A Policymaker's Perspective on Managing for Contradictory Population Status: Imperiled vs. Invasive Conspecifics

Fishery managers and policy makers address conflicting objectives when managing certain fish species considered at-risk within their native range and at the same time, invasive in non-native habitat they occupy.  Examples include the vastly differing management goals across North America for lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), brook trout (S. fontinalis), and Pacific/Sea lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus/ Petromyzon marinus).   Substantial investments have been, and are being made, to both save populations of these species or to eradicate them – a conundrum we face as fishery managers and policy makers.  In this paper, I suggest that shared science from conspecifics may indeed aid us in such dichotomous efforts but in the end, policy flexibility across management entities may aid us as much, or more in our efforts as high-powered science.    For example, ESA “take” concern regarding listed bull trout has been relaxed to enable largescale gillnetting of exotic lake trout on some Idaho spawning grounds.   Lack of public or inter-agency support for well-designed piscicide use may take the most effective strategies off the table in some instances.   Both creative science and good old fashioned common sense would seem the order of the day, regardless of which side of the management paradox you work on.