water flow and replacing snags makes conditions more favourable for natives and inturn less favourable for carp.
> 
> Science can provide fancy and expensive solutions to often simple problems. In this case its a political issue. Raping the landscape has been profitable and a lot of polies have their hand in that basket, its simplisting to point the finger at the carp while at the same time alocat more than 100% water rights to corperate/ Pitt street farmers in the catchment areas. there is one farm holding more than the capacity of Sydney Harbour! But its the carp....Maybe they should work on daughterlass humans, that seems to be the real problem.


Or at least daughterless pollies  , and all you say above is true , more needs to be done in returning our degraded river systems to their former glory , something that i very much doubt will ever happen in my lifetime if ever . Very very sad,K--------


----------



## chris58 (Nov 25, 2007)

i know the were running a fishing comp from the Albert river in Qld.
it was carp only! with many caught and a noticable decrease in carp numbers over the few years of the comp.
sponsers got on board and if you know of "Charlie Carp" garden supplies,they supplied a skip to put all the fish in.
it made the local tv. when i used to live up that way.......
ok they will never catch all the carp but it is a start.


----------



## kritter67 (May 17, 2009)

chris58 said:


> i know the were running a fishing comp from the Albert river in Qld.
> it was carp only! with many caught and a noticable decrease in carp numbers over the few years of the comp.
> sponsers got on board and if you know of "Charlie Carp" garden supplies,they supplied a skip to put all the fish in.
> it made the local tv. when i used to live up that way.......
> ok they will never catch all the carp but it is a start.


Maby akff could have a catch a carp comp , and try to get sponsers onboard with a bit of publicity .

What do the MODS think ?  K-----------


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

Well said CatfishKeith. Couldn't agree more. Seeing this is a kayak fishing forum I'll make this my last post for this thread because I'm drifting towards politics and economics. Having an invlovement in the water industry, I can see the QLD is heading straight into the same mistakes that other states have made. Was at a national water managers do a few weeks ago and we had people in high places from other states telling us "don't go there" with water trading, but it seems we have to make decisions in line with the water act 2000 (stated aim is to give seperate title to water to allow its trading to the highest value use). Sounds good to an economic rationalist, and I bought it for a while, but when you see what happens on the ground it's very frightening. There is a prime rice growing area that has permanantly traded 70% of its water rights to elsewhere, now the town is dying because noone has the entitlement to use the water. They sold the rights to it when the were in drought and didn't have the water but needed the cashflow. Now they have some water but can't use it. I'm sure those sort of policies don't give us the wholistic solutions we all want.

Anyway, I'll get off my soap box and worry about whether I can sneak in a fish this weekend.


----------



## kritter67 (May 17, 2009)

Got a reply from csiro , they are still researching the programme as they had a small setback and need to modify the gene again , but that is some 5 years off , it will then take 20 - 30 years to have an effect and up to 50 years to have a significant impact .

They are also developing the koi herpesvirus that only affects carp which they believe will lower the population in a shorter time , but will still go ahead with the gene programme .

At least they are still doing something .

Meanwhile i have sent for a distribution map so that maybe if there is enough interest here we can target an area in a carp comp eradication day , what does every-one think ? K---------


----------



## dishley (Jan 20, 2009)

You got me thinking again, you've really gotta stop doing that.
Penrith lakes that they built for the olympics is full of big carp. Which means they've been there since it was built. I don't think there's been a flood linking it to the nepean since it was built, so.. My question is did they channel the water from the nepean and that's how the carp got there or did they stock it with carp?


----------



## AndyC (Feb 29, 2008)

CatfishKeith, It was so refreshing to read your very rational observations on this thread. I get so peeved by the 'crusader Rabbit' response of so many people regarding Carp and also other non-native fish species. The poor old redfin is held in considerable disdain just about everywhere, as are tench. Each of these species represents a potential sportfishing resource.

The arguments for eradication of these species are invariably the same. They are said to be responsible for the degradation of the environment, the destruction of native fish habitat, predation of native fish stocks, competing with native species for available food supplies and breeding habitat and, redfin in particular are criticized because they 'overpopulate, resulting in stunted fish of low value' in a given environment.

Well one can argue every one of these claims against trout and salmonoid species. The majority of anglers would be justifiably horrified at the idea of doing away with the Australian trout fishery. So to them I say, it is illogical to further the cause of one introduced species, whilst seeking to eradicate others. Oh, and if you are worried by all those overpopulated, stunted specimens .... you aren't fishing the water hard enough! It comes down to nothing more than fashion or fancy! To those who would have us get rid of any and all introduced species and return to a purely native fishery, I would say you are naive. The hard fact is, it is man who has caused nearly ALL of the damage to Australian native fish stocks.

Inappropriate land use practices, land clearing and regulation of water flows in the Murray/Darling system have resulted in the erosion of water quality and have denied native fish species, the conditions that they require for effective spawning i.e regular inundation of backwater areas through natural flooding. And on any weekend, you can sit on the banks of the mighty Murray River and watch the speedboats go up and down and up and down ..... leaving a huge wake and massive waves on every pass. The erosion of the banks and silting of the river is right there for anyone with eyes to see .... with the water close to the banks being churned up to mud. The removal of natural habitat (snags) from the rivers and backwaters by MAN is one of the single greatest evils that have been wrought against our native fish.

If we were to eradicate every non-native fish from our waterways tomorrow, I don't think it would result in any massive increase in native fish stocks. What it would definitely do, is to deny a huge proportion of the population any enjoyable freshwater sportfishing at all! And those native fish are probably enjoying some small benefits from their non-native cohabitants ... in the form of very tasty eggs and fry. It isn't only non-natives that need to predate! Unlike humankind, nature tends to find its own balance.

As everyone knows, carp aren't exactly 'up there' as a table fish. But if I can believe what I read, a huge proportion of Aussie 'sports anglers' are catch-and-release people anyhow. So who gives a toss if you can't eat them. The fact is, they can be quite challenging to catch on occasion ... ask anyone who has tried for them with a fly rod! And they struggle as hard as any native fish. providing wonderful 'sport'.

I recall the Murray river when I was a small boy ... nearly fifty years ago. And it seems to me, the river around Murray Bridge and Morgan where my family used to holiday, looked about the same then, as it does now. And I remember the complaints about the lousy fishing then too!

I have read a good many pseudo-scientific documents purporting to quantify the negative impacts of introduced fish species in our waterways. And they seem invariably to be couched in terms like "It is strongly believed" or "It is considered probable" . Hard data seems even harder ... to find! And the idea of some buch of wanker scientists messing around with engineered viruses to target particular life forms??? Even the dullest of us has heard by now, that viruses mutate. What happens when myxomatosis or herpes carpus or whatever, mutates and starts targeting other non-native Australians. We will pretty much all be in the pooh, eh?

I have had one member send me a heap of links of papers, purporting to 'prove' the undesirability of Redfin Perch. And in typical public service fashion, A paper from Queensland had clearly been plagiarized for re-use by the ACT. You didn't need to be Einstein to recognise the identically worded sections. So if you churn out enough of this crap ... if enough people believe it ... then it must be true, eh?

So to those people who champion the idea of getting rid of all those nasty non-natives, I say ..... Get serious. One out, all out. Lets all pee off back to the northern hemisphere, where we belong ...... and take all our non-native critters with us. And I don't just mean you pale people either. Australia has been here for billions of years. Mankind, only in the last eye blink of time! I assume that is what these people would consider ideal? .... An unspoiled Australia, completely natural and free of artificial, man-made alterations?

One final point; If carp and redfin and tench are so BAD for the environment, how come that in streams where they exist naturally in Europe and the UK/US the habitat is not degraded. Why don't those places all look like the Murray River? And to those who sagely point out that those ecosystems include predators that we don't have here (to balance the equation up) I'd imagine that our Murray Cod, Callop, Maquarie Perch etc would be pretty bad news to the average non-native egg or fry!

Non native fish are such a wonderful scapegoat for a great many man-made ills. The people who campaign for their removal without properly researching the facts and drawing their own rational conclusions really irk me. But I have a special place in my heart for the wankers who would breed trout to release into our waterways ... and then tell you that reddies, carp and tench are pest fish!

I apologise for the length of this post. But this is one subject about which I feel very passionate. Above all things, I detest argument without logic. And people who accept 'popular beliefs' without doing their own research and assessment run a very close second!

AndyC


----------



## kritter67 (May 17, 2009)

dishley said:


> or did they stock it with carp?


Surely not ! :shock:


----------



## kritter67 (May 17, 2009)

AndyC said:


> Each of these species represents a potential sportfishing resource.
> 
> The arguments for eradication of these species are invariably the same. They are said to be responsible for the degradation of the environment, the destruction of native fish habitat, predation of native fish stocks, competing with native species for available food supplies and breeding habitat and, redfin in particular are criticized because they 'overpopulate, resulting in stunted fish of low value' in a given environment.
> 
> ...


 All of the words in red above are mine , just to be clear !

Naive , bollocks , get rid of the lot of them , trout brown / rainbows , redfin , carp, tench and any other non native , you want sportsfish in fresh water -EP"s , barra , bass , saratoga , JP'S .

True man has damaged Australias native fish stocks and letting european fish loose in our environment has aided in that destruction, so do we just let it carry on or do we learn from "our" mistakes and try to fix the problem !

True the mighty Murray is just about effed , so do we sit with our heads in the sand and do nothing? Not the answer me thinks .

No enjoyable freshwater fishing without these noxtious imports , BOLLOCKS ! EP'S , BASS do i have to put the entire list up again!

Native fish do eat their eggs and fry , and they eat native fish eggs and fry ! Be clear on that .

Nature has not and will not find a balance unless we do something to help it , it has gone too far , and the misuse of our native natural waterways will see that this continues.

Carp as a sport , they probably are ,but better left to those in europe , where the fish is a native species ! You want to catch carp , go to europe .

One out all out , i think not , those that want to fish for those crap species can leave if they want , and by all means take your pests with you , the rest of us will try to fix whats been f#*ked.

Free from manmade alterations , that would have been a sight to see , wish i was there! K----------

PS* with that mentality , rabbits , foxes and cane toads should stay aswell , not bloody likely.


----------



## AndyC (Feb 29, 2008)

Kieran, thanks for the logical, rational response to my post. I don't recall saying anywhere that the problems of the Murray/Darling system should be ignored or not acted upon. Only that the removal of non-native fish-stocks, without environmental reparation (which will probably never happen in our lifetime) will not result in any dramatic increase in native fish stocks. Without a comprehensive program of riparian restoration and the removal of existing flood mitigation strategies, there is no liklihood of native species being able to reproduce naturally in anything like natural numbers. We will be dependent, at best, on artificial breeding and stocking programs. I'm thrilled to know that you will be out there doing your bit to set it right. I assume your contribution will involve more than killing off a few non-natives though?

Further, I never suggested that non-natives don't predate upon natives ... only that its a two way street. And (by implication) that perhaps the non-native species might provide an important food source. Much of the natural freshwater animal and plant life (read fish-food) disappeared, along with its habitat ... snags, weed beds and other 'navigational hazards' removed over the years and the disruption to the natural ecosystem, due to salinity.

"I make my own conclusions from the research that i have done !!!" ...... these words in black from your response ... not red to indicate they are yours.

Your statement ..... "PS* with that mentality , rabbits , foxes and cane toads should stay aswell , not bloody likely."
I thought we were talking about fish. I am guessing no-one in your family keeps a dog or a domestic cat? Biggest destroyers of native wildlife, after mankind!

I fear the rabbits, foxes and cane toads will still be here, long after us. But your suggestion that I approve or disapprove of them, based on my attitude towards non-native fish is flawed.

Cheers,

AndyC


----------



## Feral (Oct 18, 2008)

Western Qld run 6 carp comps a year, I went to the Goonidiwindi one last year, great social event, several hundred carp removed. Couldn't go this year, with no Anzac day public holiday, could not get the day off work.

http://www.qmdc.org.au/publications/dow ... mation.pdf

The daughterless carp program is interesting, they were also using male carp to finish the project. Saw a special on the box where they managed to eradicate carp from one of the big inland lakes on the Murray (it was a trial, obviously the next flow would see more carp in there). Basically they were releasing males with tracking systems attached. Apparently the male carp can find breeding females from kilometers away. They just track the males to the females, then net them, letting the males with the tracking devices go again to find the next female.


----------



## AndyC (Feb 29, 2008)

Hi Feral,

That technique of using male fish with tracking devices has been used with success in Tasmania's lakes Sorell and Crescent. But it has taken many years to get the carp problem under control in just those two lakes. Short of some effective biological control agent (like a virus), I think the best strategy is to fish them heavily to keep numbers down to a manageable level.

The biological control solution scares me. It seems to be becoming a common approach to the eradication of various pests ,,,, rabbits and blackberries are two that spring to mind, My fear is that sooner or later, they will get it wrong and release some modified virus that will wreak awful havoc on some totally non-related species or even an entire eco-system.

The fishing comps seem like an excellent way of having a periodic clean out on specific waters. Obviously though, there's a limit to those. Perhaps they should consider a bounty system of some kind. A financial incentive for people to destroy pests has proven effective in past history, with several native species being either exterminated or endangered due to their status as pests and the payment of bounties on them.

Cheers All,

AndyC


----------



## koich (Jul 25, 2007)

AndyC said:


> I fear the rabbits, foxes and cane toads will still be here, long after us. But your suggestion that I approve or disapprove of them, based on my attitude towards non-native fish is flawed.


It's not a long bow to draw though.

Explain the difference between rabbits, foxes and cane toads and carp,trout and redfin with specific mention of effects on native fauna including but not limited to predation and competition.

You prove to us that they aren't doing in any damage and I'll believe you. The honus is on you, sir.


----------



## kritter67 (May 17, 2009)

koich said:


> AndyC said:
> 
> 
> > I fear the rabbits, foxes and cane toads will still be here, long after us. But your suggestion that I approve or disapprove of them, based on my attitude towards non-native fish is flawed.
> ...





AndyC said:


> Kieran, thanks for the logical, rational response to my post. I don't recall saying anywhere that the problems of the Murray/Darling system should be ignored or not acted upon. Only that the removal of non-native fish-stocks, without environmental reparation (which will probably never happen in our lifetime) will not result in any dramatic increase in native fish stocks. Without a comprehensive program of riparian restoration and the removal of existing flood mitigation strategies, there is no liklihood of native species being able to reproduce naturally in anything like natural numbers. We will be dependent, at best, on artificial breeding and stocking programs. I'm thrilled to know that you will be out there doing your bit to set it right. I assume your contribution will involve more than killing off a few non-natives though?
> 
> Further, I never suggested that non-natives don't predate upon natives ... only that its a two way street. And (by implication) that perhaps the non-native species might provide an important food source. Much of the natural freshwater animal and plant life (read fish-food) disappeared, along with its habitat ... snags, weed beds and other 'navigational hazards' removed over the years and the disruption to the natural ecosystem, due to salinity.
> 
> ...


Sorry about the words in black my mistake , yes they are mine .

As koich says "its not a long bow to draw" when talking about pest fish and pest cane toads , and yes pest cats , so is not flawed in my opinion. I do own a dog , but it does not kill native wildlife as we are responsible owners , she does however kill mice, rats, tries for cats in our yard, and indian minors another non native pest. 

Yes your veiws on environmental reparation are applauded by me , and a bounty system would be only a good thing.

As for my contribution to the environment , it is an ongoing everyday occurrence , killing of pest species is just a small part of that , but is one that i can do with limited time resources.

Any breeding programmes of native flora/ fauna should be supported imo , and i will do so where/when i can. K---------


----------



## grinner (May 15, 2008)

just thought i would revive this one

heard dr millican (i think thats the guy) talking about this programme.

have successfully finished phase 1 of the trials and they actually seem to have 3 options

1 releasing gm carp who when they breed will produce only male offspring who can then carry on this trend

2 releasing gm carp who when their ovaries activate will produce a toxin and die

3 producing gm carp who have sterile offsrping.

the doc was adamant that the part of the genome they have tinkered with is ONLY available in carp with a very small crossover similarity to goldfish ( apparently australia also has a goldfish infestation in some native waterways and the 2 can, on occassions, cross breed).

obviously the maths probably suit the release of option 1 where hopefully masses of carp male competitors could eventually wipe out the species.

he has secured on going funding for the next stage of the project.
he felt 5 to 6 years could see the release of the first batches of daughterless carp.


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

AndyC said:


> My fear is that sooner or later, they will get it wrong and release some modified virus that will wreak awful havoc on some totally non-related species or even an entire eco-system.


Have you researched this too? Is this a possibility that the scientists have for some reason ignored? Or, perhaps, are you (quite understandibly) stating what you see as a plausible risk that you're not happy with. Isn't that what you are criticising others for; unresearched points of view?

Your passion comes through. Your research on this issue lends weight to your arguments. Do you need to dismiss alternative solutions to make your solution valid?


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2012)

Ado, 2009 thread...


----------



## bildad (Jun 20, 2011)

If you get rid of the carp what are the people in Canberra going to catch? :lol:


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

nezevic said:


> Ado, 2009 thread...


Ahhh


----------



## gonfission (Feb 21, 2009)

Excellent post catfish keith. The more people that realise where the real damage has been done the better. And the sooner the underlying problems can be... ok too late to be rectified, but certainly improved.
Cheers John.


----------



## paffoh (Aug 24, 2006)

So they had details on lateline a couple of weeks ago that government funding has been pulled and the project doomed. Are you saying that he has a new backer and the project back on the cards?

Government seems to favour herpes trial.


----------



## grinner (May 15, 2008)

paffoh said:


> So they had details on lateline a couple of weeks ago that government funding has been pulled and the project doomed. Are you saying that he has a new backer and the project back on the cards?
> 
> Government seems to favour herpes trial.


yeah i think so paff

link
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/conten ... 563228.htm


----------



## paffoh (Aug 24, 2006)

Great news


----------

