Quote:
|
Originally Posted by basswipe
As far as a little research goes the Black Salty is none of these:
http://species.fishindex.com/species..._goldfish.html
Related yes...carassius auratus no.Its an engineered fish.
RI has had over 200 years to put a rule in the books?How do you come up with that?They've been tested in TX for 80yrs?Huh?Anderson Farms has only been in business 50yrs.The Black Salty itself beginnings were in the 90s.
As far as predators in other watersheds like in TX.Lets see there's Stripers,Hybrid Stripers,Redfish,Corvina,Gar,several Catfish species.
None of these can be found in NE waters.
The Black Salty has potential but I see a little more scientific research needing to be done before I want it here. |
The first recorded goldfish was imported in RI in the early 1800's. By my math that makes 200 years or so.
The bottom picture in your link is of the dark variety carrasius auratus, which is the INTERNATIONALLY CERTIFIED taxonomy of the Black Salty. That picture looks like the majority of the Black Saltys shipped on a regular basis. The Black Salty is a Goldfish, plain and simple, its beginnings were hundreds of years ago, its trademarked and copyrighted nickname were created in the late 90's after much consideration by the farm that decided to market them.
Goldfish dark and orange variety, have been used in TX as a bait for 80 plus years, again the Black Salty is a common goldfish with advanced selective breeding techniques to exhibit remarkable short term salt water survival.
The amount, or distribution percentage of predators in each states watershed is waht I was referring to, not species. Last I checked we had several species of catfish, stripers, and a few predators Texas doesn't have. Thank god we don't have hybrid stripers, in my opinion. The fact remains that in any body of water, a chain exists and resident fish will occupy a percentage of the given biomass for each specific body of water. The distributions of these fish does not greatly vary in any way in almost all closed environments in the US except where an invasive species has wreaked havoc.
Before you go claiming something was engineered, do your homework. The term genetically modified, engineered, or altered has a very specific and exact definition as deemed by the international governing body Codex Alimentarious Commission. Since the breeding techniques used by Anderson farms do not alter or modify the gene makeup of these fish, and they use commonly practiced selective breeding techniques, this exludes the fish from any association with a genetically manipulated organism.
The USDA defines the term "genetically modified" to mean methods "including cell fusion, microencapsulation, recombitant DNA technology(including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing positions of genes). they further state in CFR 7 205.2 the term genetically modified, altered, or engineered specifically excludes "traditional breeding including selective breeding practices, fermentation, or in vitro fertilization."
CFR 40 725.455 states the EPA succintly defines "genetic modification, alteration, or engineering as introduced genetic material".
Under even the broadest definition these fish do not even come close to being genetically engineered, manipulated, or altered, period. Quit claiming otherwise.
Selective breeding practices have been used in the US since the 1700's, in everything from horses, cattle, pigs, chickens, and many other animals. For that matter, humans engage in selective breeding by seeking out a well formed, healthy, and attractive mate to reproduce.
If you want volumes of scientific research, I can provide you with that as well. The State of RI and most other states defers to the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluffs for their taxonomy and studies in regards to fisheries/aquaculture, and this UAPB authority conducted a five year study of many different aspects of this fish, with many publications put forth as a result, including but not limited to its taxonomy; common goldfish, dark variety. All the research one could want has already been conducted, so no further tests should be needed. In addition, the USDA, USGS in conjunction with APHIS, and the US Fish and Wildlife all have done studies and rendered very similar conclusions and research in regards to the impact of this fish on native species. They all seem to state unequivocably that these fish are not an invasive species anywhere they currently inhabit in the wild.Every state except Alaska has resident goldfish in the wild, and 46 states have breeding populations, including RI. That would pretty much conclude that they are an acceptable species on a national level, no?
PM me with your email address if you want hard copies of all these studies and certifications, don't just take my word for it. Knowledge is essential for any informed decisions.
btw, i never claimed it was a minnow, the state of RI did by their own definition. I always asserted it was a goldfish.