7775

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7775
• Author: Carlson, C. A. and R. T. Muth.
• Title: Inland Fisheries Management in North America, Chapter 15
• USFW Year: 1993.
• USFW - Doc Type: Endangered Species Management.
• Copyright Material: YES

378

CHAPTER 15

funding gained primarily from license fees. However, the people have mandated
management and preservation of all fish and wildlife (Pister 1976). The rapidly
increasing demand for fish- and wildlife-oriented recreation will not be met unless
agency perspectives continue to move away from emphasis on game species and
improved fishing. Fisheries management programs need to recognize the inherent
values of native fishes, whether they are harvestable or not. Programs will evolve
toward that recognition only if practicing fisheries professionals are willing to
broaden their perspectives and fisheries students are exposed to new ideas. Moyle
et al. (1986) urged fisheries managers to study recent developments in ecology and
support ecologically orientated research. Meffe (1987) stated that education of the
public and professionals in values of biotic diversity and conservation of biolog-
ical resources would help to launch educational programs in fish conservation
genetics. The same can be said regarding educational programs in management of
endangered fishes in general. O'Connell (1992) stressed the need for scientists to
increase their involvement in legislating sound science and develop a bit of
political sophistication. Biologists should collaborate more with social scientists,
be prepared to present social justification of their work to the public, and quibble
less with one another. Public disagreements among scientists and overemphasis of
what is not yet known have led society to believe that science is uncertain about
some matters that are widely accepted or quite predictable. Johnson and Rinne
(1982) stressed the need for cooperation among biologists and management
agencies if recovery actions are to succeed, and Carlson and Muth (1989) have
argued that rancor needs to be replaced by cooperation and communication in
research on and management of Colorado River fishes. All must recognize,
however, that the conflict inherent in scientific pursuit of truth cannot be avoided.

15.6 REFERENCES

Allendorf, F. W. 1988. Conservation biology of fishes. Conservation Biology 2: 145-148.
Allendorf, F. W., and R. F. Leary. 1988. Conservation and distribution of genetic
variation in a polytypic species, the cutthroat trout. Conservation Biology 2:170-184.
Ammerman, L. K., and D. C. Morizot. 1989. Biochemical genetics of endangered
Colorado squawfish populations. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
118:435-440.
Ashworth, W. 1986. The late, Great Lakes. Knopf. New York.
Behnke, R. J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society
Monograph 6.
Behnke, R. J., and M. Zam. 1976. Biology and management ofthreatened and endangered
western trouts. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-28.
Brown, B. 1982. Mountain in the clouds: a search for the wild salmon. Simon and
Schuster, New York.
Cadieux, C. L. 1981. These are the endangered. Stone Wall Press, Washington, D.C.
Callicott, J. B. 1986. On the intrinsic value of nonhuman species. Pages 138-172 in B. G.
Norton, editor. The preservation of species: the value of biological diversity. Prince-
ton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Campbell, F. T. 1982. The Endangered Species Act: facing extinction? Environment
24:6-13, 39-42.
Campbell, R. R. 1988. Rare and endangered fish and marine mammals of Canada:
COSEWIC Fish and Marine Mammal Subcommittee status reports IV. Canadian
Field-Naturalist 102:81-86.
Carlson, C. A., and R. T. Muth. 1989. The Colorado River: lifeline of the American