THE LAST CAST
•
JOHN NICKUM
Bait Bucket versus Mother Nature
W Q
hen non-native species are introduced into a new area, does it always cause trouble by upsetting the “balance of nature?” Environmental activists and most resource managers are strongly opposed to “bait bucket” introductions in which anglers take it upon themselves to add new forage species and/or game species, usually top predators, to their favorite “fishing hole.”
G A
enerally speaking; “it’s not nice to mess with Mother Nature;” however, we must remember that “change” is the most certain aspect of nature. The “balance of nature” is a human concept; an explanation and recognition of the fact that natural ecosystems stay largely unchanged over decades and even centuries. The species in each ecosystem and the relative numbers of species in the ecosystem remain in balance with other species as long as 200 – 300 years or even longer, unless disrupted by natural catastrophes or human activities. Energy and nutrients flow through balanced systems in functional and predicable patterns. Humans have become a wild card in the game we call the “balance of nature” by changing environmental conditions, over-harvesting certain species, and adding additional species. Are the human-caused changes always harmful? Are they ever beneficial? It’s extremely difficult to predict the effects of every change; therefore, many biologists take the position of “the less you mess with Mother Nature, the better.” Some biologists have even 48
High Country Angler • Spring 2020
developed mathematical models that claim natural ecosystems are as efficient as possible; therefore, any change introduced by humans will be damaging. Although I tend to prefer ecosystems that are as close to natural as possible, I recognize that change is inevitable, and I question some of the assumptions used in these “natural perfection” models. Humans have learned to manipulate ecosystems to produce particular species that they want, including the introduction of species not native to the system. Civilizations throughout history have relied on managing and manipulating ecosystems to produce the food and raw materials needed for their societies to survive and, they hope, thrive. I, and other resource scientists and managers always hope that such manipulations will not upset the natural balance or cause the extinction of vulnerable species, species that evolved naturally in the system. Unfortunately, the history of human attempts to improve on Mother Nature is marked with thousands of examples where changes resulted in unintended and unforeseen effects. Even when the desired results are obtained, the effort needed to maintain the new, unbalanced system is frequently far more than expected. Our entire agriculture system is based on production from non-native species; however, agriculture production requires major inputs of energy, as well as human time and effort. Simply introducing non-native plants and animals without additional energy and management efforts almost always results in chaos. This seems to be especially true in aquatic ecosystems where active management is more difficult than in terrestrial systems. Just adding something to system and walking away does not work. Managing an ecosystem to produce a spewww.HCAezine.com
