Monster Goldfish Found in Lake Tahoe

Aquarium pets are showing up in some unlikely places, and that’s bad news for native species

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

A new kind of lake monster has been found, in the depths of Lake Tahoe: gigantic goldfish. Researchers trawling the lake for invasive fish species scooped up a goldfish that was nearly 1.5 feet long and 4.2 pounds.

"During these surveys, we've found a nice corner where there's about 15 other goldfish," environmental scientist Sudeep Chandra of the University of Nevada, Reno, told LiveScience. "It's an indication that they were schooling and spawning." The arrival of the fish, which were probably dumped there by aquarium owners, has Chandra worried — goldfish are an invasive species that could interfere with Lake Tahoe's ecosystem.

It's unclear whether the giant fish were introduced as fully grown adults, or while they were still small, Chandra said. But even a small creature can have a big impact, if there are enough of them.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The goldfish are just one of several species of invasive warm-water fishes in Lake Tahoe. "The invasion is resulting in the consumption of native species," Chandra said. What's more, the invasive fish excrete nutrients that cause algal blooms, which threaten to muddy Tahoe's clear waters. [Photos: Giant Goldfish & Other Freaky Fish]

Fish out of water

Aquarium dumping has become a common practice in the United States and elsewhere, and it's taking a toll on native wildlife. A recent reporton California's aquarium trade found that fish owners and importers are introducing hardy, nonnative aquatic species to California waters. "Globally, the aquarium trade has contributed a third of the world's worst aquatic and invasive species," Williams, who was lead author of the report, told OurAmazingPlanet, a sister site of LiveScience, in January.

While the exact number of aquarium owners dumping fish is unknown, scientists know the practice is occurring because these species could not have ended up in these waters naturally. Between 20 percent and 69 percent of fish keepers surveyed in Texas admitted to dumping, according to Williams.

Other ways that invasive species find their way into natural ecosystems include aquaculture, live seafood, live bait, and fishing and recreation vessels. More than 11 million nonnative marine organisms representing at least 102 species arrive at ports in San Francisco and Los Angeles alone, Williams has found.

The invaders include tropical fish, seaweed and snails. One of the nastiest is a deadly type of seaweed known as Caulerpa. A type of algae that produces toxic compounds that kill off fish, Caulerpa was eradicated in 2000 (at great expense) from lagoons in Southern California.

Aquarium owners should be more careful when disposing of unwanted fish and other animals, Williams cautioned. "It's pretty simple: Don't dump your fish," she said. Instead, she suggests calling the pet shop that sold the fish or your state department of fish and wildlife. (Euthanasia is another option, but simply flushing fish down the toilet can be problematic — for the fish and for your plumbing.)

So why do people dump fish? Studies of dumping have shown that size and aggressiveness of the fish are two main factors, Williams said.

The largest pet goldfish, according to the BBC, was a fish named Goldie that was 15 inches (38 cm) long and weighed more than 2 pounds (0.9 kg).

Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Tanya Lewis is senior desk editor for health and medicine at Scientific American. She writes and edits stories for the website and print magazine on topics ranging from COVID to organ transplants. She also appears on Scientific American’s podcast Science Quickly and writes Scientific American’s weekly Health & Medicine newsletter. She has held a number of positions over her nine years at Scientific American, including health editor, assistant news editor and associate editor at Scientific American Mind. Previously, she has written for outlets that include Insider, Wired, Science News and others. She has a degree in biomedical engineering from Brown University and one in science communication from the University of California, Santa Cruz. Follow her on Bluesky @tanyalewis.bsky.social

More by Tanya Lewis

LiveScience is one of the biggest and most trusted popular science websites operating today, reporting on the latest discoveries, groundbreaking research and fascinating breakthroughs that impact you and the wider world.

More by LiveScience

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe