I'd rather dampen the enthusiasm for fishing—does reducing the number of people really protect nature?

Monster fish hunter Takuya Kozuka caused a stir with a post on X (formerly Twitter).

He garnered a significant response with his post, "#I'dRatherDampenTheEnthusiasmForFishing".

However, I was not surprised.

This is because my fly fishing mentor had said exactly the same thing.

I fished for black bass from high school through college.

After that, I moved on to...

Sea bass.

Blue runners.

Shore jigging.

And finally, I arrived at fly fishing.

Back then, I actually wanted to increase the number of people who fish.

The reason is simple.

The market for fly fishing is small.

There are few manufacturers.

The second-hand market is also small.

The gear is expensive.

Compared to black bass or salt lure fishing, the options are limited.

Honestly, it was tough for me back then when I didn't have much money.

There was also very little information.

Where could I catch them?

What should I buy?

How should I get started?

There is surprisingly little information for beginners.

There was no one around I could ask for guidance.

The community also seemed closed off.

At the time, I thought,

"Wouldn't gear become cheaper if the population increased?"

"Wouldn't fishing spot information online become easier to understand and organize?"

That is what I believed.

Around that time, I asked my mentor,

"What can be done to increase the fly fishing population?"

The answer I received was unexpected.

"I don't think it needs to increase at all."

I couldn't understand that at the time.

However, after actually starting to visit the rivers, I finally began to understand what he meant.

Fishing spots are constantly like a game of musical chairs,

and people concentrate at popular spots.

The pressure on the fish also increases.

The issue of people catching and taking home large quantities of fish.

The problem of litter. The problem of parking.

The spread of locations via social media.

Fish and rivers are finite resources.

That is why the more experienced one becomes,

the more they start saying,

"We don't need more people."

I completely agree with this point.

I can also understand the issue raised by Oikawamaru,

who quoted and reposted Mr. Kozuka's post on X.

I used to think that if more people liked living things, it would lead to conservation.

However, in reality, there are situations where nature lovers themselves are putting a burden on biodiversity.

This, too, is a fact.

This article is not about,

"Let's increase the number of anglers."

I am also against the disorderly expansion of usage.

However, I have another question here.

Will the problem really be solved if the number of people decreases?

I have recently been seeing this structure in various places.

There used to be trash cans as a matter of course at highway rest areas.

However, in recent years, the removal of trash cans has been progressing at some small-scale rest areas.

Is this really the only way?

The reason was the dumping of household trash.

It was not trash generated there in the first place,

but rather large amounts of trash brought from homes that began to be discarded.

Appeals alone did not lead to improvement,

and the management made the painful decision to remove the trash cans.

I do not wish to debate the merits of this decision.

I am interested in something else.

When a problem occurs,

we

are prone to choosing

"getting rid of it"

before

"how to manage it".

Does that really make the root problem disappear?

No.

Only the trash cans disappeared.

The location where the problem occurs has simply become invisible.

Similar things are happening all over Japanese society.

The removal of playground equipment from parks.

The banning of ball games.

No entry.

No fishing.

Problems arise.

So, usage is stopped.

But is that really a solution?

I felt a similar sense of discomfort regarding the black bass issue.

Of course, the issue of non-native fish exists.

However, the discomfort I felt at the time was elsewhere.

In many places,

Pond draining.

Extermination.

Removal of non-native fish.

were carried out.

However,

Restoration of spawning environments for native species.

Water quality improvement.

Conservation of riparian forests.

Improvement of embankment environments.
Development of fishways.

were rarely carried out in those cases.

As I observed fishing spots,

it did not seem that black bass were the only problem.

Places for fish to hide.

Places to spawn.

Appropriate water quality.

Such environments were lost first,

and it seemed that black bass and bluegill only dealt the final blow. Of course, managing invasive fish is necessary.

I am not saying that I want to protect black bass.

Rather, when I was a child,

I thought that adults, using the black bass issue as a catalyst,

would restore rivers and ponds where native fish could increase.

However, what was actually done,

was nothing but extermination and draining ponds.

Of course, that itself might have been necessary.

But I,

wanted to see the environmental restoration that would follow.

What I expected from adults before I became one myself,

was not a search for culprits,

but efforts to improve the ecosystem itself.

What I was feeling was,

It was a sense of discomfort with oversimplifying the problem.

Overtourism is the same.

Mount Fuji.

Kyoto.

Shibuya.

Okutama.

As a result of too many users,

traffic congestion.

trash problems.

manners issues.

increased administrative costs.

Various problems are occurring.

However, what I question is something else.

Why, when such massive demand exists,

are sufficient funds for environmental maintenance and conservation not being collected?

The problem is not the existence of users.

Isn't the problem that there is no mechanism to convert demand into maintenance and management?

The fact that there are many people.

The fact that there are many anglers.

The fact that there are many tourists.

That in itself is not the problem.

The problem is,

that we are failing to manage increased demand.

that we are failing to utilize decreased demand.

In other words, it is a design problem.

What remains after the related population disappears?

I practice fly fishing.

That is why I am talking about rivers.

However, what Mr. Kozuka and Mr. Oikawamaru are talking about is, fundamentally, a much broader issue.

Rivers.

Lakes and marshes.

Wetlands.

Tidal flats.

Coastal areas.

Forests.

Satoyama (traditional rural landscapes).

It is a discussion about the natural environment as a whole.

And recently, I have had more opportunities to write articles about regional revitalization and depopulated areas.

There, I feel it time and again.

It is not just the resident population that supports a region.

They are the related population.

Nature is the same.

People who go to the site.

People who observe the site.

People who talk about the site.

The total amount of them is decreasing.

If I weren't fishing,

I would never have thought about,

the issues with fishery cooperatives,

the issues with river construction,

the issues with wildlife damage,

depopulation,

or the local economy.

Fishing was the gateway.

In other words, anglers are users, but at the same time,

they are also a related population to nature.

On social media, I often see criticism of river construction for destroying ecosystems.

But I want you to think about it.

Who is it that actually notices the changes?

It is the people who visit the site every week.

Anglers.

Nature observers.

Local residents.

In other words, the related population.

This is my biggest concern.

The related population decreases.

The stakeholders decrease.

Then, people who do not know the actual site become the majority.

Suppose it is 20 years from now.

Anglers have decreased.

The fishery cooperative has also aged.

Nature observers have also decreased.

And then, a small-scale hydroelectric power project is proposed for a mountain stream.

Only government officials and business operators are at the briefing session.

The anglers who used to visit that stream every week are no longer there.

No opposing opinions are raised.

The plan is approved.

I do not know if that plan was truly bad or not.

However, at the very least,

what lives in that stream,

There is no one left to talk about what kind of fish swim upstream,

what kind of insects emerge,

or what kind of scenery might be lost.

And by the time we realize it,

not only the fishing spots,

but the fish,

the aquatic life,

and the ecosystem itself might be gone.

I fear such a future.

At this point,

some might think,

"It should just be decided by experts."

However, I do not think so.

Anglers are not ichthyologists.

Nature observers are not ecologists.

But they know the field.

They possess a value distinct from specialized knowledge.

That is why I am,

a bit cautious about the idea of reducing users for the sake of conservation.

If the number of users decreases,

The number of supporters will also decrease.

The number of people speaking out will also decrease.

The number of people directly involved will also decrease.

This is because the social foundation for conservation itself will also weaken.

Are use and conservation truly in conflict?

My answer is,

not necessarily.

Use places a burden on nature.

This is a fact.

However, use itself is not evil.

It is precisely because users exist that,

people who support conservation are also born.

Financial resources are also generated.

A related population is also created.

The problem is not the use itself,

but perhaps leaving that use unchecked.

I actually think the opposite.

If there is demand,

we should convert that demand into financial resources for conservation.

For Mount Fuji, that would be an entrance fee.

For Kyoto, it's a tourism tax.

For fishing, it's fishing fees or conservation funds.

For example, if there is a river visited by 10,000 people a year,

even at 1,000 yen per person, that amounts to 10 million yen annually.

That alone would greatly expand the options for river surveys, spawning ground maintenance, and monitoring activities.

If there are users,

it should be possible to generate maintenance and management costs.

I am not saying here that we should aim for high-priced licensing systems or fully managed fishing spots like those in the UK.

Rather, what I feel is that current fishing fees may not have sufficiently kept pace with long-term inflation.

Reviewing daily and annual passes to align with the actual economy, and in exchange, making conservation activities and operational status transparent.

Wouldn't such sustainable management be more realistic?

What is needed is not,

increasing,

or decreasing.

It is about:

Education.

Usage rules.

Usage fees.

Conservation funds.

Monitoring.

Giving back to the community.

It is a usage design that combines such mechanisms.

What will we leave for our children?

It is not just the fish that I want to leave behind.

It is not just the rivers that I want to leave behind either.

What I truly want to leave behind is,

a connection to nature.

There is a reason why I think this way.

In the rural countryside where my family home is, there used to be many ponds filled with largemouth bass, snakeheads, crucian carp, and common carp.

Children would go there, observe the creatures, and learn about fishing and the waterside environment.

However, today, many of those ponds are strictly enclosed by anti-intrusion fences, making it difficult for people to even get close.

Pond draining and extermination efforts were also carried out as measures against invasive species.

But to me, it did not look like a truly rich ecosystem had returned because of that.

The fish that used to be there disappeared,

the children stopped coming near,

and the only thing left in the end was the American bullfrog, an invasive species from North America.

I feel a strong sense of discomfort with this landscape.

Was the goal to exterminate invasive species?

Or was the goal to restore the ecosystem?

If it was the latter, have we really achieved the result we desired?

It cannot be managed.

Responsibility cannot be taken.

Because it is dangerous.

For these reasons, the very points of contact between people and nature have disappeared.

I am not against management itself.

However, I do not wish for a future where closures continue as a result of abandoning management, and where people and nature are completely severed.

The opportunity for children to stand by the water.

The opportunity to chase fish.

The opportunity to observe insects.

The opportunity to meet local people.

The opportunity to notice changes in nature.

And,

the opportunity to become a stakeholder who can raise their voice when they feel something is wrong.

If the very points of contact with nature are lost,

the people who protect fish,

the people who protect rivers,

and the people who protect forests will also decrease.

I want to leave behind not just fish,

but the relationship between nature and people itself for the next generation.

Conclusion

I empathize with both Mr. Kozuka and Mr. Oikawa-maru.

If the number of people increases, problems will arise.

That is a fact.

However,

I do not think that reducing the number of people will solve it.

What I want to ask is,

should we boost fishing?

Or should we dampen it?

That is not the question.

While converting demand into a foundation for conservation,

we must maintain human contact with nature.

Isn't that design what is truly needed?

Instead of keeping people away to protect nature,

we should continue to foster people who protect nature.

I believe that perspective is also necessary.