Laserfiche WebLink
<br />42 <br /> <br />share these responsibilities? Once again, this could provide a basis from which we could build future <br />collaboration. For example, this could lead to shared public meetings where, Fish and Game, the BLM and the <br />Forest Service would plan and facilitate the meeting together instead of just attending each others meetings. <br /> <br />Eight hundred numbers, which can be established collaboratively, are a great way of showing the public that you <br />are there to serve them. Additionally, there should be an interactive bulletin board created that anyone with a <br />modem can hook into and ask for help with specifIc problems or get information on a specifIc river. ARMS is <br />currently looking into developing such a bulletin board, it is important that we support it. <br /> <br />We should be combining our mailing lists and mass mailings. We should try and reduce some <br />of the paper load we are throwing at our interested publics. We need to fmd out what our sister agencies are <br />planning on producing and look for ways to combine our efforts. Jointly planned news letters, mail surveys & <br />response forms are just a few examples of common mailings that we can combine. Also, we need to try and <br />segment our mailing lists based on peoples' interests; there may be issues that are only of interest to a part of <br />your total mailing list. <br /> <br />Work group results <br /> <br />Work Group Issues: <br />1. Getting the general public, county government (and city), and agencies to see the importance of <br />coordination. <br />2. Convincing private landowners to adopt an Ecosystem Management approach. <br />3. How do we coordinate and bring together that many interests (local vs. regional and national)? <br />4. Land status changes (esp. AK) and changes in goals for the land (FS, State, BLM, etc.). <br />5. Bringing together diverse interests, industry, recreation, general public, and environmentalists in a format that <br />allows us to accomplish something. <br />6. How do we decide how many participants is enough? <br />7. Overcoming problems associated with political and jurisdictional boundaries. <br />8. Individuals will want to focus on themselves. How can they be convinced to go along with a more holistic, <br />basin-wide approach? <br />9. Once you have a shared vision, how do you get consensus on how to get there? <br />10. Concern that there is a hidden agenda <br />11. The logistics of dealing with such a large planning area may be prohibitive. <br />12. Moving the public out of their comfort zone with the status quo. <br /> <br />Work Group Ideas I Solutions: <br /> <br />· If we have the right people and an effective meeting design, we could resolve all these issues. <br /> <br />· Time spent in goal-setting should produce fairly specific objectives instead of motherhood <br />statements. <br /> <br />· Contract out the facilitation and planning process to a neutral party. <br /> <br />· Document all conversations and questions and answers, in order to clear up confusion over how <br />different aspects of the management plan were developed. <br /> <br />· Spend time educating participants on more technical aspects. <br /> <br />· Conduct informal field trips with private landowners, in order to get a chance to get to know each <br />other. <br /> <br />· Establish a technical review team made up of diverse publics. <br /> <br />· Screen your participants based on specifIc criteria. Is he or she going to be a good group member? <br /> <br />· Build on small successes and go from there. <br /> <br />American River Management Society <br />