The thing that gets me is the change in philosophy by game & fish departments and biologists all across the country. Back in the 50's, 60's & 70's they were all about enhancing the wildlife and fish opportunities for the sportsman, They experimented with planting different kinds of upland game to different habitat (Chukars, Hungarian Partridge, Pheasants) and moved fish to different waters (Golden Trout, Brown Trout, Brookies) to name just a few. It was all about giving us the chance to hunt and fish for different species in different habitats. Golden Trout were never found in Wyoming, but the world record Golden came from there. The high desert of the western states was practically devoid of game birds, but we have Chukars now and we never had Pheasants until they were planted pre 1900's.
Today they are eradicating lots of species of trout from their new haunts and stocking only natives. I'll bet if the current philosophy was in place in earlier years, there wouldn't be Pheasants, Chukars or Huns to hunt. To me, it is a sad situation because these transplants provide us with hunting and fishing opportunities where there was nothing available before the transplants took place.
Pretty sad IMHO!
I see your point and agree with parts and disagree with parts.
The high plains weren't devoid of game birds, lots of sharp tails and sage grouse. Mountain grouse have always been around as well.
There's a huge difference between terrestrial wildlife and aquatic wildlife...pretty tough to put the cat back in the bag in regard to fisheries. With fish, its just so easy for some 10-watt fisherman to put fish in a bucket and throw them in where they think they want them. Perch, pike, sunfish, bass, brook trout, yada, yada are all over the place thanks to people that think they know better than biologists. Invasive and non native fish severely compete and most often out-compete native fish. I don't have a problem with the GF planting fish, but it should be left to biologists to do, not some clown with a 5-gallon bucket.
Also, in some cases, think bull trout and west slope cutthroat, it makes sense to take measures, including not planting a bunch of non-natives, to keep populations stable and increasing. Both species could become threatened or endangered and nobody wants that. Once a species is listed, management options become limited and the cost to manage the species sky-rocket.
Terrestrial wildlife is much tougher to just transplant, pretty tough for some random dude to grab a bunch of chukars and throw them where you want them. Also, in the case of some game birds, you really don't see them out-competing native birds all that much, but rather filling a niche in habitat. Sage grouse and sharp tails don't really compete with ring necked pheasants for habitat as an example. As such, I don't see the conflict and have no problem with pheasants being planted where appropriate.
I think there's a balance and IMO, the GF agencies have bent over backward to provide a pretty darn wide range of opportunity, at all kinds of fish, fowl, and big-game. Within 50 air miles of my house I can fish all sorts of species, brook trout, lake trout, splake, several varieties of rainbow, browns, kokanee salmon, perch, walleye, catfish, grayling, tiger trout, crappie, tiger muskie, a couple kinds of cutthroat, and some I'm probably not thinking about.
I don't know how much more variety we need...and if you want more, there's always Texas.