By Quentin Wray
URL: http://free.financialmail.co.za/09/0220/life/dlife.htm
Should SA waters be solely for endemic fish? Or should trout and other “foreign” species be accommodated, too?
This question is behind a long-running, simmering conflict between the fly-fishing community and nature conservation officials, especially those from the fairest Cape. The bureaucrats want trout consigned to the dustbin of SA history, alongside so many other vestiges of our colonial past, and the fly-fishers, not to put too fine a point on it, don’t.
Public pressure through, among others, the Federation of SA Fly-fishers (Fosaf), seems to have got the authorities to back off a bit from this programme of ichthyological xenophobia. There are signs a compromise could be reached soon, which will allow fly-fishers to continue to enjoy their sport while ensuring the sustainability of other fish species.
Putting the science and myriad details of the competing arguments aside for now, this mutual-benefit approach is best. In some primitive cultures, conservation efforts were supported by the immense spiritual or physical sanction (demons or death, basically) imposed on poachers and other abusers of wildlife. This approach is denied modern administrators, who must live with the fact that their efforts will be doomed unless people can derive some economic benefit from leaving their environment intact.
Without this, people, in justifiable desperation about how they are going to feed their families, will simply exploit the resource with scant regard for its sustainability. This has led to the situation on the Vaal River, where fragile yellowfish populations are hoicked out the water and eaten. It is also the logic behind pulling communities near the Kruger National Park into tourism ventures with established players, and explains why the once spectacular Wankie Game Reserve in Zimbabwe has been turned into a giant butchery-cum-grocery store. Continue Reading »