A recent trend has become quite widespread in the field of biological science; restoration of “native” species. This has become quite prevalent in the fisheries departments of many states and it is rampant in many federal agencies; especially in the lands under the management of the Interior Department. By poison, electrofishing, gill netting, encouraging anglers to kill certain target species and recently by endeavoring to manipulate the fish’s chromosomes they are attempting to eliminate in favor of “native” species.
This is quite possibly the first article I have ever read that I agree with passionately from word one, to finish. Also, like yours, my first ancestor landed in Philadelphia in 1734, and settled a farm in Pennsylvania. And my Grandfather that encamped at Valley Forge was a native son. 
THANK YOU!
From the Free Legal Dictionary, and there is much more in the quoted article on the subject of capital “N” Native Americans. Interesting reading, if you are interested in such matters as the law and history.
"Native American Rights
In the United States, persons of Native American descent occupy a unique legal position. On the one hand, they are U.S. citizens and are entitled to the same legal rights and protections under the Constitution that all other U.S. citizens enjoy. On the other hand, they are members of selfgoverning tribes whose existence far predates the arrival of Europeans on American shores. They are the descendants of peoples who had their own inherent rights-rights that required no validation or legitimation from the newcomers who found their way onto their soil."
So I agree with Ralph that he is a native American, but not with Neil who claims to be a Native American. But I’m no judge and I’m not judging either position, and others can study the issue and make their own decision.
As to the article in main, about managing fisheries, Neil’s article is well written, informative, and presents a valid view point, and contributes to the ongoing discussion of which fishies are native and which are wild and which are both…
John
I believe I am correct in this: The Henry’s Fork of the Snake (especially The Ranch) is an internationally recognized blue ribbon fishery which touts large, wild Rainbow Trout. As I recall, there is a plaque at the head of The Ranch section of the river which tells that the “original” fish was the Cutthroat. I will try to verify my memory on this…perhaps someone else who fishes The Fork can clarify. Anyway, I think it is so interesting that an internationally recognized fly fishing section of this incredible river is known for a non-original specie of trout…
Just found this from Idaho Fish and Game:
"The Henrys Fork Snake River GMU supports only a small fraction of the YCT it did priorto the 1900s. The YCT population was prolific enough to support numerous commercial fishingoperations in the late 1800s (including Henrys Lake). The exploitation of these fish may havecontributed to their decline; however, it is more likely that concurrent aggressive stockingprograms utilizing rainbow trout and brook trout had more to do with the loss of YCT throughoutthe drainage (Van Kirk and Gamblin 2000). In 1958 and again in 1966, piscicides were used totreat the Henrys Fork above the Island Park Dam to remove nongame fish. In 1958, the riverwas chemically treated upriver to Mesa Falls while in 1966 it was treated to Ashton. The YCTpopulations were largely eliminated by these treatments downstream to Mesa Falls. Followingthe chemical treatments, rainbow trout were restocked in the drainage. In addition to the effectsof exploitation, exotic fish stocking, and chemical treatments, habitat degradation andfragmentation likely played a role in the loss of cutthroat trout populations. "
As I understand it, they are trying to re-populate the upper stretches of the Henry’s Fork…Tributaries to Island Park Reservoir as I understand.
Great article. I winced reading it, expecting the self-righteous purists to jump all over it, but so far, no outrage. That’s good, in my opinion.
Here are a couple of points to consider:
-With all of the emphasis on re-establishing “native” fish populations in Western trout fisheries, can you image if someone proposed removing Smallmouth Bass from Atlantic coast rivers? What about Striped Bass from the California coast?
-How do we know the Native American “Indians” didn’t move fish around from stream to stream? They spread corn, potatoes, and tomatoes all over North and South America. Surely they could have moved Brook Trout from Atlantic slope drainages to Gulf slope drainages, or vice versa, for example.
-What would New Zealand fishing be like if biologists there had the same attitudes as federal fisheries managers in the U.S.?
I love nature, the wilderness, and the outdoors, but I can’t help but think the modern American desire for “pristine” may be a bit misplaced. Here in Virginia, there is a “Wilderness” area where Federal law prohibits bicycles, motorized anything (such as chainsaws for trail maintenance) and roads, yet the area is littered with abandoned mines, mining equipment, railroad tracks, etc. It’s no more a wilderness than my backyard. Yes, let’s celebrate our wild areas and protect them. But let’s also not forget that none of this land is truly pristine. If we realize that, then we can discuss how best to manage the land for its maximum benefit, which in many cases may mean maintaining a longstanding Brown Trout fishery in North America.
I think it’s right on as far as I’m concerned.
As to Browns:
When were brown trout introduced to the US?
The first introduction of the brown trout into the United States was by the US Fish Commission in 1883 in Michigan State . In Michigan , brown trout eggs were raised at the Northville hatchery. The fish were then released into the Pere Marquette River in the Northern area of the state.
Introduced by…“US Fish Commission”
Aren’t cutthroats and brook a couple of the only trout specie not “brought in” by agencies or individuals who decided other specie “needed to be introduced”???
In a couple hours, I’ll be fishing on a Northern Rockies freestone creek.
From where I will be standing, it will be over 60 miles directly south to the nearest road - and that is a primitive one lane dirt road.
From that primitive one lane dirt road, it is over another 90 miles directly south to the nearest road. That one is paved.
At most points along that north south 150 miles, you would have to go 10 to 30 miles or so east or west to find a road.
It would take a self righteous purist to say that virtually all of that land is not pristine.
John
Just off the top - Death Valley for the most part, The Frank Church River of No Return almost in its entirety, The Selway Bitterroot also almost in its entirety, and The Bob Marshall also almost in its entirety, are truly pristine.
They add up to over 8,000,000 acres or over 12,000 square miles.
You could add most of the Grand Canyon for another 1,000,000 acres or 1800 plus square miles, not to mention many, many more huge tracts of truly pristine land in Washington, Oregon, California ( think about the Sierra Nevada Mountains ), Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, and New Mexico. Oh yeah, you can also find some truly pristine land in Colorado.
Get some good hiking boots, drive a suitable vehicle to the end of the pavement, or better yet, a dirt road, and explore the West.
John
P.S. Maybe someone with experience and information on Alaska will chime in ?? The time I took a flight half way around Denali and back, it seemed to me that most of what I saw would qualify as truly pristine.
John, yes, you are correct that there are vast regions of this continent still untouched by modern civilization, save for a few footpaths and wooden signposts. There are even a few so-called “old growth forests” left in the East. It is relatively easy to get away from high rises and interstates in this country, and to find an area of wilderness where the animals and the trees are in charge, and the humans are just visitors.
However, when I say “truly pristine”, I mean bearing no mark whatsoever of human civilization. Using the Grand Canyon as an example, the area was used for mining prior to becoming a National Park. Before that, American Indians lived in the canyon and left their mark on the rocks. Even now the river running through the canyon is greatly modified from its natural state by dams and runoff.
More significantly, there is probably not a place in the lower 48 that does not bear the mark of the fires that the Indians used to control their landscape. Because the Indians did not leave written records, and most of their civilizations were nearing collapse by the time of the settlers’ arrival, we don’t really know how much they altered the land. As you point out, Alaska and the far north may be one place that does not bear any significant mark of humans, particularly any parts that have been covered in ice since the Indians first migrated here. Other isolated areas that are nearly uninhabitable, such as Death Valley or regions in the Northern Rockies, may be relatively untouched.
Let’s protect the truly great resources and wild places of this country, before they become lost as has happened in much of Europe. But let’s also acknowledge the fact that the human history of this land did not start in 1872, or even in 1492. Doing so may free us to make choices about fisheries management that go beyond trying to make it look exactly like it did when the settlers first headed West.
Spoken like a “self righteous purist.”
Perhaps after you have put your boots on the ground and hiked in as many wild and truly pristine places as I have over the past thirty years, you’ll come to an appreciation of what actually exists here in so many places in the West.
John
OK everyone let’s keep this conversation civil.
I think sometimes it’s forgotten that excessive Human impact on the land is no less a part of nature than deer over-browsing a forest. We are not removed from the equation. We are part of it. If a massive herd of Buffalo found a lush ravine and squatted for longer than normal trampling the ground and over-browsing it, just prior to a 100yr storm where 15" of rain is dumped in a one week period, as nature can and does produce. The result would be massive erosion, mudslides, flooding…and a dramatic change on the face of the land. Yes, we are capable of having a much greater impact. And yes we have the capacity to know better. But we are part of nature. Our impact leaves a land no less “pristine” than any other force of nature. What do you think that village of prairie dogs thought after that endless herd of Buffalo came rolling in and stopped on their section of prairie? I bet they looked at each other and said “Well Harold, there goes the last of the pristine grassland we have!” Just Sayin’.
Great observation Ralph. Very insightful as usual.