There is no justification for the annilation of any fish specie.

Joseph, Why? I’m looking for some substantive logic and reasoning so we (a community) can discourse on the subject.

Cutthroats are in danger of extinction because of the actions of and interference of mankind.  Introduction of new and competing species, building of dams blocking access to spawning grounds, destruction of habitat and dewatering to name just a few.

Could one not a just as easily argue that we not try to counteract the effects of global warming and allow the possibility of the potential extinction of mankind and thus benefit the planet in the name of the greater good?

Many are involved in the current efforts to “save the planet”-would that not also include the cutthroat?

Hope that makes sense, I’m no professional either.

Harry,

Thanks for dropping by. Here’s the real question (I just went and changed it on the original post to make it slightly more clear): No species (I’m just using cutthroat because they are my favorite) need protection unless the protection of that species serves a greater good to humans than the benefits derived by not protecting them. Why shouldn’t I believe this?

Did that make sense, or do I need to clarify something? It’s one of those things that is clear in my head, but just might not be coming through the keyboard the way I want it to.

Scott,It was clear enough, that is why I went in the direction I did. 

Does mankind deserve protection? Does the protection of that species serve the greater good of the planet?  Sort of an expansion upon your original question. The difference is we have the ability to protect ourselves-many species don’t including cutthroat that you used as your example. 

If we use that ability to protect ourselves for our greater good, do we not then have an obligation to use that ability to protect all species for the good of all?

To throw it back to you-why should I not believe this?  It’s an interesting question, but not a new one I think.  In a sense, that basic question is at the heart of most conservation issues.

Harry,

“It’s an interesting question, but not a new one I think. In a sense, that basic question is at the heart of most conservation issues.”

Agreed, it is not new. The intriguing part for me is, has the question been satisfactorily answered? Where do I stand? Where do most fishermen stand?

Do we want to preserve our favorite fish because, well, because we want it? If more fishermen want rainbow trout in the river and not cutthroat, according to utilitarianism, it should be rainbow. Shouldn’t I then stop fighting for my cutthroat?

If they want to put dams on a salmon river, which will destroy the native fishery, but the dams will supply more irrigation and power for humans, isn’t that what should be done?

“If we use that ability to protect ourselves for our greater good, do we not then have an obligation to use that ability to protect all species for the good of all?” and “To throw it back to you-why should I not believe this?”

Why you shouldn’t believe you have such an obligation will be discussed in one of the upcoming posts (I hope–it’s on the docket). But for now, what obliges us–why do we have such an obligation? How do all species provide good to all?

A Taoist view might hold that no matter how ‘bad’ things may appear, in the upper case REALITY, where there is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’, East or West, everything is really as it should be. And I like that.

But, strapped in flesh, I don’t quite feel spacious enough to surrender to that view and live by it. Instead, I tend toward the hedonist arguement. And maybe a little from each of the arguements offered.

We all choose to serve something.

And, I think, as Harry points out, that the whole thing must be viewed from the perspective of a human population that is peaking, and having a measurable negative effect on the other species we live with.

Perhaps, as a result of our own burgeoning population: the impulse to preserve or steward is a natural disposition (?)

Maybe better to err on the safe side and try to preserve the natural diversity of species. (Viva la differance!) 

I probably veered off the tracks; but it is an intrigueing question.

Hi Curly!

I’m not too up on the Taoist views, so thanks for that idea. It does make it nice to think that no matter what, it’s as it should be. Yet unsatisfying in thinking that this is as good as it is, there’s no reason to make it better.

I also like that thought about it being “better to err on the safe side” because that recognizes that no matter which choice we make, there will probably be some sort of erring.

Joking aside, Scott, I think there is an impulse behind your question that exists beyond syntax and constructs of language. A “feeling”. Hard to put in words. Is it the subject? Or the writer’s (observer’s) attachment to it? 

It is both.  

Why would anybody want to preserve a natve trout species?

Lots of reasons. Not the least: because when we find ourselves alone on the stream in connection with them, we see they are connected, like infinite fractals, to everything else, to eternity. And we see that these wild fish are the antithesis to chaos. And all is well if they are present. And the observant fisherman knows this. He knows in his heart that maintaining the balance is the right thing to practice. 

Thanks Curly, I like your thoughts.

How about the inherent ecological value of each individual species? Bonneville Cutthroat are highly adapted to their specific watersheds, evolved to feed on certain species and survive in fluctuating environmental conditions. What if planter rainbows throw the watershed out of balance in some unforseen way, or are more susceptible to disease? Studies have shown that hatchery steelhead are a poor substitute for native fish here in Oregon and hatchery fish degenerate to the point of not even being viable enough to return to their home-sweet-concrete tubes afer just a few generations. Also, I’m no agriculural expert, but my guess is that there are less environmentally sensitive areas that could be farmed more efficiently. There doesn’t have to be a choice between farms and farmed fish.

Humanity is unique in its ability to think & reason. Which is not to say that others species do not negatively impact ecosystems. Any one who has studied predator prey models knows that when an ecosystem is out of balance then there can be catastrophic impact. The prey species can over consume the local resources causing a population crash or local extinction event as well the predator species can cause when their number become excessive.

Nor can we say that humanity is the cause of the extinction of the majority of species across this planet’s history. There is evidence of numerous mass extinctions in the fossil record which indicate that at various times in the past over 95% of all biota on the planet has perished.

I have participated in the past on the discussion of why we think it is better to operate the Flaming Gorge dam as a trout fishery instead of regulating it to favor the population growth of the humpback chub and squawfish/pikeminnow (pc) and all those discussion have proven is that we as fly fisherman are a pretty self serving group. We try to be environmentally correct as long as it favors our “pet” species (in this case trout), but heaven forbid we should promote the restoration of an endangered species over the detriment of an artificial trout fishery.

Cutthroat serve a specific niche in their ecosystems and are generally more readily available during their spawning phase, due to where and when they spawn than other invasive trout species (specifically lake trout, but also rainbow and brook trout). They serve as the basis for the food chain for ursinids, raptors, and small canids in the Yellowstone ecology and probably did the same in SE Idaho, and Utah to a much greater degree than now, back when there were larger populations of bears and other piscivores (and trout) in the respective areas. 

Though they have served as the basis for the food chain in areas, life on Earth has proven adaptive and the species that are now specialized cutthroat hunters can either adapt or be replaced. To the planet on a geological scale, it probably make little difference, but on a local time and area reference the impact is huge.

Cutthroat are also a great indicator of water quality. If a waterway can support native cutthroat reproduction then it can be deemed relatively “healthy.” The number of cutthroat now in the Portneuf are very indicative of the benefits the river has seen from the various restoration projects.

Why should we then make an effort to preserve/promote the Bonneville cutthroat? How about, simply because we can. As we are the only species on the planet that can actively work, by choice, to improve or on the flip side degrade an ecosystem. 

Lovely post Scott.
So I have a question. Extirpating CTs would seem like a bad idea – we would expect the cascade of events associated with the removal of a species from its environment – the Indian restaurant to Starbucks trajectory. But I wonder what happens if CTs are replaced by Rainbows. I don’t mean planters (if that is the same as stocked fish?) but an expanding population of stream-bred fish? What impact would that really have? They are very similar after all (Oncorhynchus both and then there are Cutbows). There are no specialist predators of CTs or even trout for that matter that I can think of. There are likely parasites and pathogens that are CT specific but do we care about them? Do Rainbows and CTs feed differently, do they select different items from the drift, is one more likely to murder little fishes and acts as a population regulator on these than the other. What would really happen in an ecosystem functioning context if CTs were replaced by Rainbows? Sure diversity would go down but habitat health? Actually, would diversity go down if Rainbows weren’t there originally – it would be just replacing one trout with another? It is not as though they are German or east coast imports.
I know there are differences, as you point out on your “About Cutthroat Trout” page, but beyond colour, pattern and historical separation I am not at all clear on how such differences would be manifest in a stream with Rainbows and no CTs and one with CTs and no Rainbows.
I suppose it is sort of your argument for people preferring one species over another (the utilitarian one) but what if people (those self serving fly fishermen – very nice Kevin) were happy with a Pacific trout, mykiss of clarki doesn’t really matter particularly if the expected reverberations caused by removing CTs with no replacement was mitigated by their replacement with a closely related and similarly (effectively the same) functioning species.
Apologies if this is a bit of the thrust of your post Scott.

In some watersheds in Utah, that used to be cutthroat waters, we have seen them totally replaced with brown trout. The brown trout are naturally reproducing and are considered a wild fish, but not a native. These waters are some of the most popular in Utah. So I don’t think species (as long as it’s a trout) means that much to most fly fishers. I do feel there is a “certain” type of fly fisher that does care about preserving waters as historically natural as possible, and these fly fishers do care about native species and their habitat. Maybe it’s all us “old” boys who were introduced to these places and these cutthroat by our fathers and grandfathers. Maybe we have memories? Maybe we’re sentimental? Somehow, (and this will sound weird to those who haven’t allowed the feeling part to enter their hearts), that when we fish for cutthroat trout in the “places” that in the past we have found them, we are preserving a part of our heritage. When I catch a cutthroat in one of these places, I often have the feeling of relief that somethings in life can remain the same, that even though I’m getting older, something that I enjoyed and admired in my youth is still available (yes, it makes me feel young again) and as important to my “selfish” feeling (which Kevin points out) I can also pass on to my kids and grandkids, the feeling of “place” that was passed on to me. To me that is important. The respect and admiration my grandpa and dad had for “place” very much included a respect and admiration for cutthroat. To lose the cutthroat to me, means I lose a part of my past and  an inability to carry that past into the future.

Hey guys, thanks for the responses! I usually like to respond to each individual’s comment individually, but I’ve been battling a flu/bronchitis thingy for the past five days–wicked stuff–and my brain feels pretty much like the bottom of my felt wading boots look after getting out of the Bear River (don’t ask, but it’s gross). Let me just say that I really appreciate each person’s input here and it gives me lots to ponder.

I plan on getting my next clueless riveting post up sometime in the next several days. It’s mostly written, just going to tweak a couple of things.

My first comment may seem at odds with this one (I get carried away with the biology of stuff sometimes) but I have to say Robert’s comments are absolutely spot on and I agree very much with what he has written. The idea of carrying the “history” of a place is something I have been thinking a lot about recently and, though it may be anthropocentric to say so, the thought that a landscape and the animals in it are important to preserve because they reinforce an interaction with place through time and allows a very deep accumulation of experience seems to me fundamentally valuable and important.

canaries and mine shafts…I am not going to take more time to write or converse on this subject because I am going to go spend my time fishing before the CT’s are gone and all we have left are mosquitoes.

Anthropocentrism. Man, that’s the main tool in my arsenal when trying to figure out why I want to keep cutthroat around.

Thanks for coming back Eccles. Yeah, Robert makes a great point. I used to take my 5th grade students to the Teton Sceince School north of Jackson Hole, Wyoming. We spent 3 1/2 days and 3 nights there. Spectacular views. Amazing wildlife. Etc. We wanted students to be better stewards of the earth, but we realized that taking kids to a cool place, then back home again, it didn’t transfer. For them to care about the land, they had to learn about their own backyard so they could love it and take care of it. So we stopped going to the Teton Science school and started taking them on field trips around our valley and mountains here at home. They needed to get that sense of place, and they did. It was amazing how many kids had never spent any time in the mountains that were 15 minutes from there house for the entire 11 years of their life.

Kevin, I have always tried to understand that part of the fishing me that is selfish. I, for one, would not mind seeing the Green River freed from the dam that creates an artificial trout fishery. Yeah, it’s kind of interesting to fish there (in an almost voyeuristic way–hard to explain, but it just doesn’t seem “natural” to me to fish there).