DISCUSSION

Nearly one-half
The damage is done by
Water quality is being
Wildlife habitat is being

It was observed during the course of this study that streambank habitat is being depleted at an alarmingly rapid rate. of the streamside cover was found to be altered. both public and private operations and activities. reduced. Fishery resources are being depleted. destroyed. One is reminded that the wildlife species found along streams are interdependent and very little wildlife can exist without the natural

streambank habitat.

Losses of suitable wildlife cover are so extensive due to call them civilized uses industry, building, changing farm practices and the rest, that streambank habitat may well be the most practicable of all types of natural wildlife environment that can be rescued and preserved. There is no other habitat type that supports as many different species of wildlife, yet is so readily accessible to the greatest number of common every-day people anywhere in the country.

There would be considerable difficulty in attempting to resolve problems relating to streams and streambanks. Rights are not always clear. Laws are inadequate or inadequately enforced. Authority is dispersed. Liability and responsibility for the welfare of a stream environment is taken lightly or dismissed completely. In fact, water laws do not appear

to include streambank habitat. IT MUST BE MADE KNOWN IN BOX-CAR LETTERS THAT WILDLIFE TOO IS A MAJOR LOSER IN STREAM POLLUTION AND DESTRUCTION. Once this loss is recognized, wildlife may assume the proper perspective among the many needs for clean water and stream preservation. Perhaps then a portion of the touted stream programs can be designated to the preservation of streambank wildlife habitat.

It seems logical, to me at least, that the U. S. D. A. Soil Conservation Service would have instituted a streamside preservation program back in the early days. What is a more fitting practice to an agency ascribed with the responsibility of soil and water conservation? Where is an example more pronounced than on a streambank; where the destroyed bank cover promotes eroding of the soil that should be protected, directly into the water that should be conserved?

In many cases, if not most, channel clearing and other "improvement" practices, if necessary, were made so by the very streamside tenants that the project is designed to benefit. Does a present day landowner have any more right to destroy the stream environment than he would have granted to the owner before him? Would he condone destruction of a stream on lands