7025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

50 clearly documented. They were in disagreement with wholesale changes or negative management directions being expressed toward sportfisheries impinging upon river reaches inhabited by endangered fishes. Conflicts arising within and between agencies regarding game and nongame management concerns may be best dealt with by promoting increased opportunities for communication between field biologists and administrative managers prior to decision-making. There was consensus on the perception that problems related to introduced fishes were increased in severity by other concomitant impacts to the habitat of native fish. Habitat changes, especially flow related, were considered a primary problem by respondents. They also considered some form of habitat manipulation as the most likely alternative for maintaining native fish populations in the face of chronic impacts from introduced fishes. Half of the respondents considered negative impacts to native fish habitat to be the greatest problem and restoration or enhancement of that habitat the most feasible solution to reducing introduced fish problems. Slightly less than half the respondents considered nonnative fish control and augmentation as viable management alternatives. The objectives and guidelines described for the Delphi technique were followed in the development of the questionnaire and the list of experts asked to participate. These guidelines targeted expertise, anonymity, and consensus opinion of the respondents. Because the objective of this project was the development of issues pertaining to nonnative fishes and impacts to native fishes, the questions were not constructed for specific quantitative answers and analysis as illustrated in Zuboy (1981). Given the subjective nature of the issues, answers, and interpretations provided in the discussion, the results may not be free of bias. As indicated in Zuboy (1981), however, the selection of experts is the key to success, and if the experience of the experts is appropriate to the problem at hand and of sufficient breadth, the results should tend to be unbiased. Despite its obvious departure from the true Delphi approach, this report does however represent a step toward systematic refinement of the issues at hand. If results or interpretations reported here are at significant odds with perceptions of the various agencies and participant groups in the recovery program for Colorado River endangered fishes, further refinement of the issue and consensus opinion through a more rigorous Delphi approach may be a useful next step.