Laserfiche WebLink
<br />oJ24'36 <br /> <br />SECTION IV: NONNATIVE FISH CONTROL <br /> <br />Conflicts, Attitudes, and Progress <br /> <br />Implementation of control measures for nonnative fish would bring this recovery <br />need of the endangered species into conflict with established sport fishing interests in <br />some locations. The issue is sociopolitical, and thus beyond the formal purview of this <br />document, but an understanding of the potential for conflict must accompany any <br />proposal for control measures. <br /> <br />A recent survey of nearly 900 people in eastern Utah and western Colorado <br />reveals much about public altitudes and awareness about endangered Colorado River <br />fishes (Vaske et al. 1995). A majority (66%) of those surveyed were not aware that the <br />stocking of nonnative sportfish was detrimental to the endangered fishes. The survey <br />. also assessed altitudes about the extent to which the stocking of nonnative gamefish <br />would improve the quality of fishing. Only about 50% of the general public, elected <br />officials, and persons in environmental groups believed stocking improved fishing. but <br />69% of anglers believed that fishing quality was improved. When respondents were <br />informed that stocking harmed endangered fishes, 75% believed that stocking should <br />not occur. It is pertinent that the respondents lived in the area that could be affected by <br />changes in sportfishing policies, and it is anticipated that support for endangered <br />species would have been even higher if the poll had included the large metropolitan <br />areas of those states, or if respondents had been made aware that the potential loss of <br />sport fishing opportunities could be mitigated by opening new fishing areas. <br /> <br />The issue of nonnative fish control will have to be discussed more thoroughly in <br />the public arena. The public is insufficiently aware of the threats that introduced <br />species pose to the endangered fishes of the Colorado River system, and probably <br />almost entirely ignorant of the possibility that inaction will lead to irreparable harm to <br />the natural ecosystem. Awareness may be increasing now that some environmental <br />groups have expressed dissatisfaction with proposals to stock predaceous game fish in <br />the UCRB because they are concerned about potential threats to the native fish fauna <br />(Wigington and Pontius 1996). <br /> <br />The ramifications of the conflict between control of nonnatives and sportfishing <br />interests are felt acutely by the AFS. which strongly supports recreational and <br />commercial fishing interests. The society is being forced to make some very difficult <br />choices, but recognizes that "the integrity of ecosystems cannot be compromised to <br />achieve fisheries management goals. (Wiley 1996). In a recent position statement <br />(Starnes et al. 1996), the AFS asserts that fish introductions which have the potential to <br />affect threatened and endangered species "should be very carefully regulated and <br />ecological risk minimized: Furthermore the AFS recommends that potential effects on <br />the entire watershed be thoroughly evaluated prior to stocking (Starnes et al. 1996). <br /> <br />19 <br />