7805

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7805
• Author: Colorado River Wildlife Council.
• Title: Minutes, Colorado River Fish & Wildlife Council.
• USFW Year: 1988.
• USFW - Doc Type: July 9, 1988.
• Copyright Material: NO

a
Association of Fish and Wildlife agencies for eventual action by the
international association.
6. Mr. Geer requested Bruce Schmidt, Utah Division of Wildlife .
Resources, review his letter concerning the technical committee's
action on rainbow smelt. Mr. Schmidt requested a sense of direction
for the Utah proposal and for the technical committee on how the
council wishes the technical and subtechnical committees to address
the rainbow smelt introduction proposal. Utah presented a carefully
drafted proposal that was several years in development. Utah
strongly recognizes the need not to impact the lower basin and the
threatened and endangered species, and for that reason, introduction
candidate species were looked at with a great deal of criticalness
and were sifted very carefully. The proposal that resulted tended
to have at least a fifty percent chance of doing the management job
expected, and to have a very low likelihood of impacting the river
system. Utah's expectation from the council was a technical,
critical review, something like a peer review of an article to be
sent to a journal, for example. They were hopeful that if there
were concerns about the smelt, people who had those concerns would
call it to the committee's attention. Mr. Schmidt wrote the letter
to the council because he was disappointed that this review was not
received in the technical committee(s). Most of the members did not
really review it in detail and there were no technical or specific
questions. Utah wishes to proceed with its proposal and if a
thorough review is what the council would like, will proceed with
another report answering all criticisms and concerns at the next
technical committee meeting.
The council voted uanimously to expect the technical committee give
any proposal brought before it a competent, technical review so that
the members of the council are informed as to the biological facts
surrounding the proposal. They also would expect the technical
committee to advise the council on other aspects of the introduc-
tion. The council, however, retains its interest to thoroughly
evaluate the biological merits and recommendation from the technical
committee with other considerations to arrive at a decision.
J. Trioloid Grass Car
i
In consideration of the presentation of the resolution on acceptance for
introduction of triploid grass carp into the Basin under the Colorado
Council's grass carp policy by Mr. Gustaveson during the technical committee
presentation, the motion was made by Jim Ruch, seconded by Richard McClesky,
to accept the resolution presented by Gustaveson earlier to accept triploid
grass carp for introduction into the basin under the council policy for
introduction of triploid grass carp, except delete the final paragraph in the
draft resolution. After discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
By statement of the members of the council, the intent of the action was a
unanimous consent for the introduction of only triploid grass carp into the .
Colorado River Basin following the terms and conditions of the council's
policy on triploid grass carp, which was passed at last year's annual
meeting, and knowing that any of the states have the flexibility to deny
introduction if they so desire.
a
18