The current snakehead thread got me thinking about something ... it seems common practice for any given state's wildlife authority to issue directives to destroy any form of wildlife (or vegetation for that matter) that is deemed invasive.
I understand the the thinking behind it, about maintaining the perceived natural order of things and all of that, but has it ever been remotely successful on any level ? To me it seems akin to pissing on a forest fire. Honestly, how would you go about eradicating a single species from any substantial sized body of water, especially tributaries that are liked to much larger rivers and such ?
To go a step further, how many species of fish that are common and accepted in your home waters were considered invasive at one time ? It seems nature is a master of adaptation ... for example the gobies that were said to be the ruin of many northern smallmouth waters are a food source for them. In my case, the waterway I caught my giant snakehead in has a huge population of trophy size largemouth bass, by far the biggest I've seen here despite the snakeheads being in there for quite a few years now. This particular body of water is a tributary of the Delaware River, which is likely how the snakeheads got here in the first place, but more importantly it supports a huge shad population which apparently is enough to keep both the snakeheads AND bass fat and happy. I've caught/snagged shad the size of a NERF football many times in there, and when the shad are running it's a feeding frenzy for everyone.
I guess my thought on the matter is once it's in there, it's in there to stay and nothing short of natural selection (or god forbid some horrible man made environmental catastrophe) will change it. What say you ???