Native & Biodiversity:trendy buzzwords or mission critical logistical ingredient for ecosystem stability? Excellent TED talk short film!!!!!

[Fish Sticks]

Why is biodiversity so important? - Kim Preshoff

Our planet’s diverse, thriving ecosystems may seem like permanent fixtures, but they’re actually vulnerable to collapse. Jungles can become deserts, and reefs can become lifeless rocks. What makes one ecosystem strong and another weak in the face of change? Kim Preshoff details why the...

ed.ted.com

If more people understood this our waterways would be magnitudes healthier, productive, and more stable. The relevance to the aquatic ecosystems we explore with a fly rod as anglers cannot be overstated.

Your average person or angler has a view shaped by their own personal experiences, fishing industry, or highly fishing biased volunteer groups. They are largely disconnected from the experts society has requested dedicate their lives to protect, understand, and restore our natural ecosystems.

The above video is extremely relevant ti the discussions we have on here about cold water ecosystems. Invasive species decrease biodiversity. Our current native brook trout management ignores the need for genetic diversity and is beholden to length of fish and density/recreational opportunity. If you loose “marginal populations” of brook trout on the land scape your losing valuable genetic diversity that is needed to allow the fish to adapt to stressors like climate change. We ignore that in Pa. These concepts are about as tried, true, and obvious in the fisheries science community as the sky is blue, fire is hot, and don’t pee into a strong wind.

However a growing number of anglers are spreading misinformation on the value of native species trying to convince you the word native is a trendy buzzword or some sort of lifestyle brand for human beings trying to be trendy. They ignore the fact that native species is the nuts and bolts of our ecosystem logistically critical for stability and avoiding the Boom and Bust ecological conditions that plague the great lakes prey base or Montana’s aleing invasive Brown Trout. Native species = co-evolved = interact sustainably= The ecosystem and your fishery doesn’t go Boom and Bust. Native species conservation couldn’t be anything further from trendy or a buzzword. Its how the world around us works. When he continually stock, protect, and promote in invasive species this world doesn’t work. The repercussions are far beyond what could ever be studied or researched.


When the paiute cutthroat was being hybridized off the planet it was fishery science experts who responded with rotenone and stopped this species from being lost from our planet. They didn’t get a quorum of anglers and use their ideas about conservation biased by fishing to craft a plan to save this iconic fish. Sounds ridiculous however why do we let these same untrained people completely drive buss ignoring prevention until we need the cure?

As anglers we can take pride the sporting achievement of what we catch and even admire it, native or invasive. However, we have to get out of conservation professionals way and stop hamstringing them with fishing. We need to stop listening to the loudest person in the room and start listening to experts sitting quietly in the back of the room.

 

[silverfox]

I think this is really at the core of the anglers as conservationists' paradox. I think there's this notion that no other cohort of humans has an interest in fish or aquatic conservation. So we rely on the angler demographic to support aquatic "conservation", but anglers' wants don't always necessarily align with proper aquatic species conservation. So the line between enhancing angling opportunities and conservation has become blurred.

For me, the most concerning aspect of this is that we've got T&E species, and species of greatest conservation need that have to take a back seat to other species that have no real conservation value. They may have social value, and in some cases limited ecological value, but in others, we're spending resources on the conservation of species that are directly harmful to T&E species and SGCN.

In my opinion, every conservation, or even management decision needs to be weighed against the impact on those SGCN or T&E species. In an ideal world, we'd throw everything we have at those species first and move on to less important species later. I really wonder sometimes what "greatest conservation" really means when we're spending all this energy on other species under the guise of "water quality improvement", or attracting more anglers to the sport with the theoretical end result of more "conservationists". What we really have is the perpetuation of a vicious cycle that is arguably beneficial to the right species.

There's not enough time and money to go around. We're putting important species in harm's way every time we spend inordinate amounts of resources on nonnative species or species that aren't on the SGCN or T&E list. We should be prioritizing the SGCN and T&E species over all else. The problem is, that those species don't necessarily benefit anglers in a lot of cases. Oddly, one of the SGCN is a sportfish, our state fish, and our only native (stream-dwelling) salmonid.

We've got people advocating for the protection and enhancement of nonnative fish. Those species don't need any help. They're not on any SGCN or T&E list, so why would we devote time and resources to them? What's worse is our state agency has obliged. Even more concerning is that there has been a lack of proper research, or consideration of existing research, into the impact on SGCN species through these regulatory changes.

This would all be fine if we were actually prioritizing our most important salmonid above all else given its listing on the SGCN list. Instead, there's an underlying tone that we should ignore that species and focus on other sportfish that are "more fun to catch". Or we're promoting angling through the proliferation of nonnative species that are in direct conflict with the SGCN species or even T&E nongame species.

Without providing too many details, I recently witnessed this prioritization issue firsthand. I reached out about a local project that could be used as a blueprint in dozens of similar cases across the state. This project will potentially benefit brook trout (via eventual reintroduction if successful) and other native fish species, as well as both aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna within the project's reach. This is a watershed-level restoration project and will be fairly easy to pull off. The reason I got no response for quite some time was that there was a habitat improvement project on a stocked trout and wild nonnative trout stream that was taking up all their time and energy and that they'd be happy to discuss this watershed level project at a later date. In the meantime, I've thrown just about everything I can at this watershed-level project and I think we're going to go forward soon on our own (with other important partners).

Imagine if we ALL threw everything we had at our SGCN and T&E species?