Aquatic Invasive Species

Kevin Shia

January 18, 2010

Writing 20

Professor Cooke

WATER HYACINTH

Along with other invasive species that cause multi-million dollar destructions, the water hyacinths’ presence does immense damage to waterways. The water hyacinth (Eichhornia azurea) is an invasive aquatic plant that is found in the southeastern United States, as well as in California, Hawaii, and the Virgin Islands. This plant is found in tropical areas and it was brought into The United States from Central and South America. It is characterized by floating, round, green leaves that can grow up to 10 inches and has budding purple flowers. It usually found in large groups intertwined with each other.

The problems with water hyacinths are that they are highly susceptible to clogging waterways such as rivers, streams, and other bodies of water due to the fact that the population of the water hyacinth can double in six days. This is detrimental for water activities such as fishing, water sports, and transporting goods by boats. Also, the water hyacinth significantly decreases the flow of water and this causes an increase of bacteria that causes infestation. Another problem with water hyacinths is that they block sunlight. This reduces the production of photosynthesis of the plants that live under the surface of the body of water, which reduces the amount of oxygen in the water. This is dangerous because it can potentially harm animals such as fish and other aquatic species. The water hyacinth also provides habitats for some parasites such as mosquitoes and flatworms. These insects can potentially spread diseases such as West Nile Virus. In terms of the economic standpoint, especially in Florida, millions of dollars are spent each year in order to keep the population of water hyacinths under control. Some of the management consists of harvesting and slicing the plant. Another way, to control the population is to use herbicides however, this can be relatively expensive. There are also biological ways to stop the growth of the water hyacinth such as introducing the water hyacinth weevil and moth that eat the plant.

This is very detrimental to the recreational department in Florida. With water hyacinths’ potential of completely covering the surfaces of bodies of water, they prevent water activities such as SCUBA diving, snorkeling, and fishing. Because of this, it can reduce the monetary gain of fishing licenses, as well as money made by touring these rivers, such as the St. Johns River. Another thing to consider is that if the weevils and moths are introduced, what they would consume if all of the water hyacinths are depleted. Will they damage native species, or will they die out and not be considered a problem? What we need to do is find out the ways that people prevent the spread of the water hyacinth.

http://www.protectyourwaters.net/hitchhikers/plants_water_hyacinth.php

http://www.in.gov/dnr/files/WATER_HYACINTH.pdf

I think it is important that the number of Northern Snakehead fish in Maryland waters gets reduced before permanent damage is done to the area’s ecosystem. The main problem with the fish is that they can eat many different types of fish, which constitute 90% of their diet. The fish have no natural predators in the Maryland waters so the only non human factor that could limit their growth is limited resources. However, the Chesapeake waters are rich with fish, especially endangered species that are being threatened by the Northern Snakehead fish. As of now, the idea is to spread awareness on the dangers of the fish and how the fish can be identified. Authorities are telling fisherman to kill any caught Northern Snakehead fish, unlike a fisherman a couple years back who threw the catch back into the waters.

I think this is a good start in the eradication of Northern Snakehead fish from this area, but I don’t know if we can rely solely on the catches of fishermen to eliminate this fish. Fishermen catch many other species fish, which they are actually trying to catch, and most of these species do not become endangered or extinct. In China, the fish have natural predators. Perhaps if a new type of fish could be introduced to the Chesapeake area that fed on the Northern Snakeheads, then we could greatly reduce their number. I’m curious to know if there are any predators that could successfully assimilate into the Chesapeake area. Also, I know that the Northern Snakehead is a fairly large fish, which means that the predator would have to be very large. I assume it would be much easier to introduce a predator of a smaller fish. Have such big predators been introduced to new areas before?

Sources:
Hilton, Robert. “The Northern Snakehead: An Invasive Fish Species”.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/snakehead/overview.php. August 2002

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. “NORTHERN SNAKEHEAD CAUGHT IN LAKE WYLIE”. http://www.ncwildlife.org/NewsReleases/042209_Northern_Snakehead_Caught_in_Lake_Wylie.htm

I think it is important that the number of Northern Snakehead fish in Maryland waters gets reduced before permanent damage is done to the area’s ecosystem. The main problem with the fish is that they can eat many different types of fish, which constitute 90% of their diet. The fish have no natural predators in the Maryland waters so the only non human factor that could limit their growth is limited resources. However, the Chesapeake waters are rich with fish, especially endangered species that are being threatened by the Northern Snakehead fish. As of now, the idea is to spread awareness on the dangers of the fish and how the fish can be identified. Authorities are telling fisherman to kill any caught Northern Snakehead fish, unlike a fisherman a couple years back who threw the catch back into the waters.

I think this is a good start in the eradication of Northern Snakehead fish from this area, but I don’t know if we can rely solely on the catches of fishermen to eliminate this fish. Fishermen catch many other species fish, which they are actually trying to catch, and most of these species do not become endangered or extinct. In China, the fish have natural predators. Perhaps if a new type of fish could be introduced to the Chesapeake area that fed on the Northern Snakeheads, then we could greatly reduce their number. I’m curious to know if there are any predators that could successfully assimilate into the Chesapeake area. Also, I know that the Northern Snakehead is a fairly large fish, which means that the predator would have to be very large. I assume it would be much easier to introduce a predator of a smaller fish. Have such big predators been introduced to new areas before?

Inland Invasion: The Impact of Eurasian Watermilfoil on Water Habitats

by Emily Chang

The Eurasian watermilfoil, also called Myriophyllum spicatum or simply the milfoil, is an invasive plant species introduced to the United States from Europe in the 1940s, and it has spread to various places in North America from British Columbia to South Carolina. Its leaves, which are jade-green in color and consist of approximately twelve to twenty-one paired leaflets, are grouped into three to six whorls, or coils. The stems and small flowers of the milfoil are usually red-brown but have some variation in color. Because the Eurasian watermilfoil looks similar to certain other plant species, particularly the native northern watermilfoil and the native coontail, it requires close observation to identify this submersed plant. While the native northern watermilfoil (Myriophyllum sibiricum, or M. exalbescens) has fewer than twelve pairs of leaflets per leaf group, the Eurasian watermilfoil generally has twelve to twenty-one per leaf. Unlike Eurasian watermilfoil, the native coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) has a rough texture and toothed leaves.

Although the Eurasian watermilfoil can spread to inland lakes and ponds via boats, boating equipment, and waterbirds, its primary means of dispersal occurs through plant fragmentation. The milfoil generally reproduces and spreads when parts of its stems break off and travel to other waterbodies, where they would take root and create new colonies. This plant fragmentation process often takes place in two ways: when the milfoil’s stems become brittle and easily broken around late summer to fall annually, and when motorboats sever the stems and disperse them to new locations. Horizontal plant segments called stolons contribute to the local colonization of water habitats by milfoils as well. These dispersal methods, coupled with the plant’s ability to withstand a wide range of temperatures, allow the milfoil to spread quickly; it can colonize a lake in less than two years’ time. Once a colony is established in a body of water, the milfoil could cause substantial harm to its environment. For one thing, it can grow into dense mats that cover the surface of a lake; this can crowd out other native plant species, obstruct waterways and water intake passages, and decrease the oxygen levels of the lake. Dense milfoil growth can also hinder human activity such as boating and fishing. A variety of methods have been employed to control the growth and spread of milfoil. Biocontrol methods include the use of pathogens, insects, and fish; aquatic herbicides and other chemical methods are somewhat effective but must be implemented every one to three years. Humans have also employed hand-pulling, rototilling, underwater vacuuming, and mechanical harvesting to keep milfoil populations under control. Although these means of control are effective, they have not managed to completely eliminate Eurasian watermilfoil colonies in bodies of water.

Because the spread of the milfoil can occur through human activities, notably boating, it is reasonable to question the ties between humans and this invasive plant species. As I read on some of these websites, aquatic wildlife and ecological organizations advise boaters and fishers to remove plant material from their boats and other equipment and discard this debris in a container or location reasonably far from lakes and ponds. Also, I saw information concerning aquatic gardening and how to choose, plant, and discard aquatic plants for a garden. Such notices and advice generate some doubts in my mind as to whether they are effective. When organizations put up helpful tips like these, people often do not heed them, which render them ineffective. An analogous situation would be putting recycle bins along trails to prevent littering while people still choose to throw their trash among the trees and other plant vegetation that could be potentially harmed. Since scientists and researchers have not achieved milfoil eradication, then it is reasonable to take a step back and reflect on the situation at hand. How could people effectively conquer and defeat this detrimental species? If scientists do find a way to control milfoil colonies, will this method harm other plant and animal species? Will it involve unreasonable measures for humans to take – in other words, will it ask too much of both the scientific community and recreational boaters alike to implement? Like I have said, the various control methods currently used to keep milfoil colonies under control are only successful to a certain extent, so I believe that scientists and conservationists should either look for alternative methods to eradicate milfoil populations or research new ways to eliminate them. The wildlife organizations also could impose inspections of boating equipment that could result in heavy fines for boaters who fail to clean their equipment well.

Sources:

http://www.iisgcp.org/exoticsp/watermilfoil.htm

http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/node/278

http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/node/90

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/Programs/wq/plants/weeds/milfoil.html

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/aquaticplants/milfoil/index.html

The Muting of the Swans (SW1)

By: David Lung

Cygnus olor, or commonly known as the mute swan, originally came from much of Europe and Asia, but was introduced into North America where it was presented for its ornamental value in parks, zoos and private estates. A few escaped in New Jersey and New York in 1916 and 1919 respectively. They can grow up from 4-5 feet tall and weigh up to 30 lbs. Adult swans are white with orange bills that have a characteristic black basal knob. They lay up to 10 eggs and guard their young vigorously. There are few natural predators of mute swans and only attack cygnets. They often avoid attacking when adults are present, leaving many mute swans to grow to adulthood. The mute swan can be seen from Southern Ontario all the way to North Carolina and has been a symbol of love, grace and beauty for many people in the United States. However, its aesthetic appearance does not coincide with the mute swan’s image. The mute swan feeds heavily on submerged aquatic vegetation (SAVs), which causes many problems for the survival of these SAVs as well as the survival of young animals such as crabs and fish that use the SAVs as shelters before they can live on their own., The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) and the University of Rhode Island have observed that areas where mute swans feed have a 95% decrease in the biomass of SAVs. The mute swan also is aggressive towards native species such as the loon and tundra swan, driving many of these birds away from their original nesting grounds, resulting in a decline in these native species’ breeding frequency and ultimately a decline in their population. The mute swans also affect humans. Mute swans also will attack humans who get close to their breeding grounds as well as potentially contaminate our drinking water supplies when they defecate into the water. The contamination will also add excess nutrients into the water, causing algal blooms which will result in problems for many organisms in that aquatic ecosystem such as a decline in the rate of photosynthesis and oxygen reduction in the water (suffocation of fish and other aquatic organisms).

There are many methods employed today to control the mute swan’s rapid population growth such as egg addling (coating eggs with oil to prevent their hatching), relocation, and killing of adult birds. Most states allow the mute swans to be hunted. Animal rights groups have tried to limit the killing of adult birds by trying to get state governments or the federal government to protect the birds, but they have not been successful because of a general agreement that mute swans have a deleterious effect on aquatic ecosystems that impact the organisms in them and also humans. In the article Maryland panel members John Grandy and Joseph Lamp asked for proof that the elimination of mute swans would help the recovery of SAVs, but with the RIDEM and University of Rhode Island’s findings on the effect of mute swans on the population of SAVs, it is clear that the mute swan population must be controlled.

The mute swans, despite my own personal admiration of swans, are detrimental to aquatic environments in North America. They disrupt the breeding patterns in these aquatic ecosystems by driving out native waterfowl, damaging their breeding grounds and leaving young organisms vulnerable by consuming large amounts of SAVs that provide shelter for them before they fully mature. They also might potentially disrupt the food chain of these ecosystems as they reduce the SAVs and other vegetation drastically and harm other organisms. Mute swans are also a danger to humans by contaminating our water supplies and attacking humans whenever we are around their breeding grounds. I support most measures to reduce the population of mute swans. The claims in the article concerning breaking the necks of mute swans is too drastic, but continuing to coat their eggs with oil and shooting them is acceptable since both are effective methods to managing the mute swan population. However, should the swans be completely eliminated or just be controlled? Humans brought the mute swans to North America, hence it is not natural for them to be here and natural selection does not apply since it only works in a population, not in an entire ecosystem. In the controlling of populations, why are animal rights groups not on board with the process? Although systematic elimination of mute swans is unfortunate, it is for the greater good since many other organisms would benefit from it. Animal rights groups seem to be more of a hindrance and blind to the fact that many organisms are also being harmed as long as the mute swans are present. Because there is so much admiration for the mute swans, should the federal government also get involved in the efforts to relocate the swans rather than killing them? Relocation is expensive, but the federal government could provide substantial aid in helping to reduce the costs, even though there may be opposition from voters who do not want to see their tax money being used for it.

Sources:

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1656/1092-6194%282003%29010%5B0305%3AMSCOIO%5D2.0.CO%3B2

http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bnatres/fishwild/pdf/muteswan.pdf

http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/issues/restoration/non-natives/workshop/mute_swan.html

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialanimals/muteswan/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051501258.html

REVISED:

The island apple snail (Pomacea insularum) is the most commonly introduced aquatic invasive species in the Southeastern US, including South Carolina.  This particularly large species of snail is a native of South America, but there has been some speculation that they have been spread to some US areas by hurricanes and other climate-influenced reasons, as well as because of pet snail enthusiasts who have released their pet snails into the wild, unaware of the adverse effects these actions may have.  Unfortunately, there are many negative and even harmful implications of the introduction of the island apple snail to foreign waters.  These snails are aggressive competitors for food sources, therefore often drastically affecting local food chains and the amount of food available to other native species.

In addition to this snail’s tendency to compete for resources with other organisms that may be vital to local ecosystems, the island apple snail may also pose a threat to human and animal life; it has been known to transport several types of disease and some parasites, including the rare rat lungworm, which can infect and harm wildlife and domesticated animals and have fatal complications in humans.  Unfortunately, the island apple snail’s vibrant pink-colored egg clutches have recently been discovered in Horry County, an area in eastern South Carolina.  Immediately following their discovery, action was taken to quickly remove all live island apple snails and snail eggs.  In order to prevent further infestation, chemicals were put in place to kill any resurgence of this snail.  Though this instance of island apple snail infestation did not progress to an uncontrollable level, it is important to encourage awareness and continued removal of the island apple snail.  If more cases of P. insularum infestation are discovered, South Carolina may have to resort to using copper to kill the snail, as Florida has; unfortunately, the use of copper disrupts the entire ecosystem and encourages zooplankton and other microscopic creatures to thrive.  Thus, this method, though effective, is viewed as a last resort.

The island apple snail’s unwelcome habitation of South Carolina and several other states is certainly alarming, especially because of the negative effects it can have on both human health and local ecosystems.  Fortunately, there have been no other island apple snail findings in South Carolina since this one in Horry County.  One possible way to prevent further introduction of this species of snail is to regulate that sale of pet snails; perhaps if those who are interested in purchasing this species of snail are made aware of the ramifications of its existence in the US, the island apple snail will be one less aquatic invasive species to worry about.

Sources:

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/news/yr2008/june16/june16_snail.html

http://shellfish.uga.edu/researchinvasivemeetguests.htm – link for Island Applesnail

Jeremy Joven

One of the several aquatic invasive species of New York State is the Asiatic Clam.  Originally located in select areas of Asia, Australia, and Africa, the Asiatic Clam was discovered to have made its way to the United States in 1924, eventually reaching the east coast.  Today, this species of clam is prevalent in 40 states and the District of Columbia.  It is believed that the clams were brought to the United States by way of human transport, as a result of accidental imported aquaculture and the introduction as a food item by Chinese immigrants.

The first records of the Asiatic Clam in the United States were found on the west coast in 1924.  Since then, these clams have found their way across the United States through the running water of rivers.  As a result of the clams invasion, there have been some detrimental effects on both human technology and native species.  Their main impact is biofouling, or an impairment of something due to the unwanted growth of an aquatic species. Power plants and drinking water treatment systems have been negatively impacted by the Asiatic clam.  Because of their high accumulation, Asiatic clams tend to clog and block up the pipes and canals to these power plants and systems.  Along with their impact on companies, the Asiatic Clam is a strong competitor for resources with the native species of the waters they invade.

In response to the Asiatic Clam, screens are now being used as filters on pipes and canals to keeps the clams from clogging them.  For pipes that are already clogged, hot water is being pumped through the pipes to kill the clams.  Chemicals are also being used to kill the invading species, but have been regulated by restrictions placed by several environmental agencies.  I believe that an alternative or addition to such solutions to this problem would be to fish out these clams to sell.  Because of the clams large distribution throughout the United States, they would make a good profit if sold.

Another threat in the US is the mute swans of Maryland.  Native to Asia and Europe, the mute swan was introduced to the United States in 1962, when they were imported as “lawn ornaments” at an estate in Maryland.  By the year 2000, the population nearly increased by a factor of eight.  Called “one of the world’s most aggressive species of waterfowl,” the mute swan has proving to be a major menace to several native species.

One of the major problems with the invasion of the mute swan in the Chesapeake Bay area is the swans’ appetite for grasses.  They uproot shallow-water grasses that serve as nurseries for young crabs and fish.  Along with this, the mute swan competitively competes with endangered native birds for food.  To manage the mute swan population, it has been suggested and supported by John R. Griffin, secretary of the Department of Natural Resources, to use lethal methods to kill the swans.  It is no surprise that there are many, especially animal rights activists, who are against such methods, which include shooting and breaking the necks of the mute swans.  More humane methods of decreasing the swan population include coating the eggs of the swan with oil to prevent hatching.  I thing coating the eggs would be the more acceptable solution that would satisfy both the animal rights activists and ecosystem.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/32861.html

http://www.in.gov/dnr/files/Asiatic_Clam.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051501258.html (article from class)

Scott Rong

Professor Cooke

Writing 20

18 January 2010

Aquatic Invasive Species in San Francisco Bay Area

The California Department of Boating and Waterways (DBW), California Costal Commission’s Boating Clean and Green Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Fish and Game, University of California Cooperation, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, and Marin County Storm Water Pollution have formed a coalition to combat aquatic invasive species in San Francisco Bay Area. One of these species, the Zebra mussels, severely threaten the ecosystem, recreational boating and fishing, water delivery systems, agriculture, and hydroelectric facilities.  Zebra mussels flourish in huge amounts, blocking pipelines and clogging water intakes of water supplies and hydroelectric companies. A single mussel may produce 40,000 eggs in one gestation period and release 1 million during spawning season. They clump together in large colonies, consuming huge quantities of plankton, thereby starving local species. The zebra mussels also release wastes and toxins that harm local fish and mollusk populations. Originally from Eastern Europe, the zebra mussels travelled on the hulls of boats and ships and invaded the Great Lakes and Lake Mead on the Colorado River before attacking Northern California reservoirs.

Today, the California Department of Fish and Game has seven agricultural checkpoints across California, which inspect boats for contamination.  To prevent infestation, boaters are encouraged to inspect all exposed surfaces on their vehicles, thoroughly clean the hull after each use, drain and dry live-wells and outboard unit, dispose of bait, and leave five day intervals between launching their vehicles into different freshwater bodies. However, there is no definitive solution to the zebra mussel problem. Many power and boating companies have chosen to use high copper alloy materials, since copper is effective in repelling zebra mussels. I believe that these copper prototypes have great potential in controlling this national pest. However, these companies must be sure that use of this new product will not introduce new environmental problems, such as alloy leaching into waterways.

Sources:

1. http://www.copper.org/publications/newsletters/cutopics/Ct78/mussels.html
2. http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-01-25/bay-area/17149476_1_zebra-mussel-san-justo-reservoir-mussel-infestation/1
3. http://www.dbw.ca.gov/PressRoom/2009/090831Seminar.aspx

Emilia Rybak

Didymo is a type of invasive microscopic algae that is native to North America and Europe, but has extended into multiple western and eastern U.S. states. It is often spread unknowingly by clinging to felt-bottom fishing boots. Its growth and expansion can affect both aquatic organisms and humans. Specifically, it grows in think layers that fully cover river bottoms, which harms sport fish that feed on organisms living in river bottoms and also congests water intakes.

Didymo’s potentially drastic impact on native aquatic species and their habitats can be attributed to several factors. For example, as is the case with several other invasive species, Didymo is capable of spreading rapidly. However, it does not require specific select conditions to survive. Unlike other aquatic invasive species, Didymo can flourish not only in waters that are flowing and nutrient-rich, but also those that are still, pristine, and nutrient-poor. Additionally, there are no known strategies to manage and eliminate Didymo once it expands throughout a body of water. Thus, the combination of these factors allows Didymo to spread uncontrollably and hinders its removal from infested areas.

I think that Didymo is a particularly threatening invasive species that needs to be taken seriously by ecologists and fishermen across the U.S. It is unfortunate that Didymo cannot ever be completely eradicated once it spreads into an area, which is why prevention measures are all the more important for this invasive species. Fisherman can use simple preventive methods to substantially reduce the expansion of Didymo, and I think that if these strategies are carried out thoroughly and regularly, they can be considerably effective. Practices like using rubber-sole boots as alternatives to felt-bottom ones, and following a “check, clean and dry” technique of inspecting fishing equipment can help slow the spread of Didymo into other regions. I would like to know the extent of the effect of Didymo on the popularity of fishing spots around the U.S., since it reduces sport fish populations by harming various organisms on which they feed.

Sources:

http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/54244.html

http://www.digitalfrontier.com/sites/greenmountaintroutfitters/untitled89/index.html

Mason Reynolds

1/18/10

The Northern Snakehead Situation: Improving or Deteriorating?

The Northern Snakehead fish has posed a significant problem to various United States waterways, most recently those in Washington D.C., Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas. Native to Asia, the Snakehead fish is considered a culinary delicacy in many Asian cultures. Most likely the Snakehead was brought to the United States to for consumption and subsequentially released into the surrounding areas where it has thrived. Snakeheads have several characteristics that make them a particularly aggressive non-native species. An aggressive predator, Snakeheads can significantly reduce native fish populations in waterways where it is introduced. Further, in the United States the Snakehead has no natural predators allowing it to proliferate in freshwaters where it is introduced. A mature female snakehead can release up to 15, 000 eggs. The Snakehead’s high rate of reproduction combined with the absence of native predators in U.S. waterways creates a significant threat to freshwater ecosystems in the United States.

Recently the Snakehead has been sighted in the freshwater tributaries of major waterways in the Washington D.C. area. Because the Snakehead is a freshwater fish and cannot survive in salt or brackish water, the risk that it will infest other tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay is relatively low. Regardless, the Snakehead poses a great threat to areas of the Potomac River where it currently is found. Other areas on the Eastern Coast have been equally negatively impacted by the appearance of the Snakehead in their waterways. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has reported two Snakehead sightings in Lake Wylie. In one instance the Snakehead was successfully identified and killed by the angler who caught it while the other was miss-identified as a Bowfin and released back into the lake. In large part, the impact of the Snakehead on U.S. aquatic ecosystems is a result of human action. Humans are responsible for the introduction of the Snakehead over a wide geographic range as the Snakehead can only live out of water for short periods of time thus limiting the distance it can cover on land. (Snakeheads can breathe air for short periods of time.) Moreover, human error, particularly, miss-identification can hinder efforts to remove Snakeheads from areas where their populations are still relatively low as was the case at Lake Wylie. Reports on the various Snakehead infestations do not detail long-term solutions for eliminating Snakehead populations from the environment. Public awareness appears to be a crucial component of a long-term solution. Legislation prohibiting the possession or transport of Snakehead fish does not seem to have been particularly effective at quelling populations in the Potomac River. Clearly, much progress needs to be made to protect currently infested ecosystems and prevent future infestations.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakehead_(fish)

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/fishing/snakehead-faq.asp

http://www.wvdnr.gov/Fishing/snakehead.shtm