BASS BARN banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Snakeheads, a problem, really?

20K views 186 replies 50 participants last post by  Ron Redington 
#1 · (Edited)
Can someone please explain to me why snakeheads are being condemned? Why are we supposed to kill every one that we encounter? I know that a lot of you will be quick to explain to me that according to Fish and Game sources they are an invasive species that will ultimately destroy all other forms of fish where they occur. I have even watched TV shows that claim that snakeheads are responsible for attacking and killing human beings. This is completely unfounded. I'm asking you to think for yourself and look at this issue from another side. Let me start by saying that when either I or you for that matter, go fishing the species we are targeting is an introduced species, just like a snakehead. The list includes all of my favorites (large and small mouth bass, northern pike, tiger muskie, walleye, rainbow and lake trout, and even bluegills. How can a snakehead be so invasive that it could eradicate all other fish in the same body of water? Yes a snakehead can live out of water for hours but it can not walk, slither or flop for any distance to the next lake. I have kept many types of fish in an aquarium including snakeheads, piranhas, arawanas, oscars, bluegills, pickerel, and even largemouth bass. I can say from my personal experience that the most aggressive species is a bass. When feeding any of the other species 25 feeder fish, any fish not consumed would get a pass to live until the predator fish got hungry again. With my bass, if he ate 15 of the 25 feeders the rest would be killed and left to float dead within an hour. Now that is aggressive. Put a largemouth bass and a snakehead in the same tank and the snakehead will be the one to give the bass a wide berth. A pack of hungry bluegills would make short work of a cluster of snakehead eggs or a school of fry just as they do with bass. So I am left to wonder what all the commotion is about. Now this is my opinion and I wonder how others feel. I have asked several people about this and I get the same answer every time. "Fish and Game says they are going to destroy our fisheries." When I ask why I get a blank stare. Can someone please name just 1 body of water that is now void of all other species now that we have snakeheads? Which lake is now deemed unswimmable because you may be attacked by these ruthless killers? i watched my TV in horror as Fish and Game officials from MD chemically killed every living thing in a lake where snakeheads were found. How many threatened species of fish, reptiles and amphibians in that lake were needlessly murdered over this which hunt? Why haven't they decimated all other fish in their native land of Asia? I have a theory that I ask you to consider. The people who are protesting the loudest have the most to lose. I will explain. There are jobs and money at stake here. People are paid to raise invasive species. People are paid to release invasive species. Money is raised for the right to fish for these other invasive species. Who will make any money on a fish that gets big, puts up a great fight and needs no help to establish itself? I have yet to hear 1 fisherman complain about the effort needed to land one of these top notch predators. Let's look at another example of false allegations and the truth behind them. In Spain about a decade or so ago a person released a few wels catfish. When they were discovered there was a wide spread campaign from Wildlife officials saying the same thing that Fish and Game is saying about snakeheads. The end result is that now in Spain you can catch a 9' long catfish and there are guides and tackle shops that specialize in catching them. All of the so called doomed species that were to be eradicated by the wels are doing just fine. Think for yourself. Raise your hand if you want to have an opportunity to catch a 3' long 15lb fish in your local lake. My hand is raised.
 
See less See more
#106 · (Edited)
Yea, why don't we just allow the importation of any non-native species into our waters?

Then we can all go bowling together.
We do allow many non-natives fish now, but we are only referring to snakeheads here. We can go bowling but if you are against non-natives then bowling is out too. It originated in Egypt, then the Eurpoean's refined it and introduced it to America. Just saying....
 
#109 ·
I cannot believe that this thread has gone this far. Does Ann Gler make good points about non native species? Sure. However, one thing is clearly different about the species that were introduced in the past. With most there were management programs that were monitored biologically. Let's take one example.

The muskellunge stockings in the US are managed in such a way that they are only introduced in waters that can sustain them. Waters that have sustainable forage in the form of soft-rayed fin fish such as ciscoes, whitefish, gizzard shad, herring, etc. are the target as if they are not present the muskies WILL eat gamefish. There are also formulas for stocking such as fish per littoral acre and such. With this in mind the stockings have pretty strict parameters now.

In the early days of stocking "programs" there was not much biological thought that went into the management and introduction of a species. It was largely, pot luck and fisheries suffered because of it. Talk to salmon fishermen in Santa Cruz, California and they will tell you that the stripers have depleted the grunion and smelts in the inshore bays and harbors. Talk to the walleye fishermen in the tribs of Lake Ontario and Erie and the will tell you how much they hate the steelhead since the steelies spawn at a temperature that is slightly colder than walleyes. They are released from the hatcheries and eat the walleye fry on the way out.

Killifish have been blamed for insect reduction and stunting in the Susky river where smallmouth rely on these bugs for meals.

The argument of other non native species is the best one to make NOT TO ALLOW SNAKEHEADS IN OUR WATER. We have no idea the impact that these past introductions have made.....all we see is the end product.

So Ann Gler, you may have some facts on the snakeheads that they are more a part of our waters than we know, but the introduction of snakeheads is "pot luck" stocking with no management and biological assessment. It is stone age fisheries management and there is no way that we should allow a fishery to be UNmanaged. The jury is out on the snakeheads and I believe that they will coexist with present species in some bodies of water. I also believe that they will destroy others the way pickerel, sunfish, bass and even muskies proliferate and take over a body of water.

All this is just your opinion and the fact is, there are no facts. You cannot tell me that snakeheads will not destroy a population of bass in a lake. You just don't know.

In summary, do what the fish commission tells you. They pay biologists and have research behind their recommendation for fish harvest, consumption, and fisheries management. Don't allow yourself to believe that these fish will not destroy certain ecosystems. They will.....so did the brown trout, the northern pike........you get the picture.
 
#110 ·
Thanks Dave C for posting a response. I found it to be quite interesting and you do make some good points. Thanks also for not bashing my opinion and at least acknowledging that the jury is still out on all the facts regarding snakeheads. One point that I might dispute with you is that if you ask a striper fisherman in Santa Cruz if he cares about the steelhead population, I doubt that he would show much concern. This too is just my opinion and i only raise it is to bring to light that not everyone has the same priorities. By the way nice pic in your post.
 
#113 ·
One point that I might dispute with you is that if you ask a striper fisherman in Santa Cruz if he cares about the steelhead population, I doubt that he would show much concern. This too is just my opinion and i only raise it is to bring to light that not everyone has the same priorities.
That would be salmon and the striper fisherman's opinion would not matter. The effect on the ecosystem would. The priority is the balance of all inhabitants of the fishery and not a personal thing. If the jury is still out on the snakeheads then we need to listen to the Fish and Game people, the DNR, the Fish Commission and not ourselves.
 
#114 ·
One other thing.....just food for thought.

It costs about 10 per fingerling for a Minnesota musky. It costs around 300 dollars to raise ONE to a size that is capable of sustaining itself in our waters. I know that if I thought that snakeheads would be there to eat these fingerlings that would be a ton of time, effort and money in the musky stocking program. I said "program". Just a point for you to ponder....
 
#121 · (Edited)
OK....I'll try one more time here. Let's use the muskies.

Musky:

There is NO NATURAL REPRODUCTION IN NJ. Bruce Ruppel and Craig Lemon would tell you that there is less than .0001 natural reproduction in NJ (probably less than that). Therein lies why there is a MANAGEMENT PROGRAM to propagate the species with brood stock collection and hatchery rearing of fry to advanced fingerling stage where they are at a size that is sustainable in NJ waters. Smaller than that and they are eaten by everything in the lake.

Snakehead:

Natural reproduction several times a year where the fry are guarded ferociously by the parents. Fish the same size as the adults or even bigger are attacked and killed by the parents in the process.

Conclusion: There is no comparison between muskies who do not naturally reproduce and snakeheads who not only do, but thrive. Muskies NEED TO BE STOCKED or they will disappear in NJ waters. Snakeheads are moving from body of water to body of water with a rapid rate.

Let's talk about the eating habits of muskies. Bruce Ruppel wrote that way early in the genesis stages of musky development in NJ. Wisconsin DNR did a study of over 7000 muskies that were tracked and their diets tallied and gamefish comprised less than 2% of their diet. In fact they found that lakes that had good musky populations had better fishing for other species. Here is the results of another study:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota DNR conducted an in-depth examination of fish population impacts in 2007. That's when Mike Knapp, a DNR fisheries biologist, and other fisheries staff did an extensive analysis of fish populations in 41 lakes that had been stocked with the Leech Lake strain of muskellunge. Knapp, who co-authored a report on the work, said the analysis across all 41 lakes and smaller groups of similar lakes did not show a significant decrease in any fish species after muskellunge had been stocked.

"If muskie stocking resulted in a negative impact on other fish populations, we would have seen a pattern emerge," Knapp said. "But that didn't happen. Instead, we found great variability. When looking at individual species in individual lakes, our nets caught significantly more fish in 16 cases and significantly fewer fish in nine cases. Our nets caught essentially the same number of fish in the other 194 cases. The lack of consistent negative changes suggests muskie and other species generally coexist quite well."

In Minnesota, muskellunge typically prey on whitefish, tullibee, suckers, redhorse and yellow perch. Knapp said study findings related to these prey items were:

• No significant population changes (increases or decreases) were detected for tullibee, white sucker or yellow perch across the 41 lakes.

• Lakes that did not contain tullibee - a preferred prey species - did not have negative fish population impacts after muskellunge had been stocked.

Knapp said the study findings are in line with a Wisconsin DNR study conducted from 1991 to 1994. That study examined the stomach contents of 1,092 muskellunge from about nine to 46 inches in length. Wisconsin researchers found 31 different species of fish in the stomachs of muskellunge, primarily perch and white sucker.

Tom Burri, a Minnesota DNR biologist who worked on this study while previously employed in Wisconsin, said the diet study was enlightening.
"We found only five walleye in the stomachs of 1,092 muskellunge," Burri said. "Muskie actually ate more muskie than walleye. We found six muskies inside of muskies."

Burri said the Wisconsin diet study indicated that 98 percent of a muskie's diet, by volume, was made up of fish. The other two percent, he said, included crayfish, insects, mudpuppies, tadpoles and one mouse. Walleye, bass and northern pike ranked low in the muskie diet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Compare this to the snakehead and there is no comparison.They are indiscriminate feeders and will kill and actually not eat their prey. Just watch youtube and you'll see videos of small snakeheads cutting a similar sized largemouth bass in half and just letting it die. Muskies do not do that. In fact, they don't even eat that frequently which makes them so hard to catch.


So in making these points you should realize that you can never compare a fishery that has been studied and documented to one that has never been evaluated. There are managment systems that monitor the habits of muskellunge and other "invasive" species (as you deem them). Should the various state's DNR's evaluate the effects of the snakehead? Absolutely! However, until that happens there are NO FACTS and we should not assume anything.


One more note: You say that you would love to catch a musky like the one in my signature. I can assure you that if snakeheads proliferate into the waters that have these fish they WILL CERTAINLY have an effect on the fishery. Will they destroy it? Probably not. Would I like having to fish for less fish because an adult snakehead cut six 20 inch muskies in half while protecting their brood? An UNMANAGED FISHERY is not a good thing. Perhaps killing a bunch of snakeheads will have the same effect that no natural reproduction of muskies has on that fishery. Less fish. For whatever reason the snakeheads NEED TO BE MANAGED! And I am sorry but Ann Gler, you cannot post facts and studies about a fish that has gone undetected and has not been surveyed.
 
#122 ·
Dave I would like to make some comments on some of your statements.


"There is NO NATURAL REPRODUCTION IN NJ. Bruce Ruppel and Craig Lemon would tell you that there is less than .0001 natural reproduction in NJ (probably less than that). Therein lies why there is a MANAGEMENT PROGRAM to propagate the species with brood stock collection and hatchery rearing of fry to advanced fingerling stage where they are at a size that is sustainable in NJ waters. Smaller than that and they are eaten by everything in the lake."

"Let's talk about the eating habits of muskies. Bruce Ruppel wrote that way early in the genesis stages of musky development in NJ"

I don't know how they can say that there is no natural reproduction in NJ. That would certainly be hard to prove. How can I take Bruce's information as correct when infact you have deemed him to be incorrect on other matters regarding eating habits? You certainly do not agree with some of his statements too. Also it in the best interest of the tax payers and also to license purchasing fishermen to constantly have to spend money and resources stocking a fish that can not sustain itself.

"Natural reproduction several times a year where the fry are guarded ferociously by the parents. Fish the same size as the adults or even bigger are attacked and killed by the parents in the process."

This statement has zero proof. Only the tropical species of snakeheads can reproduce several times a year. If you have a shred of evidence to the contrary then I am more than willing to examine it.

"Compare this to the snakehead and there is no comparison.They are indiscriminate feeders and will kill and actually not eat their prey. Just watch youtube and you'll see videos of small snakeheads cutting a similar sized largemouth bass in half and just letting it die. Muskies do not do that. In fact, they don't even eat that frequently which makes them so hard to catch."

I have seen the video that you and others seem to deem as proof that snakeheads are vicious. I can say with absolute certainty that if you raised a bass in an aquarium and then introduced a wild snakehead you would see the bass shred the snakehead. I have kept both fish as well as others so I feel I have the necessary research to say this. That snakehead in the video was expecting a meal the moment the lid on the aquarium was opened. The poor bass was completely out of it's element and had no idea what was going to happen. This is not a fair trial to draw such a conclusion.

"So in making these points you should realize that you can never compare a fishery that has been studied and documented to one that has never been evaluated. There are management systems that monitor the habits of muskellunge and other "invasive" species (as you deem them). Should the various state's DNR's evaluate the effects of the snakehead? Absolutely! However, until that happens there are NO FACTS and we should not assume anything."

Your last statement could not be any more true!!! I am only trying to agree with that statement and not condemn snakeheads on silly and non factual statements hey do need to be studied, I agree but killing every single one does not seem like a study now does it?

My statements are not directed to say you are wrong, right or indifferent. They are presented so that more information can be exchanged and offer a more factual evaluation. The jury is still out on the effects and until someone can name a single body of water altered by snakeheads I am going to keep an open mind to the matter. You present many good arguments but most are based on speculation.
 
#123 ·
OK....as to the credibility of Bruce Ruppel, not many people can argue with what he has done for the fisheries in NJ. I am merely stating that Bruce wrote that statement about muskies feeding habits long ago. This was back when everyone said that muskies were indiscriminate feeders and would attack everything that moved. Guys were saying that muskies ate ducks, geese, even deer. Bruce was trying to hype up the new fishery, plain and simple. Years later we realize that muskies are not as territorial as was once thought. They are not eating all the bass in the lake and in fact, do not even feed on these types of forage should there be soft rayed bait present. In fact, they are more pelagic than was once thought and will follow schools of 6 inch herring around rather than to hunt in the shallows for perch. We just did not know of their eating habits when that was written. Since then there has been so much research and development in the fish's habits. That should have never equated to Bruce Ruppel being not credible.

As to the natural reproduction in NJ this is not speculation. We do not have the habitat for musky reproduction. Shallow bays with hard bottom and moving water are hard to find in our waters. You don't just need one bay....you need hundreds to insure that they will naturally reproduce. Let's talk about our largest lakes- Greenwood lake (1920 surface acres of water) and Hopatcong (2685 surface acres of water). These lakes have ZERO shallow bays and virtually no hard bottom. The muskies will try to spawn and their fry are left unattended and are eaten IMMEDIATELY by bass, sunnies, crappies, kingfishers, herons, trout and a whole host of other species of fish and wildlife. So the "invasive" species is predated by the incumbent species if allowed to naturally try to reproduce. This is fact as demonstrated by lakes that are huge like in Minnesota like Mille Lacs (130,000 acres) and Vermillion (45,000 acres) and rely heavily upon stocking efforts to maintain their populations of muskies. If they aren't successful in those lakes how can you call it speculation that the fisheries management people deem allowing them to naturally attempt to propagate to be fruitless in NJ? This isn't stuff that anyone observed in a tank or on youtube.....it's musky management 101. Pure and simple, if they stop stocking muskies, they will not continue to thrive in NJ. I don't know how much history you know about stocking in NJ but there are MANY fish that NEED to be stocked to have a fishery in our waters due to habitat, water temps, predation and many other factors. Trout need to be stocked in most streams since we have no forage for them and water temps to sustain them in the conditions that unfold as the season progresses. They stocked Northern Pike in so many waters that it wasn't funny and as soon as they stopped the stockings they disappeared. No natural reproduction.

Snakeheads will naturally reproduce in our waters. Snakeheads can and do eat gamefish. Snakeheads are unmanaged. Snakeheads are a species that was introduced by the END USER and not the fisheries management professionals. Snakeheads are a problem that cannot be compared to a "PUT AND TAKE" fishery like muskies, trout, northerns and the like. The fact that these other fish are not adaptable enough to naturally reproduce is enough evidence to make the comparisons apples to oranges.

Yes, the jury is out. Until the jury gets back from deliberation you need to listen to the fisheries management professionals that tell you NOT TO RETURN THEM TO THE WATERS. Your opinion does not matter.....the future of the fishery that we entrust to the fish and game pros is what matters.
 
#124 ·
I agree that the youtube video is not a representative sample that the snakehead is a vicious predator. IT IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THEY WILL CUT A FISH IN HALF TO DEFEND THEIR TERRITORY. Bass cannot and will not do that. That, in and of itself is scary because there are no other fish that have that capability in our waters.....not even musky.

Oh, and I do agree that there is an alarmist mentality with the snakeheads. I am just not so sure that they are wrong.....yet. Until then......
 
#125 ·
Dave I did a quick search on youtube and I was surprised to see how many videos are out there showing a muskie or pike devouring another fish. The other fish, the ones being eaten, are game fish like large and small mouth bass and even other muskies. Most of the videos shown clearly show that muskies and their kin do in fact eat other game fish. There is no way to dispute that fact. I know I have been focusing on comparing snakeheads to muskies in the last few posts. There are some similarities between them but as you state and I also agree with, they are different. What I do see as interesting is that muskies were considered a scourge and that most opposed them back when they were being considered for introduction in our waters. They too were said to be the end of our fisheries if they got established. My how the information was incorrect. This is a comparison that I can equate to snakeheads. I also agree that seeing a snakehead tear a bass to shreds is dramatic. I have seen other photos in which a pike will have another pike in it's mouth that is so big that it can't even be swallowed. I don't see too much difference in how the fish captures/kills it prey. If it kills and eats other fish then that other fish is now part of the food chain. I still believe that as protective as snakehead parents are supposed to be that 2 scenarios will play out naturally. The first is that there is no way that a school of sunnies will not see a ball of snakehead fry as a buffet. I don't think that the parents will set out to kill every and any fish that is within sight of the parents. That just doesn't seem likely. If the snakeheads defend their young then sooner or later a sunny will get lodged in the snakeheads mouth and cause at least severe damage or death. The other scenario is simply that at some point the parents will abandon their own young and they will be left to fend for themselves. At that size they are the perfect size for bass to aggressively feed on. Even other snakeheads will find them to be a suitable prey item. I see them as another food source to bolster the size of the existing game fish population. This is of course just speculation and I understand that it holds no more weight than any other poster's opinion. I would like to know what types of studies are being done by state to figure out exactly what is fact and what is fiction. Does anyone know of any research that is being done locally? Does anyone know of a body of water that is not directly or indirectly connected to the Delaware River that has snakeheads. It seems to me that they are confined to that waterway.
 
#129 ·
OK....just an FYI. Lots of the youtube videos are staged to have a smallmouth or pike taken by a hungry musky. I know people that have kept pike trailing behind their boat with a camera rolling and have led muskies that followed in on another lure to the helpless pike. Also, comparing a lassoed (on the line) fish to wild fish is like the example you stated with the snakehead in the aquarium. Muskies just don't prefer gamefish as food....plain and simple. There have been so many studies done that youtube videos and conjecture don't really amount to a hill of beans. Look at the studies and make conclusions based on scientific fact, period. I don't say that they don't eat gamefish.....surely they do. I stated that their preferred meals are soft rayed fin fish like carp, ciscoes, whitefish, etc. In fact, in NJ you can test this theory quite often as the muskies will follow schools of small herring and shad around the lake in a pelagic manner. Lots of people pounding the weedbeds will catch more fish if they concentrate on bait balls.

Yes, muskies were not welcome in most waters when introduced. There is a distinct similarity with the snakeheads. Actually, muskies are still blamed by most bass fishermen when they can't catch fish on a body of water that they once did very well. What happens is that the fisheries mgmt people stock baitfish that can sustain muskies (mooneyes, alewifes, gizzards, etc.). Soon the bass realize that these large schools of bait are easy prey and feed differently. They learn that following the bait balls as the muskies do is a really efficient way of growing large. Consequently, the bass anglers don't catch fish pounding the shorelines with spinnerbaits anymore and they blame the muskies.

I could go on forever here about the muskies but I won't.

You note similarities but there are HUGE differences.


  • The muskies are natural to the three large drainages in the USA. They have coexisted for eons with the incumbent species in each body of water.
  • The snakehead is a species that is not indigenous to this continent.
  • The muskies are not capable of cutting a fish in two and leaving it to die
  • The muskies do not naturally reproduce in most waters that they inhabit. Only waters like LOTW, St Laurence and Ottawa rivers have habitat suitable for viable natural reproduction.
  • Muskies do not defend their young with ferocity
  • Muskies were not introduced by the end user and were stocked with a management program
  • Muskies cannot live out of water and in fact, are very fragile.
  • Muskies have been time tested.
Ann Gler, it seems that all of your points are your opinion.

"I still believe that as protective as snakehead parents are supposed to be that 2 scenarios will play out naturally. The first is that there is no way that a school of sunnies will not see a ball of snakehead fry as a buffet. I don't think that the parents will set out to kill every and any fish that is within sight of the parents. That just doesn't seem likely. If the snakeheads defend their young then sooner or later a sunny will get lodged in the snakeheads mouth and cause at least severe damage or death. The other scenario is simply that at some point the parents will abandon their own young and they will be left to fend for themselves. At that size they are the perfect size for bass to aggressively feed on. Even other snakeheads will find them to be a suitable prey item. I see them as another food source to bolster the size of the existing game fish population. This is of course just speculation."

I should end it there. It IS just speculation on your part. You cannot compare snakeheads to any indigenous species other than the grass carp that has ruined many waterways, the zebra mussels, the horrible Eurasian milfoil that has killed off the natural cabbage that our lakes had in the past. Do we take a chance when the fish commission says not to?

There are no facts about the snakeheads and by the time we compile them it may be too late. At hundreds of dollars per musky you can be sure that I'll never return a snakehead to the water until the jury is back from deliberation and the F&G tells me to.....

....sorry.
 
#126 ·
Go get 'em,......

Bing Map: “Pageant Ln. & Beverly Rancocas Rd., Willingboro, NJ 08046”

South of the above, is Mill Creek Park. 28” long snakehead was caught (& deceased)

in the small oval pond with a walking path around it.

Thinking it might be someone's private, illegal, aquaculture experiment.

 
#127 ·
How big is that musky in your signature DaveC? did you get a weight on it? thats a huge fish.

I read an article the other day about snakehads on the potomac. I believe DNR down there are tagging and releasing snakeheads they catch in their electrofishing. they know its futile to try to irradicate them so, like daveC mentioned, theyre trying to manage them. I could be mistaken though, wasnt paying full attention as I was reading.
 
#130 ·
Kill'em, eat'em, let'em go it doesn't matter, they are here to stay, like it or not.

Nobody is right or wrong because it is too early to tell. Lets revisit this thread in 10 and 20 years and see what has been learned and who is right. Right now nobody has a clue...and that includes F&G.

I'll bet the FLW Snakehead tour is all the rage in 2030 :D.
 
#131 ·
Dave, you are correct saying that a lot of what I am posting is my opinion. I even say that after most of my posts. I also think that at this point so is what just about everyone else is saying as well. I don't have all the answers. I am not condemning anyone who thinks differently than me. I just don't see the evidence that shows any body of water anywhere that is decimated by snakeheads. For as long as they have been in the states (see my earlier post for dates) there should be some evidence that they have overwhelmed the local fish to some extent. That would be more than enough evidence to change my mind. If anyone knows of a lake in any state that has such conditions please name it. Dave it is your right to kill any and all snakeheads that you encounter. That does not anger me in the least. As of yet I have not been put in that position yet. I think that BayRat sums it up accurately. No one knows for sure and the reason for starting this post was to open a dialog and see what facts and speculations hold water.
 
#135 ·
Yeah lost my cool a little bit. I just lost my brother on the 16th so I am on edge but I guarantee that the village idiot that is ann gler would not have the balls to meet me in person! Like you said, "if you wanna play the name calling game i'm your huckleberry" well that's because you're a coward and if I did want to meet face to face you you wouldn't show! First off you are prob a woman which would explain a lot of things. Second, you were prob picked on or always picked last so now you troll forums such as these to start idiotic topics and try to get a rise out of people cause it's the only satisfaction you get out of life. You will now be referred to as the VILLAGE IDIOT! You are a tool of epic proportions. Prob have no friends and spend half your time on the computer. Show youself and I will show you how fat I am....:fighting:
 
#139 ·
I always stay on topic. :thumbsup:You get more accomplished that way. I know someone who feels the same as you regarding Snakeheads. For me the jury is still out so I don't have an opinion either way. With that said I'll do as instructed by Game and Fish until I find some reason to do otherwise since they are the experts.
 
#142 ·
No **** but I will **** you like the ***** you are! Haha, you think my feelings are hurt that's funny! Well now that you talk the big talk lets see you walk it! When and where do you wanna meet ANN? I've got no problems meeting up with you and I can promise you that the outcome will not be in your favor! You are a coward and everyone here knows that you won't come out from behind the keyboard. I don't have to prove anything to you. As you can see Village Idiot, the rest of the gang already answered any and all arguments that you provided. Oh and I am fat 275 lbs of fat and muscle that runs steps with furniture on my back so if you're a little light in the *** which I am sure you are. Then bring a friend and I will gladly mash them out also! I am dead serious let me know when and where? I will be fishing the beach in Seaside 2nite so if you're close by then maybe we can settle this. We all know that you will only run your fingers over the keys and never stand up like a man because you're a lowly coward and timid dork that got bullied and picked on in school. If we were in prison I would make you hold on to my pocket and wash my dirty underwear and socks. Maybe pimp you out on the weekend for a snickers bar and a cup of coffee. You're a joke so run along boy... I live in Toms River off of Hooper Ave, if you grow some let me know...:thumbsup:
 
#146 · (Edited)
No **** but I will **** you like the ***** you are! Haha, you think my feelings are hurt that's funny! Well now that you talk the big talk lets see you walk it! When and where do you wanna meet ANN? I've got no problems meeting up with you and I can promise you that the outcome will not be in your favor! You are a coward and everyone here knows that you won't come out from behind the keyboard. I don't have to prove anything to you. As you can see Village Idiot, the rest of the gang already answered any and all arguments that you provided. Oh and I am fat 275 lbs of fat and muscle that runs steps with furniture on my back so if you're a little light in the *** which I am sure you are. Then bring a friend and I will gladly mash them out also! I am dead serious let me know when and where? I will be fishing the beach in Seaside 2nite so if you're close by then maybe we can settle this. We all know that you will only run your fingers over the keys and never stand up like a man because you're a lowly coward and timid dork that got bullied and picked on in school. If we were in prison I would make you hold on to my pocket and wash my dirty underwear and socks. Maybe pimp you out on the weekend for a snickers bar and a cup of coffee. You're a joke so run along boy... I live in Toms River off of Hooper Ave, if you grow some let me know...:thumbsup:

Yeah, nice comeback Billy.........Even more gay than the first. The jailhouse fantasy shows quite an imagination or desire? Won't your boyfriend be jealous with all of your advances towards me? A few choice words returned to you and you are going to explode. I think I just wet my pants from laughing at you. "I pick things up." "I put things down." Wow that makes you a real tuffy. It shows a real lack of intelligence to be only able to use profanity. I have no desire to prove to you how tough I am. I am not some little guy as you imagine and I have been in many, many fights. It's funny that you think just because you are big that you must be bad. This is so much more fun. Don't take my lack of need to fight you or anyone as a sign of weakness. So print your threats and tell me where you will be, because I could care less. I'm just a little smarter and realize that beating on you will gain me nothing. Been down that road a number of times and it means nada to me that you flap your gums. So post some more silly things and I hope that makes you feel better. For me I now know how to make you irate and that is priceless. I just read that you lost your brother and I do think that truly sucks. As for my comments they still stand. You should seek councelling.

I apologize to those people who who have to suffer through reading this nonsense. I prefer to have intelligent conversations with people who can compose thoughts without using profanity. Hopefully thin skinned Billy will seek life elsewhere and we can get back to debating the topic.
 
#151 ·
Well now we see you talk it but dont walk it! We all knew you would hide behind the monitor and your tuff little keyboard! You are an imaginary tuff guy and a coward at heart. Just 'cause i'm big don't make me tuff, being tuff is what makes me tuff! I won't talk about it anymore but will offer the challenge yet again which I am sure will go unanswered. We can meet somewhere and after I pound you into submission, if you don't require medical attention then maybe I will school you on how to catch some fish because it's clear that you don't fish since all of your posts are hypothetical. Oh and walleye, mind your damn biz! Let me know where you live ann the village idiot and we can find a neutral spot in between to meet. Like I said before, you don't even have 50 posts and most are related to this topic. Which by the way has only been done like 100 times before so don't go tooting your own horn for bringing up the subject. Now do as we all know you will and retort with something witty and hide in the comfort of your own home. :thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top