Response to Dettmers et al. (2012): Great Lakes Fisheries Managers Are Pursuing Appropriate Goals

Abstract

After reading the article by Dettmers et al. in the November 2012 issue of Fisheries (“Management of Alewife Using Pacific Salmon in the Great Lakes: Whether to Manage for Economics or the Ecosystem?”), we feel compelled to respond and to present a different perspective on this important management issue. Despite the generally positive contribution to Great Lakes literature made by this article, it contains several inaccuracies concerning the past and current state of Great Lakes ecosystems. Dettmers et al. present an oversimplification of options currently available to Great Lakes fisheries managers; a false dichotomy describing only two future options for management of these fisheries. We submit that managers could strive to “… maintain a diverse salmonid community, [while proceeding] (to the extent possible) with native species rehabilitation” and we conclude that, “… on each of the Great Lakes, managers are pursuing appropriate goals, managing the aquatic resources of the lakes for the greatest public good, given the variability in conditions and likelihood for success specific to each lake.”

Feeding ecology and niche overlap of Lake Ontario offshore forage fish assessed with stable isotopes

“…These results support the idea that coexisting native and non-native species can evolve and potentially develop sustainable and functionally efficient food webs. From a management perspective, it may be worthwhile to consider a more conciliatory approach when managing a well-established nonnative species assemblage by recognizing the value of novel species (Carroll 2011) rather than always framing the native/non-native species management and ecosystem restoration discussion as a dilemma (Stewart et al 1999;Dettmers et al 2012, Claramunt andClapp 2014).…”

Considerations When Determining Appropriate Management Goals: A Reply to Claramunt and Clapp

“…The argument put forward by Claramunt and Clapp (2014) is that this approach is appropriate because it can maintain existing management of nonnative salmonid populations while simultaneously seeking to rehabilitate native fishes. We believe that though this approach is emotionally appealing and even desirable to many natural resource management agencies and their stakeholders, it may not achieve either goal effectively.…”

“…We read with interest the response by Claramunt and Clapp (2014) to our article about management of Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) using Pacific salmon in the Great Lakes (Dettmers et al 2012). Both authors are respected research biologists working for the State of Michigan, with whom we work regularly in a productive and respectful relationship, as part of the fishery management process in the Great Lakes.…”

“…The assertion by Claramunt and Clapp (2014) that there "… is no evidence that native fish, such as coregonids and Lake Trout, are better suited …" (p. 124) to changing Great Lakes ecosystems, particularly of the upper Great Lakes, is most curious. That native Lake Trout and coregonids are uniquely suited to the Great Lakes was well summarized by Eshenroder and Burnham-Curtis (1999).…”

“…Within this background, Claramunt and Clapp (2014) contend that there should be a third management option in addition to the two we proposed (Dettmers et al 2012), namely, that managers should strive to "… maintain a diverse salmonid community, while proceeding, to the extent possible, with native species rehabilitation efforts …" (Claramunt et al 2013, p. 641). The argument put forward by Claramunt and Clapp (2014) is that this approach is appropriate because it can maintain existing management of nonnative salmonid populations while simultaneously seeking to rehabilitate native fishes. We believe that though this approach is emotionally appealing and even desirable to many natural resource management agencies and their stakeholders, it may not achieve either goal effectively.…”