My understanding is that snakeheads have reached the point where they are distributing themselves to a certain degree (they can maneuver overland in times of desperation). And I'll bet that there are new releases by pet shops/owners all the time. It may already be too late to eliminate this fish.

Wasn't there one in some pond in south Phila last year? I think I remember reading about it. I hope it wasn't the Schuylkill or Delaware but if it's in a pond it's probably there too. Sarah

As bad as this is, beating up Virginia on this matter is lame. The anglers that identified the fish caught 80+ with a bare hook. Seems like someone took a good shot getting rid of them and at cheaper cost to the tax payer.

This is disturbing news, but news that we all seem to be becoming accustomed to hearing.

Oh, I can't help but pose the question (forgive me please) but why don't people see other alien invasive species in the same light? I have tried to equate the English house sparrow, starlings and many other non-native animals to this fish, but people argue there is a difference. What is the difference? I don't get it. Somehow killing a fish to eliminate a threat is less repulsive to people than eliminating a bird species that is threatening the same sort of destruction. The snakehead has adapted ways of surviving (going across land) that makes them a fierce competitor. Could someone please explain how starlings, house sparrows and others are any different? Believe me, I'm not suggesting that anyone is wrong in eliminating the snakehead.

It's the dreaded cute and fuzzy factor. Makes common sense go out the window. Good if you're trying to save some photogenic critter, not so good when trying to drum up support for an endangered snail. Works with invasives, too - "It's such a pretty purple, I can't believe it's choking our waterways;" "But I love ALL birds!" etc. ad infinitum.

I'm sure people feel that way but I personally dislike the starlings and house sparrow as much as the snake head and other invasive's Sarah

jillmcm is exactly right. Most people consider fish barely more than an aquatic plant with eyes whereas birds are given a more exalted status because they remind us more of ourselves: they're warm-blooded, they display signs of complex behavior, they take care of their young, etc. And of course, feathers are more attractive than scales to most people. Same thing with nutria in some of the Gulf states - I know they're invasive, and using them as a food source for people and captive predators in wildlife sanctuaries is the best solution, but I still don't like it. I don't like killing any animals, actually, but I won't object when people are killing invasive species, as long as it's done humanely (except domestic cats - I know the havoc outdoor cats wreak on small animals, but there have got to be better solutions than letting people use them for target practice - no matter what the rationalization, I will not be happy that people are killing on a wide scale the same intelligent, playful, personable animals that live in my home).

On this same topic of invasive animals, have any of you seen the recent photographs and stories about the pythons in the Everglades? So many idiots have dumped their unwanted pet pythons in the Everglades when they got large or too bothersome to care for any more that the pythons are disrupting the whole food chain now. Scientists were hoping that alligators could keep the pythons in check, but after recently finding a python that had literally popped open after swallowing a pretty large alligator (too large for the python, at least!), they now think that the alligators and pythons are going to be at a draw, at best. One more invasive species to deal with - and a top predator, at that. Wouldn't it be nice if the pythons focused their feeding on all the thousands of iguanas that were also dumped there by irresponsible owners? I personally think that along with banning dozens of plant species, pythons and iguanas ought to also be banned from sale in Florida and other places where they can survive in the wild. But that certainly won't happen, at least not any time soon. It's hard enough getting people to give up plants, much less a type of pet.

Pet shop owners and aquarium hobbiests may not be the source of the released snakeheads. I have never seen them in a Florida pet shop. It may be that people who appreciate snakeheads as food are releasing them so they can fish for their progeny at a future date. Pythons and iguanas are another story - definitely released by irresponsible pet owners. Cats? I won't go there.

Jill, Well said. It really is the cute factor. You are absolutely right about pretty too. Loosestrife, bittersweet berries, burning bush, all so pretty, but deadly to the environment. On the other end of reason are the radical factions that think their argument demands violent and radical ways of convincing people. I believe that is how some environmental groups have succeeded in making people want to close their ears to anything that has anything to do with the environment.

As for the pet factor, up here in Massachusetts, they have found a couple of small alligators in ponds....obviously released by pet owners. Now how humane is that? I don't see anyone picketing pet shops about selling animals that people get and then tend to want to release because they get bored with them. I don't think anyone felt the snakeheads were released from pet stores did they?

I believe humane control is the way to go. As long as the treatment of the animal is humane, I think something has to be done. I try to be objective. It is amazing the way people look at things.