PHILINTE: In fact, you would do well to hold your peace. Don’t rage so much against your adversary, and pay some more attention to your case.
ALCESTE: I won’t pay any at all, and that is that.
PHILINTE: But who will make solicitation for you?
ALCESTE: Who? Reason, my just right, and equity.
PHILINTE: You won’t have anyone call upon the judge?
ALCESTE: By no means. Is my case unjust or doubtful?
PHILINTE: Certainly not. But schemers can make trouble, and -
ALCESTE: No, I’ve resolved I will not take a step. I’m right or I’m wrong.
PHILINTE: I wouldn’t trust to that.
ALCESTE: I will not move an inch.
PHILINTE: Your enemy’s strong; he has his gang -
ALCESTE: It makes no difference.
PHILINTE: You’ll suffer for it.
ALCESTE: I want to see what happens.
PHILINTE: But -
ALCESTE Then to lose the case will be my pleasure.
PHILINTE: However -
ALCESTE: In this lawsuit I will learn if men will have enough effrontery, if they’ll be wicked and rascally enough to do injustice in the sight of the world.
From “The Misanthrope”, by Moliere, 1666
Now I know why I majored in English and not Biology college. What I mean to say by that is that this blue catfish data was and is extremely repetitive, and laborious to compile.
The data set below is part of a larger article, with pictures, and linguistic analysis. In this UK Orgones forum post I could only append the data that I’ve compiled to 2008, due to character-per-post limitations. Please send me a note a [email protected] if you’d like an electronic copy of the article.
I’ve proven scientifically that the very existence of any organism varies directly with the health of the ether.
I have proven it to my satisfaction, anyway. Nevertheless, I’m about 2/3 of the way through every example of the blue catfish ever documented, in all history. State by state, I have documented a clear pattern of theatrically-executed fish stocking, or, in other cases, fraudulent stocking campaigns, with propaganda falsely alleging that those campaigns actually took place. That to cover up the fact that the blue catfish was winking into and out of existence on this plane of existence based upon the health of the etheric environment.
I’ll complete this document on the blue catfish, and then go back to my previous white catfish article, and integrate all of the USGS table entries and the tiny percentage of actual examples into it.
Lastly, I’ll integrate the data from the blue catfish and white catfish articles, and see what maps.
But I wanted to get this out there now, and seize the high ground. Once I finish the raticle, I’ll post the whole thing here in as may installments as necessary.
The actual Origin of Species, continued:
BLUE CATFISH DATA
The USGS map shows the blue catfish as native to 14 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia.
n 1866, a blue catfish was caught in the Missouri River near Portland, Missouri. It weighed 315 pounds.
In “the 1800’s” a blue catfish was caught on the Minnesota River. It weighed 160 pounds.
This clearly shows that, in an exponentially-heathier etheric environment, the blue catfish is exponentially larger.
From 1900 to 2001, the USGS table lists three examples of the blue catfish in Minnesota: Lower St. Croix; Rush-Vermillion; St. Croix.
The USGS map shows that the blue catfish is non-native to Minnesota.
How can the blue catfish be non-native to Minnesota if there is a 160-pound example of it there in 1860?
From 1900 to 2001, the USGS table lists three examples of the blue catfish in Minnesota: Lower St. Croix; Rush-Vermillion; St. Croix.
From 1900 to 1987, the blue catfish is absent from the record in Iowa.
In 1900, 1977, and 2002, the USGS lists the only three examples of blue catfish stocking in the history of Minnesota. The number are unspecified at Lake Pepin in 1900, and six thousand in 1997, at Lake St. Croix, and unspecified again in 2002 at Lake St. Croix.
On January 9, 1900, the USGS table on the blue catfish in Minnesota has an entry from Lake Pepin. The potential pathway is “stocked for sport”.
The document references is “Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2014, Wisconsin Center for Integrated Data Analytics.
In 2014, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources claimed that the state of Minnesota stocked blue catfish in the state in 1900, but provided no evidence for that claim.
This is a false journal entry, the first of a fake paper trail documenting blue catfish stocking in Minnesota that did not, in fact take place.
The USGS map shows the blue catfish as non-indigenous to Minnesota.
Why does the USGS document the blue catfish as non-native to Minnesota, given that there are three examples of it in the record from 1900 to 2001? And also given that the USGS lists the blue catfish as native to Arkansas, and falsely documents no examples of the species there? I say falsely because there is, in fact, a single example: the Arkansas state record from 2001.
There are no examples of the blue catfish in Minnesota prior to 1900.
In 1900, the blue catfish winked into existence in Lower St. Croix, Minnesota for the first time in history, anywhere.
There is no state record in Minnesota for the blue catfish.
How can there be no record for the blue catfish in Minnesota when the USGS has three documented examples there from 1900 to 2001?
In 1900, the USGS recorded the first of two examples of the blue catfish in Iowa. Well, sort of. I say that because the USGS table lists one example: Coon-Yellow, yet says “first observed, 1900, last observed, 1987”.
The USGS map shows the blue catfish as indigenous to Iowa.
Why does the USGS list just one example of the blue catfish in Iowa, when there are, in fact, two?
In 1900, the blue catfish winked into existence for the first time in Iowa, or anywhere else.
In 1900, the blue catfish winked into existence for the first time in history simultaneously in Minnesota and Iowa.
Sometime after 1900, the blue catfish winked about of existence in Iowa.
In 1920, the USGS table for the blue catfish in New Jersey lists an entry that is geographically non-specific. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport/stocked for food.”
New Jersey does not have a state record for the blue catfish.
If the state of New Jersey began stocking the blue catfish in 1920, and repeated that stocking in 1952 and 1978, as the USGS alleges, albeit in unspecified numbers in unspecified geographies, then why is there no New Jersey state record for the blue catfish?
The reference is to: Ref. Number: 60
Author: Fowler, H.W.
Date: 1920
Title: A list of the fishes of New Jersey.
Journal: Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
Volume: 33
Pages: 139-170
Ref. Number: 59
Author: Fowler, H.W.
Date: 1952
Title: A list of the fishes of New Jersey, with off-shore species.
Journal: Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia
Volume: 104
Pages: 89-151
The comments say “Cited as being in his 1920 list.”
There is one example of the blue catfish in New Jersey in history, in 1920, however that example is not substantiated by weight or length.
The USGS map shows the blue catfish as non-indigenous to New Jersey.
If the blue catfish is not native to New Jersey, as indicated in the USGS map, then why does H.W. Fowler list the blue catfish in his “List of the fishes of New Jersey, with off-shore species”, published in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia in 1920?
In 1920 or sometime prior, the blue catfish winked into existence in New Jersey.
The USGS entry for the blue catfish in New Jersey from 1920 includes references to New Jersey fish lists published in 1920 and 1952, yet only the 1920 list of fish in New Jersey contains the blue catfish. Why?
The USGS infers that the blue catfish was stocked in New Jersey in 1920 and 1952, albeit in unspecified numbers in unspecified geographies. Yet H.W. Fowler doesn’t list the blue catfish on his list of fishes in New Jersey in 1952, and doesn’t mention stocking in either case. Why?
The 1920 USGS table entry for the blue catfish is almost entirely fraudulent. It is the first example in the state of a propaganda paper trail of false stocking reports put forward to rebut the subsequent sudden reaappearance of the species in New Jersey, which, at this writing in 2022, has yet to take place.
The only truth in the 1920 entry is that, sometime after 1920, the blue catfish winked out of existence in New Jersey.
If the blue catfish is native to 14 states, why are three of the first four examples of it in the historical record in Minnesota, California and New Jersey, which are all states that the USGS says that the blue catfish is not native to?
From 1952 to 2009, there is no data on any actual blue catfish examples in Colorado (weights, dates caught, et al). Only the notes “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
In 1952, in San Luis, Colorado, the USGS documented the first example of the blue catfish in the state from 1959 to 2009 - however, no location is listed, and the comments read “successful establishment is not yet confirmed”. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
If the blue catfish was stocked in Colorado in 1952 or prior, why is there no numerical or text record of that stocking?
The USGS maps shows that the blue catfish is not native to Colorado.
The USGS claims that the blue catfish was stocked in Colorado in 1952 or prior, yet there is no example of the blue catfish in the record from 1952 to 1986.
If the blue catfish was stocked in Colorado in 1952 or prior, why are there no examples of the fish on record there from 1952 to 1982?
From 1952 to 2009, the USGS table documents 27 examples of the blue catfish in Colorado: 1. Lake Meredith (1982), 2. San Luis Valley (1986), 3. Platte Drainage (1993), 4. South Platte River (1993), 5. Upper Arkansas River (1998), 6 to 22. Adobe Creek Reservoir (Blue Lake), 23 to 27 Neenoshe Reservoir, Upper Arkansas River (2009).
If the USGS stocked the blue catfish in Colorado in 1952, then why are there only 17 examples of it in the USGS’s record from 1952 to 2009?
If the source of the examples listed by the USGS for the blue catfish in Colorado from 1952 to 2009 is “stocking”, then why is there only a record of 17 blue catfish in the Adobe Creek Reservoir and 5 in the Neenoshe Reservoir, all in 2009?iego in 1966 and 1969.
In 1955, the USGS table lists a table entry for the blue catfish in New Mexico, in Conchas Reservoir.
The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport”. The status is listed as “failed”.
The reference is:
Ref. Number: 1
Author: Sublette, J.E., M.D. Hatch, and M. Sublette.
Date: 1990
Title: The fishes of New Mexico.
Publisher: University of New Mexico Press
Pages: 393 pp
Taken at face value, in 1955, the state of New Mexico stocked an unspecified number of blue catfish at Conchas Reservoir; in 1990, that stocking effort was confirmed in Sublette, Hatch and Sublette’s “The Fishes of New Mexico” as having failed.
That’s a telling blow. Why did the stocking of blue catfish in New Mexico in 1955 fail?
That is, if the stocking ever took place, as alleged. The USGS provides no numbers on how many blue catfish were stocked in 1955. Why?
From 1960 to present, there are just three examples of the blue catfish on record in New Mexico: 1. San Juan River, no weights or lengths (1960), 2. New Mexico State record, 52 pounds, 1/4 ounce (2005), 3. Caught and released, 55 pounds. (2021).
The USGS map shows the blue catfish as native to New Mexico.
If the blue catfish is native to New Mexico, then why is the first historical record of it there in 1960?
Sometime after 1960, the blue catfish winked out of existence in New Mexico. It would remain absent for up to 45 years, until it suddenly reappeared there in 2005.
From 1966 to 2014, the USGS table documents 24 examples of the blue catfish in California from 1966 to 2014: 1. Los Angeles (1966), 2. San Vicente Reservoir (1972), 3. El Capitan Reservoir (1972), 4. Santee Lakes Chain (1972), 5. Sutherland Reservoir (1972), 6. San Diego drainage near Santee (1972), 7. Los Angeles River Basin (1976), 8. Lake Mathews Reservoir (1976), 9. Santa Maria/Santa Ynez Drainage (1976), 10. San Joaquin-Lower Chowchilla River, Cottonwood Creek at Scout Island (1976) 11. Sacramento River delta, in Sherman Lake (1978), 12. El Capitan Reservoir (1986), 13. Sacramento River delta, in Sherman Lake (1989), 14. San Joaquin River (1989), 15. in the Sutherland Reservoir on the Santa Ysabel River (1997), 16. Irvine Lake (1999), 17. Lake Capitan (2000), 18. Lake Jennings (2000), 19. Lake Peru (2000), 20. Murray Reservoir (2005), 21. Otay Reservoir (2007), 22. San Vicente Reservoir (2008), 23. Poway Creek (2010), 24. Diamond Valley Lake (2014)
The USGS maps shows that the blue catfish is not native to California.
Why does the USGS list the blue catfish as non-native to California, when it documents 24 examples of it there from 1966 to 2014? Given that it lists the blue catfish as native to Arkansas, and falsely documents no examples of the species there? I say falsely, because there is, in fact, a single example: the Arkansas state record from 2001.
Speaking of falsely: the USGS documents 24 examples of the blue catfish in California from 1966 to 2014, however, it omits the California state record blue catfish from Lake Jennings in San Diego in 1977, the California state record blue catfish from Irvine Lake in 1987, the California state record blue catfish from San Vicente Reservoir in 2000, and the Lake Otay record blue catfish from 2007, 2016 and 2020.
Why does the official USGS table for the blue catfish in California omit all of the state records, and reduce the number of examples of the species by 20%, from 30 to 24?
In 1966 and 1969, the 1,758 blue catfish that the state of California stocked in Lake Jennings on the lower San Diego River were identical.
What are the odds that the state of California would stock an identical 1,758 blue catfish at Lake Jennings in both 1966 and 1969?
The Fish Feds in California are lying bald-fadedly. I have exposed their duplicity by using what was known in the old days as “fact checking”. They didn’t stock any blue catfish in Lake Jennings in either 1966 or 1969, or the first example of the fish on record from 1966 through 1969 would be in San Diego, not in Los Angels, 124 miles away.
In 1966, the USGS documented that it stocked 1,758 blue catfish in Lake Jennings on the lower San Diego River in California.
In 1966, the USGS lists a single example of the blue catfish in California, in the Los Angeles River basin. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
If the state of California stocked 1,758 blue catfish in Lake Jennings on the lower San Diego River in 1966, why was there only one, single example documented in the state from 1966 to 1969, in Los Angeles, 124 miles away?
If the source of the blue catfish caught in the Los Angeles River basin in 1966 was “stocked for sport/stocked for food”, and the state of California stocked 1,758 blue catfish in Lake Jennings on the lower San Diego River in 1966, how did the stocked blue catfish get 124 miles from San Diego to Los Angeles in 1966?
In 1966, the blue catfish winked into existence in California for the first time, in the Los Angeles River basin. The Feds guessed wrong, and dropped 1,758 ruse-fish into the San Diego river, 124 miles away.
IIn 1968, the USGS lists what it claims to be an example of the blue catfish in Florida, in Metta Pond on Elgin Air Force Base in the panhandle, in Okaloosa County. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”, and Comments says “experimentally stocked”, and list the status as “failed”.
The USGS documented specific, albeit most probably-fraudulent identical numbers for blue catfish stocking in California in 1966 and 1969, with an identical 1,758 in each of those years. Then why wouldn’t they list stocking numbers for Florida in 1968, if this table entry is, in fact, documenting stocking?
If it is an example of a single blue catfish that had been previously stocked prior to 1968, when did that previous stocking take place, and where, etc.?
It’s neither. It’s a fabricated entry for a species that did not exist in Florida in 1968.
If every last other example of the blue catfish in Florida in the list below claims “escaped from aquaculture” or “illegally stocked” or “stocked for sport, stocked for food”, then why did this first attempt in Metta Pond fail? How many fish were stocked? There’s no data, so we must throw it, and record it as a ruse perpetrated to provide something find to explain away the sudden appearance of the blue catfish in the historical record in Florida in 1996 at a then-state-record 65.1 pounds.
The folks in charge knew it was coming, because, unlike the effectively-misguided populace at large, they’re not in the dark about crucial role that the of health of the ether plays in the actual Origin of Species (or their disappearance).
The 1968 entry is a fraud. The Florida Fish Feds knew that the change I’m documenting here was coming, and so put in place a threadbare cover of “stocking” of the blue catfish, not just in Florida, but in California and Colorado as well.
The fraudulent USGS stocking entries from California are from 1966 and 1969. I say “fraudulent” because some mouth-breathing Fish Fed in California documented that an identical 1,758 blue catfish were stocked in Lake Jennings in San Diego in 1966, and again in 1969, and I have exposed their duplicity by using what was known in the old days as “fact checking”.
In 1969, the USGS documented that they stocked 1,758 blue catfish in Lake Jennings on the lower San Diego River in California.
If the state of California stocked 1,758 blue catfish in Lake Jennings on the lower San Diego River in California in 1966, and then stocked 1,758 blue catfish in Lake Jennings on the Lower San Diego River in 1969, then why is there just one, single example of the blue catfish on the record in the state of California from 1966 to 1969?
From 1966 to 2014, the USGS documents 9 examples of the blue catfish in California, in Los Angeles; Lower Sacramento; Middle San Joaquin-Lower Chowchilla; San Diego; San Joaquin Delta; Santa Ana; Santa Clara; Santa Margarita; Santa Maria.
The USGS maps shows that the blue catfish is not native to California. Yet the USGS table documents 9 examples there from 1966 to 2014.
Why does the USGS list the blue catfish as non-native to California, when it documents 9 examples of it there from 1966 to 2014? Given that it lists the blue catfish as native to Arkansas, and falsely documents no examples of the species there? There is, in fact, a single example: the Arkansas state record from 2001.
From 1968 to 2020, the USGS table lists seven examples of the blue catfish in Florida: Apalachicola; Chipola; Escambia; Lower Choctawhatchee; Lower Conecuh; Lower Suwannee; Yellow.
In 1968, the blue catfish first manifested in Florida.
In 1968, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in Florida, in Metta Pond on Elgin Air Force Base in the panhandle, in Okaloosa County. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”, and Comments says “experimentally stocked”.
There is no example in the USGS record from 1968 or prior of stocking of the blue catfish in Florida.
The USGS documented specific, albeit most probably-fraudulent identical numbers for blue catfish stocking in California in 1966 and 1969, with an identical 1,758 in each of those years. Then why wouldn’t they list stocking numbers for Florida in 1968, if this table entry is, in fact, documenting stocking?
If it’s an example of a blue catfish that had been previously stocked, when did that previous stocking take place, and where, etc.?
It’s neither. It’s a fabricated entry for a species that did not exist in Florida in 1968.
The USGS map documents the blue catfish as non-native to Florida.
Why does the USGS document the blue catfish as non-native to Florida, given that there are seven examples of it in the record from 1968 to 2020? And also given that the USGS lists the blue catfish as native to Arkansas, and falsely documents no examples of the species there? I say falsely because there is, in fact, a single example: the Arkansas state record from 2001.
In 1969, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in Lake Jennings on the lower San Diego River. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food, number stocked 1,758”.
In 1969, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish caught in Ritchie Creek/Upper San Diego River. The notes say “stocked for sport”.
If the state of California stocked an identical 1,758 blue catfish in San Diego in 1966 and 1969, then why are there only two examples of the fish on record in California from 1966 through 1969, one in Los Angeles in 1966 and one in Ritchie Creek, in the Upper San Diego River? And why aren’t either of those examples from Lake Jennings, where thousands of blue catfish were reportedly stocked?
From 1970 to 2022, there are just two examples of the blue catfish in the historical record in Nebraska: the 100-pound, 8-ounce state record holder from 1970, and the 113-pound example caught there with set lines in 2018, and thus ineligible for the state record.
Why does the USGS table on the blue catfish in Nebraska omit both of these examples?
From 1970 to 2018, the largest blue catfish ever caught in Nebraska increased in size by 12.4%, from 100 pounds, 8 ounces to 113 pounds. USA Today’s Pete Thomas omitted the date of the previous record, and the percentage, and said only that it was “far heavier than the 48-year-old state record.”
From 1970 to 2018, the average annual increase in size of the blue catfish in Nebraska was .3%.
From 1970 to 1999, the blue catfish in Kentucky increased in size by 4%, from 100 pounds to 104 pounds.
From 1970 to 1999, the average annual increase in size of the Kentucky state record blue catfish was .1%.
From 1970 to 1999, the blue catfish is absent from the environment in Kentucky.
From 1970 to 1999, there are two examples of the blue catfish in Kentucky: those are the Kentucky state record blue catfish from 1970 and 1999.
Why doesn’t the USGS table document the Kentucky state record blue catfish from 1970 and 1999?
The USGS map shows the blue catfish as native to Kentucky.
How can the blue catfish be native to Kentucky if only two examples of it have been documented in history? And why was the first of those examples only in 1970?
From 1970 to 1975, the blue catfish winked into existence for the first time in Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, Arizona, Nebraska, North Carolina and Ohio.
In 1970, the blue catfish winked into existence simultaneously in Kentucky and Nebraska.
In 1970, Benton J.E. Copeland caught the Kentucky state record blue catfish in the tailgaters of the Kentucky dam. It weighed 100 pounds.
Why doesn’t the USGS’s table on the blue catfish in Kentucky document Benton J.E. Copeland’s 100-pound Kentucky state record from 1970?
The USGS map documents the blue catfish as native to Kentucky.
If the blue catfish is native to Kentucky, then why is there no record of it in the state prior to 1970?
In 1970, the blue catfish winked into existence in Kentucky for the first time. It weighed 100 pounds.
Sometime after 1970, the blue catfish winked out of existence in Kentucky, and would be absent from the environment there for up to 29 years, until it reappeared in 1999 at 4% larger than it had been when it disappeared.
In 1970, Raynold Promes caught the Nebraska state record blue catfish in the Missouri River. It weighed 100 pounds, 8 ounces.
Why does the USBS table for the species omit the Nebraska state record blue catfish from 1970?
In 1970, the blue catfish winked into existence in Nebraska for the first time, in the Missouri River. The potential pathway is “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
If stocking was the source of the first Nebraska state record blue catfish in 1970, then why are there no examples of blue catfish stocking in Nebraska in the historical record in 1970 or prior?
From 1970 to 2018, the blue catfish is absent from the record in Nebraska.
Sometime after 1970, the blue catfish winked out of existence in Nebraska. It would remain absent for up to 48 years, when it suddenly reappeared there in 2018.
From 1971 to 2021, the USGS table lists a total of nine examples of the blue catfish in Alabama, while omitting two more, the state and world record from 1996, and the state record holder from 2012.
Why does the USGS table for the blue catfish omit the Alabama state record and world record blue catfish from 1996, and the Alabama state record from 2012?
From 1971 through 1979 the blue catfish is absent from the record in Georgia.
From 1971 to 1979, there is no actual data on any blue catfish in Georgia in terms of weights, lengths, or stocking numbers. We must conclude all of the USGS table entries From 1971 to 1979 are fabricated, false, fake, made-up. A fake paper trail of “illegal stocking” and “stocked for sport/stocked for food” to provide a bulwark against the sudden appearance of the blue catfish in Georgia in 1979.
The USGS map documents the blue catfish as native to Georgia.
If the blue catfish is native to Georgia, and the state of Georgia has been stocking the blue catfish for sport and food since 1971, then who suddenly commenced illegal stocking of the blue catfish on the Altamaha River in Georgia for the first time in history in 2010, and why?
In 1971 and 2006, and 2009, the USGS documented three examples of the blue catfish that were legally “stocked for sport/stocked for food”, presumably by the state of Georgia, albeit in a completely anonymous and obscured way. Then the USGS example from July 5, 2010 ws the first listed in the record as “stocked illegally”.
In 1971, the USGS table contains an entry on the blue catfish in Georgia, in the Middle Chattahoochie River on Lake Harding. There is no data on the fish (weight, who caught it, et al). The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. The status of the blue catfish in Lake Harding is described by the USGS as “established”.
The USGS map shows the blue catfish as (barely) native to Georgia. I say that because there’s a tiny area in gold, shown as native, and tons of brown, for non-native.
Essay: within the context of Georgia as one of the 14 states that the blue catfish is native to, explain the precise, Darwinisitic mechanisms by which the blue catfish came into existence only in tiny areas of Georgia.
If the blue catfish is native to Georgia, then why is there no example of it in the historical record there prior to 1971?
If the blue catfish is native to Georgia, then why is the potential pathway of the first example of it in the historical record there, in 1971 “stocked for sport/stocked for food”?
If the blue catfish is native to 14 states (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia), as the USGS documents, then why is its first appearance in a state that it is indigenous to in ___?
If the USGS entry for the blue catfish on Lake Harding in 1968 documents a stocking effort that year, how can the population be described by the USGS as “established”, if the fish had just been stocked then for the first time? And if that’s the case, then why is there no data as to how many blue catfish were stocked in Lake Harding in 1968? The USGS provided data for the number of catfish that they’d purportedly stocked in California in 1966 and 1969.
If the USGS entry for the blue catfish on Lake Harding in 1971 represents a fish, then why is there no data for that fish?
“Stocked for sport/stocked for food Is the same bullshit potential pathway and status that are tirelessly listed for virtually every other blue catfish in the USGS’s historical record.
Why, by whom, and in what number was the blue catfish stocked in Lake Harding in Georgia in 1968, if blue catfish are native to Georgia?
If it is a stocking effort taking place in Georgia in 1971, then why is there no numerical data as the number of fish stocked, as the USGS provided in 1966 and 1969 in California? And, if it is, rather, a fish, why is there no data on that fish?
The USGS’s entry for the blue catfish in Georgia in 1971 is fraudulent. It was put forward to initiate a fake stocking paper trail to rebut the sudden appearance of the species in Georgia in 1978.
In 1971, the USGS documents an example of the blue catfish in the Augusta Canal on the Savannah River in Georgia. The potential pathway is “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
If the blue catfish is native to Georgia, then why did the Fish Feds in Georgia need to stock it in the Augusta Canal in 1971, and yet nowhere else? How many did they stock? Where were they raised? Who stocked them, and when, and in what number?
In 1971, blue catfish were purportedly legally “stocked for sport and food” in the Augusta Canal on the Savannah River in Georgia. Yet there is no data as to how many fish were stocked, or by whom.
I grew up in Eastern Pennsylvania. When the trucks would come around to drop off stocked trout, everyone knew they were coming, and were at the sides of the creeks with their rods waiting for the trucks.
How do you think it would be in Georgia, when the trucks full of blue catfish came around?
This is a false USGS table entry. No data, faulty premise.
It’s being put forward to rebut the blue catfish that’s going to wink into existence in Georgia in 2009. Since the wholly-credulous populace cannot in any way conceive of such a thing, the great Confidence game goes undetected.
The status of the blue catfish on the Savannah River in 1971 is listed as “established”.
If the USGS entry for the blue catfish in the Savannah River in 1971 documents a stocking effort that year, then how can the population be described by the USGS as “established”, if the fish had just been stocked then for the first time? And if that’s the case, then why is there no data as to how many blue catfish were stocked in the Savannah River in 1971? The USGS provided data for the number of catfish that they’d purportedly stocked in California in 1966 and 1969.
If the USGS entry for the blue catfish in the Savannah River in 1971 represents a fish, then why is there no data for that fish?
“Stocked for sport/stocked for food Is the same bullshit potential pathway and status that are tirelessly listed for virtually every other blue catfish in the USGS’s historical record.
Why, by whom, and in what number was the blue catfish stocked in the Savannah River in 1971, if blue catfish are native to Georgia?
If it is a stocking effort taking place in Georgia in 1971, then why is there no numerical data as the number of fish stocked, as the USGS provided in 1966 and 1969 in California? And, if it is, rather, a fish, why is there no data on that fish?
The USGS’s second entry for the blue catfish in Georgia in 1971 is also fraudulent. They’re both fake stocking records, put forward to create a fake stocking paper trail to rebut the sudden appearance of the species in Georgia in 1979.
In 1971, the USGS recorded their first example of the blue catfish in Alabama, in the Chattahoochie River. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
The USGS lists the blue catfish as native to Alabama.
If the blue catfish is native to Alabama, then why does the first USGS example of it there, from the Chattahoochie River, in 1971, say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”?
If the blue catfish is native to Alabama, then why was the first example of it not documented there until 1971?
Sometime after 1971, after existing there for up to nine years, the blue catfish winked back out of existence in Alabama, and remain absent for up to nine years, when it reappeared there in 1980.
In 1972, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in the San Vicente Reservoir. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
If the blue catfish in the San Vicente Reservoir said by the USGS to be “established” from 1972 through 2008, then why are there only three examples of the blue catfish in the San Vicente Reservoir in the historical record from 1966 to present, one in 1972 and two more in 2008?
In 1972, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in the El Capitan Reservoir. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in the El Capitan Reservoir as “established”.
If the blue catfish in the El Capitan Reservoir was “established” in 1972, why are there only three examples there of the blue catfish in the historical record in El Capitan Reservoir from 1966 to present?
In 1972, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in the Santee Lakes chain, East of San Diego. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
If the blue catfish in the Santee Lakes Chain was said by the USGS to be “established” in 1972, then why is there only one, single example of the blue catfish in the Santee Lakes Chain in the historical record from 1966 to present, in 1972?
In 1972, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in the Sutherland Reservoir. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
If the state of California stocked 1,758 blue catfish in Lake Jennings on the lower San Diego River in California in 1966, and then stocked 1,758 blue catfish in Lake Jennings on the Lower San Diego River in 1969, then why are there only two examples of the blue catfish on the record in the Sutherland Reservoir from 1966 to present, one in 1972 and a second in 1997?
If the blue catfish in the Sutherland Reservoir said by the USGS to be “established” in 1972, then why are there only two examples of the blue catfish in the San Vicente Reservoir in the historical record from 1966 to present, one in 1972 and a second in 1997?
If the state of Calif of California stocked an identical 1,758 blue catfish in San Diego in 1966 and again in 1969, then why are there only seven examples of the fish on record in California from 1966 through 1972?
If the state of California stocked 1,758 blue catfish in Lake Jennings on the lower San Diego River in California in 1966, and then stocked an identical 1,758 blue catfish in Lake Jennings on the Lower San Diego River once again in 1969, then why are there only six examples of the blue catfish on the record in the state of California from 1966 to 1972, one in Los Angeles in 1966, one in Ritchie Creek in the Upper San Diego River in 1969, one in the San Vicente Reservoir in 1972, one in the El Capitan Reservoir in 1972, one in the Santee Lakes chain in 1972, and one in the Sutherland Reservoir in 1972?
From 1973 to 2011, the USGS table documents two examples of the blue catfish in Arizona.
The USGS map shows the blue catfish as non-native to Arizona.
Why does the USGS say that the blue catfish is non-native to Arizona, when there are two examples of it there, versus Arkansas, where the USGS calls the blue catfish “native”, and yet lists no examples of the species? As an aside, I’ll note that Arkansas has a state record blue catfish, but the USGS for some reason does not include it. Why?
In 1973, the USGS documented the first of two blue catfish in Arizona, on the Colorado River. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
In 1973, the blue catfish winked into existence in Arizona for the first time, on the Colorado River.
In 1973, the USGS table for the blue catfish in New Mexico contains an entry from Navajo Lake. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. The status of the blue catfish at Navajo Lake is listed as “established”.
The reference is:
Ref. Number: 25715
Author: Meiten, P.
Date: 2007
Title: New Mexico catfish roundup 2007.
Taken at face value, in 2007, in “New Mexico catfish roundup 2007”, P. Meiten purportedly alleged that blue catfish had been stocked Navajo Lake in 1973.
Yet the blue catfish could not have been “established” in Navajo Lake in 1973, as falsely alleged by the USGS, and thus the status should be “stocked”.
If the state of New Mexico stocked blue catfish in Navajo Lake in 1973, albeit in unspecified number, then why are there no examples of the blue catfish on record in New Mexico from Navajo Lake?
The 1973 USGS table entry for the blue catfish in Navajo Lake is fraudulent. It’s the first example of a paper-trail of fake stocking entries put forward as a bewared against the subsequent sudden reappearance of the blue catfish in New Mexico in 2005.
In 1973, the USGS table for the blue catfish in New Mexico contains an entry from the San Juan River.
It references:
Ref. Number: 109
Author: Minckley, W.L.
Date: 1973
Title: Fishes of Arizona.
Publisher: Arizona Fish and Game Department
Pages: 127 pp
Ref. Number: 111
Author: Koster, W.J.
Date: 1960
Title: Ptychocheilus lucius (Cyprinidae) in the San Juan River, New Mexico.
Journal: Southwestern Naturalist
Volume: 5
Pages: 174-175
The USGS table entry is deviously dated 1973, to cover up the fact that in 1960, In “Ptychocheilus lucius (Cyprinidae) in the San Juan River, New Mexico”, published by W.J. Koster in Southwestern Naturalist, Volume 5”, Koster documents the blue catfish in the San Juan River in New Mexico.
The “stocked for sport/stocked for food” potential pathway is patently false, given that there are no examples of blue catfish stocking in New Mexico.
The 1973 USGS table entry for the blue catfish in the San Juan River is fraudulent. It’s the first example of a paper-trail of fake stocking entries put forward as a bewared against the subsequent sudden reappearance of the blue catfish in New Mexico in 2005.
Sometime after 1973, the blue catfish disappeared from Arizona, and would be absent for the next 38 years, until it reappeared there in 2011.
From 1975 to 2019, the USGS table documents 21 examples of the blue catfish: Albemarle; Black; Cape Fear; Chowan; Contentnea; Lower Cape Fear; Lower Pee Dee; Lower Roanoke; Lower Tar; Lumber; Meherrin; Middle Neuse; Northeast Cape Fear; Roanoke Rapids; Upper Cape Fear; Upper Catawba; Upper Neuse; Upper Pee Dee; Upper Pee Dee; Upper Yadkin; Waccamaw.
From 1975 to 1999, the blue catfish is absent from the record in North Carolina.
In 1975, the USGS documented the first of its 21 examples of the blue catfish in North Carolina, in Albemarle.
The USGS map shows the blue catfish as native to North Carolina.
If the blue catfish is native to North Carolina, why is there no example of it there prior to 1975, when it is first documented in Minnesota in 1900, which is a state which the USGS says that the blue catfish is not native to?
In 1975, the blue catfish simultaneously winked into existence in North Carolina and Ohio for the first time.
In 1975, the blue catfish winked into existence in North Carolina for the first time.
In 1975, the USGS documents the first of its five examples of the blue catfish in Ohio, in Licking.
In 1975, the blue catfish winked into existence in Ohio for the first time, in Licking.
The USGS map shows the blue catfish as native to Ohio.
If the blue catfish is native to Ohio, why is there no record of it there prior to 1975, when there are examples of the blue catfish in Minnesota and Iowa in 1900?
Sometime after 1975, the blue catfish disappeared from Ohio, and would be absent for up to the next 23 years, and then winked back into existence there in 2008, at a threshold weight of 57 pounds, 3.2 ounces.
Sometime after 1975, the blue catfish winked out of existence in North Carolina, and would be absent for the next 24 years, until in once again manifested there in 1999.
Sometime after 1975, the blue catfish simultaneously winked out of existence in Ohio and North Carolina.
From 1975 to 2013, the USGS table documents five examples of the blue catfish: Licking; Lower Great Miami, Indiana, Ohio; Muskingum; Upper Great Miami, Indiana, Ohio; Upper Scioto.
Sometime after 1975, the blue catfish winked back out of existence in Ohio for up to 33 years, until it reappeared in 2008 at a threshold weight of 57 pounds, 3.2 ounces.
In 1976, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in Lake Mathews Reservoir. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
If the source of the blue catfish caught in the Lake Mathews Reservoir was stocking, as alleged by the USGS, then explain how the stocking of an identical 1,578 of them in 1966 and again in 1969, in San Diego drove an established population 107 miles away in Lake Mathews within ten years.
How could the USGS call the blue catfish in Lake Mathews “established” in 1976, when that is the only example of the blue catfish there on the record, from 1966 to present?
In 1976, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in the Santa Maria/Santa Ynez drainage. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in the Santa Maria/Santa Ynez drainage as “established”.
If the source of the blue catfish caught in the Santa Maria/Santa Ynez drainage in 1976 was stocking, explain how the stocking of an identical 1,578 of them in 1966 and again in 1969, in San Diego drove an established population in the Santa Maria/Santa Ynez drainage 233 miles away within ten years.
Bonus: Explain how the USGS could call the blue catfish in the Santa Maria/Santa Ynez drainage “established” in 1976, when that is the only example of the blue catfish there on the record, from 1966 to present.
Sometime after 1975, the blue catfish disappeared from Ohio, and would be absent for up to the next 23 years, and then winked back into existence there in 2008, at a threshold weight of 57 pounds, 3.2 ounces.
Sometime after 1975, the blue catfish winked out of existence in North Carolina, and would be absent for the next 24 years, until in once again manifested there in 1999.
Sometime after 1975, the blue catfish simultaneously winked out of existence in Ohio and North Carolina.
From 1975 to 2013, the USGS table documents five examples of the blue catfish: Licking; Lower Great Miami, Indiana, Ohio; Muskingum; Upper Great Miami, Indiana, Ohio; Upper Scioto.
Sometime after 1975, the blue catfish winked back out of existence in Ohio for up to 33 years, until it reappeared in 2008 at a threshold weight of 57 pounds, 3.2 ounces.
In 1976, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in Lake Mathews Reservoir. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
If the source of the blue catfish caught in the Lake Mathews Reservoir was stocking, as alleged by the USGS, then explain how the stocking of an identical 1,578 of them in 1966 and again in 1969, in San Diego drove an established population 107 miles away in Lake Mathews within ten years.
How could the USGS call the blue catfish in Lake Mathews “established” in 1976, when that is the only example of the blue catfish there on the record, from 1966 to present?
In 1976, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in the Santa Maria/Santa Ynez drainage. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in the Santa Maria/Santa Ynez drainage as “established”.
If the source of the blue catfish caught in the Santa Maria/Santa Ynez drainage in 1976 was stocking, explain how the stocking of an identical 1,578 of them in 1966 and again in 1969, in San Diego drove an established population in the Santa Maria/Santa Ynez drainage 233 miles away within ten years.
Bonus: Explain how the USGS could call the blue catfish in the Santa Maria/Santa Ynez drainage “established” in 1976, when that is the only example of the blue catfish there on the record, from 1966 to present.
In 1976, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in the San Diego drainage, near the town of Santee. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in the San Diego drainage as “established”.
If the source of the blue catfish caught in the San Diego drainage in 1976 was stocking, explain how the stocking of an identical 1,578 of them in 1966 and again in 1969, at Lake Jennings in San Diego, miles away drove an established population in the San Diego drainage within ten years.
If the blue catfish in the San Diego drainage near Santee was “established” in 1976, why is that the only example of the blue catfish in the Los Angeles basin on the record, from 1966 to present?
In 1976, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in the Los Angeles River basin. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
In 1976, the USGS listed the status of the blue catfish in the Los Angeles River basin as “established”.
If the source of the blue catfish caught in the Los Angeles River basin in 1976 was stocking, as alleged by the USGS, then explain how the stocking of an identical 1,578 of them in 1966 and again in 1969, in San Diego drove an established population 124 miles away in the Los Angeles River basin within seven years.
Bonus: Explain how the USGS could call the blue catfish in the Los Angeles River basin “established” in 1976, when there are only two examples of the blue catfish in the Los Angeles basin on the record, from 1966 to present, one in 1966 and one in 1976?.
From 1977 to 1987, the California state record blue catfish increased in size by 60%, from 36 pounds, 13 ounces to 59 pounds.
In 1977, the California state record blue catfish was caught in Lake Jennings in San Diego. It weighed 36 pounds, 13 ounces.
Why doesn’t the USGS table mention the California state record blue catfish that was caught in Lake Jennings in San Diego in 1977?
From sometime after 1978 to 2008, the blue catfish was absent from the record in Ohio.
In 1977, the USGS table on the blue catfish in Minnesota has an entry from Lake St. Croix. It states that six thousand fingerling blue catfish were stocked in Lake St. Croix. I have to note for the record that the entry says, only, generally, “fingerlings”.
There are two possibilities, here. One, that no blue catfish were, in fact stocked, as falsely claimed.
Or, two, that the Fish Feds in Minnesota knew that the etheric environment there in 1977 was in no way healthy enough to sustain the blue catfish, however they sacrificed six thousand of them knowing that they’d die immediately, or soon after.
We’ll take them at their word that the stocking took place, as alleged.
If the state of Minnesota stocked 6000 blue catfish fingerlings in Lake St. Croix in Minnesota in 1977, as the USGS states, then why are there no records of any blue catfish ever being caught in Lake St. Croix, in all history?
From 1978 to 2002, the blue catfish in Minnesota increased in size by 10,460%, from .5 pounds to 52 pounds, 8 ounces.
From 1978 to 2002, the average annual increase in size of the blue catfish in Minnesota was.
These two statistic from 1978 to 2002 can probably be thrown out, given the wild improbabilities surrounding the almost-certainly-fake 1978 stocking example.
In 1978, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in the Middle San Joaquin-Lower Chowchilla River, Cottonwood Creek at Scout Island. The notes say “stocked for sport”. The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in the San Joaquin River as “established”.
If the source of the blue catfish caught in the San Joaquin River in 1978 was stocking, explain how the stocking of an identical 1,578 of them in 1966 and again in 1969 drove an established population 413 miles away in the San Joaquin River within twelve years years.
Bonus: Explain how the USGS could call the blue catfish in the San Joaquin River “established” in 1978, when that is the only example of the blue catfish in the historical record there from 1966 to present.
In 1978, the USGS table on the blue catfish in Minnesota has an entry from the Mississippi River’s Lake Pepin. It says that the blue catfish weighed .23 kilograms, and the comments say “Thought to be one of the fish stocked in Lake St. Croix.”
I don’t know how to break this to you, but .23 kilograms is half a pound.
Blue catfish grow at rate of 2 pounds per year. If this fish was stocked in Lake St. Croix a year previously, it would have to be at least two pounds by 1978.
It’s 57 miles from Lake St. Croix to Lake Pepin.
Just one catfish, out of six thousand?
The status of the blue catfish at Lake Pepin is listed as “failed”, despite the fact that the USGS claims that the state of Minnesota stocked some unspecified number of blue catfish there almost a hundred years earlier in, in 1900.
This is a fake USGS table entry for the blue cafish, using undocumented and implausible claims to suggest that Fish Fed-stocked blue catfish were expanding out into the environment from their origination point in Lake St. Croix the year before.
In 1978, the USGS table for the blue catfish in New Jersey that is geographically non-specific. The potential pathway is documented as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
The entry reference:
Ref. Number: 356
Author: Stiles, E.W.
Date: 1978
Title: Vertebrates of New Jersey.
Publisher: Edmund W Stiles Somerset, NJ.
Pages: 158 pp
There are no notes. The USGS has referenced a book on New Jersey vertebrates, but provides no evidence whatsoever that stocking of the blue catfish took place in New Jersey in 1978. No numbers. No geography. Just the one unsubstantiated claim in the potential pathway.
It’s a dreadfully thin and thread-bare cover story, and its the same in every state that we’re researching.
The 1978 USGS table entry for the blue catfish is entirely fraudulent. It is the first example in the state of a propaganda paper trail of false stocking reports put forward to rebut the subsequent sudden reaappearance of the species in New Jersey, which has, at this writing in 2022, yet to take place.
From 1979 to 2020, the Georgia state record blue catfish increased in size by 78%, from 62 pounds to 110 pounds, 6 ounces.
From 1979 to 2020, the average annual increase in size of the Georgia state record blue catfish was 1.9%.
From 1979 to 2017, there are 15 documented examples of the blue catfish in Georgia, where either weight or length is documented: 1. Georgia state record, 62 pounds (1979), 2. Georgia state record, 67 pounds, 8 ounces (2006), 3. Georgia state record, 75 pounds (2007), 4. Uchee Creek Catfish Tournament, 16 pounds (2009), 5. Uchee Creek Catfish Tournament, 13.25 pounds (2009), 6. Georgia state record, 65 pounds (2010), 7. Satilla River, 368 mm (2011), 8. Satilla River, 368 mm (2011), 9. Satilla River, 360 mm (2011), 10. Satilla River, 440 mm (2011), 11. Satilla River, 401 mm, (2011), 12. Satilla River, 492 mm (2011), 13. Satilla River, 432 mm (20011), 14. Satilla River, 406 mm (2011), 15. Georgia state record, 93 pounds (2017).
Why does the USGS table on the blue catfish in Georgia obfuscate every Georgia state record catfish: 1979, 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2017?
From 1979 to 2017, the Georgia state record blue catfish increased in size by 50%, from 62 pounds to 93 pounds.
From 1979 to 2017, the average annual increase in size of the Georgia state record blue catfish was 1.3%.
From 1979 to 2006, the Georgia state record blue catfish increased in size by 8.8%, from 62 pounds to 67 pounds, 8 ounces.
From 1979 to 2006, the average annual increase in size of the Georgia state record blue catfish was .33%.
From 1979 to 2006, the Georgia state record blue catfish increased in size by 8.9%, from 62 pounds to 67 pounds, 8 ounces.
From 1979 to 2006, the average annual increase in size of the Georgia state record blue catfish was .33%.
In 1979, the Georgia state record blue catfish weighed 62 pounds.
In 1979, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in the Sacramento River delta, in Sherman Lake. The notes say “stocked for sport”. The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in the Sacramento River Delta as “established”.
The only stocking of the blue catfish on record in California is an identical 1,578 of them which were purported to have been stocked in Lake Jennings on the lower San Diego River, in 1966, and again in 1969.
If the source of the blue catfish in the Sacramento River Delta is stocking, and the only stocking of the blue catfish on record in California is an identical 1,578 of them which were purported to have been stocked in Lake Jennings on the lower San Diego River, in 1966, and again in 1969, then how did the blue catfish get the 513 miles from Lake Jennings in San Diego to the Sacramento River Delta in just twelve years from 1966 to 1979?
If the blue catfish was established in the Sacramento River Delta in 1979, then why are there only two examples in the historical record of the blue catfish in the Sacramento River delta from 1966 to present, in 1979 and 1989?
In 1979, the Georgia state record blue catfish weighed 62 pounds.
Why doesn’t the USGS table for the species mention the first-ever Georgia state record blue catfish?
From 1979 or after to 1996, the blue catfish is absent from the record, anywhere, until it reappeared in New Mexico in 1996.
Sometime after 1979, the blue catfish winked out of existence in Georgia. It would be absent from the environment in Georgia for 26 years, until it reappeared there in 2006. There is a chain of fabricated USGS journal entries from here to there, set up as a bulwark against the discovery of the basic truth that I am elucidating here.
From 1979 to 2006, the Georgia state record blue catfish increased in size by 8.8%, from 62 pounds to 67 pounds, 8 ounces.
From 1979 to 2005, the average annual increase in size of the Georgia state record blue catfish was .32%.
In 1980, the blue catfish winked into existence in Nebraska and North Dakota for the first time simultaneously, and winked back into existence in Alabama for the first time in up to nine years.
In 1980, after an absence of up to nine years, since 1971, the blue catfish winked back into existence in Alabama.
In 1980, the USGS documented an example of the blue catfish on the Upper Conecuh River. The notes say “Glodek says not native; Mettee et al give locations”.
If the blue catfish is native to Alabama, why data does “Goldek” base the statement upon that this example is not native?
In 1980, the USGS documented the second of two examples there that year on the Upper Conecuh River in Alabama. The notes say “Glodek says not native; Mettee et al give locations”.
If the blue catfish is native to Alabama, why data does “Goldek” base the statement upon that this example in 1980 is not native?
Why do both examples of the blue catfish from Alabama from 1980 have an identical notes entry, as if it were copied and pasted, despite the fact that they occurred on different dates?
In 1980, the blue catfish winked into existence in Nebraska and North Dakota for the first time simultaneously.
In 1980, the Blue catfish winked into existence in North Dakota for the first time, at Lake Oahe.
The USGS lists the blue catfish as non-native.
Why does the USGS document the blue catfish as non-native to North Dakota, given that there is one examples of it in the record in 1980, and also gd also given that the USGS lists the blue catfish as native to Arkansas, and falsely documents no examples of the species there? I say falsely because there is, in fact, a single example: the Arkansas state record from 2001.
There is no North Dakota state record for the blue catfish.
Why is there no North Dakota state record for the bluefish if the USGS documents an example the blue catfish in North Dakota in 1980, at Lake Oahe?
Sometime after 1980, the blue catfish winked back out of existence in North Dakota.
The USGS map shows the blue catfish as non-indigenous to Nebraska.
Why does the USGS document the blue catfish as non-native to Nebraska, given that there are two examples of it in the record from 1970 to 2018 (Note: the USGS falsely claims the there are only three, from 1980 to 2011)? And also given that the USGS lists the blue catfish as native to Arkansas, and falsely documents no examples of the species there? I say falsely because there is, in fact, a single example: the Arkansas state record from 2001.
In 1980, the USGS table contains an entry for the blue catfish in Nebraska: Lower Platte-Shell. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport”. The comments say “per Page and Burr 2011”.
There’s no data supporting the assertion. It’s part of a chain of fake stocking propaganda that I’m painstakingly documenting here. It’s put forward to forestall the later sudden appearance of the blue catfish in Nebraska in 2018.
In 1982, the USGS table documents an example of the blue catfish in Lake Meredith on the Upper Arkansas River in Colorado. The notes document the potential pathway as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. The USGS documents the blue catfish population there as “stocked” in 1982. There is no data on the single fish that was purportedly collected at this time.
On August 30, 1985, the USGS table documents an entry for the blue catfish in Idaho, from the Bear River. It says that 9,018 3-6 inch fingerlings were “stocked for sport”.
On August 29, 1985, the USGS table documents an entry for the blue catfish in Idaho, on the Portneuf River. It says that 9,764 3-6 inch fingerlings were “stocked for sport”.
On August 29, 1985, the USGS table documents an entry for the blue catfish in Idaho, on the Snake River. It says that 14,188 3-6 inch fingerlings were “stocked for sport”.
On August 29, 1985, the USGS table documents an entry for the blue catfish in Idaho, on Lake Walcott. It says that 4,009 3-6 inch fingerlings were “stocked for sport”.
Stocking two huge batches in one lake on the same day? What gives?
On August 29, 1985, the USGS table documents an entry for the blue catfish in Idaho, on Lake Walcott. It says that 8,989 3-6 inch fingerlings were “stocked for sport”.
On August 30, 1985, the USGS table documents an entry for the blue catfish in Idaho, on the Upper Snake-Rock River. It says that 3,978 3-6 inch fingerlings were “stocked for sport”.
On October 30, 1985, the USGS table documents an entry for the blue catfish in Idaho, at the CJ Strike Reservoir. It says that 3,978 3-6 inch fingerlings were “stocked for sport”.
In 1985, the USGS table documents an entry for the blue catfish in Idaho, at Brownlee Reservoir. The notes say “sparse population make them a rare catch; Wydoski and Whitney (2003) say none collected since they were introduced in 1985.”
The blue catfish is absent from the record at the CJ Strike Reservoir from 1985 to 2003, despite 3,978 of them being stocked there in 1985. Why?
The stocking failed, because the fingerlings were ruse-stockings. The Fish Feds in Idaho knew quite well that they’d be killed instantly, because the etheric environment in Idaho wasn’t in the kind of shape in 1985 where it would support the blue catfish.
A total of roughly 50,000 blue catfish fingerlings were stocked/sacrificed in those nine locations around Idaho in 1985 to create a fake “paper trail” of actual stockings, so that, when the blue catfish showed up in Idaho in the future, the rubes at the Punch and Judy show would say “the Idaho Fish Feds stocked them”. It’s a great Confidence game, that is, until someone such as myself begins fact-checking. It would be 2022 until the blue catfish winked into existence in Idaho.
It seems that the Fish Feds have gotten a bit wiser, in that this is the first blue catfish stocking example in the record to use numbers since 1966 and 1969 in California, when a fraudulent, identical 1,758(?) blue catfish were claimed to have been stocked successively in 1966 and 1969, with the same number of fish being stocked in each of those two years by coincidence.
In 1986, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in the El Capitan Reservoir. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in the El Capitan Reservoir as “established”.
If the blue catfish in the El Capitan Reservoir was “established” from 1972 to 1986, then why are there only three examples there of the blue catfish in the historical record from 1966 to present?
In 1986, the USGS table documents an example of the blue catfish in the San Luis Valley (Rio Grande headwaters drainage), Colorado. The notes document the potential pathway as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. The USGS documents the blue catfish population as “established” in the San Luis Valley in 1986. There is no data on the single example of the blue catfish that was purportedly collected at this time.
In 1986, Burr and Warren said that the blue catfish was not native to Taylorsville Lake in Kentucky. If the blue catfish is native to Kentucky, as documented on the USGS map, then how did Burr and Warren come to this conclusion?
In 1987, the blue catfish winked back into existence in Iowa, after an 87 year absence, since 1900.
In 1987, the California state record blue catfish was caught in Irvine Lake. It weighed 59 pounds.
Why doesn’t the USGS table mention the California state record blue catfish that was caught in Irvine Lake in 1987?
In 1989, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in the Sacramento River delta, in Sherman Lake. The notes say “stocked for sport”. The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in the Sacramento River Delta as “established”.
If the blue catfish was established in the Sacramento River Delta from 1979 to 1989, then why are there only two examples in the historical record of the blue catfish in the Sacramento River delta from 1966 to present, in 1979 and 1989?
In 1989, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in the San Joaquin River. The notes say “stocked for sport”.
If the state of California stocked 1,758 blue catfish in Lake Jennings on the lower San Diego River in California in 1966, and then stocked 1,758 blue catfish in Lake Jennings on the Lower San Diego River in 1969, then why are there only three examples of the blue catfish on the record in the San Joaquin River from 1966 to present, two in 1978 and a third in 1989?
How did the blue catfish get from Lake Jennings in San Diego to the San Joaquin River, when Lake Jennings and and the San Joaquin River are 420 miles apart, and do not connect with one another?
If the blue catfish in the San Joaquin River was said by the USGS to be “established” from 1978 through 1989, then why are there only three examples of the blue catfish there in the historical record from 1966 to present, two in 1978 and a third in 1989?
In 1990, the USGS table contains an entry for the blue catfish in Georgia, on the Chattahoochee River below Columbus. The potential pathway is listed as “escaped captivity aquaculture”.
What specific blue-catfish-raising aquaculture facility did the blue catfish example from 1990 escape from?
The blue catfish is exceedingly rare, and is not, to my knowledge, bred in captivity on catfish farms.
The source of the 1990 example is “personal communication”. Comments say “got loose during flood March 1990”. Status is listed as “established”.
There’s no data in it. No fish weight, or length
Why is there no weight data on the fish that was collected, as the completely-unscientific entry in the table documents?
How did the unknown person who personally communicated the example to the USGS know that it “escaped captivity aquaculture”, and “got loose during flood March 1990” - unbelievably, within the context of the blue catfish as native to Georgia?
It’s a completely false claim. It’s part of a paper-trail of false claims stretching from its disappearance sometime after 1979 to its reappearance of the blue in Georgia in 2006.
In 1990, the USGS table contains an entry for the blue catfish in Georgia, in the Walter F George Reservoir, on the Chattahoochee River. The size is listed as 30 pounds.
The potential pathway is listed as “escaped captivity aquaculture”. The source is “personal communication”. Comments say “got loose during flood March 1990”. Status is listed as “established”.
If the blue catfish got loose from captivity aquaculture in Georgia in 1990 and made it to the Walter F. George Reservoir just that same year, then how could the blue catfish be “established” in the Walter F. George Reservoir in 1990?
It can’t. They’ve been too aggressive with their threadbare ruse and I’ve caught them at it.
It’s a completely false claim. It’s part of a paper-trail of false claims stretching from its disappearance sometime after 1979 to its reappearance of the blue in Georgia in 2006.
In 1993, the USGS documents an example of the blue catfish in the Upper Choctawhatchee River in Alabama. The notes say “escaped from private stocked lake during flood; brood fish”.
If the blue catfish is native to Alabama, as documented on the USGS map, then why is every example in their record a fish that escaped from a stocked lake, or an aquaculture operation?
In 1993, the USGS table documents an example of the catfish in the Platte drainage, Colorado. The notes document the potential pathway as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. The USGS documents the blue catfish population as “established” there in 1993.
In 1993, the USGS table documents an example of the catfish in the South Platte river, Colorado. The notes document the potential pathway as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. The USGS documents the blue catfish population as “established” there in 1993.
In 1993, the USGS table documents an example of the catfish in the Upper Arkansas river, Colorado. The notes document the potential pathway as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. The USGS documents the blue catfish population as “established” there in 1993.
In 1993, the USGS table documents an example of the catfish in the Upper Arkansas river, Colorado. The notes document the potential pathway as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. The USGS documents the blue catfish population as “established” there in 1993.
In 1995 and 2002, the USGS table entries for the blue catfish in Ohio falsely document blue catfish stocking which did not, in fact, take place. Those examples were put forward as a bulwark against the sudden appearance of the blue catfish in Kentucky that was known to be coming in the future.
From 1995 to 2002, the blue catfish is absent from the record in Kentucky.
In 1995, the USGS documented an example of the blue catfish in Kansas, in the Lower Marais Des Cygnes drainage. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport”. The comments say “New KS book says it’s non-native in this drainage.”
The Reference says “Cross, F.B., and J.T. Collins.
Date: 1995
Title: Fishes in Kansas.
Publisher: University of Kansas Natural History Museum, Lawrence, KS.
Pages: 316 pp”.
In 1995, the University of Kansas Natural History Museum in Lawrence, Kansas published “Fishes in Kansas”, by F.B. Cross and J.T. Collins. The book claims that the blue catfish is non-native in the Lower Marais Des Cygnes drainage in Kansas. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport”.
The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in the Lower Marais Des Cygnes drainage in Kansas in 1995 as “established”.
How or why can the USGS list the status of the blue catfish in the Lower Marais Des Cygnes drainage in Kansas as “established” in 1995 if there are literally zero examples of the species there, in all history?
The USGS is using conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
The USGS map shows the blue catfish as non-native to Kansas.
If the blue catfish is non-native to Kansas, as documented on the USGS map, then why did the authors of a book about fish in Kansas note that it was non-native in the Lower Marais Des Cygnes drainage?
If the Lower Marais Des Cygnes drainage entry in Kansas from 1995 represents a stocking of blue catfish, why aren’t there any numbers accompanying it?
The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in the Lower Marais Des Cygnes drainage in Kansas in 1995 as “established”.
How or why can the USGS list the status of the blue catfish in the Lower Marais Des Cygnes drainage in Kansas as “established” in 1995 if there are literally zero examples of the species there, in all history?
The USGS is using conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
The Lower Marais Des Cygnes drainage entry in Kansas from 1995 is fraudulent. It’s the beginning of a fake paper trail of stocking of the blue catfish in Kansas that did not, in fact, take place, put up as a bulwark agains the later appearance of the species in the physical environment there.
In 1995, the USGS documented an example of the blue catfish in Kansas, in the Medicine Lodge drainage. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport”. The comments are “per Cross & Collins 1995; Cross et al. 1986.”
If the blue catfish is non-native to Kansas, as documented on the USGS map, then why did the authors of a book about fish in Kansas note that it was non-native in the Medicine Lodge drainage?
If the Medicine Lodge drainage entry in Kansas from 1995 represents a stocking of blue catfish, why aren’t there any numbers accompanying it?
The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in the Medicine Lodge drainage in Kansas in 1995 as “established”.
How or why can the USGS list the status of the blue catfish in the Medicine Lodge drainage in Kansas as “established” in 1995 if there are literally zero examples of the species there, in all history?
The USGS is using conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
The Medicine Lodge drainage entry in Kansas from 1995 is fraudulent. It’s part of a fake paper trail put forward that year of stocking of the blue catfish in Kansas that did not, in fact, take place, put up as a bulwark agains the later appearance of the species in the physical environment there.
In 1995, the USGS documented an example of the blue catfish in Kansas, in the Neosho headwaters. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport”. The comments say “New KS book says it’s non-native in this drainage.”
If the blue catfish is non-native to Kansas, as documented on the USGS map, then why did the authors of a book about fish in Kansas note that it was non-native in the Neosho headwaters?
If the Neosho headwaters entry in Kansas from 1995 represents a stocking of blue catfish, why aren’t there any numbers accompanying it?
The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in the Neosho headwaters in Kansas in 1995 as “established”.
How or why can the USGS list the status of the blue catfish in the Neosho headwaters in Kansas as “established” in 1995 if there are literally zero examples of the species there, in all history?
The USGS is using conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
The Neosho headwaters drainage entry in Kansas from 1995 is fraudulent. It’s part of a fake paper trail put forward that year of stocking of the blue catfish in Kansas that did not, in fact, take place, put up as a bulwark agains the later appearance of the species in the physical environment there.
In 1995, the USGS documented an example of the blue catfish in Kansas in Sherman County. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport”.
The Reference says “Cross, F.B., and J.T. Collins.
Date: 1995
Title: Fishes in Kansas.
Publisher: University of Kansas Natural History Museum, Lawrence, KS.
Pages: 316 pp”.
If the Sherman County entry in Kansas from 1995 represents a stocking of blue catfish, then why aren’t there any numbers accompanying it?
The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in Sherman County in Kansas in 1995 as “unknown”.
Why does the USGS known nothing about the status of the blue catfish in Sherman County, if it stocked them there?
The USGS is using conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
The Sherman County entry in Kansas from 1995 is fraudulent. It’s part of a fake paper trail put forward that year of stocking of the blue catfish in Kansas that did not, in fact, take place, put up as a bulwark agains the later appearance of the species in the physical environment there.
In 1995, the USGS documented an example of the blue catfish in Kansas, in the Fork Ninnescah drainage. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport”.
The comments say “per Cross & Collins 1995; Cross et al. 1986.”
If the Fork Ninnescah drainageentry in Kansas from 1995 represents a stocking of blue catfish, then why aren’t there any numbers accompanying it?
The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in Fork Ninnescah drainage in Kansas in 1995 as “established”.
How or why can the USGS list the status of the blue catfish in Fork the Ninnescah drainage in Kansas as “established” in 1995 if there are literally zero examples of the species there, in all history?
The USGS is using conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
The Fork Ninnescah drainage entry in Kansas from 1995 is fraudulent. It’s part of a fake paper trail put forward that year of stocking of the blue catfish in Kansas that did not, in fact, take place, put up as a bulwark agains the later appearance of the species in the physical environment there.
In 1995, the USGS documented an example of the blue catfish in Kansas, in the Upper Marais Des Cygnes drainage. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport”.
The comments say “per Cross & Collins 1995”.
If the Upper Marais Des Cygnes drainage entry in Kansas from 1995 represents a stocking of blue catfish, then why aren’t there any numbers accompanying it?
The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in the Upper Marais Des Cygnes drainage in Kansas in 1995 as “established”.
How or why can the USGS list the status of the blue catfish in the Upper Marais Des Cygnes drainage in Kansas as “established” in 1995 if there are literally zero examples of the species there, in all history?
The USGS is using conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
The the Upper Marais Des Cygnes drainage entry in Kansas from 1995 is fraudulent. It’s part of a fake paper trail put forward that year of stocking of the blue catfish in Kansas that did not, in fact, take place, put up as a bulwark agains the later appearance of the species in the physical environment there.
In 1995, the USGS documented an example of the blue catfish in Kansas, in the Upper Neosho drainage. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport”.
The comments say “New KS book says it’s non-native in this drainage.”
If the blue catfish is non-native to Kansas, as documented on the USGS map, then why did the authors of a book about fish in Kansas note that it was non-native in the Upper Neosho drainage?
If the Upper Neosha drainage entry in Kansas from 1995 represents a stocking of blue catfish, then why aren’t there any numbers accompanying it?
The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in Upper Neosha drainage in Kansas in 1995 as “established”.
How or why can the USGS list the status of the blue catfish in the Upper Neosha drainage in Kansas as “established” in 1995 if there are literally zero examples of the species there, in all history?
The USGS is using conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
The Fork Ninnescah drainage entry in Kansas from 1995 is fraudulent. It’s part of a fake paper trail put forward that year of stocking of the blue catfish in Kansas that did not, in fact, take place, put up as a bulwark agains the later appearance of the species in the physical environment there.
In 1995, the USGS documented an example of the blue catfish in Kansas, in Barber County (probably Medicine Lodge drainage). The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport”.
The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in Barber County in Kansas in 1995 as “unknown”.
Why does the USGS known nothing about the status of the blue catfish in Sherman County, if it stocked them there?
The USGS is using conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
The Reference says “Cross, F.B., and J.T. Collins.
Date: 1995
Title: Fishes in Kansas.
Publisher: University of Kansas Natural History Museum, Lawrence, KS.
Pages: 316 pp”.
If the Barber County entry in Kansas from 1995 represents a stocking of blue catfish, then why aren’t there any numbers accompanying it?
The Barber County entry in Kansas from 1995 is fraudulent. It’s part of a fake paper trail put forward that year of stocking of the blue catfish in Kansas that did not, in fact, take place, put up as a bulwark agains the later appearance of the species in the physical environment there.
In 1995, the USGS documented an example of the blue catfish in Kansas, in Jewell County (probably Lovewell Reservoir).
The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in Lovewell Reservoir in Kansas in 1995 as “unknown”.
Why does the USGS know nothing about the status of the blue catfish in Sherman County, if it stocked them there?
The USGS is using conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
The Reference says “Cross, F.B., and J.T. Collins.
Date: 1995
Title: Fishes in Kansas.
Publisher: University of Kansas Natural History Museum, Lawrence, KS.
Pages: 316 pp”.
If the Lovewell Reservoir entry in Kansas from 1995 represents a stocking of blue catfish, then why aren’t there any numbers accompanying it?
The Lovewell Reservoir entry in Kansas from 1995 is fraudulent. It’s part of a fake paper trail put forward that year of stocking of the blue catfish in Kansas that did not, in fact, take place, put up as a bulwark agains the later appearance of the species in the physical environment there.
In 1995, the USGS documented an example of the blue catfish in Kansas, in Meade County.
The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in Meade County in Kansas in 1995 as “unknown”.
Why does the USGS know nothing about the status of the blue catfish in Meade County, if it stocked them there?
The USGS is using conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
The Reference says “Cross, F.B., and J.T. Collins.
Date: 1995
Title: Fishes in Kansas.
Publisher: University of Kansas Natural History Museum, Lawrence, KS.
Pages: 316 pp”.
If the Meade County entry in Kansas from 1995 represents a stocking of blue catfish, then why aren’t there any numbers accompanying it?
The Meade County entry in Kansas from 1995 is fraudulent. It’s part of a fake paper trail put forward that year of stocking of the blue catfish in Kansas that did not, in fact, take place, put up as a bulwark agains the later appearance of the species in the physical environment there.
In 1995, the USGS documented an example of the blue catfish in Kansas, in Pratt County (probably small lake on South Fork Ninnescah).
The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in Pratt County in Kansas in 1995 as “unknown”.
Why does the USGS know nothing about the status of the blue catfish in Pratt County, if it stocked them there?
The USGS is using conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
The Reference says “Cross, F.B., and J.T. Collins.
Date: 1995
Title: Fishes in Kansas.
Publisher: University of Kansas Natural History Museum, Lawrence, KS.
Pages: 316 pp”.
If the Pratt County entry in Kansas from 1995 represents a stocking of blue catfish, then why aren’t there any numbers accompanying it?
The Pratt County entry in Kansas from 1995 is fraudulent. It’s part of a fake paper trail put forward that year of stocking of the blue catfish in Kansas that did not, in fact, take place, put up as a bulwark agains the later appearance of the species in the physical environment there.
In 1995, the USGS documented an example of the blue catfish in Kansas, in Rooks County (probably Webster Reservoir)
The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in Rooks County in Kansas in 1995 as “unknown”.
Why does the USGS know nothing about the status of the blue catfish in Rooks County, if it stocked them there?
The USGS is using conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
The Reference says “Cross, F.B., and J.T. Collins.
Date: 1995
Title: Fishes in Kansas.
Publisher: University of Kansas Natural History Museum, Lawrence, KS.
Pages: 316 pp”.
If the Rooks County entry in Kansas from 1995 represents a stocking of blue catfish, then why aren’t there any numbers accompanying it?
The Rooks County entry in Kansas from 1995 is fraudulent. It’s part of a fake paper trail put forward that year of stocking of the blue catfish in Kansas that did not, in fact, take place, put up as a bulwark agains the later appearance of the species in the physical environment there.
In 1995, the USGS documented an example of the blue catfish in Kansas, in Sheridan County.
The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in Sheridan County in Kansas in 1995 as “unknown”.
Why does the USGS know nothing about the status of the blue catfish in Sheridan County, if it stocked them there?
The USGS is using conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
The Reference says “Cross, F.B., and J.T. Collins.
Date: 1995
Title: Fishes in Kansas.
Publisher: University of Kansas Natural History Museum, Lawrence, KS.
Pages: 316 pp”.
If the Sheridan County entry in Kansas from 1995 represents a stocking of blue catfish, then why aren’t there any numbers accompanying it?
The Sheridan County entry in Kansas from 1995 is fraudulent. It’s part of a fake paper trail put forward that year of stocking of the blue catfish in Kansas that did not, in fact, take place, put up as a bulwark agains the later appearance of the species in the physical environment there.
In September 1995, Bruce W. Midkiff caught the Kentucky state record blue catfish at Jonathan Creek - Kentucky Lake. It weighed 104 pounds.
In 1995, the blue catfish reappeared in Kentucky after a 25-year absence, since 1970.
In 1995, the USGS table documents an example of the blue catfish in Ocheesee Creek off the Apaplachacola River. The comments say “first record in drainage; escaped aquaculture in GA on Chattahoochee River in 1990 during flood; Rich estimated this date”. “The record type is “Personal communication”.
Since there’s no data of any sort (note assiduous blacking out of who caught it, what it weighed), we can presume it’s part of the USGS’s ruse record, trying to paint a picture that people were somehow breeding blue catfish in rural Florida, but had carefully trucked them in, probably from their native Georgia, a state over. Don’t you think the Fish Feds would have been bitching about rednecks importing an “invasive species” into Florida? The “invasive species” meme is used hysterically up in Maryland and the District of Columbia, but gets a pass, here. What gives?
It’s a completely false claim. It’s part of a paper-trail of false claims stretching from its disappearance sometime after 1979 to its reappearance of the blue in Georgia in 2006.
A great big Confidence game, with fabricated records such as I am taking apart right now in my spare time.
In 1995, the USGS table has an entry for the blue catfish in Kentucky, on the Ohio River.
It says “150 caught by commercial fisherman and used for diet analysis”. That factoid is reference from:
38561
Author: Herod, J.J., T.L. Frye, and J.B. Sickel.
Date: 1997
Title: Blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus; Ictaluridae) predation on the zebra mussel in the Ohio River near Paducah, Kentucky
Journal: Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science
Volume: 58
Issue: 2
Pages: 96
Since we’re fortunate enough to be reviewing a tortuous scholarly paper on the blue catfish, we know that there have not been 150 documented in the historical record.
The general, unsubstantiated claim here in Kentucky in 1995 is being put forward at the same moment that 13 fake stocking examples were put forward in Idaho.
Since the blue catfish is listed by the USGS as native to Kentucky, they can’t run with a fake stocking story, but rather have to pull a fake statistic published in a book by one of their fellow conspirators.
In both Idaho and New York, these bogus USGS table entries for 1995 are painting a fake picture of something that does not, in fact, exist. It’s a bulwark against the subsequent reappearance of the blue catfish in Kentucky in 1999 after having been absent from the environment since 1970.
From 1996 to 2020, the USGS table documents ten individual examples of the blue catfish in Florida.
The USGS map shows the blue catfish as non-native to Florida.
Why does the USGS document the blue catfish as non-native to Florida, given that there are ten examples of it in the record from 1968 to 2020? And also given that the USGS lists the blue catfish as native to Arkansas, and falsely documents no examples of the species there? I say falsely because there is, in fact, a single example: the Arkansas state record from 2001.
From 1996 to 1999, the New Mexico State record blue catfish increased in size by 15.5%, from 29 pounds to 33.5 pounds.
From 1996 to 1999, the average annual increase in size of the New Mexico State record blue catfish was 5.2%.
From 1996 to 2012, the Alabama state record blue catfish increased in size by 8.3%, from 111 pounds to 120 pounds, 4 ounces.
From 1996 to 2010, the blue catfish is absent from the record in Alabama.
Sometime after 1997, after 17 years in existence there, since 1980, the blue catfish once again disappeared from Alabama. It would remain absent for up to 13 years, until it reappeared there in 2010.
From 1996 to 2008, the Florida state record blue catfish increased in size by 5%, from 61.5 pounds to 64.5 pounds.
From 1996 to 2008, the Florida state record blue catfish increased in size by an annual average of .42%.
In 1996, the Alabama state record and world record blue catfish was caught by William P. McKinley at Wheeler Reservoir. It weighed 111 pounds.
Why does the USGS table omit mention of the 111-pound Alabama state record and world record blue catfish?
In 1996, the blue catfish reappeared in New Mexico at a bare threshold weight of 29 pounds.
From 1997 to 2005, the blue catfish in California decreased in size by 42%, from 58.3 pounds to 33.95 pounds.
In 1997, the USGS table documents an example of the blue catfish in Alabama. The notes say “got loose during flood March 1990.” (Add to data)
How does the USGS know that a blue catfish collected in Alabama in 1997 got loose in a flood there in 1990?
In 1997, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in the Sutherland Reservoir on the Santa Ysabel River. It weighed 58.3 pounds. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
If the state of California stocked 1,758 blue catfish in Lake Jennings on the lower San Diego River in California in 1966, and then stocked 1,758 blue catfish in Lake Jennings on the Lower San Diego River in 1969, then why are there only two examples of the blue catfish on the record in the Sutherland Reservoir from 1966 to present, one in 1972 and a second in 1997?
If the blue catfish in the Sutherland Reservoir said by the USGS to be “established” in 1972, then why are there only two examples of the blue catfish in the San Vicente Reservoir in the historical record from 1966 to present, one in 1972 and a second in 1997?
From 1996 to 2004, the blue catfish in Florida decreased in size by 47%, from 65.1 pounds (Lower Conechu River) to 32 pounds (Lower Apalachicola River).
In 1996, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish from the Little Escambia Creek on the Lower Conecuh River in Florida. It weighed 61.5 pounds. It says “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. It says “former state record”.
In 1996, Vincent Walston caught the Florida state record blue catfish in the Little Escambia Creek on the Lower Choctawhatchee River. It weighed 61 pounds.
The first documented example of the blue catfish in Florida is from 1996.
The USGS map documents the blue catfish as non-native to Florida.
In 1997, the USGS table documents an example of the blue catfish In Lake Seminole on the Lower Chattahoochie River in Florida. The potential pathway is “escaped captivity aquaculture” and the comments say “got loose during flood 1990”. The size is listed as “small”.
Since the purportedly-scientific USGS lists that general metric “small”, we know that they are lying. Well, that, along with claiming it “escaped captivity aquaculture” within the context of the blue catfish as native to Georgia.
It’s all heresay, pure and simple. It’s part of the fake paper trail laid down by the USGS from 1979 until the first species winked back into existence in Georgia in 2006.
In 1998, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish from the Lower Choctawhatchee River in Florida.
The record type is “Personal communication”. That means it’s fake. There’s no name. The comments say “rare; only 1 every 2 years; all large - ***~***20lbs; introduced sometime prior to ~1998 when the FLFWCC started sampling the river; original source was escape of brood stock from private pond upstream in AL in 1993 during flood”. You can tell by the generalities that it’s a pack of lies.
In 1998, the USGS table documents an example of the catfish in the Upper Arkansas river, Colorado. The notes document the potential pathway as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. The USGS documents the blue catfish population as “established” there in 1993.
From 1999 to 2022, the blue catfish is absent from the record in Kentucky.
From 1999 to 2021, the New Mexico State record blue catfish increased in size by 64%, from 33 pounds, 8 ounces to 55 pounds.
From 1999 to 2021, the average annual increase in size of the New Mexico state record blue catfish was 2.9%.
From 1999 to 2021, the 2.9% average annual increase in size of the New Mexico State record blue catfish was 44% less than its 5.2% average annual increase there from 1996 to 1999.
From 1999 to 2005, the New Mexico State record blue catfish increased in size by 55.3%, from 33.5 pounds to 52 pounds, .25 ounces.
From 1999 to 2005, the average annual increase in size of the New Mexico State record blue catfish was 9.2%.
From 1999 to 2005, Here, coincident with Don Croft’s invention of simple, inexpensive tactical Orgonite in 2000, the 55% increase in size of the New Mexico State record blue catfish from 1999 to 2005 is 254% greater, or well more than three times greater than its 15.5% increase in size from 1996 to 1999.
From 1999 to 2003, the North Carolina state record blue catfish increased in size by 2.5%, from 80 pounds to 82 pounds.
From 1999 to 2003, the average annual increase in size of the North Carolina state record blue catfish was .7%.In 1999, just three years after the species had first reappeared in New Mexico at a bare threshold weight of 29 pounds in 1996, the first blue catfish ever documented in North Carolina was a state record blue catfish which weighed 80 pounds.
In 1999, the New Mexico State record blue catfish weighed 33.5 pounds.
In 1999, Bruce Midkiff caught the Kentucky and Indiana state record blue catfish in a waterway shared by both states. It weighed 104 pounds and was 55 and 1/8 inches long.
In 1999, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in Irvine Lake. The notes say “stocked for sport”.
If the source of the blue catfish in the Lake Jennings is stocking, and the only stocking of the blue catfish on record in California is an identical 1,578 of them which were purported to have been stocked in Lake Jennings on the lower San Diego River, in 1966, and again in 1969, then why is there only one, single example of the blue catfish in Irvine Lake, in 1999?
How did the blue catfish get from Lake Jennings in San Diego to Irvine Lake, 125 miles away?
If the blue catfish was said by the USGS to be “established” in Irvine Lake in 1999, then why is there only one, single example in the historical record of the blue catfish in Irvine Lake from 1966 to present, in 1999?
On March 21, 1999, Keith Davis caught the North Carolina state record blue catfish in the Cape Fear River. It weighed 80 pounds.
In 1999, after an absence of up to 24 years, the blue catfish winked back into existence in North Carolina at a threshold weight of 80 pounds.
In 1999, the USGS surveyed the Apalachicola River in Florida “from the dam to RM 20”. In terms of blue catfish, they documented “find all sizes; biggest was 32 lbs caught 10/30/04 at Wewahitchka; not uncommon in river; escaped aquaculture in GA on Chattahoochee River in 1990 during flood”. Where “find all sizes” is general.
We must recall that, in 1998, the USGS documented an example of the blue catfish in the Yellow River Drainage in Florida. The comments say “introduced sometime prior to 1998 when FLFWCC started sampling; rare; 1 caught every 2 years; all large - ~20 lbs”.
Within the context of the growth rate of the blue catfish as 2 pounds per year, why did the Florida state record blue catfish, caught just fifty miles away weigh 61 pounds, compared to this just-as-illegally-introduced, stocked/escaped from aquaculture blue catfish here in the Yellow river just two years later in 1998?
It could be that the etheric environment’s degradation from 1996 to 1998 was such that the blue catfish in Florida decreased exponentially in size during that time. Or it could be that the USGS entry documents a new expansion of territory for the blue catfish in Florida, with a thin - and also general - threshold weight of “~20 lbs.”. Remember, we’ve got a 61-pound blue catfish coming out of nowhere in Florida in 1996, and an 80-pound North Carolina state record blue catfish caught in 1999, as well.
The USGS is lying bald-facedly about the “all large - ~20 pounds” entry in their table. Since we’re studying the blue catfish in a scholarly way, we know that 20 pounds is below the lowest weight documented for the species in this entire tortuous article of mine, in any state. And we know that, further, any Fish Fed who called a 20-pound blue catfish “large” within the context of an 80-pound North Carolina state record the same year is obviously lying bald-facedly.
There are two examples of the blue catfish in Kansas, in all history. One is the Kansas state record from 2000, and the other is the Kansas state record from 2012.
The USGS table for the blue catfish in Iowa omits both of Iowa’s state records. Why?
Sometime after 1999, right when the literal forest of what we euphemistically call “wireless communication towers” was thrown up suddenly literally overnight in every city, town and village on Earth, the blue catfish winked back out of existence in Kansas, driven out of existence by purportedly-harmless non-ionizing low-wavelength microwave radiation.
From 2000 to 2012, the Kansas state record blue catfish increased in size by 15%, from 94 pounds to 102.8 pounds. Kansas.com’s Chad Love omitted the percentage, and said that the new record “topped” the old, implying that the new record was just a tiny bit larger than the old.
From 2000 to 2012, the average annual increase in size of the Kansas state record blue catfish was 1.25%.
From 2000 to 2012, the blue catfish is absent from the record in Kansas.
From 2000 to 2008, the California state record blue catfish increased in size by 12.3%, from 101 pounds to 113.4 pounds.
From 2000 to 2008, the average annual increase in size of the California state record blue catfish was 1.5%.
From 2000 to 2008, the respective 1.25% and 1.5% average annual increases in size of the blue catfish in Kansas and California were statistically almost identical.
In 2000, the California state record blue catfish from the San Vicente Reservoir weighed 101 pounds.
In 2000, the Kansas state record blue catfish weighed 94 pounds.
In 2000, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in Lake Peru. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in the Lake Peru as “established”.
If the source of the blue catfish in Lake Piru is stocking, and the only stocking of the blue catfish on record in California is an identical 1,578 of them which were purported to have been stocked in Lake Jennings on the lower San Diego River, in 1966, and again in 1969, then why is there only one, single example of the blue catfish in Lake Piru, in 2000?
How did the blue catfish get from San Diego to Lake Piru, 210 miles away?
How can the USGS describe the blue catfish as “established” in Lake Piru in 2000, then why is there only one, single example in the historical record of the blue catfish there from 1966 to present, in 2000?
In 2000, the USGS lists and example of the blue catfish in California, in Lake Jennings. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in the El Capitan Reservoir as “established”.
If the source of the blue catfish in the Lake Jennings is stocking, and the only stocking of the blue catfish on record in California is an identical 1,578 of them which were purported to have been stocked in Lake Jennings on the lower San Diego River, in 1966, and again in 1969, then why is there only one, single example of the blue catfish in Lake Jennings, in 2000, given that Lake Jennings was the very lake thousands of them were stocked in just 30 years previously?
(Check 1,578, above)
If the blue catfish was established in Lake Jennings in 2000, then why is there only one, single example in the historical record of the blue catfish in the Lake Jennings from 1966 to present, in 2000?
In 2000, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in Lake El Capitan. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. The USGS lists the status of the blue catfish in the El Capitan Reservoir as “established”.
If the blue catfish in the El Capitan Reservoir was “established” from 1972 to 2000, then why are there only three examples there of the blue catfish in the historical record from 1966 to present?
In 2000, the USGS table contains an entry for the blue catfish in Nebraska, in Branched Oak Lake. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
The reference says:
Reference 1
Ref. Number: 21033
Author: DeLorme.
Date: 2000
Title: Nebraska Atlas and Gazetteer.
Publisher: DeLorme, Yarmouth, Maine.
Pages: 80 pp”
In 2000, the Nebraska Atlas and Gazetteer claimed that some unspecified number of blue catfish were stocked by the state of Nebraska at Branched Oak Lake. The potential pathway is documented as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
If that’s the case, then why are there no examples of the blue catfish on record at Branched Oak Lake in the historical record? Why didn’t the Nebraska Atlas and Gazetteer provide a number?
The 2000 USGS table entry for the blue catfish at Branched Oak Lake in Nebraska is fraudulent. It’s part of a chain of fake stocking propaganda that I’m painstakingly documenting here. It’s put forward to forestall the later sudden appearance of the blue catfish in Nebraska in 2018.
In 2000, the Nebraska Atlas and Gazetteer claimed that some unspecified number of blue catfish were stocked by the state of Nebraska at Middle Salt Creek. The potential pathway is documented as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
If that’s the case, then why are there no examples of the blue catfish on record in the Middle Salt Creek in the historical record? Why didn’t the Nebraska Atlas and Gazetteer provide a number?
The 2000 USGS table entry for the blue catfish at Middle Salt Creek is fraudulent. It’s part of a chain of fake stocking propaganda that I’m painstakingly documenting here. It’s put forward to forestall the later sudden reappearance of the blue catfish in Nebraska in 2018.
From 2001 through 2012, there are just six documented examples of the blue catfish in Maryland, in history: 1. Maryland state record, Potomac River, 53 pound (2001), 2. Maryland state record, Potomac River, 65 pounds, 8 ounces (2006), 3. Maryland state record blue catfish - location - 67.1 pounds (2008), 4. Potomac River, 79 pounds (2010), 5. Maryland state record blue catfish, 80 pounds, 12 ounces (2012), 6. Maryland state record blue catfish, 84 pounds (2012),
Why does the USGS table on the blue catfish in Maryland omit mention of five of the six Maryland state record blue catfish in history from 2001 through 2012?
From 2001 through 2012 the largest average annual increase in the blue catfish in Maryland was 8.6%, from 2008 to 2010.
From 2001 to 2011, the Lake Worth, Texas record blue catfish increased in size by 31% from 2001 to 2011, from 55 pounds to 72 pounds.
From 2001 to 2011, the average annual increase in size of the Lake Worth, Texas record blue catfish fwas 3.1%.
From 2001 to 2006, the Maryland state record blue catfish increased in size by 23%, from 53 pounds to 65 pounds.
Such records are usually broken by tiny margins, as organisms will necessarily increase in ever-smaller increments to a genetically-programmed maximum size. Yet, here, the record stood for five years, and the was broken by a gigantic, historically-unprecedented margin. What gives?
From 2001 to 2004 the blue catfish winked out of existence in Maryland, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky and Kansas.
In 2001, Michael Kingree caught the Maryland state record blue catfish on the Potomac River. It weighed 53 pounds.
There are no examples of the blue catfish in Maryland prior to 2001. In 2012, the Washington Post’s Martin Weil said “The DNR said blue catfish are natives of the Mississippi Valley, but were introduced to Virginia’s James and Rappahannock Rivers in the 1970s. They have reproduced and spread throughout the tidal Potomac River system, the DNR said.”
If the blue catfish was first introduced to Virginia’s James and Rappahannock rivers in the 1970’s, as the Washington Post’s Martin Weil alleges, how come it took them until 2001 to get to Maryland?
The truth is that the blue catfish winked into existence in Maryland in 2001 at a threshold weight of 53 pounds.
From December 2001 to October 2006, the average annual increase in size of the Maryland state record blue catfish was 4.6%.
From December 2001 to October 2006, the blue catfish is absent from the record in Maryland.
In 2001, the Lake Worth, Texas record blue catfish weighed 55 pounds. It is the first appearance of the blue catfish in Texas.
In 2001, the blue catfish winked into existence in Texas, at a threshold weight of 55 pounds.
In 2001, the blue catfish winked into existence in Maryland and Texas simultaneously, at 53 and 55 pound threshold weights that were statistically almost identical.
In 2001, Charles Ashley, Jr. caught the Arkansas state record blue catfish. It weighed 116 pounds, 12 ounces.
The USGS does not list any examples of the blue catfish in Arkansas.
The USGS says that the blue catfish is native to Arkansas.
Why does the USGS list the blue catfish as native to Arkansas if it does not document any examples of the blue catfish in Arkansas?
Why doesn’t the USGS list the 2001 Arkansas state record?
Why does the USGS say there are no examples of the blue catfish in Arkansas, when there is a state record there, from 2001?
There are no examples of the blue catfish in Maryland prior to 2001.
In 2012, the Washington Post’s Martin Weil said “The DNR said blue catfish are natives of the Mississippi Valley, but were introduced to Virginia’s James and Rappahannock Rivers in the 1970s. They have reproduced and spread throughout the tidal Potomac River system, the DNR said.”
If the blue catfish was first introduced to Virginia’s James and Rappahannock rivers in the 1970’s, as the Washington Post’s Martin Weil alleges, then how come it took them until 2001 to get to Maryland?
In 2001, there are two identical entries on the USGS table for the blue catfish in Minnesota, at Lake Saint Croix. Both list the potential pathway as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. Neither contain any data.
They are two more fake USGS table entries for the blue catfish,
They are suggesting that the state of Minnesota stocked blue catfish in Lake Saint Croix in 1977 and again in 2001. Only, in 2001, they didn’t take the trouble to provide the number of fish that they’d stocked, as they did in 1977. Why?
If the state of Minnesota stocked blue catfish in Lake Saint Croix in 1977 and 2001, then why is there only one, single half-pound example of the fish in the entire state in the historical record - with that example found over fifty miles away from the lake where all the blue catfish were stocked?
There are two possibilities, here. One, that no blue catfish were, in fact stocked, on either occasion, as falsely claimed. Or, two, that the Fish Feds in Minnesota knew that the etheric environment there in 1977 and 2001 was in no way healthy enough to sustain the blue catfish, however they sacrificed six thousand of them and then some curiously-undocumented other number of them knowing that they’d die immediately, or soon after. This so that, when and if the blue catfish winked into existence in Minnesota, there would be a stocking cover story in place to explain it away.
In 2001 or soon after, the blue catfish winked out of existence in Texas.
In 2001 or soon after, the blue catfish winked out of existence in Arkansas.
In 2001, Michael Kingree caught the Maryland state record blue catfish on the Potomac River. It weighed 53 pounds.
Why doesn’t the USGS table for the blue catfish in Maryland include the Maryland state record blue catfish from 2001?
The truth is that the blue catfish winked into existence in Maryland for the first time in 2001 at a threshold weight of 53 pounds.
In 2002, after existing there for just seven years, the blue catfish winked back out of existence in Kentucky.
In 2002, the USGS documented an example of the blue catfish in the Upper Mallory Swamp on the Lower Suwanee River. The University of Florida’s Jeff Hill verified it. He said “subsequent sampling found no more fish.”
Given that, from 2001 to 2004, the blue catfish winked out of existence in Maryland, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky and Kansas, we may infer that, after just six years in existence in Florida, it was on the way out of existence in Upper Mallory Swamp on the Lower Suwanee River, as well.
In 2003, the USGS documented an example of the blue catfish in Kansas, Republican River at Milford Reservoir. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport”. The status is “established”.
Reference 1 is:
Ref. Number: 27523
Author: Goeckler, J.M., M.C. Quist, J.A. Reinke, and C.S. Guy.
Date: 2003
Title: Population characteristics and evidence of natural reproduction of Blue Catfish in Milford Reservoir, Kansas.
Journal: Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science
Volume: 106
Issue: 3
Pages: 149-154
Comments say “reproducing”.
If there is was an established, reproducing population of blue catfish in Milford Reservoir in Kansas in 2003, as alleged by first author J.M. Goeckler in “Population characteristics and evidence of natural reproduction of Blue Catfish in Milford Reservoir, Kansas”, published in the journal Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science in 2003, , and the origin of those blue catfish was “stocking for sport”, then why isn’t Milford Reservoir mentioned in any of the
13 purported stockings of the blue catfish in Kansas in 1995?
I say purported because none of those 13 examples has any data as to how many fish were stocked, or dates when those fish were stocked.
If there is was an established, reproducing population of blue catfish in Milford Reservoir in Kansas in 2003, as alleged by first author J.M. Goeckler in “Population characteristics and evidence of natural reproduction of Blue Catfish in Milford Reservoir, Kansas”, published in the journal Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science in 2003, then why aren’t there any examples of blue catfish from Milford Reservoir in the historical record?
The Milford Reservoir entry in Kansas from 2013 is fraudulent. Instructively, it contains a reference to a scholarly paper published by a major educational institution.
It’s part of a fake paper trail put forward that year of stocking of the blue catfish in Kansas that did not, in fact, take place, put up as a bulwark agains the later appearance of the species in the physical environment there, in 2012.
In 2002, the USGS table documents an entry for the blue catfish in Kentucky, at Taylorsville Lake. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
When did the stocking of the blue catfish in Kentucky take place, and where, and in what numbers?
The comments say “Stocked since 2002; Burr and Warren (1986) say not present in the drainage; so not native; recent introduction.”
If the state of Kentucky stocked blue catfish in 2002, where did they do so, and in an what numbers?
Why did the state of Kentucky stock the blue catfish in 2002 if the blue catfish is native to Kentucky?
In 2002, the first ever and only Minnesota state record blue catfish weighed 52 pounds, 8 ounces.
If the source of the Minnesota state record blue catfish from 2002 is stocking in Lake St. Croix in 1977, then why or how did the Minnesota state record blue catfish travel 171 miles past two dams from Lake St. Croix to Lac qu Parle, within the context of zero blue catfish in Lake St. Croix, in all history, when that’s where all the fish were stocked?
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regional supervisor Huon Newburg said “in order to get from St. Croix Lake to Lac qui Parle, this fish would have had to get past two dams at Granite Falls. The best explanation is that it might have done that during extensive flooding when water skirted around these dams.”
The truly difficult thing to get one’s head around is that the the NPR-addicted acolytes of this dark and wholly-false religion will affirm to themselves that the explanation is precisely that.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regional supervisor Huon Newburg is using conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. We know that because we’re in the midst of a tortuous yet thorough article documenting the blue catfish in Minnesota in which there are no documented examples of the species in Minnesota, zero, until the state record came out of nowhere fully formed at weight of 52 pounds, 8 ounces in 2002.
Why doesn’t the USGS table on the blue catfish in Minnesota list the Minnesota state record blue catfish from 2002?
From 2003 to 2004, the North Carolina state record blue catfish increased in size by 3.6%, from 82 pounds to 85 pounds.
From 2003 to 2004, the 3.6% increase in size of the North Carolina state record blue catfish was 414% greater than its .7% average annual increase in size from 1999 to 2003.
The growth rate of the North Carolina state record blue catfish is continuing to increase exponentially, going forward in time. That’s not scientifically possible according to the Orthodoxy which holds that organisms grow in ever-smaller increments to a genetically-programmed maximum size.
The Orthodoxy of mean-spirited western materialism, which holds that there is no such thing as the ether, is false.
The truth is that the size, longevity and fertility of any organism vary directly with the health of its etheric environment.
If the USGS map shows that the blue catfish is native to North Carolina, and the USGS table documents a third-highest-on-the-list 21 examples of it there from 1995 to 2019, then why does a blueridgenow.com from 2003 by “Hank Panchyshyn” include a quote from North Carolina Fisheries biologist Richard Dorsey, who says “Although blue catfish are native to the Mississippi River, the Commission stocked the species in North Carolina in the mid-60s”?
Either North Carolina Fisheries biologist Richard Dorsey or the USGS is lying. I believe that they’re both lying. With the truth being that the claimed-but-undocumented stocking in North Carolina did not, in fact, take place, and, further, that the blue catfish isn’t “native” to North Carolina, given that the USGS’s first example of it there in 1975 came 75 years after it appeared simultaneously in Minnesota and Iowa in 1900.
From 2004 to 2010, the blue catfish in Florida increased in size by 96%, or doubled in size, from 32 pounds (Apalachacola River) to 63 pounds (Lower Chattahoochie River).
From 2004 to 2007, the North Carolina state record blue catfish increased in size by 4.7%, from 85 pounds to 89 pounds.
From 2004 to 2007, the average annual increase in size of the North Carolina state record blue catfish from 2004 to 2007 was 1.6%.
From 2004 to 2007, the 4.7% increase in size of the North Carolina state record blue catfish was 95% greater, or almost double the 2.4% increase in size of the North Carolina state record blue catfish from 2003 to 2004.
The growth rate of the North Carolina state record blue catfish is increasing exponentially, going forward in time. That’s not scientifically possible according to the Orthodoxy which holds that organisms grow in ever-smaller increments to a genetically-programmed maximum size.
The Orthodoxy of mean-spirited western materialism, which holds that there is no such thing as the ether, is false.
The truth is that the size, longevity and fertility of any organism vary directly with the health of its etheric environment.
From 2004 to 2006, the North Carolina state record blue catfish increased in size by 5%, from 85 pounds to 89 pounds.
From 2004 to 2006, the average annual increase in size of the North Carolina state record blue catfish was 2.5%.
In 2004, Mike Rush caught the Iowa state record blue catfish in the Missouri River. It weighed 101 pounds.
Why does the USGS table not include the Iowa state record blue catfish from 2004?
October 30, 2004, a blue catfish was documented by the USGS on the Apalachicola River. It weighed 32 pounds.
Since we’re in the midst of a scholarly article on the subject, we know that the blue catfish has just appeared in that physical environment, at a thin threshold weight of 32 pounds.
In the USGS comments, that sudden appearance is covered by the successive ruses of “not uncommon in river” and “escaped aquaculture in 1990”.
In 2004, the blue catfish winked into existence on the Apalachicola River in Florida for the first time, at a thin threshold weight of 32 pounds.
From 2005 to 2021, the largest blue catfish ever caught in New Mexico increased in size by 6%, from to 52 pounds, 1/4 ounces to 55 pounds. Field and Stream’s Tom Kerr omitted the date of the previous record and the percentage increase between the records, and said only that “Ordaz’s fish likely would have edged out the record”, falsely implying that the 2021 fish was just a tiny bit larger than the old. It was a 6% increase.
From 2005 to 2021, the average annual increase in size of the blue catfish in New Mexico was .4%.
From 2005 to 2017, the Georgia state record blue catfish increased in size by 38%, from 67 pounds, 8 ounces to 93 pounds.
From 2005 to 2017, the average annual increase in size of the Georgia state record blue catfish was 3.2%.
From 2005 to 2017, the 3.2% average annual increase in size of the Georgia state record blue catfish was 900% greater than its .32% average annual increase in size from 1979 to 2005.
The growth rate of the Georgia state record blue catfish is increasing hyper-exponentially, going forward in time. That’s not scientifically possible according to the Orthodoxy which holds that organisms grow in ever-smaller increments to a genetically-programmed maximum size.
The Orthodoxy of mean-spirited western materialism, which holds that there is no such thing as the ether, is false.
The truth is that the size, longevity and fertility of any organism vary directly with the health of its etheric environment.
In 2005, the USGS table includes an example of the blue catfish in Georgia, on the Altamaha River. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
If it is a stocking effort taking place in Georgia in 2005, then why is there no numerical data as the number of fish stocked, as the USGS provided in 1966 and 1969 in California? And, if it is, rather, a fish, why is there no data on that fish?
The 2005 entry in the USGS table for the blue catfish in Georgia is fraudulent.
In 2005, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in Murray Reservoir, in San Diego. It weighed 33.95 pounds. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
If the source of the blue catfish in the the Murray Reservoir is stocking, and the only stocking of the blue catfish on record in California is an identical 1,578 of them which were purported to have been stocked in Lake Jennings on the lower San Diego River, in 1966, and again in 1969, then why is there only one, single example of the blue catfish in the Murray Reservoir, in 2005, given that the the Murray Reservoir is just 16 miles from where thousands of blue catfish were stocked roughly forty years before?
If the blue catfish population was considered by the USGS to be “established” in the Murray Reservoir in 2005, then why is there only one, single example in the historical record of the blue catfish in the Otay Reservoir from 1966 to present, in 2005?
In 2006, the USGS table includes an example of the blue catfish in Georgia, on the Altamaha River. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport/stocked for food”. There’s no other data.
If it is a stocking effort taking place on the Altamaha River in Georgia in 2006, then why is there no numerical data as the number of fish stocked, as the USGS provided in 1966 and 1969 in California? And, if it is, rather, a fish, why is there no data on that fish?
In 2005, David Gower caught the New Mexico State record blue catfish. It weighed 52 pounds, 1/4 ounces, and was 43.5 inches long.
Why doesn’t the USGS table for the blue catfish include the New Mexico State record blue catfish from 2005?
If the blue catfish is native to New Mexico, as the USGS states, then why does the USGS list only three examples of it in New Mexico history, one in 1960, one in 2005 and one in 2021?
In 2005, after an absence of up to 45 years, the blue catfish winked back into existence in New Mexico.
From 2006 to 2015, the North Carolina state record blue catfish increased in size by 18%, from 89 pounds to 105 pounds.
From 2006 to 2015, the average annual increase in size of the North Carolina state record blue catfish was 2%.
From 2006 to 2008, the Maryland state record blue catfish increased in size by 2.4%, from 65.5 pounds to 67.1 pounds.
From 2006 to 2008, the average annual increase in size of the Maryland state record blue catfish was 1.2%
From 2006 to 2008, the 1.2% average annual increase in size of the Maryland state record blue catfish was 73.8% less than its 4.6% average annual increase in size there from 2001 to 2006.
In 2006, Josh Fitchett caught the Maryland state record blue catfish in the Potomac River. It weighed 65 pounds, 8 ounces.
Why does the USGS table omit the Maryland state record blue catfish from both 2001 and 2006?
In 2006, the Georgia state record blue catfish weighed 67 pounds, 8 ounces. The blue catfish has reappeared in Georgia after a 26 year absence.
From 2006 to 2008, the Georgia state record blue catfish increased in size by 11.1%, from 67 pounds, 8 ounces to 75 pounds.
From 2006 to 2008, the average annual increase in size of the Georgia state record blue catfish from 2006 to 2008 was 5.5%.
From 2006 to 2008, the 5.5% average annual increase in size of the Georgia state record blue catfish was 1,566% greater than its .33% average annual increase there from 1979 to 2006.
From 2006 to 2008, the 11.1% increase in size of the Georgia state record blue catfish was 26% greater than its 8.8% increase from 1979 to 2006.
The growth rate of the Georgia state record blue catfish is increasing exponentially, going forward in time. That’s not scientifically possible according to the Orthodoxy which holds that organisms grow in ever-smaller increments to a genetically-programmed maximum size.
The Orthodoxy of mean-spirited western materialism, which holds that there is no such thing as the ether, is false.
The truth is that the size, longevity and fertility of any organism vary directly with the health of its etheric environment.
From 2006 to 2007, the Georgia state record blue catfish increased in size by 11%, from 67 pounds, 8 ounces to 75 pounds.
Thus far, the greatest annual increase in size of the blue catfish in Georgia is 11%, from 2006 to 2007.
In 2006, James Franklin caught the Georgia state record blue catfish in the lower Chattahoochie River. It weighed 67 pounds, 8 ounces.
Note the claimed fish stocking in the Altamaha River in Georgia in 2006 and compare it to the actual state record holder on the lower Chattahoochie River in Georgia in 2006.
In 2006, the blue catfish winked back into existence in Georgia for the first time after its disappearance for up to 27 years since it was last documented in 1971.
Why doesn’t the USGS table list the Georgia state record blue catfish from 1979 or 2006?
In 2006, Josh Flitchett caught the Maryland state record blue catfish on the Potomac river. It weighed 65.5 pounds.
Why does the USGS table omit the Maryland state record blue catfish from 2006?
In 2006 the Georgia state record blue catfish weighed 67 pounds, 8 ounces.
In 2006, after a 26 year absence, the blue catfish reappeared in Georgia in 2006 at 67 pounds, 8 ounces, 8.5% larger than the 62 pounds at which it has last manifested there in 1979.
From 2006 to 2007, the Georgia state record blue catfish increased in size by 11%, from 67 pounds, 8 ounces to 75 pounds.
From 2006 to 2007, the 11% average annual increase in size of the Georgia state record blue catfish was 3,233% greater than its .33% average annual increase there from 1979 to 2006.
The growth rate of the Georgia state record blue catfish is increasing exponentially, going forward in time. That’s not scientifically possible according to the Orthodoxy which holds that organisms grow in ever-smaller increments to a genetically-programmed maximum size.
The Orthodoxy of mean-spirited western materialism, which holds that there is no such thing as the ether, is false.
The truth is that the size, longevity and fertility of any organism vary directly with the health of its etheric environment.
From 2006 to 2007, the growth rate of the Georgia state record blue catfish increased exponentially, going forward in time.
From 2007 to 2020, the average annual increase in size of the Otay Reservoir lake record blue catfish was .17%.
From 2007 to 2016, the Otay Reservoir lake record blue catfish increased in size by 4.5%, from 98.45 pounds to 102.9 pounds.
From 2007 to 2016, the average annual increase in size of the Otay Reservoir lake record blue catfish was .5%.
From 2007 to 2015, the North Carolina state record blue catfish increased in size by 2.2%, from 89 pounds to 91 pounds.
From 2007 to 2015, the average annual increase in size of the North Carolina state record blue catfish was .28%.
From 2007 to 2015, the .28% average annual increase in size of the North Carolina state record blue catfish is 82% less than its 1.57% average annual increase in size there from 2004 to 2007.
In 2007, Tyler Dodson caught the Georgia state record blue catfish in a private lake in Carroll County. It weighed 75 pounds.
Why doesn’t the USGS table list the Georgia state record blue catfish from 1979, 2006, or 2007?
In 2007, the Otay Reservoir lake record blue catfish weighed 102.9 pounds.
Why does the USGS table omit the Otay Reservoir lake record blue catfish from 2007?
In 2007, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in Otay Reservoir, in San Diego. It weighed 98.45 pounds.
If the source of the blue catfish in the the Otay Reservoir is stocking, and the only stocking of the blue catfish on record in California is an identical 1,578 of them which were purported to have been stocked in Lake Jennings on the lower San Diego River, in 1966, and again in 1969, then why is there only one, single example of the blue catfish in the Otay Reservoir, in 2007, given that the Otay Reservoir is just 28 miles from where thousands of blue catfish were stocked roughly forty years before?
If the blue catfish population was considered by the USGS to be “established” in the Otay Reservoir in 2007, then why is there only one, single example in the historical record of the blue catfish in the Otay Reservoir from 1966 to present, in 2007?
From 2005 to 2007, the blue catfish in California increased in size by 189%, or almost tripled in size, from 33.95 pounds (Murray Reservoir) to 98.45 pounds (Otay Reservoir).
From 2005 to 2007, the average annual increase in size of the blue catfish in California was 95%.From 2008 to 2015, the Florida state record blue catfish increased in size by 8%, from 64.5 pounds to 69.5 pounds. Alabama.com omitted the percentage, and said “Big blue catfish shatters Florida state record”.
Where Alabama.com’s Jeff Date walked the biggest blue catfish in the history of the state of Florida back to merely “big”.
From 2008 to 2015, the Florida state record blue catfish increased in size by 8%, from 64.5 pounds to 69.5 pounds.
From 2008 to 2015, the average annual increase in size of the Florida state record blue catfish was 1.1%.
From 2008 to 2015, the 1.1% average annual increase in size of the Florida state record blue catfish was 161% greater, or heading toward triple its .42% average annual increase in size there from 1996 to 2008.
The growth of the blue catfish in Florida is increasing hyper-exponentially, going forward in time. That’s not scientifically possible, at least according to the obviously-false Orthodoxy which holds that organisms grow in increasingly smaller increments to a genetically-determined maximum size, and that there is “no such thing as the ether.”
The truth is that the size, fertility, longevity, and very existence of any organism vary directly with the health of its etheric environment.
From 2008 to 2010 the Georgia state record blue catfish increased in size by 7% from 2008 to 2010, from 75 pounds to 80 pounds, 4 ounces.
From 2008 to 2010, the average annual increase in size of the Georgia state record blue catfish was 3.5%.
From 2008 to 2010, the 3.5% average annual increase in size of the Georgia state record blue catfish was 36% less than its 5.5% average annual increase in size from 2006 to 2008.
From 2008 to 2010, the Maryland state record blue catfish increased in size by 17.7%, from 67.1 pounds to 79 pounds.
From 2008 to 2010, the average annual increase in size of the Maryland state record blue catfish was 8.85%.
From 2008 to 2010, the 8.85% average annual increase in size of the Maryland state record blue catfish was 638% greater than its 1.2% average annual increase in size from 2006 to 2008.
The growth rate of the Maryland state record blue catfish is increasing exponentially, going forward in time. That’s not scientifically possible according to the Orthodoxy which holds that organisms grow in ever-smaller increments to a genetically-programmed maximum size.
The Orthodoxy of mean-spirited western materialism, which holds that there is no such thing as the ether, is false.
The truth is that the size, longevity and fertility of any organism vary directly with the health of its etheric environment.
From 2008 to 2009, the Ohio state record blue catfish increased in size by 68%, from 57 pounds 3.2 ounces to 96 pounds. I need to add that the “3.2 ounces insanity is a thinly-veiled gymnastic in which the important Illuminist number 32 is showcased.
In 2008, the USGS lists an example of the blue catfish in California, in San Vicente Reservoir. It weighed 113 pounds, 5 ounces. The notes say “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
In 2008, Steve Oudomsouk caught the California state record blue catfish at the San Vicente Reservoir in San Diego County. It weighed 113 pounds, 5 ounces.
Why don’t the USGS’s notes indicate that the example in 2008 was a California state record?
If the source of the blue catfish in the San Vicente Reservoir is stocking, and the only stocking of the blue catfish on record in California is an identical 1,578 of them which were purported to have been stocked in Lake Jennings on the lower San Diego River, in 1966, and again in 1969, then why is there only two examples of the blue catfish in the San Vicente Reservoir from 1966 to present, one in 1972 and a second in 2008?
If the blue catfish population was “established” in the San Vicente Reservoir from 1972 to 2008, then why is there only two examples of it in the historical record there from 1966 to present, one in and a second in 2008?
In 2008, the Florida state record blue catfish was caught by Bill Stewart on the Choctawhatchee River. It weighed 69.5 pounds.
Why or how does Florida have a state record for the blue catfish if the blue catfish is not native to Florida?
In 2008, after respective absences of up to forty and thirty three years, the blue catfish reappeared simultaneously in Florida and Ohio.
In 2008, the Georgia state record blue catfish weighed 75 pounds.
In 2008, Ron Lewis caught the Maryland state record blue catfish. It weighed 67.1 pounds.
Why does the USGS table for the species omit the Maryland state record blue catfish from 2008?
In 2008, Keith Setty caught the first-ever Ohio state record blue catfish, in Licking. It weighed 57 pounds, 3.2 ounces.
If the first Ohio state record blue catfish is from 2008 only because Ohio first allowed blue catfish to be caught only in 2007, because only then were they first removed from the endangered species list, then why was the blue catfish, which is native to Ohio, on the endangered species list there from 1975 to 2008?
Name the other state or states where the blue catfish is or was on the endangered species list, and document the years that it has been or was on that list.
In 2008, after an absence of up to 33 years, the blue catfish reappeared in Ohio at a threshold weight of 57 pounds, 3.2 ounces.
In 2008, the USGS documents an example of the blue catfish from the Hickory Tree Flat Slough on the West Pittman Creek, Choctawhatchee River, Florida. It weighed 64 pounds, 8 ounces and was 53 1/2 inches long. The potential pathway is “stocked illegally”.
Wait, what? In 1998, the USGS said that the original source of blue catfish on the Choctawhatchee was “escape of brood stock from private pond upstream in AL in 1993 during flood”. Yet, here, they say “stocked illegally”, which is it? An accidental escape, or illegal stocking?
From 2008 to 2010, the Georgia state record blue catfish increased in size by 7%, from 75 pounds to 80 pounds, 4 ounces.
From 2008 to 2010, the average annual increase in size of the Georgia state record blue catfish was 3.5%.
From 2008 to 2010, the 7% increase in size of the Georgia state record catfish was 35% less than its 11% increase in size from 2006 to 2007.
From 2008 to 2009, the Ohio state record blue catfish increased in size by 68%, from 57 pounds 3.2 ounces to 96 pounds. I need to add that the “3.2 ounces insanity is a thinly-veiled gymnastic in which the important Illuminist number 32 is showcased.
In 2008, the USGS table for the blue catfish in Georgia contains an entry for the Chattahoochee River above West Point Lake. The potential pathway is listed as “stocked for sport | stocked for food”.
Why is there no weight data on the fish that were collected, or on the number of fish that were stocked, if that’s what the completely-unscientific entry in the table documents?
The USGS’s 2008 table entry for the blue catfish on the Chattahoochie River in Georgia is fraudulent. It’s a completely false claim. It’s part of a paper-trail of false fish stocking propaganda which I am painstakingly documenting and refuting here. Propaganda whose false claims that were put forward to rebut the blue catfish subsequently winking back into existence in Georgia in 2009.
In 2008, the USGS table for the blue catfish in Georgia contains an entry for a private pond near Carrolton, Georgia. The comments say “former state record”.
The potential pathway says “stocked for sport/stocked for food”.
Stocked by the state, on a private pond? At taxpayer expense?
This is, by the way, this 2008 USGS entry documents the Georgia state record holder from 2007, only the USGS doesn’t mention that fact in the entry, nor does the entry record the weight.
Why doesn’t the USGS entry mention that the fish was a state record, or document its weight?
Why does the USGS table obfuscate the Georgia state record blue catfish from 1979, 2006 and 2007?
In 2008, after an absence of up to 33 years, the blue catfish reappeared in Ohio at a threshold weight of 57 pounds, 3.2 ounces.
From 2011 to 2013, the blue catfish winked back into existence in Texas, Arizona, Alabama, Kansas and Nebraska.
Jeff Miller, Libertyville, Illinois, December 19, 2022
