One of the things we have learned in the last few decades of this century/millennium is the importance of the quality of where we live. We must have air to breathe and water to drink, more than just the kind that comes out of bottles. A few major toxic events have brought this home to the public at large. That sparkling blue marble that we see in pictures from space gets patches of brown and gray from time to time that signal trouble for the people who live here.
It is ironic that these are not new lessons. Earlier in this soon-to-be-over millennium, peoples of other societies recognized that they could be the purveyors of the dirt and grime that made their homes and workplaces unhealthy places to live. Cities had to learn how to manage their waste. Industrial centers had to find technologies that would avoid pollution.
Through it all, there was the hope, the certain knowledge that the vastness of the earth and our growing understanding of planetary physical processes and new technologies would ultimately give us the answer to maintaining the quality of where we live. But it has not proven to be so.
Instead, despite notable successes in some regions, we have spread the effect of environmental degradation across the planet. And we have gradually come to the realization that, given the demands we are placing on natural systems, the planet is not really all that vast after all.
So as we come to understand better the importance of the quality of the place where we live, think of the poor fish. They are even more dependent upon the quality of the places in which they live than we are. They cannot control any of the factors of the environment around them; they can only go to another place. They can chase their food, but they cannot cultivate what they eat. They are totally dependent upon the environment as it comes to them, rather than having something that they could do about it.
So if we are facing the difficult issues of how to manage the impact we have on the quality of the place in which we live, just imagine how difficult it is for the fish. Of course, in a metaphysical sense, we can always note that the fish don’t know what is happening to them, so who’s to care? Well, people should care. I have always felt that fish are important because they are valuable to people, valuable for food, valuable for recreation, and valuable for families’ livelihoods in many ways.
So then there is always the question: What can we do about it? State fishery agencies cannot regulate habitat quality. And to be sure, there are always lots of other important social and economic factors in the political equations that determine how habitat-affecting policies are arrived at and implemented. But it is not unfair for us, who are always telling fishermen that proper management should look at the long-term rather than the short-term benefits, to insist that others do the same when making decisions that affect ecosystems. Too often the critical economic benefit from a project is short-term; and, in the long run, the project may be unwise.
We must keep talking about the issues. Even if we cannot control the decisions, we can keep the focus on the real issues and on the long-term. We cannot let people forget the full scope of the impacts they are causing. And the strongest voices here will not be the agencies. They will not always support their political leaders with short-term agendas, as they must. They can provide information and press to a certain limit. The really effective spokesmen for fish and their habitat will always be fishermen. A note to them: Do not wait for the government agencies to show the way. We are often very limited. Take habitat issues seriously, be firm, be persistent.
Anyone who cares about fish, must also care about the places in which they live. RWOL
Reprinted with permission from Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Fisheries Focus, Vol. 8, Issue 7, July 1999
© Copyright 1999- , Anglers of the Au Sable, Inc. All rights reserved. Last modified: January 17, 2002
