My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7025
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Copyright
>
7025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:01:44 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 4:45:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7025
Author
Hawkins, J. A. and T. P. Nesler.
Title
Nonnative Fishes in the Upper Colorado River Basin
USFW Year
1991.
USFW - Doc Type
An Issue Paper.
Copyright Material
YES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />However, the endangered status of Colorado squawfish warrants close attention by <br />management agencies to potential angling mortality problems. Elimination, reduction, or <br />strict regulation of stocking of nonnative fishes were the most common management options <br />proposed to cope with negative impacts on native fishes. The combination of habitat <br />management and flow manipulation was the next most cited management option considered <br />feasible. <br /> <br />Many respondents expressed a general comfort with their agency internal <br />communication process.' As a consequence of legal mandate and recovery programs, <br />communication within agencies between sportfish and nongame sections has been improved. <br />Increasing communication between agencies, biologists, and administrators prior to decision <br />making may be the best means of resolving conflicts between nongame and gamefish <br />management concerns. There was consensus that problems related to introduced fishes are <br />increased in severity by concomitant impacts to the habitat of native fishes. Habitat changes, <br />primarily flow related, were considered a primary problem of greater magnitude than <br />introduced fishes. Some form of habitat manipulation was considered the most likely <br />alternative for maintaining native-fish populations in the face of chronic impacts from <br />introduced fishes. Less than half of the respondents felt that either control of nonnative <br />fishes or augmentation of endangered fishes were viable management alternatives. <br /> <br />If results or interpretations reported here are at significant odds with perceptions of <br />the various agencies and participant groups in the recovery program for Colorado River <br />endangered fishes, further refinement of the issue and consensus opinion through a more <br />rigorous Delphi approach may be a useful next step in providing guidance to the Recovery <br />Implementation Program Biology Committee in managing nonnative fish impact issues. <br /> <br />Vlll <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.