7809 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

environment. Eowever, changes in the atti- tudes and opinions of the American public will require re-establishment of priorities and decision-making policies (Biswas and Durie 1971; Fitzsimmons and Salama 1973; Luce 1973). Beginning in the early part of the nineteenth century, a movement betan toward preserving the environment in America, par- ticularly wilderness areas (McEvoy 1973). Later in that century (1871-1880), Congress created the U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries and several state legislatures authorized their own fishery commissions to investigate the decline in fish stocks (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 1962). Since the middle of the nineteenth century, surges and declines have occurred in the American public's concern for dis- ruption or damage to the environment. Sev- eral world wars and a major depression in- terrupted the American concern for the en- vironment that did not revive until the mid-1950's. Changes occurred in three indicators of environmental awareness: the media, voluntary associations, and the pub- lic (McEvoy 1973). Because of this renewed awareness, people have become more involved either as individuals or voluntary associa- tions in the conservation of natural re- sources. This public involvement with and concern for the conservation of natural resources has, in turn, had an affect on public officials in state and federal gov- ernments. As a result, several important pieces of legislation have been enacted since 1950 such as the Dingell-Johnson Act of 1950, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Anadromous Fish Act of 1965, Na- tional EDvironmental Policy Act of 1969, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend- ments of 1972, Endangered Species Act of 1973, ana the Federal Land Policy and Man- agement Ac~ of 1976. Many current laws can be used to pro- tect the fish, wildlife, and other natural resources if the public insisted on their implementation by natural resource agencies (Hickman 1973). Trelease (1976) emphasized that laws are mechanisms for getting things done for society and can be modified if society so dictates. The history and evolu- tion of national fish and wildlife la~s has been well documented by Bean (1977). New legislation that will effect the management of river systems has been enacted (Dewsnup 1971; Ford 1975). Perhaps the most effec- tive way to protect fish and wildlife will be through the use of several laws. For example, Schueler (1973) pointed out that the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, that provides for fish and wildlife conservation to receive equal consideration in connection with the planning of water resource rlevelopments, can be used effec- tively with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, that provides for pub- lic input and consideration of major alter- natives through the review of Environmental Impact Statements by state and federal agencies. Various guidelines have been proposed or implemented that will minimize the ef- fects of man's activities to aquatic envir- onments: drastically disturbed areas - Czapowskyi (1976); sediments - Leaf (1974), Nobel and Landeen (1971); roads - Dryden and Stein (1975); Haupt (1959), Kockender- fer (1970), Larse (1971); logging - Arnold, ~~nold and Associates (1975), Lantz (1971), Lawler (1971), Montgomery (1976); mining - Grimm and Hill (1974); riparian vegeta- tion - Johnson and Jones (1977); forest chemicals - Newton and Norgren (1977); wa- ter resources - Luce (1973); stream improve- ment - Hunt (1976), Migel (1974), Tebo (1974), Wydoski and Duff (1978); fish protection at water intakes - Huber (1974), Sharma (1973); and river basin planning - Kindswater (1964), wydoski et al. (1976). These guidelines can be modified for improvement as resource managers acquire the necessary knowledge to be more effective. Long before the public became aware of and began to participate in decisions regarding environmental issues, ecologists and other natural resource managers were aware of the detrimental effects of man's activities on fish, wildlife, and water. Today society has become involved and em- phasizes social and economical constraints that will dictate effective multiple use of watershetls and that will require thorough consideration of the ecological consequences of different uses. Some people believe that economic growth and environmental priorities can be compatible .if the social and economic needs of the public are balanced with the environment (e.g. Goldman 1973). However, others, such as Barkley and Secker (1972: 12), have stated that "contrary to popular belief, economists have historically been skeptical of the long-run advantages of economic growth". The opinions of people can apply to either of these schools of thought or fit somewhere between the two philosophies. Many examples of man's in- difference or ambivalence to his fish and wildlife heritage is recorded in history (Wydoski 1977b). Furthermore, most species that have become threatened or endangered are low in numbers because their habitats have become altered or destroyed by the ac- tivities of man, but a few species have be- come threatened or endangered due to over- exploitation or elimination as competitors that are desired by man (Behnke 1968; Wydos- ki 1977b). If consideration is given to maintaining the stability of ecosystems, fish and wildlife resources would not be damaged or destroyed. Intelligent manage- ment of ecosystems that involves careful consideration of possible impacts and alter- natives will insure maintaining vital aqua- tic habitats for game and nongame species and a better environment for man as well. Leopold's prediction of the future of fish and wildlife management in the United States was recently rewritten by Pister 69