- Email: [email protected]
Lake Ontario Fishery Management: The Lake Trout Restoration Issue
J. Great Lakes Res. 21 (Supplement 1):470--476 Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., 1995
Lake Ontario Fishery Management: The Lake Trout Restoration Issue
Robert E. Langel and Philip A. Smith2 INew York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-4753 20ntario Ministry ofNatural Resources, P.O. Box 7000 Peterborough, Ontario KNJ 8M5
ABSTRACT. Restoration of a self-sustaining lake trout population in Lake Ontario is a goal of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), which manage Lake Ontario fisheries. That goal was questioned during public consultation activities conducted by both agencies to evaluate potential management responses to an imbalance between the demand of salmonine predators and the supply of prey species. Participants were mostly traditional fishery clients who are principally concerned with the availability offish as ecosystem products. Many recreational and commercial fishermen on Lake Ontario view the goal of lake trout restoration negatively because they perceive it as a threat to their pursuit of preferred fish species. Support of lake trout restoration by environmentally oriented individuals may be constrained because this involves stocking fish into a chemically contaminated environment, a practice that has raised concerns about human health implications among environmental groups. Lake trout restoration has taken on increasing ecological significance because self-sustaining lake trout populations are considered indicators of ecosystem health or integrity in Lake Ontario and other Great Lakes. The lake trout restoration issue is a metaphor for the larger issue of whether natural resource management should be directed principally toward human uses of ecosystem products or the restoration of ecological structure and function. The concurrent trends toward ecosystem management and an increasing public role in government decision-making may be in conflict, which has created a dilemma for Lake Ontario fisheries managers. No procedures exist to guide fisheries managers in the resolution of issues defined by competing values. As a general guideline for decision-making, we agree that fisheries managers should be advocates of longterm well-being and availability offisheries resources for human benefit. Expansion of the temporal scale of fishery management plans will require greater attention to ecological structure and function. Public participation will continue to grow in importance, but must be carefully designed and conducted to be effective. Impediments to lake trout restoration are not limited to the biophysical dimensions of Great Lakes ecosystems, but also include sociocultural issues. INDEX WORDS:
Lake trout, Lake Ontario, fishery management, public participation.
INTRODUCTION Management of Lake Ontario fishery resources is carried out by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). These agencies utilize a collaborative approach to manage fishery resources that span the open waters of Lake Ontario. The institutional framework for this collaboration is afforded by the Lake Ontario Committee, which consists of senior fishery management officials of both agencies and operates under the auspices of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC). The Lake Ontario Committee functions according to principles of consensus established in the Strategic Great Lakes Fishery Management Plan (GLFC 1980). In accordance with provisions of the Strategic Great Lakes Fishery Management Plan, the Lake Ontario Com-
mittee prepared draft fish community objectives for Lake Ontario (Kerr and LeTendre 1991). These objectives call for a " ... diverse complex of salmonine and coregenine fish species ... ," with a self-sustaining lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), population as a foundation. The draft objectives also specify that Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), rainbow trout (Oncorhyncus mykiss), brown trout (S. trutta), coho salmon (0. kisutch), chinook salmon (0. tshawytscha), lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis), and lake herring (c. artedii), shall be managed as part of the cold-water species complex. Lake trout, Atlantic salmon, lake whitefish and lake herring are indigenous to Lake Ontario; the other species have been introduced to support significant recreational fisheries. Although some natural reproduction does occur, the abundance of these introduced species is maintained mostly by stocking
470
Management Issues in Lake Trout Restorations hatchery-reared fish. These species prey extensively upon alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), and rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), both of which are non-indigenous species. The draft fish community objectives also call for the maintenance of these populations as prey for trout and salmon.. Following the build-up of stocking levels for hatchery-reared salmonines in the early 1980s, the abundance of alewife and smelt, and the proportion of larger individuals in those populations, began to decline. This was not unexpected, especially for alewives, because earlier, in the virtual absence of predators, the alewife population had become extremely abundant, as witnessed by frequent mass mortalities and resultant shoreline fouling. By 1992 the Lake Ontario Committee had become sufficiently concerned over the apparently deteriorating status of the alewife population to initiate a comprehensive inquiry. This action also reflected a growing awareness that the dynamics of the alewife population potentially reflected profound ecosystem changes in addition to predator-prey interactions. A panel of seven independent researchers representing a spectrum of aquatic ecology disciplines was asked to review the status of prey fish populations within the contexts of ecosystem changes and fishery management practices. They concluded that the reduction of total phosphorus in Lake Ontario over the past two decades resulted in decreased secondary productivity, directly affecting the food supply of planktivorous alewives, while piscivore populations grew as the result of increased stocking in the 1980s (Jones et at. 1992). The panel further concluded that the alewife population could probably not remain abundant in the absence of management actions, i.e., significant reductions in stocking, to address the imbalance between prey supply and predator demand. Fisheries managers on the Lake Ontario Committee were acutely aware that any proposal to significantly modify stocking regimes for Lake Ontario would be highly controversial because of the social and economic importance of the recreational fisheries supported by stocking programs. Accordingly, the Lake Ontario Committee developed a decision-making process that included extensive public consultation. This process was conducted concurrently but separately by each agency with its clientele within New York and Ontario, respectively. The public consultation activities of the NYSDEC and OMNR were focused on the issue of whether and how stocking programs should be modified to accommodate the perceived trophic imbalance between salmonines and their prey. Discussions ultimately led to an evaluation by clients of the priorities for stocking reductions among the salmonine species in Lake Ontario. Of particular interest to fisheries managers were the attitudes of participants in the public consultation process toward lake trout and the management goal of restoring a self-sustaining population to Lake Ontario. The consensus of NYSDEC and OMNR staff who partic-
471
ipated in public consultation activities was that, among the array of trout and salmon species in Lake Ontario, lake trout ranked lowest in esteem among most anglers and those economically linked to angling. During those years when salmonine prey had been perceived as abundant, lake trout were regarded by many anglers with relative indifference. When faced with the need to reduce stocking to accommodate a diminished supply of prey, many anglers saw lake trout as competitors with more highly valued species. Participants representing an "environmental" viewpoint were supportive of lake trout restoration as part of a broader agenda of restoring native species and natural functions to Lake Ontario; however, relatively few such individuals participated. Following public consultation, NYSDEC and OMNR reduced the stocking of trout and salmon in Lake Ontario to effect a 50 percent reduction in predator demand over a 2-yr period (Lake Ontario Committee 1993). The purpose of this action was to maintain the fundamental complexion of the existing recreational fishery, albeit at lower levels of production, by encouraging the continued existence of viable alewife and rainbow smelt populations. Lake trout stocking targets were reduced by approximately one-half as part of this management action. Questions remain about lake trout restoration and the role of public participation in defining goals for lake trout management. On a more fundamental level, the controversy about lake trout restoration is a metaphor for the profound issue of whether fishery management should be principally concerned with the optimization or enhancement of human uses of fishery resources (ecosystem product), or the restoration and protection of ecological structure and function (ecosystem process). This is an issue of competing values that places fisheries managers in an unfamiliar and uncomfortable setting where science alone cannot provide resolution. In this paper we will use the issue of lake trout restoration to demonstrate that fisheries managers must deal with the intersection of science, values, and public policy as they pursue the achievement of complex management objectives.
LAKE TROUT IN LAKE ONTARIO Lake trout were exterminated from Lake Ontario by 1960 by a combination of stresses, including overfishing, environmental changes, and predation by the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), (Christie 1974). Restoration of a self-sustaining lake trout population is a joint goal of New York State, the Province of Ontario and the United States and Canadian federal governments. Restoration strategies have emphasized building a large spawning stock by planting hatchery-reared lake trout and maximizing the survival of stocked fish by minimizing controllable sources of mortality (Schneider et at. 1983). Lake trout mortality is controlled by limiting the abundance of sea lampreys through a program carried out by the GLFC, and by limiting the harvest of lake trout through regulations administered by NYSDEC and
472
Lange and Smith
OMNR. Commercial harvest of lake trout is prohibited by both NYSDEC and OMNR, although some bycatch occurs in commercial fisheries directed at other fish species. Restrictions on fishing seasons and gear have been introduced for Ontario commercial fisheries specifically to minimize this bycatch. Most fishing mortality results from recreational fishing. NYSDEC and OMNR employ sportfishing harvest regulations for lake trout that are substantially more restrictive than those for salmonine species that are maintained principally by stocking to support recreational fishing. The dichotomy of managing for two distinctly different goals (restoration of self-sustaining populations and recreational fishing opportunities) for different species within the same community of salmonine predators is a source of confusion and consternation among anglers. Lake trout stocking to support restoration in Lake Ontario began in 1973, 2 years after the onset of sea lamprey control by the GLFC. All of the lake trout stocked into New York waters are reared by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service while OMNR hatcheries support lake trout stocking on the Ontario side. From 1973 through 1992, over 28 million lake trout were stocked into Lake Ontario (Bowlby and LeTendre 1993). Significant production of lake trout fry was first documented in 1986 (Marsden et al. 1988) and limited collections of fry have been made each spring since then. Two naturally spawned yearling lake trout were identified by Casselman (1990) in 1989, but there has been no significant recruitment of naturally-spawned lake trout in Lake Ontario. The absence of significant recruitment over a 20-yr period has raised questions about the viability of the restoration program. The decision of the Lake Ontario Committee to substantially reduce the numbers of hatchery-reared trout and salmon stocked into Lake Ontario, and the process employed to make that decision, highlighted many questions about lake trout management, and, by extension, fisheries management in general. What role should lake trout play? Should the public be involved in deciding that role, or should such decisions be left completely to fisheries professionals? THE ROLE OF LAKE TROUT
Historically, lake trout have been a fishery product of the Lake Ontario ecosystem sought originally by commercial fishermen and more recently by anglers. Chemical contaminants in lake trout flesh currently preclude a commercial fishery for this species. Even in the absence of excessive contaminants in the future, the level of yield compatible with restoration would probably be insufficient to support a directed commercial fishery for lake trout for many years. Ontario commercial fishermen regard lake trout mostly as an annoyance because restrictions are placed on gillnet fisheries for yellow perch (Perea jlaveseens), and whitefish to minimize lake trout bycatch. Lake trout damage commercial gear and are
viewed by commercial fishermen as unwanted predators or competitors of more desirable commercial species. Many Lake Ontario anglers are ambivalent about lake trout, mostly preferring other species but relying on lake trout at times and places when or where angling for preferred species is unsuccessful. Compared to other trout and salmon species present in Lake Ontario, lake trout are considered to have inferior sporting and eating qualities. Other characteristics of lake trout viewed negatively by anglers are the modest growth of lake trout compared to Pacific salmon, and high contaminant burdens relative to other salmonine species in Lake Ontario. Paradoxically, lake trout are often denigrated by anglers, but as a species ranked either first or second in numbers of trout and salmon harvested from New York waters of Lake Ontario until restrictive harvest regulations were implemented (Eckert 1993). This level of harvest reflects the availability and relative ease of capture of lake trout, which may contribute to the perception that lake trout are less of an angling challenge than other salmonine species. Those who view lake trout in the traditional fishery context, as a product, may favor harvest opportunities afforded by hatchery-maintained lake trout populations over naturally maintained populations with more limited harvest opportunities (Peyton 1987). Lantiegne (1989) suggested that a lake trout population supported by stocking hatchery-reared fish could be maintained at more predictable levels than a self-sustaining population, thereby affording greater control of predator/prey balance to the advantage of anglers. Tanner (1987) considered the maintenance of a large adult population needed for spawning stocks to be a waste of the prey they consumed and advocated hatchery-supported lake trout populations as a wiser and less wasteful use of prey resources. Radonski (1987, 1988) speculated that the U.S. states bordering the Great Lakes advocated lake trout restoration only because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would not continue to rear and provide hatchery lake trout for any other purpose. Prothero (1993), writing on behalf of Ontario commercial fishermen on Lake Erie, described the reasons for planting lake trout there as a "mystery" because they held no value for anglers or commercial fishermen. This perception is also widely held by Lake Ontario commercial fishermen. Increasingly, the goal of lake trout restoration has come to be viewed as a threat to fisheries for other trout and salmon species maintained by stocking. For example, the (erroneous) perception that stocking reductions for Lake Ontario spared lake trout at the expense of other trout and salmon species resulted in a letter to NYSDEC from an Ohio sportfishing organization that declared its members would not purchase New York State fishing licenses because the proceeds would be used to " ... favor the stocking of lake trout over the much more desirable salmonoids ... " (Moinette 1993). Restrictive regulations imposed to limit angler harvest in order to promote lake trout restoration have resulted in economic concerns among charter operators and others
Management Issues in Lake Trout Restorations with economic interests in recreational fishing. Brown (1984), Peyton (1987), and Eshenroder (1987) identified this issue as a potential hindrance for public support of lake trout restoration. Of 50 recent letters in NYSDEC files pertaining to lake trout restoration, many from elected officials and local governments, one expressed support for restoration. The remainder addressed the economic impacts of restrictive regulations or expressed concern that lake trout restoration would threaten management programs for other trout and salmon species. Apart from a role as a fishery product, lake trout have increasingly been described in terms of their ecological role, independent of human use. This role relates to a viewpoint that human interests are best served by the restoration of ecological structure and function to ecosystems like the Great Lakes. As a key native predator in Lake Ontario, lake trout are seen as an essential component of a restored Lake Ontario ecosystem. For those who view lake trout from this perspective, including some angler groups (Grooms 1992), the natural origil'. of lake trout is paramount, and the availability of lake trout as a fishery product is fortuitous. In recent years, emphasis has been increasingly placed on planning at the ecosystem level. The Revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (International Joint Commission 1988) stipulated that ecosystem objectives shall be developed for each of the Great Lakes. Goals and objectives at the ecosystem level are frequently stated in broad terms related to perceptions of ecological well-being such as biodiversity, ecosystem health and ecosystem integrity. These terms are conceptual, difficult to define in succinct terms, and explicitly incorporate moral, ethical or philosophical components (Higgs 1987, Regier 1989, Regier et al. 1990, Lerner 1990, International Joint Commission 1991, Cairns and Lackey 1992, Hughes and Noss 1992). Consequently, the elaboration of criteria for the attainment of ecosystem objectives in terms of measurable ecosystem properties has proven difficult. Indicator species have been widely adopted in ecosystem plans as alternatives to objectives framed in terms of specific ecosystem properties. Indicator species are " ... surrogate organisms, species which integrate critical physical, chemical and biological properties of the ecosystem and, thus, can be used to judge the relative health of the ecosystem." (International Joint Commission 1991). Lake trout, as a native top predator at the apex of offshore food webs, has been identified as a key indicator species for Lake Superior (International Joint Commission 1991) and Lake Ontario (Ecosystem Objectives Work Group 1992). The ecosystem properties necessary for the existence of an abundant, self-sustaining lake trout population could presumably be considered to be within acceptable boundaries if such a population were present, even if all of those ecosystem properties could not be measured, or even specified. Thus, goals to restore self-sustaining lake trout populations in the Great Lakes have acquired added significance only indirectly related to human use of fishery products.
473
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND THE PUBLIC
Everhart and Youngs (1981) defined a fishery as: " ... the complex of interactions within and between the population(s) of fish being harvested, the population(s) of fishermen, and the environment of each." A fishery, then, explicitly includes people catching, or trying to catch fish, and fisheries management programs have been traditionally oriented toward this pursuit. Consequently, the "public" that fisheries managers have traditionally dealt with consists mostly of fishermen and those with economic interests in fishing. In New York and other U.S. states, this relationship is amplified by the "user pays" tradition in which fish and wildlife management programs are primarily funded by sporting license fees and excise taxes on sporting equipment. This fosters the perception that these fees and taxes are payment for services rendered and bolsters the expectation that the activities of fish and wildlife management agencies should be directed largely, if not exclusively, toward the improvement of fishing and hunting opportunities. The active involvement of the public in government decision-making is a growing trend in North America. As Doig (1992) noted: "Citizen involvement that at one time was the wave of the future has become the wave of the present." Johnson (1993) described how public involvement successfully defused public hostility toward the Bonneville Power Administration. Larkin (1991) recommended that fisheries managers employ as much public participation as possible to ensure a community feeling of ownership. Eshenroder (1987) cited an obligation of Great Lakes fisheries managers to involve their constituents in decision-making. Peyton (1987) noted that: "The political environment of state resource agencies holds increasing public expectations and demands for participation." The Great Lakes Charter, developed under the auspices of the Great Lakes Commission (1994) as a statement of commonly held principles for an ecosystem approach to Great Lakes management, emphatically endorsed a decision-making, rather than a consultative role for the public. Decker and Krueger (1993) asserted that: "Fisheries managers cannot operate without public involvement in policy and management decision-making." When the Lake Ontario Committee contemplated the process that would be employed to make a decision about the predator/prey imbalance in Lake Ontario, the need for public involvement was apparent. NYSDEC and OMNR invited representatives of various interests, including sport fishing, commercial fishing, environmental, small business, tourism, and local government to participate in public consultation, but these activities were dominated by sportfishing groups, particularly those with economic interests. Generally, negative attitudes about lake trout and the restoration of self-sustaining populations emerged from the public consultation process. We may have failed to achieve broad-based public representation in our public consultation activities because those who agree with a management program may
474
Lange and Smith
fail to support it with appropriate actions, while groups that oppose the program are likely to participate more actively (Peyton 1987). We also recognize that we have longstanding linkages with traditional fishery clients but more recent and sometimes tenuous linkages with groups more oriented toward ecological values, which may have limited their participation. Is there a significant public segment that embraces concepts such as biodiversity, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem health, and sees lake trout restoration as an essential element of attaining goals framed in those terms? A nationwide survey of Americans conducted on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife (1993) revealed that only 22 percent had ever heard of an issue called "the loss of biological diversity" and none identified biodiversity loss as an important environmental problem. Blockstein (1992) noted that most people are uninterested in fish diversity. Higgs (1987) classified most individuals in modern society as "economic resourcists" who regard the natural world as an extension of a commodity market (Le., fish as products). Hughes and Noss (1992) also think the public consider fish to be a recreational commodity. Grooms (1992) indicated that the angler group Trout Unlimited advocated self-sustaining and natural systems, but acknowledged that the majority of Great Lakes anglers supported fisheries based upon stocking hatchery-reared fish. Environmentally-oriented Great Lakes interest groups with preservationist or protectionist goals would be expected to slIPport lake trout restoration goals (Peyton 1987). Our \\~xperience with many of these groups, however, is thal.jIey are often concerned principally with water quality issues, especially toxics. The concerns of these groups about fish and fishery management have largely focused on the perceived threats to human health posed by contaminated fish. They have at times been critical of stocking programs that place fish into contaminated environments with resultant accumulation of contaminants in the flesh of the fish (International Joint Commission 1990). Support of fishery management programs for lake trout restoration requires tacit approval of large-scale stocking programs for a species that carries the greatest contaminant burdens of any salmonine species in the Great Lakes. Despite general support for native species and natural ecosystem processes by environmental groups, human health concerns associated with stocking lake trout may constrain their support for restoration. CONCLUSIONS The Lake Ontario predator-prey issue has framed the lake trout restoration program as a fisheries management dilemma in which the growing trends toward ecosystem management and greater public participation may be in conflict, or at least out of phase. We, as fisheries professionals, are increasingly aware that sustainable fisheries, as well as other human uses of Great Lakes ecosystems, require attention to the state of ecosystem structure and
function, such as the capacity to support self-sustaining fish stocks. As public officials, we are sensitive to the increasing requirement for a meaningful public role in the formulation of public policy. Weare also mindful of Yarbrough's (1987) admonition that: "Regardless of scientific soundness, intense conviction, or governmental persuasion, policies that lack support in the fundamental value structure of society cannot succeed." We readily concede that an absence of support for lake trout restoration has not been conclusively demonstrated, but neither can such support be readily discerned if it is present. What is the appropriate role for fisheries managers on issues defined by competing values? Pister (1995) believes an education in ecological principles bestows special insights, which form moral and ethical imperatives that transcend public opinion, much as a parent is entitled to make decisions for a child with incompletely developed values. Although we admire the conviction and dedication that fuel Pister's advocacy, we are also aware that the North American tradition of democracy endows public opinion with ethical status (Yarbrough 1987) that we, as public officials, are obliged to recognize and respect. A value-neutral approach to issues defined by competing values contrasts with an approach in which specific values are strongly advocated. Fisheries managers in a value-neutral role would confine themselves to providing technical information, facilitating the resolution of conflicts among interests, and making decisions on the basis of measures of public opinion. Although such an approach could, in many instances, produce wise decisions, it would surely yield other decisions that we clearly recognized, based upon our education and experience, as misguided, wasteful of public funds, inequitable and/or damaging to fishery resources. We would be malfeasant as public officials to acquiesce to such decisions because a poll or survey indicated public support for them. The elaboration of goals for Great Lakes ecosystems, which have been so modified that their pristine condition is irretrievably lost, will involve choices based upon human values from an array of alternatives within ecologically defined boundaries. The definition of ecological boundaries is a daunting challenge for scientists, but one for which their scientific training has prepared them. We suggest that within the ecological boundaries defined by scientists, fisheries managers must play a prominent role in defining sociocultural boundaries for decisions, a task for which their training often provides little guidance. Krueger and Decker (1993) noted that procedures for this task have not been developed and identified a need for a system of value analysis that, combined with decision theory, would provide guidance for goal-setting. In the absence of established procedures for this role, some fundamental principles must guide fisheries managers. We agree with Krueger and Decker (1993) that fisheries managers should be advocates for the long-term well-being of fishery resources. Expansion of the temporal scope of fisheries planning will require greater em-
Management Issues in Lake Trout Restorations phasis on ecological structure and function. This, however, should not preempt human use of fishery resources as a principal focus of fisheries management, but complement it. We cannot envision a diminution of the longstanding human proclivity to catch fish for food and recreation, but a better correlation between the expectations of fishermen and the capacity of aquatic ecosystems to produce the fish they seek is required. Fisheries professionals can contribute to this by reaching out to the public and more effectively communicating not only information gained from scientific inquiry, but also the nature of the scientific process itself (Peyton 1987). Public participation will continue to grow in importance. Fisheries managers, however, must be mindful that the public is not a monolithic entity, but a conglomeration of various interests. Comprehensive representation of these interests is essential and must be a basic element of any public participation process. The purpose of public participation (information transfer, consultation, decisionmaking, etc.) must be clearly elaborated and carefully explained to participants. Anything that could constrain incorporation of the results of public participation into agency programs or practices, such as legal mandates, agency policies, fiscal limitations, scientific findings, or values embraced by the agency, must be clearly identified and explained at the outset. If participants enter into a public participation process with expectations that cannot be met because of hidden or unspoken constraints, the credibility of the process, the agency, and the fisheries managers involved will be impaired. This paper was not intended to question lake trout restoration as a Great Lakes fishery management goal, but to emphasize that impediments to the achievement of that goal exist in the sociocultural milieu of Great Lakes ecosystems as well as in the biophysical realm. We have no doubt that lake trout restoration will serve the broad public interest, but we also have no illusion that there is widespread public recognition of this. The fisheries profession has largely evaded or ignored the arena of public opinion on management initiatives like lake trout restoration. This issue, rather than technical matters, may be the greatest challenge we face in our ongoing efforts to restore Great Lakes ecosystems.
REFERENCES Blockstein, D.E. 1992. An aquatic perspective on U.S. biodiversity policy. Fisheries 17(3):26-30. Bowlby, J.N., and LeTendre, G.c. 1993. Lake Ontario stocking and marking program 1992. In 1993 Annual Report Bureau of Fisheries Lake Ontario Unit to the Lake Ontario Committee and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, pp. 15-60. Albany, NY: NY State Dept. Environmental Conservation. Brown, T.L. 1984. Socio-economics. In Strategies for Rehabilitation of Lake Trout in the Great Lakes: Proceedings of a Conference on Lake Trout Research, August, 1993, ed. R.L. Eshenroder, T.P. Poe and C.H. Olver, pp. 40-44. Great Lakes Fishery Commission Technical Report No. 40.
475
Cairns, M.A., and Lackey, R.T. 1992. Biodiversity and management of natural resources: the issues. Fisheries 17(3):6-10. Casselman, J.M. 1990. Research project: lake trout rehabilitation studies. In 1989 Annual Report Lake Ontario Fisheries Unit, Lake Ontario Committee Annual Meeting, Gananoque, ON, 28-29 Mar. 90. Picton, ON: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Christie, W.J. 1974. Changes in the fish species composition of the Great Lakes. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 31 :827-854. Decker, D.J., and Krueger, c.c. 1993. Communication: catalyst for effective fisheries management. In Inland Fisheries Management in North America, ed. C.c. Kohler and W.A. Hubert, pp. 55-75. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Defenders of Wildlife. 1993. Americans unaware of the environmental threat that scientists say may be the worst yet. News release dated 20 July 93, Washington, DC, Defenders of Wildlife. Doig, H.E. 1992. Stewardship-a place of beginning. Wild in New York 1(2):2. Albany, NY: NY State Dept. Environmental Conservation. Eckert, T.H. 1993. New York's 1992 Lake Ontario fishing boat census. In 1992 Annual Report Bureau of Fisheries Lake Ontario Unit to the Lake Ontario Committee and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, pp. 61-106. Albany, NY: NY State Dept. Environmental Conservation. Ecosystem Objectives Work Group. 1992. Interim Report of the Ecosystem Objectives Work Group on Ecosystem Objectives and their environmental indicators for Lake Ontario. Chicago, IL: US Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. Eshenroder, R.L. 1987. Socioeconomic aspects of lake trout rehabilitation in the Great Lakes. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 116:309-313. Everhart, H.W., and Youngs, W.D. 1981. Principles of Fishery Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Great Lakes Commission. 1994. Ecosystem charter for the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence basin. Mimeo. Chicago, IL: Great Lakes Commission. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 1980. A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries. Ann Arbor, MI: Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Grooms, S. 1992. The enigma of the lake trout. Trout, Spring issue. Higgs, E.S. 1987. Changing value perspectives in natural resource allocation: from market to ecosystem. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 116:525-531. Hughes, R.M., and Noss, R.F. 1992. Biological diversity and biological integrity: current concerns for lakes and streams. Fisheries 17(3):11-19. International Joint Commission. 1988. Revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1987. Windsor, ON: International Joint Commission. _ _ _. 1990. Fifth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality. Windsor, ON: International Joint Commission. _ _ _" 1991. A Proposed Framework for Developing Indicators of Ecosystem Health for the Great Lakes Region. Windsor, ON: International Joint Commission.
476
Lange and Smith
Johnson, P.T. 1993. How I turned a critical public into useful consultants. Harvard Business Review 71:56-66. Jones, M.J., Stewart, D.J., O'Gorman, R, Mills, E., Johannsson, 0., Sprules, W.G., and Millard, S. 1992. Status of the Lake Ontario Offshore Pelagic Fish Community and Related Ecosystem in 1992. Report to the Lake Ontario Committee. Albany, NY: NY State Dept. Environmental Conservation. Kerr, S.J., and LeTendre, G.C. 1991. The State of the Lake Ontario Fish CommuT:lity in 1989. Ann Arbor, MI: Great Lakes Fishery Commission Spec. Publ. 91-3. Krueger, e.e., and Decker, D.J. 1993. The process of fisheries management. In Inland Fisheries Management in North America, ed. C.e. Kohler and W.A. Hubert, pp. 33-54. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Lake Ontario Committee. 1993. Report of the Lake Ontario Committee to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. In Minutes of the Great lakes Fishery Commission 1993 Annual Meeting, Agenda Item 18. Ann Arbor, MI: Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Lantiegne, E. 1989. Lake trout slot limit - boom or bust? Great Lakes Fisherman, May issue: 17-21. Larkin, P.A. 1991. The wet revolution: fisheries production in the Year 2005. In Proceedings of the North American Fisheries Leadership Workshop, ed. J.P. Harville, pp. A22-A33. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Lerner, S. 1990. Values in integrity. In An Ecosystem Approach to the Integrity of the Great Lakes in Turbulent Times, ed. e.J. Edwards and H.A. Regier, pp. 37-44. Ann Arbor, MI: Great Lakes Fishery Commission Spec. Publ. 90-4. Marsden, J.E., Krueger, C.C., and Schneider, C.P. 1988. Evidence of natural reproduction by stocked lake trout in Lake Ontario. J. Great Lakes Res. 14:3-8. Moinette, E.L. 1993. Letter to the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation reproduced in Great Lakes Basin Report 4 (10): 2. Elmhurst, IL: Great Lakes Sportfishing Council. Peyton, R.B. 1987. Mechanisms affecting public acceptance of resource management policies and strategies. Can J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44 (Suppl. 2):306-312. Pister, E.P. 1995. Ethics of native species restoration: the Great Lakes. J. Great Lakes Res. 21(Supplement 1):10-16. Prothero, F. 1993. From the wheelhouse. The Great Lakes Fisherman 20 (12):3-5. Radonski, G. 1987. Should lake trout rehabilitation be continued? In Minutes of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 1987 Annual Meeting, pp. 12-17. Ann Arbor, MI: Great Lakes Fishery Commission. _ _ _. 1988. Hatchery lake trout jeopardized. SF! Bulletin No. 392:1-2, Washington, DC, Sport Fishing Institute. Regier, H.A. 1989. The time is ripe: notes on ecosystem integrity. In Towards an Ecosystem Charter for the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence, pp. 15-28, Rawson Occasional Paper No.1. Ottawa, ON: Rawson Academy of Aquatic Science. _ _ _, Grima, A.P., Francis, G.R., Lerner, S., and Hamilton, A. 1990. Integrity and surprise in the Great Lakes ecosystem: implications for policy. In An Ecosystem Approach to the Integrity of the Great Lakes in Turbulent Times, ed. e.J. Edwards and H.A. Regier, pp. 17-25. Ann Arbor, MI: Great Lakes Fishery Commission Spec. Publ. 90-4. Schneider, C.P., Kolenosky, D.P., and Goldthwaite, D.B. 1983. A Joint Plan for the Rehabilitation of Lake Trout in Lake Ontario. Ann Arbor, MI: Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Tanner, H. 1987. Another perspective. Quoted from Great Lakes Steelheader 11 (7) in SF! Bulletin No. 388, p. 2. Washington, DC: Sport Fishing Institute. Yarbrough, e.J. 1987. Using political theory in fishery management. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 116:532-536.
Lake Ontario Fishery Management: The Lake Trout Restoration Issue
Robert E. Langel and Philip A. Smith2 INew York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-4753 20ntario Ministry ofNatural Resources, P.O. Box 7000 Peterborough, Ontario KNJ 8M5
ABSTRACT. Restoration of a self-sustaining lake trout population in Lake Ontario is a goal of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), which manage Lake Ontario fisheries. That goal was questioned during public consultation activities conducted by both agencies to evaluate potential management responses to an imbalance between the demand of salmonine predators and the supply of prey species. Participants were mostly traditional fishery clients who are principally concerned with the availability offish as ecosystem products. Many recreational and commercial fishermen on Lake Ontario view the goal of lake trout restoration negatively because they perceive it as a threat to their pursuit of preferred fish species. Support of lake trout restoration by environmentally oriented individuals may be constrained because this involves stocking fish into a chemically contaminated environment, a practice that has raised concerns about human health implications among environmental groups. Lake trout restoration has taken on increasing ecological significance because self-sustaining lake trout populations are considered indicators of ecosystem health or integrity in Lake Ontario and other Great Lakes. The lake trout restoration issue is a metaphor for the larger issue of whether natural resource management should be directed principally toward human uses of ecosystem products or the restoration of ecological structure and function. The concurrent trends toward ecosystem management and an increasing public role in government decision-making may be in conflict, which has created a dilemma for Lake Ontario fisheries managers. No procedures exist to guide fisheries managers in the resolution of issues defined by competing values. As a general guideline for decision-making, we agree that fisheries managers should be advocates of longterm well-being and availability offisheries resources for human benefit. Expansion of the temporal scale of fishery management plans will require greater attention to ecological structure and function. Public participation will continue to grow in importance, but must be carefully designed and conducted to be effective. Impediments to lake trout restoration are not limited to the biophysical dimensions of Great Lakes ecosystems, but also include sociocultural issues. INDEX WORDS:
Lake trout, Lake Ontario, fishery management, public participation.
INTRODUCTION Management of Lake Ontario fishery resources is carried out by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). These agencies utilize a collaborative approach to manage fishery resources that span the open waters of Lake Ontario. The institutional framework for this collaboration is afforded by the Lake Ontario Committee, which consists of senior fishery management officials of both agencies and operates under the auspices of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC). The Lake Ontario Committee functions according to principles of consensus established in the Strategic Great Lakes Fishery Management Plan (GLFC 1980). In accordance with provisions of the Strategic Great Lakes Fishery Management Plan, the Lake Ontario Com-
mittee prepared draft fish community objectives for Lake Ontario (Kerr and LeTendre 1991). These objectives call for a " ... diverse complex of salmonine and coregenine fish species ... ," with a self-sustaining lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), population as a foundation. The draft objectives also specify that Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), rainbow trout (Oncorhyncus mykiss), brown trout (S. trutta), coho salmon (0. kisutch), chinook salmon (0. tshawytscha), lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis), and lake herring (c. artedii), shall be managed as part of the cold-water species complex. Lake trout, Atlantic salmon, lake whitefish and lake herring are indigenous to Lake Ontario; the other species have been introduced to support significant recreational fisheries. Although some natural reproduction does occur, the abundance of these introduced species is maintained mostly by stocking
470
Management Issues in Lake Trout Restorations hatchery-reared fish. These species prey extensively upon alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), and rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), both of which are non-indigenous species. The draft fish community objectives also call for the maintenance of these populations as prey for trout and salmon.. Following the build-up of stocking levels for hatchery-reared salmonines in the early 1980s, the abundance of alewife and smelt, and the proportion of larger individuals in those populations, began to decline. This was not unexpected, especially for alewives, because earlier, in the virtual absence of predators, the alewife population had become extremely abundant, as witnessed by frequent mass mortalities and resultant shoreline fouling. By 1992 the Lake Ontario Committee had become sufficiently concerned over the apparently deteriorating status of the alewife population to initiate a comprehensive inquiry. This action also reflected a growing awareness that the dynamics of the alewife population potentially reflected profound ecosystem changes in addition to predator-prey interactions. A panel of seven independent researchers representing a spectrum of aquatic ecology disciplines was asked to review the status of prey fish populations within the contexts of ecosystem changes and fishery management practices. They concluded that the reduction of total phosphorus in Lake Ontario over the past two decades resulted in decreased secondary productivity, directly affecting the food supply of planktivorous alewives, while piscivore populations grew as the result of increased stocking in the 1980s (Jones et at. 1992). The panel further concluded that the alewife population could probably not remain abundant in the absence of management actions, i.e., significant reductions in stocking, to address the imbalance between prey supply and predator demand. Fisheries managers on the Lake Ontario Committee were acutely aware that any proposal to significantly modify stocking regimes for Lake Ontario would be highly controversial because of the social and economic importance of the recreational fisheries supported by stocking programs. Accordingly, the Lake Ontario Committee developed a decision-making process that included extensive public consultation. This process was conducted concurrently but separately by each agency with its clientele within New York and Ontario, respectively. The public consultation activities of the NYSDEC and OMNR were focused on the issue of whether and how stocking programs should be modified to accommodate the perceived trophic imbalance between salmonines and their prey. Discussions ultimately led to an evaluation by clients of the priorities for stocking reductions among the salmonine species in Lake Ontario. Of particular interest to fisheries managers were the attitudes of participants in the public consultation process toward lake trout and the management goal of restoring a self-sustaining population to Lake Ontario. The consensus of NYSDEC and OMNR staff who partic-
471
ipated in public consultation activities was that, among the array of trout and salmon species in Lake Ontario, lake trout ranked lowest in esteem among most anglers and those economically linked to angling. During those years when salmonine prey had been perceived as abundant, lake trout were regarded by many anglers with relative indifference. When faced with the need to reduce stocking to accommodate a diminished supply of prey, many anglers saw lake trout as competitors with more highly valued species. Participants representing an "environmental" viewpoint were supportive of lake trout restoration as part of a broader agenda of restoring native species and natural functions to Lake Ontario; however, relatively few such individuals participated. Following public consultation, NYSDEC and OMNR reduced the stocking of trout and salmon in Lake Ontario to effect a 50 percent reduction in predator demand over a 2-yr period (Lake Ontario Committee 1993). The purpose of this action was to maintain the fundamental complexion of the existing recreational fishery, albeit at lower levels of production, by encouraging the continued existence of viable alewife and rainbow smelt populations. Lake trout stocking targets were reduced by approximately one-half as part of this management action. Questions remain about lake trout restoration and the role of public participation in defining goals for lake trout management. On a more fundamental level, the controversy about lake trout restoration is a metaphor for the profound issue of whether fishery management should be principally concerned with the optimization or enhancement of human uses of fishery resources (ecosystem product), or the restoration and protection of ecological structure and function (ecosystem process). This is an issue of competing values that places fisheries managers in an unfamiliar and uncomfortable setting where science alone cannot provide resolution. In this paper we will use the issue of lake trout restoration to demonstrate that fisheries managers must deal with the intersection of science, values, and public policy as they pursue the achievement of complex management objectives.
LAKE TROUT IN LAKE ONTARIO Lake trout were exterminated from Lake Ontario by 1960 by a combination of stresses, including overfishing, environmental changes, and predation by the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), (Christie 1974). Restoration of a self-sustaining lake trout population is a joint goal of New York State, the Province of Ontario and the United States and Canadian federal governments. Restoration strategies have emphasized building a large spawning stock by planting hatchery-reared lake trout and maximizing the survival of stocked fish by minimizing controllable sources of mortality (Schneider et at. 1983). Lake trout mortality is controlled by limiting the abundance of sea lampreys through a program carried out by the GLFC, and by limiting the harvest of lake trout through regulations administered by NYSDEC and
472
Lange and Smith
OMNR. Commercial harvest of lake trout is prohibited by both NYSDEC and OMNR, although some bycatch occurs in commercial fisheries directed at other fish species. Restrictions on fishing seasons and gear have been introduced for Ontario commercial fisheries specifically to minimize this bycatch. Most fishing mortality results from recreational fishing. NYSDEC and OMNR employ sportfishing harvest regulations for lake trout that are substantially more restrictive than those for salmonine species that are maintained principally by stocking to support recreational fishing. The dichotomy of managing for two distinctly different goals (restoration of self-sustaining populations and recreational fishing opportunities) for different species within the same community of salmonine predators is a source of confusion and consternation among anglers. Lake trout stocking to support restoration in Lake Ontario began in 1973, 2 years after the onset of sea lamprey control by the GLFC. All of the lake trout stocked into New York waters are reared by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service while OMNR hatcheries support lake trout stocking on the Ontario side. From 1973 through 1992, over 28 million lake trout were stocked into Lake Ontario (Bowlby and LeTendre 1993). Significant production of lake trout fry was first documented in 1986 (Marsden et al. 1988) and limited collections of fry have been made each spring since then. Two naturally spawned yearling lake trout were identified by Casselman (1990) in 1989, but there has been no significant recruitment of naturally-spawned lake trout in Lake Ontario. The absence of significant recruitment over a 20-yr period has raised questions about the viability of the restoration program. The decision of the Lake Ontario Committee to substantially reduce the numbers of hatchery-reared trout and salmon stocked into Lake Ontario, and the process employed to make that decision, highlighted many questions about lake trout management, and, by extension, fisheries management in general. What role should lake trout play? Should the public be involved in deciding that role, or should such decisions be left completely to fisheries professionals? THE ROLE OF LAKE TROUT
Historically, lake trout have been a fishery product of the Lake Ontario ecosystem sought originally by commercial fishermen and more recently by anglers. Chemical contaminants in lake trout flesh currently preclude a commercial fishery for this species. Even in the absence of excessive contaminants in the future, the level of yield compatible with restoration would probably be insufficient to support a directed commercial fishery for lake trout for many years. Ontario commercial fishermen regard lake trout mostly as an annoyance because restrictions are placed on gillnet fisheries for yellow perch (Perea jlaveseens), and whitefish to minimize lake trout bycatch. Lake trout damage commercial gear and are
viewed by commercial fishermen as unwanted predators or competitors of more desirable commercial species. Many Lake Ontario anglers are ambivalent about lake trout, mostly preferring other species but relying on lake trout at times and places when or where angling for preferred species is unsuccessful. Compared to other trout and salmon species present in Lake Ontario, lake trout are considered to have inferior sporting and eating qualities. Other characteristics of lake trout viewed negatively by anglers are the modest growth of lake trout compared to Pacific salmon, and high contaminant burdens relative to other salmonine species in Lake Ontario. Paradoxically, lake trout are often denigrated by anglers, but as a species ranked either first or second in numbers of trout and salmon harvested from New York waters of Lake Ontario until restrictive harvest regulations were implemented (Eckert 1993). This level of harvest reflects the availability and relative ease of capture of lake trout, which may contribute to the perception that lake trout are less of an angling challenge than other salmonine species. Those who view lake trout in the traditional fishery context, as a product, may favor harvest opportunities afforded by hatchery-maintained lake trout populations over naturally maintained populations with more limited harvest opportunities (Peyton 1987). Lantiegne (1989) suggested that a lake trout population supported by stocking hatchery-reared fish could be maintained at more predictable levels than a self-sustaining population, thereby affording greater control of predator/prey balance to the advantage of anglers. Tanner (1987) considered the maintenance of a large adult population needed for spawning stocks to be a waste of the prey they consumed and advocated hatchery-supported lake trout populations as a wiser and less wasteful use of prey resources. Radonski (1987, 1988) speculated that the U.S. states bordering the Great Lakes advocated lake trout restoration only because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would not continue to rear and provide hatchery lake trout for any other purpose. Prothero (1993), writing on behalf of Ontario commercial fishermen on Lake Erie, described the reasons for planting lake trout there as a "mystery" because they held no value for anglers or commercial fishermen. This perception is also widely held by Lake Ontario commercial fishermen. Increasingly, the goal of lake trout restoration has come to be viewed as a threat to fisheries for other trout and salmon species maintained by stocking. For example, the (erroneous) perception that stocking reductions for Lake Ontario spared lake trout at the expense of other trout and salmon species resulted in a letter to NYSDEC from an Ohio sportfishing organization that declared its members would not purchase New York State fishing licenses because the proceeds would be used to " ... favor the stocking of lake trout over the much more desirable salmonoids ... " (Moinette 1993). Restrictive regulations imposed to limit angler harvest in order to promote lake trout restoration have resulted in economic concerns among charter operators and others
Management Issues in Lake Trout Restorations with economic interests in recreational fishing. Brown (1984), Peyton (1987), and Eshenroder (1987) identified this issue as a potential hindrance for public support of lake trout restoration. Of 50 recent letters in NYSDEC files pertaining to lake trout restoration, many from elected officials and local governments, one expressed support for restoration. The remainder addressed the economic impacts of restrictive regulations or expressed concern that lake trout restoration would threaten management programs for other trout and salmon species. Apart from a role as a fishery product, lake trout have increasingly been described in terms of their ecological role, independent of human use. This role relates to a viewpoint that human interests are best served by the restoration of ecological structure and function to ecosystems like the Great Lakes. As a key native predator in Lake Ontario, lake trout are seen as an essential component of a restored Lake Ontario ecosystem. For those who view lake trout from this perspective, including some angler groups (Grooms 1992), the natural origil'. of lake trout is paramount, and the availability of lake trout as a fishery product is fortuitous. In recent years, emphasis has been increasingly placed on planning at the ecosystem level. The Revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (International Joint Commission 1988) stipulated that ecosystem objectives shall be developed for each of the Great Lakes. Goals and objectives at the ecosystem level are frequently stated in broad terms related to perceptions of ecological well-being such as biodiversity, ecosystem health and ecosystem integrity. These terms are conceptual, difficult to define in succinct terms, and explicitly incorporate moral, ethical or philosophical components (Higgs 1987, Regier 1989, Regier et al. 1990, Lerner 1990, International Joint Commission 1991, Cairns and Lackey 1992, Hughes and Noss 1992). Consequently, the elaboration of criteria for the attainment of ecosystem objectives in terms of measurable ecosystem properties has proven difficult. Indicator species have been widely adopted in ecosystem plans as alternatives to objectives framed in terms of specific ecosystem properties. Indicator species are " ... surrogate organisms, species which integrate critical physical, chemical and biological properties of the ecosystem and, thus, can be used to judge the relative health of the ecosystem." (International Joint Commission 1991). Lake trout, as a native top predator at the apex of offshore food webs, has been identified as a key indicator species for Lake Superior (International Joint Commission 1991) and Lake Ontario (Ecosystem Objectives Work Group 1992). The ecosystem properties necessary for the existence of an abundant, self-sustaining lake trout population could presumably be considered to be within acceptable boundaries if such a population were present, even if all of those ecosystem properties could not be measured, or even specified. Thus, goals to restore self-sustaining lake trout populations in the Great Lakes have acquired added significance only indirectly related to human use of fishery products.
473
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND THE PUBLIC
Everhart and Youngs (1981) defined a fishery as: " ... the complex of interactions within and between the population(s) of fish being harvested, the population(s) of fishermen, and the environment of each." A fishery, then, explicitly includes people catching, or trying to catch fish, and fisheries management programs have been traditionally oriented toward this pursuit. Consequently, the "public" that fisheries managers have traditionally dealt with consists mostly of fishermen and those with economic interests in fishing. In New York and other U.S. states, this relationship is amplified by the "user pays" tradition in which fish and wildlife management programs are primarily funded by sporting license fees and excise taxes on sporting equipment. This fosters the perception that these fees and taxes are payment for services rendered and bolsters the expectation that the activities of fish and wildlife management agencies should be directed largely, if not exclusively, toward the improvement of fishing and hunting opportunities. The active involvement of the public in government decision-making is a growing trend in North America. As Doig (1992) noted: "Citizen involvement that at one time was the wave of the future has become the wave of the present." Johnson (1993) described how public involvement successfully defused public hostility toward the Bonneville Power Administration. Larkin (1991) recommended that fisheries managers employ as much public participation as possible to ensure a community feeling of ownership. Eshenroder (1987) cited an obligation of Great Lakes fisheries managers to involve their constituents in decision-making. Peyton (1987) noted that: "The political environment of state resource agencies holds increasing public expectations and demands for participation." The Great Lakes Charter, developed under the auspices of the Great Lakes Commission (1994) as a statement of commonly held principles for an ecosystem approach to Great Lakes management, emphatically endorsed a decision-making, rather than a consultative role for the public. Decker and Krueger (1993) asserted that: "Fisheries managers cannot operate without public involvement in policy and management decision-making." When the Lake Ontario Committee contemplated the process that would be employed to make a decision about the predator/prey imbalance in Lake Ontario, the need for public involvement was apparent. NYSDEC and OMNR invited representatives of various interests, including sport fishing, commercial fishing, environmental, small business, tourism, and local government to participate in public consultation, but these activities were dominated by sportfishing groups, particularly those with economic interests. Generally, negative attitudes about lake trout and the restoration of self-sustaining populations emerged from the public consultation process. We may have failed to achieve broad-based public representation in our public consultation activities because those who agree with a management program may
474
Lange and Smith
fail to support it with appropriate actions, while groups that oppose the program are likely to participate more actively (Peyton 1987). We also recognize that we have longstanding linkages with traditional fishery clients but more recent and sometimes tenuous linkages with groups more oriented toward ecological values, which may have limited their participation. Is there a significant public segment that embraces concepts such as biodiversity, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem health, and sees lake trout restoration as an essential element of attaining goals framed in those terms? A nationwide survey of Americans conducted on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife (1993) revealed that only 22 percent had ever heard of an issue called "the loss of biological diversity" and none identified biodiversity loss as an important environmental problem. Blockstein (1992) noted that most people are uninterested in fish diversity. Higgs (1987) classified most individuals in modern society as "economic resourcists" who regard the natural world as an extension of a commodity market (Le., fish as products). Hughes and Noss (1992) also think the public consider fish to be a recreational commodity. Grooms (1992) indicated that the angler group Trout Unlimited advocated self-sustaining and natural systems, but acknowledged that the majority of Great Lakes anglers supported fisheries based upon stocking hatchery-reared fish. Environmentally-oriented Great Lakes interest groups with preservationist or protectionist goals would be expected to slIPport lake trout restoration goals (Peyton 1987). Our \\~xperience with many of these groups, however, is thal.jIey are often concerned principally with water quality issues, especially toxics. The concerns of these groups about fish and fishery management have largely focused on the perceived threats to human health posed by contaminated fish. They have at times been critical of stocking programs that place fish into contaminated environments with resultant accumulation of contaminants in the flesh of the fish (International Joint Commission 1990). Support of fishery management programs for lake trout restoration requires tacit approval of large-scale stocking programs for a species that carries the greatest contaminant burdens of any salmonine species in the Great Lakes. Despite general support for native species and natural ecosystem processes by environmental groups, human health concerns associated with stocking lake trout may constrain their support for restoration. CONCLUSIONS The Lake Ontario predator-prey issue has framed the lake trout restoration program as a fisheries management dilemma in which the growing trends toward ecosystem management and greater public participation may be in conflict, or at least out of phase. We, as fisheries professionals, are increasingly aware that sustainable fisheries, as well as other human uses of Great Lakes ecosystems, require attention to the state of ecosystem structure and
function, such as the capacity to support self-sustaining fish stocks. As public officials, we are sensitive to the increasing requirement for a meaningful public role in the formulation of public policy. Weare also mindful of Yarbrough's (1987) admonition that: "Regardless of scientific soundness, intense conviction, or governmental persuasion, policies that lack support in the fundamental value structure of society cannot succeed." We readily concede that an absence of support for lake trout restoration has not been conclusively demonstrated, but neither can such support be readily discerned if it is present. What is the appropriate role for fisheries managers on issues defined by competing values? Pister (1995) believes an education in ecological principles bestows special insights, which form moral and ethical imperatives that transcend public opinion, much as a parent is entitled to make decisions for a child with incompletely developed values. Although we admire the conviction and dedication that fuel Pister's advocacy, we are also aware that the North American tradition of democracy endows public opinion with ethical status (Yarbrough 1987) that we, as public officials, are obliged to recognize and respect. A value-neutral approach to issues defined by competing values contrasts with an approach in which specific values are strongly advocated. Fisheries managers in a value-neutral role would confine themselves to providing technical information, facilitating the resolution of conflicts among interests, and making decisions on the basis of measures of public opinion. Although such an approach could, in many instances, produce wise decisions, it would surely yield other decisions that we clearly recognized, based upon our education and experience, as misguided, wasteful of public funds, inequitable and/or damaging to fishery resources. We would be malfeasant as public officials to acquiesce to such decisions because a poll or survey indicated public support for them. The elaboration of goals for Great Lakes ecosystems, which have been so modified that their pristine condition is irretrievably lost, will involve choices based upon human values from an array of alternatives within ecologically defined boundaries. The definition of ecological boundaries is a daunting challenge for scientists, but one for which their scientific training has prepared them. We suggest that within the ecological boundaries defined by scientists, fisheries managers must play a prominent role in defining sociocultural boundaries for decisions, a task for which their training often provides little guidance. Krueger and Decker (1993) noted that procedures for this task have not been developed and identified a need for a system of value analysis that, combined with decision theory, would provide guidance for goal-setting. In the absence of established procedures for this role, some fundamental principles must guide fisheries managers. We agree with Krueger and Decker (1993) that fisheries managers should be advocates for the long-term well-being of fishery resources. Expansion of the temporal scope of fisheries planning will require greater em-
Management Issues in Lake Trout Restorations phasis on ecological structure and function. This, however, should not preempt human use of fishery resources as a principal focus of fisheries management, but complement it. We cannot envision a diminution of the longstanding human proclivity to catch fish for food and recreation, but a better correlation between the expectations of fishermen and the capacity of aquatic ecosystems to produce the fish they seek is required. Fisheries professionals can contribute to this by reaching out to the public and more effectively communicating not only information gained from scientific inquiry, but also the nature of the scientific process itself (Peyton 1987). Public participation will continue to grow in importance. Fisheries managers, however, must be mindful that the public is not a monolithic entity, but a conglomeration of various interests. Comprehensive representation of these interests is essential and must be a basic element of any public participation process. The purpose of public participation (information transfer, consultation, decisionmaking, etc.) must be clearly elaborated and carefully explained to participants. Anything that could constrain incorporation of the results of public participation into agency programs or practices, such as legal mandates, agency policies, fiscal limitations, scientific findings, or values embraced by the agency, must be clearly identified and explained at the outset. If participants enter into a public participation process with expectations that cannot be met because of hidden or unspoken constraints, the credibility of the process, the agency, and the fisheries managers involved will be impaired. This paper was not intended to question lake trout restoration as a Great Lakes fishery management goal, but to emphasize that impediments to the achievement of that goal exist in the sociocultural milieu of Great Lakes ecosystems as well as in the biophysical realm. We have no doubt that lake trout restoration will serve the broad public interest, but we also have no illusion that there is widespread public recognition of this. The fisheries profession has largely evaded or ignored the arena of public opinion on management initiatives like lake trout restoration. This issue, rather than technical matters, may be the greatest challenge we face in our ongoing efforts to restore Great Lakes ecosystems.
REFERENCES Blockstein, D.E. 1992. An aquatic perspective on U.S. biodiversity policy. Fisheries 17(3):26-30. Bowlby, J.N., and LeTendre, G.c. 1993. Lake Ontario stocking and marking program 1992. In 1993 Annual Report Bureau of Fisheries Lake Ontario Unit to the Lake Ontario Committee and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, pp. 15-60. Albany, NY: NY State Dept. Environmental Conservation. Brown, T.L. 1984. Socio-economics. In Strategies for Rehabilitation of Lake Trout in the Great Lakes: Proceedings of a Conference on Lake Trout Research, August, 1993, ed. R.L. Eshenroder, T.P. Poe and C.H. Olver, pp. 40-44. Great Lakes Fishery Commission Technical Report No. 40.
475
Cairns, M.A., and Lackey, R.T. 1992. Biodiversity and management of natural resources: the issues. Fisheries 17(3):6-10. Casselman, J.M. 1990. Research project: lake trout rehabilitation studies. In 1989 Annual Report Lake Ontario Fisheries Unit, Lake Ontario Committee Annual Meeting, Gananoque, ON, 28-29 Mar. 90. Picton, ON: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Christie, W.J. 1974. Changes in the fish species composition of the Great Lakes. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 31 :827-854. Decker, D.J., and Krueger, c.c. 1993. Communication: catalyst for effective fisheries management. In Inland Fisheries Management in North America, ed. C.c. Kohler and W.A. Hubert, pp. 55-75. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Defenders of Wildlife. 1993. Americans unaware of the environmental threat that scientists say may be the worst yet. News release dated 20 July 93, Washington, DC, Defenders of Wildlife. Doig, H.E. 1992. Stewardship-a place of beginning. Wild in New York 1(2):2. Albany, NY: NY State Dept. Environmental Conservation. Eckert, T.H. 1993. New York's 1992 Lake Ontario fishing boat census. In 1992 Annual Report Bureau of Fisheries Lake Ontario Unit to the Lake Ontario Committee and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, pp. 61-106. Albany, NY: NY State Dept. Environmental Conservation. Ecosystem Objectives Work Group. 1992. Interim Report of the Ecosystem Objectives Work Group on Ecosystem Objectives and their environmental indicators for Lake Ontario. Chicago, IL: US Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. Eshenroder, R.L. 1987. Socioeconomic aspects of lake trout rehabilitation in the Great Lakes. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 116:309-313. Everhart, H.W., and Youngs, W.D. 1981. Principles of Fishery Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Great Lakes Commission. 1994. Ecosystem charter for the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence basin. Mimeo. Chicago, IL: Great Lakes Commission. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 1980. A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries. Ann Arbor, MI: Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Grooms, S. 1992. The enigma of the lake trout. Trout, Spring issue. Higgs, E.S. 1987. Changing value perspectives in natural resource allocation: from market to ecosystem. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 116:525-531. Hughes, R.M., and Noss, R.F. 1992. Biological diversity and biological integrity: current concerns for lakes and streams. Fisheries 17(3):11-19. International Joint Commission. 1988. Revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1987. Windsor, ON: International Joint Commission. _ _ _. 1990. Fifth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality. Windsor, ON: International Joint Commission. _ _ _" 1991. A Proposed Framework for Developing Indicators of Ecosystem Health for the Great Lakes Region. Windsor, ON: International Joint Commission.
476
Lange and Smith
Johnson, P.T. 1993. How I turned a critical public into useful consultants. Harvard Business Review 71:56-66. Jones, M.J., Stewart, D.J., O'Gorman, R, Mills, E., Johannsson, 0., Sprules, W.G., and Millard, S. 1992. Status of the Lake Ontario Offshore Pelagic Fish Community and Related Ecosystem in 1992. Report to the Lake Ontario Committee. Albany, NY: NY State Dept. Environmental Conservation. Kerr, S.J., and LeTendre, G.C. 1991. The State of the Lake Ontario Fish CommuT:lity in 1989. Ann Arbor, MI: Great Lakes Fishery Commission Spec. Publ. 91-3. Krueger, e.e., and Decker, D.J. 1993. The process of fisheries management. In Inland Fisheries Management in North America, ed. C.e. Kohler and W.A. Hubert, pp. 33-54. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Lake Ontario Committee. 1993. Report of the Lake Ontario Committee to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. In Minutes of the Great lakes Fishery Commission 1993 Annual Meeting, Agenda Item 18. Ann Arbor, MI: Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Lantiegne, E. 1989. Lake trout slot limit - boom or bust? Great Lakes Fisherman, May issue: 17-21. Larkin, P.A. 1991. The wet revolution: fisheries production in the Year 2005. In Proceedings of the North American Fisheries Leadership Workshop, ed. J.P. Harville, pp. A22-A33. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Lerner, S. 1990. Values in integrity. In An Ecosystem Approach to the Integrity of the Great Lakes in Turbulent Times, ed. e.J. Edwards and H.A. Regier, pp. 37-44. Ann Arbor, MI: Great Lakes Fishery Commission Spec. Publ. 90-4. Marsden, J.E., Krueger, C.C., and Schneider, C.P. 1988. Evidence of natural reproduction by stocked lake trout in Lake Ontario. J. Great Lakes Res. 14:3-8. Moinette, E.L. 1993. Letter to the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation reproduced in Great Lakes Basin Report 4 (10): 2. Elmhurst, IL: Great Lakes Sportfishing Council. Peyton, R.B. 1987. Mechanisms affecting public acceptance of resource management policies and strategies. Can J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44 (Suppl. 2):306-312. Pister, E.P. 1995. Ethics of native species restoration: the Great Lakes. J. Great Lakes Res. 21(Supplement 1):10-16. Prothero, F. 1993. From the wheelhouse. The Great Lakes Fisherman 20 (12):3-5. Radonski, G. 1987. Should lake trout rehabilitation be continued? In Minutes of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 1987 Annual Meeting, pp. 12-17. Ann Arbor, MI: Great Lakes Fishery Commission. _ _ _. 1988. Hatchery lake trout jeopardized. SF! Bulletin No. 392:1-2, Washington, DC, Sport Fishing Institute. Regier, H.A. 1989. The time is ripe: notes on ecosystem integrity. In Towards an Ecosystem Charter for the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence, pp. 15-28, Rawson Occasional Paper No.1. Ottawa, ON: Rawson Academy of Aquatic Science. _ _ _, Grima, A.P., Francis, G.R., Lerner, S., and Hamilton, A. 1990. Integrity and surprise in the Great Lakes ecosystem: implications for policy. In An Ecosystem Approach to the Integrity of the Great Lakes in Turbulent Times, ed. e.J. Edwards and H.A. Regier, pp. 17-25. Ann Arbor, MI: Great Lakes Fishery Commission Spec. Publ. 90-4. Schneider, C.P., Kolenosky, D.P., and Goldthwaite, D.B. 1983. A Joint Plan for the Rehabilitation of Lake Trout in Lake Ontario. Ann Arbor, MI: Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Tanner, H. 1987. Another perspective. Quoted from Great Lakes Steelheader 11 (7) in SF! Bulletin No. 388, p. 2. Washington, DC: Sport Fishing Institute. Yarbrough, e.J. 1987. Using political theory in fishery management. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 116:532-536.