Developments in the past have been haphazard and uncorrelated. 

 Individuals, individual org-anizations, and individual agencies have de- 

 stroyed fish habitats completely or lowered their productive potential 

 drastically without thought being given to the results of such actions, 

 not only on the fisheries industry, but on other branches of the 

 economy as well. 



Unless the general plan calls for an almost complete elimination 

 of the recreational fishing industry of Montana, this State is in dire 

 need of balanced planning in resource development. 



Pollution is not a major deterrent to the fisheries resource in 



Montana as yet. The potential for fish production 



Pollution Is is greatly lowered or removed in a few waters, 



A Potential but to date the over-all effects are not great. 



Hazard As Montana continues to develop, the threat 



from domestic and industrial pollution will be- 

 come real. Since preventative measures are far moi-e pleasant and 

 effective than corrective measures, Montana is in need now of legisla- 

 tion that will provide adequate protection against pollution. 



Straightening of stream channels has had a far more drastic 

 effect on the aquatic habitat than has pollution to date. Every person 

 who drives an automobile desires a good straight highway, but is it 

 not possible in many instances to locate these highways away from 

 stream beds ? Have all of the other reasons for which streams are 

 channeled into flumes been completely evaluated for their over-all 

 effects? Every turn in a stream course provides a much needed 

 hole. The natural banks of the streams, together with their over- 

 hanging brush, provide much needed cover and resting places. They 

 also provide sources of food, for insects fall in large numbers from 

 overhanging brush into the water and are consumed by the fish. 

 Once a meandering stream is channeled into a flume with the banks 

 shaped to engineering perfection, that stream is no longer a highly 

 productive body of water from a fisheries or any other recreational 

 standpoint. 



This problem is also related to a similar problem of destruction 

 of overhanging streamside brush from other causes. Consider the 

 miles of streams along which the brush has been removed, not only 

 by highway and road construction, but by cattle grazing, general 

 agricultural practices, and flood control activities as well. 



Experiments done by Marvin F. Boussu ( "Relationship between 

 trout populations and cover on a small stream," Master of Science 



Thesis submitted at Montana State College, June, 

 Exp«'riment I»roves 1954, and published in the Journal of Wildlife 

 Kriish Rnnoval Management, Vol. 18, No. 2, April, 1954) have 



K<'<lu<'es Trout shown for Trout Creek in the Gallatin Valley 



that removal of brush alone, without making any 

 other change in the stream, reduced the population of trout by 58 

 percent in the face of a general 36 percent increase in the population 

 of trout in the stream. 



Removal of undercut banks alone, without making any other 

 change in the stream, reduced the population 33 1^. percent in the 



— 64 — 



