Overclock.net banner

[ABC] Australia will use the herpes virus to eradicate Carps

6K views 130 replies 68 participants last post by  GnarlyCharlie 
#1 ·
Quote:
The Federal Government estimates the $15 million project will kill 95 per cent of carp in the river system over the next 30 years. Speaking in Adelaide, Mr Pyne said the herpes strain cyprinid herpesvirus-3 would be released in 2018. He said research by the CSIRO had shown the virus is safe, and has no impact on humans.

"It affects the European carp by attacking their kidneys, their skin, their gills and stopping them breathing effectively," he said.
Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-01/herpes-to-eradicate-carp-in-murray-river-pyne-says/7373736

Safe for now but who knows what would happen after a few years......
 
#2 ·
This just doesnt seem like a good idea...
 
#3 ·
Let's halt where this is going. This is a one way trip to eliminating a genetically viable fish species from the environment. What happened to evolutionary spirit?[Source]
Quote:
Carp are often found in degraded areas, although it is not clear whether they cause the degradation or are simply able to survive in degraded areas where native fish cannot, or where natives have otherwise been eliminated. While in some cases carp have probably been blamed for degradation that is actually the result of human activities, it is clear that carp can have major impacts.
...
The feeding methods of carp can uproot aquatic vegetation and muddy the water. Carp have been blamed for damaging freshwater habitats and causing decreases in light penetration, dissolved oxygen and plant material. These changes may have affected native fish.
Could/may don't mean imperatives for the animal. Let's not scapegoat this species by keeping nature in stasis.
 
#4 ·
While they are almost certainly correct in stating that the virus poses no human health risk, the example they give is just stupid.
Quote:
Matt Barwick, a senior fisheries manager with the Department of Primary Industries, said people in Israel eat carp with traces of the virus every day, and there was no evidence of health issues.

"They treat almost all of their carp grown for human consumption with a live attenuated vaccine to this virus, which is basically a weakened version of the virus," he said.

"So there is up to 58 million individual carp that are eaten for breakfast in Israel every day, with this virus, and there's never been a single documented human health issue."
The difference between an animal immunized with an attenuated vaccine and one virulently infected is not insignificant. I eat someone who was vaccinated against small pox with an attenuated vaccine and I'll be fine. I eat someone that died of small pox and I'm in big trouble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcn77 View Post

Let's halt where this is going. This is a one way trip to eliminating an genetically viable fish species from the environment. What happened to evolutionary spirit?

Could/may don't mean imperatives for the animal. Let's not scapegoat this species by keeping nature in stasis.
This is an invasive species that was introduced into Australia by human activity in the 19th century. It's very presence is 'unnatural'.

That said attempts to remove invasive species often have unforeseen side effects.
 
#5 ·
well for anyone that are interested in eating carp I suggest filleting them and then turning them into larb by first grilling or steaming the fillet and then munching the fillet with your hand to get rid of all the bones in the fillet and then put all the larb ingredients together to get an amazing carp/fish larb

or go bowfishing or spearfishing
 
#6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post

While they are almost certainly correct in stating that the virus poses no human health risk, the example they give is just stupid.
The difference between an animal immunized with an attenuated vaccine and one virulently infected is not insignificant. I eat someone who was vaccinated against small pox with an attenuated vaccine and I'll be fine. I eat someone that died of small pox and I'm in big trouble.
This is an invasive species that was introduced into Australia by human activity in the 19th century. It's very presence is 'unnatural'.

That said attempts to remove invasive species often have unforeseen side effects.
We cannot justify infecting the fish for the projections of our actions. We did it, the fish has done nothing wrong. A looming catastrophe will still be our irresponsibility. Besides, herpes has no treatment, even if you maintain antibody levels, you still have relapses. At least, they should have tried fish immunodeficiency virus or something...
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcn77 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post

While they are almost certainly correct in stating that the virus poses no human health risk, the example they give is just stupid.
The difference between an animal immunized with an attenuated vaccine and one virulently infected is not insignificant. I eat someone who was vaccinated against small pox with an attenuated vaccine and I'll be fine. I eat someone that died of small pox and I'm in big trouble.
This is an invasive species that was introduced into Australia by human activity in the 19th century. It's very presence is 'unnatural'.

That said attempts to remove invasive species often have unforeseen side effects.
We cannot justify infecting the fish for the projections of our actions. We did it, the fish has done nothing wrong. A looming catastrophe will still be our irresponsibility. Besides, herpes has no treatment, even if you maintain antibody levels, you still have relapses. At least, they should have tried fish immunodeficiency virus or something...
#CarpsArePeopleToo2016

#CarpsDidNothingWrong
 
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post

This is an invasive species that was introduced into Australia by human activity in the 19th century. It's very presence is 'unnatural'.

That said attempts to remove invasive species often have unforeseen side effects.
Yeah, they're Australia's answer to kudzu. Introducing a species to a place where there's no natural predator isn't always the best idea.

I'm sure they were originally put in those rivers as a source of food. and that was fine as long as they could be fished down to reasonable levels. The same thing happened with reindeer in the Falkland and South Georgia islands. Whalers from Europe introduced them as a source of food more than a century ago, and they're not a problem in the Falklands because people live there and still hunt them. But when the whaling ended at South Georgia and all of the people left (SG is very inhospitable and no one wants to live there without a VERY well-paying job), the reindeer took over and started threatening the native species. The British had to eradicate them a few years ago, and they did it the way it should be done. They brought marksmen, rifles, and lots of bullets.

I can't help but think the Australians would be better off just overfishing the hell out of that river system and reducing the carp to manageable levels that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackCY View Post

Why the hell do they want to eradicate carps? Are they being a danger to AU population, becoming carpzillas and eating people or what?
The same reason why the reindeer in South Georgia were a problem. Carp don't have any natural predator in Australia other than humans, and when humans stopped eating enough of them to keep the population down, they multiplied to the point where they started out-competing and driving out native species.

They're not a danger to the people of Australia, but they're a danger to the ecosystem of Australia, which humans created by doing something irresponsible in the first place.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackCY View Post

Why the hell do they want to eradicate carps? Are they being a danger to AU population, becoming carpzillas and eating people or what?
They aren't native and are considered a major pest animal to which quite a few problems have been (rightly or wrongly) attributed to.

Sorta like Japanese Beetles in the US.
 
#12 ·
Australia doesn't like it's imported animals but I question the ethics of slaughtering them.

Australia just needs to figure out that the natural animals from there are inferior to the rest of the world. Let them die off naturally and let the other animals live in peace. Stop meddling with life.
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by incog View Post

Australia doesn't like it's imported animals but I question the ethics of slaughtering them.

Australia just needs to figure out that the natural animals from there are inferior to the rest of the world. Let them die off naturally and let the other animals live in peace. Stop meddling with life.
This is one of the most bizarrely contradictory posts ever.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: LAKEINTEL
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post

This is one of the most bizarrely contradictory posts ever.
Ecosystems don't improve when you take away key species, unfortunately. Key often means top species, imo. Carnivores-herbivores-plants all feed the same ecosystem, increasing bioavailability of substrates, essentially foraging for each other.
 
#15 ·
I'm with the idea of overfishing to fix this problem.

I'm positive these fish could feed people rather than die by the thousands/millions/whatever infected by herpes.

I guess the biological warfare would be "easier" or perhaps more cost effective, but I just look at that situation and think "hey, there's a crap load of viable food that needs to be removed" along with "hey, there's a BUNCH OF STARVING PEOPLE OVER HERE"

... maybe pair the 2?

idk, it just seems massively wasteful and dangerous to just kill everything off with a virus we don't even have a cure for should it cross the species barrier (again?).
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruei View Post

I'm with the idea of overfishing to fix this problem.

I'm positive these fish could feed people rather than die by the thousands/millions/whatever infected by herpes.

I guess the biological warfare would be "easier" or perhaps more cost effective, but I just look at that situation and think "hey, there's a crap load of viable food that needs to be removed" along with "hey, there's a BUNCH OF STARVING PEOPLE OVER HERE"

... maybe pair the 2?

idk, it just seems massively wasteful and dangerous to just kill everything off with a virus we don't even have a cure for should it cross the species barrier (again?).
Just what I was thinking. The problem is who is going to pay for all that?
 
#17 ·
Yes, let's destroy all the food and taint the waters with herpes. Much better solution than, you know, eating the carp.
rolleyes.gif
 
#18 ·
It's a fresh water river system with numerous endemic species that are important for ecosystem conservation which is why they are using a virus strain. We did a similar thing with rabbits using the myxoma virus which reduced the population by almost 85% before nature did its thing and the species started to become immune to it and recovered slightly.

Over fishing isn't a viable option as most regions of the Murray-Darling Basin are too shallow for commercial fishing operations. Hence why a biological measure needs to be taken. The basin goes through long cycles of drought where in sections the water level can become a trickle. It's impossible to "over fish" the carp for these reasons. The water system just isn't deep or wide enough to support large scale commercial fishing. Plus, compared to Murray Cod (endemic species), no one wants to eat Euro Carp.

European Carp are a massive biosecurity issue and its about time action was taken. I'm glad that after decades of inaction something is finally being done to address the issue.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: LAKEINTEL
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vengeance47 View Post

It's a fresh water river system with numerous endemic species that are important for ecosystem conservation which is why they are using a virus strain. We did a similar thing with rabbits using the myxoma virus which reduced the population by almost 85% before nature did its thing and the species started to become immune to it and recovered slightly.

Over fishing isn't a viable option as most regions of the Murray-Darling Basin are too shallow for commercial fishing operations. Hence why a biological measure needs to be taken. The basin goes through long cycles of drought where in sections the water level can become a trickle. It's impossible to "over fish" the carp for these reasons. The water system just isn't deep or wide enough to support large scale commercial fishing. Plus, compared to Murray Cod (endemic species), no one wants to eat Euro Carp.

European Carp are a massive biosecurity issue and its about time action was taken. I'm glad that after decades of inaction something is finally being done to address the issue.
its good that they are attempting to do something about it but seriously? Herpes? of all the virus we could use. We are using the 1 thing we haven't been able to cure yet. Also what about all the dead fish that might get eaten by other animals will they get infected? I wouldn't want anything related with HIV, and Herpes being release near me to get rid of etc. even if it doesn't infect humans if it mutate things can go down hill rapidly
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by clao View Post

its good that they are attempting to do something about it but seriously? Herpes? of all the virus we could use. We are using the 1 thing we haven't been able to cure yet. Also what about all the dead fish that might get eaten by other animals will they get infected? I wouldn't want anything related with HIV, and Herpes being release near me to get rid of etc. even if it doesn't infect humans if it mutate things can go down hill rapidly
Being the OP I do assume you read the entire article?

Clearly states that the majority of the associated costs of the $15m is in carp disposal which will be done on a local community level, which is a good initiative. Likewise mentions that the virus has been tested for several years by the CSIRO (who have a good track record) with no impact on other species shown. In order to pass current legislation the measure would also need to be strenuously tested and proven before it could ever be released in the MDB ecosystem, especially operating in our major river system and water source. The process would also involve consultation with various industries who use the water system. So I have no concerns whatsoever. This is coming from a qualified environmental manager btw
 
#21 ·
Oi, throw another cold sore on the barbie
smile.gif
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vengeance47 View Post

Being the OP I do assume you read the entire article?

Clearly states that the majority of the associated costs of the $15m is in carp disposal which will be done on a local community level, which is a good initiative. Likewise mentions that the virus has been tested for several years by the CSIRO (who have a good track record) with no impact on other species shown. In order to pass current legislation the measure would also need to be strenuously tested and proven before it could ever be released in the MDB ecosystem, especially operating in our major river system and water source. The process would also involve consultation with various industries who use the water system. So I have no concerns whatsoever. This is coming from a qualified environmental manager btw
yes I've read it however to try and kill off an entire species with something that is not curable which has the potential to mutate many years after the initiate release/infection is just too risky
 
#23 ·
im all for eradicating non native species in an ecosystem...but jeeze, this seems like a sketchy way to do it.
 
#24 ·
These types of neurotic interventions have been performed on African elephants with stunning catastophes in the past. 20,000 elephants killed just to prove the exception. I assume it is part of human psyche to put ourselves at the center of whatever system orbit we imagine being a part of.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post

They aren't native and are considered a major pest animal to which quite a few problems have been (rightly or wrongly) attributed to.

Sorta like Japanese Beetles in the US.
I see, I guess eat more carps
tongue.gif

Though I don't like them myself, they are native here in ponds, not in rivers XD
 
#26 ·
I can name a dozen spots in walking distance that could use this. I've seen carp overtake lakes. They tear up all the plant life, turning the lake into a brown pool, and when they're out of plants, they eat all the other species' eggs, preventing them from reproducing, slowly killing them off.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top