Laserfiche WebLink
Direct Control of Fauna <br />Table 20.1 Impacts of hatchery-reared sportfish on <br />wild fish populations (from Mamell 1986 <br />Introduction of pathogens and parasites <br />Hybridization, introgression, intergradation <br />Trophic alterations: <br />,Predation, cannibalism <br />Food competition <br />Spatial alterations <br />Territorial shifts, altered dominance hierarchies <br />Stress and aggression <br />Altered movements, temporal changes in activities <br />Altered growth and survival characteristics <br />Altered growth rates <br />'Changes in natural mortality <br />'Changes in vulnerability to angling <br />Displacement, replacement, extinction <br />native stock by adversely affecting the genetic <br />diversity of the native gene pools. The potential <br />disadvantages of this practice range from minor <br />interruptions in resident fish communities to <br />drastic changes in the aquatic systems including <br />major genetic shifts and even extinction (Table <br />20.1 ~ <br />,The debate about this issue is causing concern <br />amongst fisheries professionals in the USA. Some <br />scientists see the debate as counterproductive <br />and consuming so much energy that political and <br />economic decisions are being made without ad- <br />equate biological input, because scientists are <br />spending so much time debating hatcheries and <br />their effects on wild stocks (Martin et al 1992. <br />Again, the manager must balance many aspects <br />of fish production and riverine management be- <br />fore deciding if supplemental stocking is worth <br />the risk. In some cases environmental changes <br />have precluded natural reproduction of the native <br />fish so that the remnant population must be <br />sustained by plantings of hatchery fish. Moreover, <br />in an economic and social climate where fish are <br />essential for human survival, planting hatchery <br />fish over native stocks must happen when no <br />viable alternatives exist to provide the needed <br />protein. <br />Another risk, potentially lethal, is also associ- <br />ated with intensive aquaculture especially in <br />subtropical climates. Scholtissek (1992 has postu- <br />lated that the mixing of birds, swine and fish <br />farming sets in motion a process whereby swine <br />391 <br />act as mixing vessels in which lethal new forms <br />of human Type A influenza viruses are produced. <br />In summary, stocking can be an effective tool <br />in protecting and rehabilitating existing native <br />fish communities, and can provide increased <br />social and economic benefits. However, stocking <br />fish species which are more adaptable to surviving <br />in degraded aquatic ecosystems, without parallel <br />programmes to restore the degraded systems, and <br />supplemental stocking that degrades existing <br />native populations are two practices which are <br />incompatible with the objective of providing sus- <br />tainablebenefits from healthy aquatic ecosystems. <br />Stocking strategies <br />Several strategies are available to fisheries man- <br />agersusing stocking as a management tool. These <br />include selection of species, strains and life stages <br />which are best suited to meet management objec- <br />tives. An ecosystem approach to fisheries man- <br />agement requires that fish stocking only be <br />used as a tool to achieve balanced fish com- <br />munities. Fish community objectives should, <br />therefore, form the basis for identifying stocking <br />requirements. <br />Fisheries managers considering a stocking pro- <br />gramme should first evaluate the possibility of <br />using other management options. Increased en- <br />forcement, habitat rehabilitation, and harvest <br />control techniques are just three examples of <br />other management tools which are often cheaper, <br />less damaging to native stocks, and more effective <br />than stocking. <br />Species selection <br />Fish culture has played a major role in the intro- <br />duction or range extension of fish species into <br />waters in which the species did not occui na- <br />turally. While some of these introductions have <br />created naturally reproducing populations which <br />are generally deemed as beneficial to society, <br />others have resulted in irreversible damage to <br />native fish communities. For example, rainbow <br />trout (Oncorynchus mykissj, introduced to tri- <br />butaries to the Great Lakes, have provided very <br />large, self-sustaining fisheries, but in the process <br />have significantly reduced the range and numbers <br />