7366 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Aquatic Sciences adoptcd by the American Fisheries Society in \ \)72. is br supcrior to the eviscerated set adopted by the American Fish- eries Society in 1986. Additional guidelines should be gen- erated to assist in following the procedure. Of great importance is the model provided by Ihe Colorado River Wildlife Council. ~ which involves all appropriate agcncies and interest groups in the various jurisdictions in the Colorado River drainagc basin. Similarly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicc consistcntly re- quests commentary from statcs, intcrest groups. and citizcns on introductions to reestablish endangcri:d species in historical ranges from which thcy have been cxtirpatcd. As man continues to alter the aquatic environment and as aquaculture expands, it becomes urgent to study fishes that would be brought to this country (even if they are to be kept in so-called controlled situations as aquaculture ponds) and the diseases and other organisms which accompany them. The failure to attach importance to fish diseases, as noled in the action of thc Amcrican Fisherics Society's deletion of this plank in their previously accepted policy statement on introduced fishes, is to be deplored. Various procedural schemes can be devised. but all will in one way or another include the basic steps outlined by Cour- tenay and Robins.2 No procedure is stronger than its weakest provision and, in our view, the one absolutely vita! step in any plan is that calling for [!eer review. Agency personnel must not have sole authority to review and approvt: tlH:ir own plans for introducing animals. The political pressures which can arise t when biologists are asked to review plans proposed by their i superiors should be obvious. " In the examples discussed previously, we feel that the case for the zander and the Amur pike would have failed because native species, namely the walleye and northern pike, respec- tively, fill the same niches and recreationalneed~ and that the introductions can succeed only at the expensc of their native congeners. The rationale for the Amur pike was especially weak and was duly criticized by Stroud.'xl The zander raises an additional serious issllc and that is the possible modification of the gene pool of a native population through introduction of other subspecies or closely related spe- cies or hybrid stocks. A caveat should be added under "Ra- tionale" in any set of procedures cautioning especially against mixing populations of a species and urging that study of pro- posed introductions of closely related or sister species should include study of genetic compatibility and potelllial hyhridi- / zation. Genetic swamping was cited as one of the reasons fIn the extinction of the blue pike.''' Use of hybrid stock is very worrisome since a degree of genetic compatibility is obvious. Presumably, genetic differences as evidenced by subspecific recognition implies adaptive shifts in different regions.92 For example, introducing the Florida largemouth bass (Micropterlls salmoides floridall/ls) into Texas, where northern largemouth hass (M. s. sal/lloides) oecur naturally, is (0 engage in genetic experimentation without any knowkdgt: of the const:ljucnces. I n fact. as lscly ct al. '1.\ stated. .. . . . thi:-; pcrCunnan:...:c or northern largemouth bass uCillonslr;:tcs the potcntial l1~irni that can arise froli1 introducing stocks offish into v,aters Ol;[sidc their native ranges." The lInpianned establishment of a:: i:1- tergeneric hybrid of largemouth b;lSS and bluegill (LcJ!u/::is /I1ocrochirus). the so-called blue bass7" resulting from intr()- duction of both parental species, has attracted much interest. Despite the fact that the parent species coexist in their n;H;\C~ range over moq of the eastern U.S.,')!").) no hybrid is knco;,n ncept from IIawaii70 Interest is growing in this hybrid stock, which, in our vie\\/, should not be permitted to be introduce,i anywhere in the natural range of either parent species. Onc problem facing those opposing such an introduction is that this hybrid is by definition neither an exotic nor a transplanted fish% and, thus, is excluded from most sets of procedures. The ~ 1\mur pikt: allords ~lI1other case of possible genclic miscegs'n- ation. As Isdy cl al."\ ~lOted. "Fisheries managers IllUSt de- termine the long-tcrm c1lccts that such introductions witl havc on recipient populations before genetic damage from these introductions occurs." Texas has clone much bctler in their study of Lalcs. although they at first turned away from the recommendation of their rest:arch te;Ull. In the case of (he Salton Sea, good results may have been compromised by rc- leases of Ti{oflia by water management persons not involved with managing the fisheries. In introducing animals, without following est~;hlishcd pro- cedures with built-in chec!-;s. we commonly create more pmb- ]ems than we solve. As noted by Moyle et aI.. II) "., .These problems stemmed from focusing on the solution to a n,:rrowly perceived problem without considering how the su!ution would fit into society at large. " This they termed -'The Frank- enstein Effect". 1\ good st:t of procClliir;tl dicta should ensurc 1kit ill ;i(- tempting to solve one, frequcntly local. problem tlmalgh in- troduction of animals that potential consequences to the !~ati\c fauna arc considered and that they are considered on a long- term basis throughout the area over which the introduced spc- cies may disperse. Good studics require time ;uld ;noncv ;LlliL will often result in a neg;i1ive recommcndation. j\~en~U]j.l p;:;;gram heads will '!cnerall y not 'endnrse such l:"\ l'enll i tll 1'0. lthout a willingness to dn whatever is necess;lry t;) gl:! illC best information, past procedures which ;Ile den1(1I~Slr;jbly i:l- adequate will continue. Estahlishment of intcrjllrisdiction;d ;:nd interagency councils and peer review is the (JIlI1' way 1)1" cn- smin); Ihal propcr pi'OCCdllll:S arc followed alHI 11:;11 1l1i:111;in agemcllt and no managcment will givt: way to guml maJl- agement. Nevertheless, even with such councils alld peer rc- view, states may choose to ignore rccoml11cnda:ion:; and do whatever they please because there arc no enforccmcnt pro- cedures within the fisheries prorcssion, or between statc:s and! or provinces. Political decisions orten su 1ersede envirol~~ ethics or approved proCC( ures of profess~~_~J: councils iu hiolo1~ic;d 111;lltcrs. 1989 1 ()~)