Fish in my dugout

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by EZM

Welcome to the forum ..... I wouldn't suggest it to anyone to post an opinion if you are not willing to discuss / defend it.

I am comfortable in discussing my position, without prejudice. Sundance, who is crazy by the way, and I have had excellent debates on a number of topics. Both of us share some background in this area of study. Despite the ribbing we give each other, there is respect between us long time forum members. Sundance thinks I'm crazy but he's wrong. He wears a tin foil hat, I choose not to ..... no big deal.

The purpose of this forum is to share thoughts, ideas, knowledge and provide each other with some good natured entertainment now and again.

I have been wrong once or twice before on here before ..... but this isn't one of them.

I am simply stating my opinion on a theory which is plausible.

Anyways nice 5th post. If you don't know how things work just sit back and watch. There is no disrespect intended, but I expect to be challenged if I propose an idea ....... and I'm comfortable with that ....... are you? (no response required as it is a rhetorical question).

Anyways ...... welcome to the forum and buckle your seat belt.

I luv ya man. You are funny and help keep people thinking.

You and I can have different opinions and know that is ok.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by cube

Actually the "Scientific Method" is very close minded. It requires evidence and proof to support the position which very few other than Sundace has done here. Absolutely nothing says Science has to be open minded and governed solely by logic and human reasoning. Pretty sure Galileo put that to rest a few hundred years ago.

Stop bringing facts. Some just like the impossible or highly improbable to be proven just by someone saying something in a blog.

My hypothesis is that stomach acids plus time yields dead fish and eggs in birds and would make it nearly impossible for this to be a live dispersal method to establish a viable population. It would need to be injested and immediately barfed into water to survive.

My hypothesis is that eggs and fish cannot cling to a bird and make it past take off, flying and landing and survive in enough numbers to create a viable population.

My hypothesis is that fish migrate to new habitat via permanent and intermittent tributaries and can use this method to establish new viable populations

My hypothesis is that fish can move through interstitial fluvial substrate to colonize new habitat and establish new viable populations.

My hypothesis is that fish can move overland in large to small flood events and colonize new habitats with viable populations

My hypothesis is that fish can move via bucket to new habitat and establish viable populations.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Chief16

Why are you so unwilling to accept the fact that the bird hypothesis is plausible? You have literally given no reason for anyone to take your side, except for an outdated paper with have minimal support for you and restatement of things you have already said. If you are indeed "trained and educated in fisheries" you should know the scientific method and be more open to other ideas.

You seem like you want to think versus trying to stubbornly hold on to a very remote and highly unlikely and highly improbable theory.

This theory is like believing picking a simple 6 number will win me the next lotto prize.

If you are a thinking guy. Take a handful of feathers. Collect a pile of stickleback nests with eggs. Put nests in a bucket of water. Stir the bucket up with your handful of feathers.


Now pull your hand out fast and flap like heck till your arm feels like it will fall off.

Place feathers in a clean bucket. Stir vigorously. Pull feathers out and look for egg. Incubate if you find any and see if you get live fry.

Ignore the fact that a pond without fish is full of predators like beetle larvae etc.

Do this ten different times and let us know your success rate.

[Sundancefisher]

Observation and reality can be very different. A neighbour swears trout get big eating perch. He doesn't get we stock the odd big one.

I tested his theory. I tossed dead perch to hungry trout. Some I left the dorsal fin on and some cut off. The trout ate 100% of the perch with no dorsal. They ate 0 with dorsal fins. He still goes not believe.

People also believe our trout reproduce in our lake. I tell them no. They don't believe because they see "baby" fish in the shallows. They are minnow species fathead and lake chub.

[Sundancefisher]

Someone else can take this study to do. Get the correct bird stomach acidity down and make ten batches. Put equal amount to a bird by volume of simulated stomach acid into 10 different balloons. Take 100 viable stickleback eggs and place into each bag. Remove all air.

Time how long for a bird to fly 6 miles. Leave eggs in balloons for that period of time. If all dead halve the time. If all dead still halve the time again.

Let us know how it works.

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by FlyTheory

What if you modified the Drake equation to meet the probability of completely isolated man made lakes (with no runoff or underground waterways) containing stickleback

Having said that, why don't you bird theorists look into the average acidity of a bird's stomach.
And yes although I believe this may happen - where some waterfowl successfully keeps a fish alive somehow on/in its body- the PROBABILITY of that successfully happening (of successful pick up, transport, fish mortality, etc.) is so low guys... For every isolated man made pitmine to be stocked by birds, as claimed, the frequency of bird transport must be much higher than feasible. With still no concrete documented scientific proof, we cannot fully accept the idea. Yet as people practicing scientific theory, we must be able to dismiss old facts and hypotheses disproved by new PROVEN research data. Which unfortunately, hasn't been the case for the birds transporting fish.

Any comments about how nine spine sticklebacks made it into Alberta Lakes?

What about crayfish?

[Chief16]

Originally Posted by cube

Actually the "Scientific Method" is very close minded. It requires evidence and proof to support the position which very few other than Sundace has done here. Absolutely nothing says Science has to be open minded and governed solely by logic and human reasoning. Pretty sure Galileo put that to rest a few hundred years ago.

What? Galileo was punished because he didn't conform to societal norms. I'm not sure how you can be more open minded then that. I have also given proof that it happens through birds as people seeing them regurgitate live minnows. I am trying to say that right know we are arguing of how to skin a cat for example. I totally believe that minnows can be transported through floods, run off, underground water flow etc. I'm also saying that I believe they can be transported by birds as well. I just don't see why one side is being taken so firmly, where there is evidence for both sides.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Chief16

What? Galileo was punished because he didn't conform to societal norms. I'm not sure how you can be more open minded then that. I have also given proof that it happens through birds as people seeing them regurgitate live minnows. I am trying to say that right know we are arguing of how to skin a cat for example. I totally believe that minnows can be transported through floods, run off, underground water flow etc. I'm also saying that I believe they can be transported by birds as well. I just don't see why one side is being taken so firmly, where there is evidence for both sides.

When was the minnow eaten and then how long later was it regurgitated live?

Do you have this critical data that has your mind made up ?

Also you will note all mine are scientifically proven.

Are you going to try this study? If you are at the UofA just go talk to a ichthyology prof and see if you did the work if they would help with methodology and equipment, fish collection license and lab time. I feel you would be highly encouraged to explore the wonderful world of science.

[trainerdave]

Sticklebacks...
Empty dugout . Filled up in one year. Obviously extremely high rainfall/runoff. Obviously surrounding areas experienced the same runoff scenario. Fish likely traveled through the aquifer from a water source containing stickleback. The easiest scenario is also the most likely. 6 miles is a long way from all sloughs,creeks,ditches and dugouts on a rainy year. Way easier to swim than fly if you are a fish.
Next likely scenario for Alberta.Cattle people. Water truck pulls water from the ditch/pond/river and puts it in the trough or dugout which overflows in to the watercourse. Live delivery in the appropriate medium for transport. That is how we stock fish here every year. Not a bucket brigade, but an even more common agricultural likelihood of transport-and likely has spread more fish around little dugouts all over without intent. Big water haulers also suck water out of the aforementioned water reserves for road work. They dump out many tank fulls per day, some of which ends up in the ditch. Work a bit harder on the most likely scenario and you will find the most likely answer.
I am glad you have fish in your dugout BTW...
Dave.

[mitchell]

Okay okay... This is getting a little crazy. Fish are there and i have no study or idea how they got there. But i did see saskwatch one day swimming there could it carry fish eggs there?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by mitchell

Okay okay... This is getting a little crazy. Fish are there and i have no study or idea how they got there. But i did see saskwatch one day swimming there could it carry fish eggs there?

Yes. They have opposable thumbs and strong biceps to carry giant buckets.

[EZM]

Dr. Grover Krantz, I'm pretty sure he was from Washington or Idaho, came to the U of C to talk to us about the Sasquatch in a Bio seminar. I will never forget it - he gave us a book to read ......

He believed it was real. This was what my parents were paying me to study !!!

I could never find the intestinal fortitude to read his book. Even as a young man I thought this was completely ridiculous.

But, if there were Sasquatch, they could carry buckets, if, in fact, they had thumbs.

[Chief16]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

When was the minnow eaten and then how long later was it regurgitated live?

Do you have this critical data that has your mind made up ?

Also you will note all mine are scientifically proven.

Are you going to try this study? If you are at the UofA just go talk to a ichthyology prof and see if you did the work if they would help with methodology and equipment, fish collection license and lab time. I feel you would be highly encouraged to explore the wonderful world of science.

No I have not which I totally accept, but that is actually a great idea I will have to look into, thanks!

All in trying to say is that I accept that you have published literature to support fish being transferred through means of water, whether it be streams, run off etc. and I don't doubt that one bit but you don't have anything to say that the bird hypothesis is wrong which is just as critical as having support for it

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Chief16

No I have not which I totally accept, but that is actually a great idea I will have to look into, thanks!

All in trying to say is that I accept that you have published literature to support fish being transferred through means of water, whether it be streams, run off etc. and I don't doubt that one bit but you don't have anything to say that the bird hypothesis is wrong which is just as critical as having support for it

Think about the studies I suggested. Think about the probability. Think about the fact if these new dugouts get minnows so quick why have all lakes and ponds been stocked similarly over millions of years wherein a dugout was stocked within just a few years. Think for yourself about the mechanisms that require birds to stock lakes. If you still believe it to be so probable then test the theories as suggested. If in fact fish and eggs can survive a long time in stomach acids with no oxygen...you will have monumental scientific breakthrough on fish. If you can prove that eggs or fish can hold onto a bird feather even under tremendous physical forces you will have an awesome scientific breakthrough.

People all over the world will know your name and be citing your papers. I am not kidding. And last but not least I will read these wonderful studies and announce happily on AOF that I was wrong and you my friend kept an open mind and PROVED me wrong.

Science is fun. Look forward to your exploration of it.

[Talking moose]

All theory's. Interesting ones. Moot. Will we ever know the answer? Maybe. Next!!!!!

[The Elkster]

Without answering just a few key questions we'll never have any definitive scientific proof that birds aren't only enabling the spread of stickleback but are perhaps the main delivery system. One small study with a limited scope hardly constitutes any kind of definitive proof.

Questions:

#1 has the tiny stickleback egg evolved a shell or membrane that enables it to make it through the digestive tracks of waterfowl or perhaps a certain type of waterfowl?

#2 do the tiny eggs, held together in nests with saliva from the fish, have a propensity to stick to or get filter into some part of birds ie feather as they muddle endlessly through the weeds? and are those eggs able to survive 10, 20 or 30 minutes out of water? Perhaps under a birds feathers/wings or perhaps the shell is able to withstand short periods of desiccation or perhaps a membrane prevents it from drying.

If either 1 or 2 is proven viable then the likelihood that birds are passing around fish goes from being a fluke to a statistical probability. Birds spend most of their life in minnow habitat and go from waterway to waterway...thousands and thousands of birds daily. Plenty of opportunity. No scientist would discount the possibility or probability of bird introductions without thoroughly investigating and discounting these possibilities among other odd traits and habits we may not even be considering. Far weirder things are seen in nature.

As far as why fish aren't in every waterway. Possibly no exposure to the transporting birds (maybe due to being out of migratory route, too far from established populations in other waters, maybe too many bird predators keeping birds away)?

Some non-introduction based theories would be incorrect water chemistry? are water temps maintained within the fish tolerance year round? are spawning conditions within tolerances at the right times? There is far more that determines a viable population than just introduction.

Just some thoughts to add to the discussion

Cheers

[silverdoctor]

Read this thread in full, my head now hurts and I haven't finished my first cup of coffee. In reading this thread, it seems to be science silenced, if it isn't documented then it isn't true, shut up about it.

We have a dugout, no other water for 6 miles and 2 theories from Sundance.

Overland flooding? Is it possible - I dare say, conditions would have to be perfect but what other waters are around and do they contain fish? If there has been some flooding, fish could be carried over.

Bucket brigade? Yes it's possible, and has been proven to happen. But Sundance, these aren't perch. If Mitchell finds perch in his dugout, then there's your answer. Plausibility is a huge factor in that theory - what possible reason would there be to introduce a fish species to a dugout? Do we have a stickleback fairy that can't stand to see a dugout void of fish?

If Mitchell indeed has fish in his dugout, there had to be a way. But I'm sorry, if buckets are the best someone can come up with - and everyone else is wrong because it's not documented, then that's an issue. That is science silenced.

Picture Galileo 400 some years ago, it was well known that the earth was the center of the universe - Imagine if nobody was willing to challenge the common knowledge, we probably wouldn't have the tech we have today.

JMO.

[The Elkster]

"If you can prove that eggs or fish can hold onto a bird feather even under tremendous physical forces you will have an awesome scientific breakthrough. "

The forces wouldn't be that great relative to a tiny potentially sticky egg. They are birds not supersonic jets.

[nekred]

Don't dig too deep or you will have killer piranha's.... Its true I saw it in a movie!...

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

Without answering just a few key questions we'll never have any definitive scientific proof that birds aren't only enabling the spread of stickleback but are perhaps the main delivery system. One small study with a limited scope hardly constitutes any kind of definitive proof.

Questions:

#1 has the tiny stickleback egg evolved a shell or membrane that enables it to make it through the digestive tracks of waterfowl or perhaps a certain type of waterfowl?

#2 do the tiny eggs, held together in nests with saliva from the fish, have a propensity to stick to or get filter into some part of birds ie feather as they muddle endlessly through the weeds? and are those eggs able to survive 10, 20 or 30 minutes out of water? Perhaps under a birds feathers/wings or perhaps the shell is able to withstand short periods of desiccation or perhaps a membrane prevents it from drying.

If either 1 or 2 is proven viable then the likelihood that birds are passing around fish goes from being a fluke to a statistical probability. Birds spend most of their life in minnow habitat and go from waterway to waterway...thousands and thousands of birds daily. Plenty of opportunity. No scientist would discount the possibility or probability of bird introductions without thoroughly investigating and discounting these possibilities among other odd traits and habits we may not even be considering. Far weirder things are seen in nature.

As far as why fish aren't in every waterway. Possibly no exposure to the transporting birds (maybe due to being out of migratory route, too far from established populations in other waters, maybe too many bird predators keeping birds away)?

Some non-introduction based theories would be incorrect water chemistry? are water temps maintained within the fish tolerance year round? are spawning conditions within tolerances at the right times? There is far more that determines a viable population than just introduction.

Just some thoughts to add to the discussion

Cheers

Great questions.

I have handled brook stickleback nests and eggs. I did not find them sticky. Literature would reference if sticky and they don't.

Many eggs are sticky right after laying and they lose it after fertilization. Helps the eggs stick to vegetation. In the case of brook stickleback... sticky and hard to digest coatings is not seen and studied. Anti-predation instead for the species seems to have developed parental protection. Males guard the nests.

Testing of the tiny egg being able to make it through the guts of a bird can be tested via the acid study I proposed above. It would be cool to see the results however nothing points to this being at all likely to result in a digestion then live egg scenario. Like all eggs...they require oxygen to survive. So even if it had a hard coating and acid did not hurt the egg...the lack of oxygen would suffocate the egg. Egg viability in fish hatcheries is always a concern if they don't get flowing fresh water or access to water to get oxygen. I know of no known mammal, fish or bird that can survive without oxygen for as long as it takes a bird to pass through a meal.

As the eggs are not sticky... one could still study the desication affects on eggs. That would be an easy study.

I have seen lakes side by side. One with and one without fish. Only difference is a lack of access via a tributary. We see this alot with culvert problems in creeks and impacts beaver ponds etc.

Water access is always key.

Still...hopefully someone at the university can take the time to run the studies. Should be fun.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Read this thread in full, my head now hurts and I haven't finished my first cup of coffee. In reading this thread, it seems to be science silenced, if it isn't documented then it isn't true, shut up about it.

We have a dugout, no other water for 6 miles and 2 theories from Sundance.

Overland flooding? Is it possible - I dare say, conditions would have to be perfect but what other waters are around and do they contain fish? If there has been some flooding, fish could be carried over.

Bucket brigade? Yes it's possible, and has been proven to happen. But Sundance, these aren't perch. If Mitchell finds perch in his dugout, then there's your answer. Plausibility is a huge factor in that theory - what possible reason would there be to introduce a fish species to a dugout? Do we have a stickleback fairy that can't stand to see a dugout void of fish?

If Mitchell indeed has fish in his dugout, there had to be a way. But I'm sorry, if buckets are the best someone can come up with - and everyone else is wrong because it's not documented, then that's an issue. That is science silenced.

Picture Galileo 400 some years ago, it was well known that the earth was the center of the universe - Imagine if nobody was willing to challenge the common knowledge, we probably wouldn't have the tech we have today.

JMO.

Read my posts. Buckets are one method. There are many natural methods I mentioned above. A number of more plausible alternatives are present. Another fella mentioned one I forgot...water trucks. Also don't forget when you stock a lake you introduce whatever was at the hatchery. It is amazing how little flood water is needed to move a stickleback around.

Don't get fixated. Read it all.

Cheers

SDF

[jwloco]

I will just leave this here, read it if you want, take it how you want. Just found it interesting.http://aquaticcommons.org/4832/1/57_1950_thie_thet.pdf

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

"If you can prove that eggs or fish can hold onto a bird feather even under tremendous physical forces you will have an awesome scientific breakthrough. "

The forces wouldn't be that great relative to a tiny potentially sticky egg. They are birds not supersonic jets.

Birds don't glide around the planet... They flap there wings like mad. That means up and down. Not slowly but very fast. A wing goes from beating down and then instantly changes direction and goes up. Then repeat.

Try this experiment. Take some elmers glue. dab some on your hand. But some beads on your hand. Now flap wildly. Now imagine a flap far greater than you can ever do.

Look up what the force is of a bird flapping. An egg on a beating wing...is under tremendous force.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Birds don't glide around the planet...

Many birds glide alot more miles than they will flap, conserves much needed energy.

[Sooner]

Originally Posted by mitchell

Okay okay... This is getting a little crazy. Fish are there and i have no study or idea how they got there. But i did see saskwatch one day swimming there could it carry fish eggs there?

Dumb question but did mother nature fill er up or was there help from a water truck who sucked water from somewhere else?

I ask as I was doing a ins claim with a farmer and we were talking about his fairly new dugout and I asked how the heck do you fill such a big hole with water. He said it takes a few years on it's own but he got a permit to take water from the big pond down the road from his place.

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Birds don't glide around the planet... They flap there wings like mad. That means up and down. Not slowly but very fast. A wing goes from beating down and then instantly changes direction and goes up. Then repeat.

Try this experiment. Take some elmers glue. dab some on your hand. But some beads on your hand. Now flap wildly. Now imagine a flap far greater than you can ever do.

Look up what the force is of a bird flapping. An egg on a beating wing...is under tremendous force.

The eggs could be stuck to it anywhere not just the fastest moving part of the wing. And most ducks aren't travelling that fast. Its hardly unreasonable to assume small eggs could manage to stay on at 30 kms/hr. Yes if they are located on the very fastest part of the end of the wing tips the forces may be huge. How about under the wings on the main part of the body or underside. Behind legs. Wing pits. Could be protected under a layer of feathers?
Something that small could nestle into a lot of places. And there isn't much spherical surface for any forces to act on either. You are using way too many assumptions in your dismissal of theories.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

The eggs could be stuck to it anywhere not just the fastest moving part of the wing. And most ducks aren't travelling that fast. Its hardly unreasonable to assume small eggs could manage to stay on at 30 kms/hr. Yes if they are located on the very fastest part of the end of the wing tips the forces may be huge. How about under the wings on the main part of the body or underside. Behind legs. Wing pits. Could be protected under a layer of feathers?
Something that small could nestle into a lot of places. And there isn't much spherical surface for any forces to act on either. You are using way too many assumptions in your dismissal of theories.

Still comes down to how did birds stock a pond in such a short period of time yet over millions of years missed other natural ponds?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by mitchell

I had this dugout dug three years ago and it finally filled up this last spring and noticed these fish in it this summer. I have no idea how they would have gotten there, maybe birds,who knows. Closest water with fish in it is about six miles. I took some pictures of some swimming and also found a dead one. Anyone know what they are? Not very good pictures

How far away is the closest lake with sticklebacks?

[wags]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Still comes down to how did birds stock a pond in such a short period of time yet over millions of years missed other natural ponds?

Perhaps the other natural ponds don't have the necessary environment for fish to live, or eggs to hatch? No food, difference chemical balance, existing predators?

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Still comes down to how did birds stock a pond in such a short period of time yet over millions of years missed other natural ponds?

I mentioned some variables that could come into play previously. Without more info its impossible to say for sure. Could be that the fish are extremely sensitive to certain chemicals/minerals specific to certain waters. Temp fluctuations may be too big. Water too cold. Too many predators. Tendency for a certain disease. Nobody can say until they do all the actual scientific research under controlled conditions. The speculating we are doing here is the type of thing that'd generally be done at start of a journey to the answer. Lets not confuse speculation and personal assumptions (no matter how strongly feel about them) with hard science.

One interesting way to do things would be to create a lined/isolated pond similar to what is currently infested. isolate it from all runoff but fill it with native water from the same waterway that's infested to negate out chemistry issues. Obviously make sure its filtered and any lifeforms removed or killed off prior to introduction. Then leave it be and see what happens. Document human, bird and animal activity and anything out of the ordinary. Hey maybe its deer carrying them on their legs. It really is something that'd be a very interesting research subject.

Meanwhile one could do research on egg hardiness. Sunny you have focused on the delicacy of eggs by comparing to what you know. But haven't address any study considering stickle back eggs themselves. It is meaningless to assume all eggs are the same. Like say comparing to a salmon egg when it comes to needs and tolerances. Sure they need oxygen but that same amount for each type of egg? who's to say an egg can't manage on internal stores of O2 for a fraction of an hour. Who's to say they haven't evolved a mucous membrane that is resistant to stomach acids in certain birds. I really don't think that discovery would be a massive upheaval in the bio world nor deemed a ground breaking discovery. There are lots of oddities in nature far weirder than that. And most people never hear about most of those discoveries. There have been a few Nat Geo type specials on just those kind or weird wild and wacky genetic developments.

I sure hope someone takes on this challenge. Might be worth forwarding this question to a few universities.