“My hope is that with our sampling we can confirm or eliminate known fish pathogens, for example, largemouth bass virus (LMBV), as a source of the problem,” Smith said. “At the same time, I would hope that we would start looking very closely at the next most likely causes. If it turns out to be a new, undiscovered virus, the only likely way we will find that will be if it continues to spread through time to watersheds without some of the ‘issues’ that the Shenandoah and James have.

“This will probably be a very tough problem to solve, and it won’t happen fast enough for me, but there should be workable solutions out there. One of the big problems we are having in dealing with these fish kills is that the fish are not all dying of the same thing.”

Smith explained that most of the smallmouths and other game and non-game fish are dying from some type of bacterial infection, but it’s not always the same bacteria. For example, besides smallmouths, I observed redbreast sunfish, rock bass and several species of suckers with lesions. Other fish are dying of fungus-type infections and some are dying without any outward signs of a problem.

Smith believes the most likely scenario is that these fish are suffering from some type of immune system failure that then leads to secondary infections. In fact, the fish are behaving as if they have contracted something that operates on their systems much like HIV does.

The biologist added that the immune systems of the smallmouths and other fish become compromised and then contract an injury or affliction that they cannot recover from. It’s like, he said, the fish are dying from paper cuts. If their immune systems are the problem, then the next step will be to find what the disrupter is.

The possibilities are numerous: a virus (for example, LMBV or something new and undiscovered) or a compound coming into the watershed (poultry waste, endocrine disruptors, atmospheric deposition of toxic agent, metals, or combination of all these things). If it is a known virus, the biologist believes that state and federal biologists can find it. If it is an unknown virus, Smith said that the experts tell him that discovering a new virus usually takes four to five years.

“If it’s some compound coming into the watershed, then that will take a long time to narrow down as well, probably years here, too,” he said. “We are dealing with way too many possible variables to get a quick and easy answer. I think that some people have watched too much CSI and think you can solve these mysteries in an hour. That just isn’t the case.”

Smith said the James fish kill is “pretty similar” to the kills on the Shenandoah, but seems to be affecting more species on the James -- for example, fish as diverse as suckers and muskies.

One of the theories is that the increased transportation of poultry litter from the Shenandoah Valley into the James Watershed is behind the kills. Bill Tanger of the Float Fishermen of Virginia believes that there needs to be a map that shows the locations of poultry litter and poultry processing locations with an overlay of fish kill areas.

Shenandoah Riverkeeper Jeff Kelble of Boyce has dedicated himself to ascertaining the reasons behind the Virginia fish kills and has extensively looked into the concept that Tanger proposes. Through his research of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) database, Kelble has come up with these figures concerning the amount of poultry litter that has been transported from the Shenandoah Watershed into that of the James between 2004 and 2006.

Please note, emphasized Kelble, that there’s little record of transportation into the James watershed before 2004. But transportation “jumped up” in 2005 and then again in 2006, and none of the 2007 numbers are in yet. Also, note that 37.6 percent of all the litter was transported by professional litter transport services. None of them listed the nearest receiving waters as required, so for these two reasons the real numbers are much higher than what he has reported.