Fisheries management requires money. This should not stir men to debate. The research integral to sound management is expensive. There is a cost attatched to simply keeping conservation and management offices open and functioning. Enforcement remains a necessity as does it's associated costs. Varying from state to state, these expenses are met through various taxes and fees required of sportsmen.
Many local economies require angler's dollars. Some municipalities more than others. On a larger scale, state and provincial governments require this money as significant percentages of tourism budgets. Consequently, we see the direct tie between healthy regional fish populations and economics. Take away the fish and businesses close, relocate, or change. Though relatively simplistic, it is necessary to bear in mind the previous statements as infuences which have historically impacted fisheries management decisions.
It seems to follow, for the economically and politically minded management official that if 30% of a region's tourist generated income is contributed by anglers targeting largemouth bass, then it would seem prudent to appropriate about 30% of the fiscal fish and wildlife budget to propogating, rearing, and stocking largemouth bass, prefferably into the waters where sportsmen have arrived for generations with the expectation of catching largemouth bass. This thinking maintains a perpetual resource status quo. Such stocking practices insure the job security of local politicians who rely on the backing of local businessmen as well as that of anglers who comprise a significant portion of their electorate. This type of management is also expedient in terms of logistics. Numbers of fish are easily quantified for purposes of displaying a region's "conservation" prowess. The obvious reciprocation between money spent (hatcheries and advertising) and money generated (sporting goods, accomodations, taxes) becomes a goal in itself. This is a very generalized scenario, but it provides a simplistic picture of the planning that has shaped North American fish population management.
After moving to the state of Pennsylvania, my search for new fishing opportunities brought me to the wooded banks of a nearby stream. The stream seemed ideal from a distance. Although it was small, it was deep and fairly swift with trees providing shade for as far as I could see. I've watched this stream often and at whatever season I am there, the word that leaps to mind is "dead". Healthy filamentous algae is smothered by the tons of sediment blanketing the once-rocky bottom. This means no aquatic herbivorous invertebrates. Might as well scratch the predaceous ones too. In fact, I guess that leaves little to nothing for trout or fish in general to eat. Mussels alone are thriving in small disjunct colonies within this swift trout stream. Perhaps we have an ideal niche for drum and blue catfish. An unlikely scenario.
This stream was for me the tip of the proverbial iceburg, as I soon encountered stream after stream with the same anoxic, sterile silt blanket. How can this be true of a state which boasts such a rich and distinguished tradition of fish population management? Why is nothing being done to preserve such aquatic communities from being crushed beneath the weight of an unnatural sediment load? Can healthy fish populations ever again subsist here? I've heard that my aforementioned nearby stream teams with trout for a brief season of every year. That season coincides with the arrival of fish transportation vehicles and has a duration of about two weeks.
Has this become our limited vision of fisheries management for the century ahead? Can we afford to let a policy of habitat degradation offset by supplemental stocking remain the status quo? More importantly, is there a better way?
Change must occur at the most fundamental levels of our angling culture. Habitat-based policy is the broad answer to the problems we now face across the continent. I believe that fisheries biologists realize this. Now we must spread the word to the fishermen, without whose support our finest research is of no use. Full use must be made of multi-media resources to spread the doctrine of habitat-centered regulation and restoration. Every fisherman must understand that, for the long-term, fish come from a healthy ecosystem, not from a truck.