This past week I had the privilege of attending the Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society’s state meeting in Great Falls. As a student, it was an awesome opportunity to get some face time with our state’s leading fisheries professionals and a chance to get a look at work I could be doing for a career. After three day’s time at the Best Western in Great Falls, I was surprisingly left with more questions than answers.
With the rise of environmentalism in the United States, protecting the environment has literally become an international, multibillion dollar industry. One only has to look as far as Trout Unlimited, a grass roots organization founded in Michigan in the 60s, which now has regional offices around the country and more than a few fulltime employees. What disturbs me though, something that caught my attention at the conference, was how caught up as conservationists and fisheries managers we are with with the specifics.
It doesn’t come as a surprise that scientists tend towards the specific, it is their job. But the majority of the work presented at the conference was very narrowly focused. Given the rigorous scientific hoops needed to get anything done through government, it is not surprising that our state and federal science projects tend toward specific and more easily controlled study areas and subjects. The thing that has me worried though is the work it takes to say fish acts or lives a certain way takes away from the action that can be taken to help preserve or distracts from areas that need more pressing attention.
Let’s look at a case study
The fate of the westslope cutthroat has been long on the radars of fisheries biologists and conservationists in Montana. This iconic species is threatened by hybridization from invasive rainbow trout, competition from other fishes such as brook trout, and loss of habitat from a number of sources. What is disturbing though was the fact that, of six twenty minute presentation one morning, probably four were on the fate of this fish, which we have a fairly good idea of already. We know what threatens the cutthroat, the type of environment they live in, and that there isn’t a lot of stopping the factors that threaten them. Yes, for sure, we need to minimalize the impact of these factors on the fish, but is it really worth all the money we throw towards conserving a fish, at least in this area, whose fate is pretty much sealed? Now, in areas like certain forks of the Flathead, there is a different scene playing out, and I will note that many presentations centered on areas where strong populations exist. But, we know, true breeding lines of cutthroat are mostly contained in headwater areas, in streams that aren’t large, are sometimes spatially disconnected by blockages, and survive better than most salmonids in a fire prone environment. A lot of science too, is saying that the resulting generations of hybrids between rainbows and cutthroat are less fit. But given these circumstances, we would expect these fish to either be less competitive or to establish themselves as more fit, and then as a more sought after gamefish, in subsequent generations. So why are we spending thousands of dollars to reaffirm these known facts in different waterways, whether it be the Bitterroot, the Flathead, or the Yellowstone?
Now, this is not the only case of its type. These same applications are being used on bull trout, steelhead, and pacific salmon. I will be the first to admit that it would be stupid to jump into conservation and preservation without knowing a good amount about the species of concern. In the same right though, we cannot wait to gather all the facts before we get something serious done. For example, we know steelhead in the lower 48 are generally facing dire straits. Rather than study the fish system by system, setting escapement numbers and harvest limits that are extremely hard to control for; pass legislation that will take a holistic approach and that will require tribes and sportfisherman to meet stringent guidelines. The conservation of fish has less to do with what we need to know and control for and more to do with action. What I was disappointed to find at the conference was the lack of a large scale action by professionals
I am hesitant too, to blame fisheries biologists. It is instead the system of requiring such specific data in order to prompt action that limits the field of conservation biology. Again, I will admit this is the way of science.
But, let’s look at this on a broader scale. There are still fish populations out there that are wholly viable, some of which are rather unknown. Why not preserve those now? Conduct the research necessary to profile the system and then lock it up from invasives, disease, and environmental degradation the best we can, rather than fighting an uphill battle that will cost much more money and time in the long run. And for those species that are threatened, perhaps we need to cut our losses, accept change in some areas, protect others, and move on. Pike in the Clark Fork are here to stay whether we like it or not. While for a time they seriously wreaked havoc on the system, they have settled into more realistic numbers and have established themselves as an interesting divergence from trout fishing. This happened from both man made acts and from the natural processes of Mother Nature herself. We need to let both work hand in hand. I doubt we will fully lose true strains of westslope cutthroat, but we might need to cede defeat when it comes to catching hybrids in our larger and less remote rivers.
What it comes down to, as in most situations, is the lack of people wanting to change. The westslope cutthroat is western Montana’s iconic trout, but we need to recognize our influence here has changed the game in ways that are irreversible given the current attitude. Unless we are willing to move back to the East Coast and let the system balance itself over the next few decades we will have to accept our role in the dynamics of fisheries ecology and see to it that we adapt just as the environment will over time.
Learning Goals:
1. 1. As much as I have made it sound, fisheries biologists are not the villains! They are smart, work hard, and care more about our natural resources than any group of people I’ve been honored to be a part of.
2. 2. In some instance it may be better to put down the rod and pick up a shovel. Try and minimalize impact while taking advantage of our beautiful waterways.
3. 3. Saving cutthroat is important, but so is taking care of our other fishy friends, especially those who still exist as they always have regardless of the heavy handedness of expansion in the west.