7938

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7938
• Author: Colorado River Wildlife Council.
• Title: Minutes, Colorado River Fish & Wildlife Council.
• USFW Year: 1995.
• USFW - Doc Type: April 18-19, 1995.
• Copyright Material: NO

a
implementation of the ESA and recreational fisheries. The important issue, of course, is how
these conflicts are going to be resolved in the implementation of this policy. It will be important
to carefully read the policy because the implementation seems to lean to the encouragement of
a natural ecosystem. The FWS and NMFS are not going to deal with non-indigenous species.
Does this, in fact, achieve the balance that these services are seeking or that all agencies are
,seeking? The CRFWC may think there are ways of implementing the policies which better meet
the Preamble of Goals and Objectives. Public comments will probably be open for four months,
and the document is programmed to be completed in January 1996. Mr. Fjetland emphasized the
need for reasonable people to come together and to provide positions and evidence that will
achieve a true balance in the west.
Joe Janisch (AZ) brought up the subject of a presidential executive order, which is now being
lobbied for by the American Sport Fishing Association, which seems to be directly written from
the partnership document. Also, another document apparently in preparation by the National
Sport Fishing Association, has a presidential executive order for a National Fishing Week. Mr.
Fjetland indicated that all of these documents were threads which have run out of the SFBPC
recommendation to the FWS director, which various groups and industry organizations had taken
hold of and are trying to promote. In reply to questions about the anticipated budget directed to
r the closure of federal fish culture stations and the effect on recreational fisheries management,
Mr. Fjetland indicated there are eleven stations that are on a closure list for 1996. The only
hatchery on the list which would remotely affect the Colorado River Basin would be Inks Dam
Hatchery, which provides some warm water fish to the Lower Basin. One other, maybe the
Mescalaro Indian Tribe Hatchery in New Mexico, which does not directly affect the Basin. This
is approximately the same list of hatcheries that has been recommended for closure consideration
in previous budgets. This identification was kept under wraps through the Fall of 1994, because
of the election and possible local reaction, but it does conflict with the stated goals and
objectives of early incorporation of comments and early notification. These closures were pretty
much justified by the Putz-Meyer Report, which is an analysis of the FWS's program as a result
of budget reductions. In response to the National Performance Review, which is an exercise that
all Federal Government is performing, hatchery closure candidates in the 1997 budget were put
out for review well in advance of final decisions related to the $3.5 million reduction in budget
for Fiscal 1977. The budget reduction is best achieved from the FWS's point of view by closing
approximately fifteen culture stations. This does not mean that the reduction will be achieved
by that option. A key issue for the Colorado River Basin is stations dedicated to mitigation and
where they would be prioritized among all the facilities to reduce expenditures. There is much
emphasis that mitigation will not be a federal priority in the future. In that case, there will be
a number of hatcheries in the Colorado River Basin that will probably appear on a closure list.
Right now the FWS is talking that there will be an open dialog in coming up with the mix of
options and their priorities. The FWS has said they will involve a group like the SFBPC in the
decision-making process. The question is that it does not appear the CRFWC or other
recreational organizations will go along with any priorities suggested by FWS, giving recreation
the lowest emphasis, where in many specific locations, other agencies or CRFWC would give
it a very high priority.
0
3
0