Does anyone have a link to the 'alert' in question. Is it an alert to its threatening spread or to its confirmed spread?

Here's a link to a descriptive reference on the 'spiny waterflea' ... 
https://www.invasivespeciescentre.ca/invasive-species/meet-the-species/fish-and-invertebrates/spiny-waterflea/
 

Hi Barry,

The alert appears when generating a paddling reservation as per the text below:

Everyone can prevent further invasions into Algonquin Park by inspecting and wiping down all boating and angling gear before travelling to another waterbody.For more information, including how to recognize Spiny Waterflea, please see:Canadian Council of Invasive Species
[url=https://reservations.ontarioparks.com/#:~:text=Spiny%20waterflea%20(Bythotrephes%20longimanus),orange%2C%20blue%20and%20green%20colouring]Ontario Invasive Species – Spiny & fishhook water flea[/url]
Thank you for helping to protect the unique aquatic ecology of Algonquin Park.

• Spiny WaterfleaAlgonquin Provincial Park is home to some of the most unique aquatic ecosystems in Ontario including populations of Brook and Lake Trout. Sadly, these aquatic ecosystems, and the fish within them are under threat. Spiny Waterflea (Bythotrephes longimanus) is a non-native zooplankton that disrupts natural food webs and has recently been detected in Kioshkokwi Lk., Manitou Lk., and North Tea Lk. Spiny Waterflea can travel between waterbodies on angling and boating gear including canoes and kayaks. Please avoid fishing in these lakes before travelling to other parts of the park.

Not sure what the purpose of the 2nd URL link is though as it just directs the user to a another Reservations page with the same alert and no further details.

Cheers!

Rich

Last edited by hiker72 (12/14/2022 6:23 am)

@ RobW:  I would not agree first with the term 'fishery collapse' and secondly with the inedibility of spiny waterfleas (some species thrive when the spiny waterfleas reach high levels - admittedly, not fish like speckled trout except in the earliest stages of life!).  The small amount of research I've reviewed (a few of the articles from this google scholar search:  https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=Bythotrephes+canadian+lake&btnG= ) does not make reference to fishery collapse and tends to assess the impact on native zooplankton and other water fleas, specifically.  Most of the publications appear to identify that our knowledge on the matter is hindered with a limited amount of information on pre-existing zooplankton levels and subsequent effects after the invasive species is detected.

I don't doubt that the impact would be 'negative' in our view - changing the lake fauna in a way that we perceive as detrimental.  But I also don't believe the existing research makes a clear distinction of the predicted outcomes as a 'collapse'.  An excerpt from one of the hits on the search cited above clarifies that there are many unknowns due to a lack of research and information:
"The complexity of  these factors suggest that we may not be able to predict the possible impacts of the co-occurrence of Bythotrephes and declining Ca on zooplankton in any particular Canadian Shield lake with confidence. Nevertheless, on average, and in lakes with both stressors, we expect to see the loss of large daphniids such as Daphnia pulicaria, a key herbivore in the aquatic food web. Over time, we expect the loss of other daphniids (e.g. Daphnia retrocurva and Daphnia dubia) and small cladocerans, with lake communities dominated by Holopedium glacialis and/or copepods. Indeed, we have some field evidence that these changes are indeed occurring (e.g. Jeziorski et al. 1015 2015)."

In the end, let's hope we gather greater knowledge and understanding of the scale of the impact and, more importantly, how to limit or eliminate potential risks!

Last edited by PaPaddler (12/14/2022 12:32 pm)

Good points, SeekingSolitude.  I expect we all share the same concern with protecting the environment we are familiar with. 

While nature appears to be finely balanced, it is incredibly robust and pervasive in finding a way to adapt and exist.  Ice ages that scour the landscape and snuff out nearly all of the fish from their lake/river habitats, meteorites that liquify the rocks of the crust and ignite the atmosphere (like in Sudbury), volcanoes that poison the atmosphere with acidic gasses - these are examples of the mega-dynamic changes that nature has adapted to in the past.  

This doesn't give me a pass to conclude 'human damage doesn't matter' but it does demonstrate the incredible adaptive ability that nature has...and has demonstrated on this planet for nearly four billion years.  What I find objectionable are conclusions that don't fit the data - and the media is full of conclusions/opinions designed to influence our beliefs to support their agenda.  It likely will never go away since both love and deception are innate in our species, but be aware that what we read may be related to truth or may represent someone else's 'truth'.

In truth, I'd rather be fishing. ;-)

@RobW thank you for identifying all the things you believe I need and certainly for the link that supports your point and informs of the definition of fishery.

Here's a bit of unsolicited feedback:  you might consider using a different phrase from  "you need" as it comes across as a bit condescending and domineering.  Maybe it's just me and the way I read it, but if I were to reply with "You need to understand that there is no evidence linking fleas and fishery collapse" it might be interpreted negatively by you.

I'm not committed to this subject and am certainly no expert as well, but I have spent over thirty years in the medical field (although I only have an undergraduate degree in physics) and have a robust understanding of the design, intent, interpretation, limitations and potential flaws of peer-reviewed published research.  I did a cursory search in google scholar and did not find any papers that link the spiny water flea introduction with fishery collapse (a distant link, I get it).  The point I am trying to make is, it is a leap of faith to project 'undoubted fishery collapse' from water flea introduction as a causal relationship.  I'm not arguing the 30-40% reduction of native zooplankton wouldn't have an impact, I'm arguing that linking an extreme, subjective conclusion that isn't supported by the evidence wouldn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. 

We often see this type of statement in areas where one stands to profit from it:  like extra clicks on a news story that inflates the information with dramatic terms like 'collapse' or 'chaos'.  

Thanks, Rob.  Really helpful.