|
<br />..
<br />
<br />Although a number of species have become threatened or endangered
<br />because of over-exploitation and elimination as competitors with species
<br />desired by man, most species are jeopardized because their habitat has been
<br />destroyed or altered (Miller, 1963; Behnke, 1968; Minck1ey and Deacon, 1968;
<br />Fischer, Simon, and Vincent, 1969; Udall, 1970; Carter, 1973; Reiger, 1977;
<br />Myers, 1977; Holden and Stalnaker, 1975; Vanicek and Kramer, 1969). Histor-
<br />ically, decisions involving water resource development were made at all
<br />levels of government with little public involvement. In as much as the
<br />public has now become more involved, hm.,rever, and will continue to be
<br />involved in decisions affecting the environment (McEvoy, 1973) it is reason-
<br />able to assume that the environmental concerns of the public will be consid-
<br />ered along with other factors in the development and use of natural resources.
<br />Goldman (1973) believed that economic growth and environmental priorities
<br />. can be compatible if the social and economic needs of the people are balanced
<br />with the environment. However, Barkley and Seeker (1972:12) stated that
<br />IIcontrary to popular belief, economists have historically been skeptical of
<br />the long-run adyantages of economic grm.,rth."
<br />
<br />History provides many examples of man's indifference or ambivalence
<br />toward his fish and \'lildl ife heritage (Udall ,1970; Carter, 1973). If
<br />ecological consideration had been included, much of the destruction or
<br />alteration to the environment would not have occurred. If the stability
<br />of ecosystems is maintained, fish and wildlife resources are not damaged or
<br />destroyed. In the future, plans for management of entire watersheds will
<br />cincorporate environmental considerations (Hickman, 1975). In addition,
<br />. cooperation between the various state and federal agencies--and sometimes
<br />other nations--wil1 be required for management of fish and wildlife,
<br />particularly of endangered species (Greene, 1975; Schreiner and Ruhr, 1974).
<br />
<br />Recently, personnel at the Utah Cooperative Fishery Research Unit
<br />compiled an annotated bib1 iography, for the use of the Colorado Squa\'ifish
<br />Recovery Team, distribution, relative abundance, and ecology of fish and
<br />macroinvertebrates in the Upper Colorado River Basin (Wydoski, Gilbert,
<br />Seethaler, and McAda, 1976). As this reference was being assembled, it
<br />became apparent that other subjects should be included because they could
<br />have a direct or indirect effect on the aquatic environment, and conse-
<br />quently on the aquatic organisms that inhabit this river. Many of the papers
<br />included in that bibliography were used to prepare a summary of the present
<br />knowledge of the effects of various mana9&~ent practices on fish and macro-
<br />invertebrates in the Upper Colorado River, and to identify potential
<br />effects of future alterations in streamflow and water quality on these or-
<br />ganisms (Wydoski, 1977). These references further emphasize the application
<br />of the ecosystem approach to management of river basins. Cairns (1975)
<br />concluded that the protection of critical ecosystems appeared to be a sound-
<br />er management strategy than the protection of critical species.
<br />
<br />Cutler (1974) emphasized that agency information and education divisions
<br />need to involve the public in agency decision-making. He proposed that the
<br />public should be "adequately informedll about the social, economic, and en-
<br />viron~ental ir-?acts of practical alternatives regarding natural resources,
<br />so it can decide what it wants for its money. Kozicky (1969) stated that
<br />
<br />279
<br />
<br />'.
<br />
<br />~
<br />
|