NATIVES
For the last several years it has become a cultural vogue in the fisheries departments across this country to eliminate so called “non-native” species in favor of historically native species. This policy has resulted in viable populations of fish being totally eradicated in favor of a species that were historically present.
Well said Neil. We always want to “fix” things that may not be “broken” Dick xfishcop
Neil,
Your comments reflect mine 110%. Thank you for more effectively stating your position in a far better manner than any of my previous efforts.
Ralph
… that is the question.
I had a PM from a friend who is quite close to both the NPS and Yellowstone NP who expressed ideas similar to those in Neil’s article. In that PM, he commented that “The Organic Act of 1916 provides the mandate for operating the nation’s National Parks. It reads, in part, as follows: to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic object and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”
I’m not at liberty to post the entire PM, but I can post my reply.
[i]"As I understand, or misunderstand, the reason for the change in the regulations - it is not a matter of science, but of policy.
Do we want nonnative fishies in the system, or not. And if not, live with the consequences, whatever they are.
If there are fewer or no fish in some streams that now support nonnative species, that’s an acceptable result from a policy point of view. If a particular fishery is lost, that’s the way it is. It seems to me that it is very unlikely that a reduction in the number of fishies available to animal life, if that actually happens, will have any noticeable adverse effect on the animal population.
The change in the regulations, as viewed from a policy point of view, will likely have virtually no effect on the operation of and visitation to the Park. All nonanglers will continue to visit. The anglers who go there for their traditions will likely continue to fish there. And some anglers who don’t presently care to fish in the Park may decide it is now something they want to do.
The folks that now go to the Park only to fish may decide the Park is a pretty cool place to spend time and continue to go there even if there is some dropoff, if that actually happens, in the action.
Change is scary. But good can come of it. But only if it is given a fair chance. If it is given a fair chance and the results are unacceptable, then change the regs to suit that reality, if that is compatible with policy. If there is real damage to the diet of the wildlife in the Park, just eliminate angling altogether. ( :evil: added for this post )
I see the change in regs as a positive thing, from a policy point of view, regardless of the science and the results on the ground ( water, in this case )."
[/i]A couple additional points considering Neil’s article.
First, I believe that the term “Native American” is a term of art, and that Neil’s comments fail to reflect that. A term of art is defined as “A word or phrase that has special meaning in a particular context. A term of art is a word or phrase that has a particular meaning. Terms of art abound in the law.” Native American, as a term of art, applies to the indigenous people of the Americas and their descendants.
It is common usage for folks in this country to describe themselves as natives of a State, for example a native Californian, or a native Iowan, etc. by virtue of being born in a given State. But that is a whole different matter than extending such use to claim being a “Native American” because one was born in the U. S.
Second, I think that if Neil took the other side of his hypothetical case and started with definitions of nonnative and nonindigenous, he would have a better chance of winning his case.
Third, the whole discussion of fish as a food source was almost certainly considered by the YNP policy makers who were responsible for the change in the regulations, and not considered important enough in the otherall scheme of things to not change the regs.
Fourth, a similar change in regulations by the Idaho Fish and Game folks regarding the South Fork of the Snake is an interesting precedent for what the folks responsible for managing YNP have done with their fishing regulations. It has been a while, but last I heard the removal of limits on rainbows and cuttbows and the specific request that anglers remove all such fishies from the South Fork has been producing the desired effect. The last I heard, there are fewer rainbows and cuttbows in the system and the native cutthroat trout are generally more numerous and larger.
In the for what it is worth category, it seems appropriate to mention the “standing” of public lands and National Park managers and personnel in the public view.
There is a lot of negativity toward those folks. I can’t say that a lot of that negativity is not well deserved, but I suspect that a lot of it is based on the specific agendas of folks generating that negativity for their own purposes.
My own experience and interaction with Park Service, Forest Service, BLM and State public lands and fisheries managers is very positive. Good, well informed, well intentioned people who enjoy their jobs, interact well with the public, and do the best they can within their areas of responsibility. I think most of them know a lot more about the issues they face and deal with than the members of the public who oppose and, in many cases, vilify them.
Finally, there has been some recent discussion of this whole subject on another thread. Those interested can follow the link to that discussion.
John
John,
I think your post defines the differences on both sides of the coin.
You would define or justify the discussion/decision with quoted regulations and Websters.
I would not.
Keep in mind, Websters has changed numerous times since 1828 and most regulations are of a partisan and political gene pool.
Native American? I have to agree with Neil. My ancestors all came here long before the revolutionary war. SO I consider myself a much “Native American” as any other…with the mode of transportation (ship vs land bridge) being the only difference. Definitions are often used both ways in order to support or refute a particular argument. 
Ralph -
The last person in Europe on my father’s side of my family’s history / geneology was a John Scott in Wales in 1745. My ancestors were also here long before the Revolutionary War. They migrated westerly over the years until jumping off in 1856 from Wisconsin to California via wagon train. I consider myself a Westerner and third generation native Californian, but not a Native American.
As an English Major in college and with a rather extensive background in legal matters, including understanding and applying the Supreme Court decisions of numerous states to fact situations that had to be resolved in my professional life, I do tend to look to the meaning of words and the law when thinking about regulations and such.
Anyway, thank you for respecting the fact that there are two sides to the discussion. If this whole thing was about a science based approach to any situation other than a National Park issue, I’d probably be sending kudos to Neil, also.
John
John,
All in good discussion.
BTW…you’re signature…“The fish are always right”…
They seem to be doing just fine where they are at…why remove them?
Ralph
Ralph -
I think the answer to your question “why remove them” as it pertains to YNP is found in one of the YNP webpages that I linked in the earlier thread on the change in the regs.
As far as the South Fork of the Snake goes, Idaho Fish and Game made that decision under the watch of a very conservative State Legislature and Governor. So yes, there was a conservative policy element to the decision.
I wasn’t privy to any of the actual discussions that led to the decision in Idaho. Some pretty well informed folks that I did talk to thought that the decision was driven, at least in part, by the Endangered Species Act, in terms of the fine spotted Snake River Cutthroat ( I think that was the species under discussion ). There was concern in some quarters that the threat to that species might trigger the ESA, which could have all kinds of unwanted consequences.
Some folks thought that Idaho Fish and Game’s decision was a proactive move to avoid those unwanted consequences. Others viewed it as an opportunity to maximize the numbers and size of the cutthroat trout as a fish favored by a lot of anglers on that system, for the economic advantages it might bring.
I think part of the thinking was that there was the other Fork of the Snake in Idaho, the North Fork / the Henry’s Fork, that would provide rainbow fishing to those who want to pursue rainbows. The North Fork was also “originally” a cutthroat fishery, but the practicality of removing bows from that Fork was probably considered nil, with really nasty public opinion and more serious economic consequences.
There is some irony, in one regard. By removing rainbows from a cutthroat fishery you also eliminate cuttbows. Cuttbows, in my experience, are the strongest, hardest fighting fish in the system, and combine the aerials of bows and the tenacity of cutthroats.
John
John,
I undertand the “why” they are addressing it like they are. Still don’t agree with it though.
My response actually was just a light-hearted comment on your signature.
Ralph
I wouldn’t dare have a signature that said “The fish are always left.”
LOL…Nice!
Eradicating a viable species that is thriving, after the environment has already adjusted to it is not just wrong, but borders on criminal. They are taking a chance on destroying an entire ecosystem because of some perceived notion of ‘purity’. Here’s a flash…you can’t go back. Even eradicating the newer species will not necessarily restore the waters to what they were before. The ecosystem has already been irrevocably changed, forever. All you do is even more damage.
By their reasoning, then we shouldn’t be allowed to fish for carp, brown trout (introduced from Europe in the 1880s), or bass and crappie (range greatly extended by stocking programs, making them a ‘non-native’ species throughout most of their current range). Oh, and cottontail rabbits would be also have to be eradicated, to the detriment of all the predators that have adjusted to having them for dinner. How about Nutria? Without them, hydrilla would choke off a lot of otherwise great fishing waters.
This madness needs to stop. We fund most of the so-called ‘conservation’ attempts in this country, and we should have a say in the matter. Write your elected officials.
Gig…just write TU. I am a member like many of us, and unfortunately they are driving the cart on much of this issue.
Ralph
This is certainly a hot button issue with quite the discussion for both sides. In Maine we’ve begun to see a distinction with “Native” vs “Wild” brook trout and that distinction is being used in the management and fishing regulations in those waters with in the state. I for one am a fan of the native fish species, and would prefer to have the native fish over the exotics. But I won’t turn my nose to them either, the way I see it the current species of fish are in the water systems and you may as well fish for them. I say maintain the status quo and do everything possible to prevent new introductions of fish species despite it being a losing battle. Agencies should be tailoring regulations to protect species if they are in danger of losing a species, but everything has to be a trade off.