But can “anything” man-made be
placed in our waters and be called fish habitat? If we throw a rusty
wheelbarrow into a lake today and catch a fish on it next week, can we
genuinely say we’ve added fish habitat and therefore improved the lake? Are we
unknowingly turning our lakes into landfills or the equivalent of the town dump
under the guise of creating fish habitat? Is it really true that any structure
of any kind is better than nothing? If you’ve ever wondered if there’s
any discernible line between “junk” and authentic fish habitat, you wouldn’t be
alone.
If there’s any hope of understanding
the potential benefits using artificial fish habitat might offer, I think we
need to uncouple two terms: Fish habitat and fishing. Effective fish habitat
needs to protect young fish too small to be of interest to anglers. The metric
to evaluate how useful fish habitat is must be re-calibrated. The question
shouldn’t be how many trophy bass did you catch this year on the habitat, but
how many young-of-the year bass survived the brutal gauntlet of their first
year of life because of the protection that habitat provided.
It could be
argued that the most successful fish habitat would be one that only attracted
age 0 fish and was a lousy fishing spot. As anglers, we need to modify our
point of view. Fish habitat should be regarded as an investment in the hope of
a better day’s fishing in the future, not something with instant payoffs today.
If fish habitat isn’t a vehicle for fish recruitment, what good is it?
Today, there isn’t a single designer
of any artificial fish habitat that doesn’t promise their product or design
will protect young fish. These are merely assertions that haven’t met their
burden of proof. These claims must be demonstrated before we have warrant to
accept them as true. Where is the evidence that any assemblage of man-made
parts and scrap material does anything to help even a single fish survive its
first year, let alone to adulthood? So far, Fishiding is the only design that
has continuously and consistently documented in hundreds of underwater pictures
and videos over the years the efficacy of their product.
If you work in the fish management sector, you should absolutely demand evidence that whatever artificial habitat you’re considering spending resources on legitimately works. As condescending as it may sound, intuition or gut feeling is not evidence. If we’re not more careful about scrutinizing and properly evaluating artificial fish habitat, we run the risk of unknowingly crossing what should be a distinct line between what authentic habitat is and what’s simply junk.
That makes a lot of sense. I wondered why the other types of stuff they use never seems to have any pictures with tiny bugs or fish. thanks
ReplyDelete