7826 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

132 MUELLER TABLE 2.-Growth of and distance traveled by razorback suckers released into and recaptured from Lake Mohave during 1992 through 1994. Year class and sex Release Date Length (cm) Recapture Date Length (cm) Distance traveled (km) 1992 Male Jan 15, 1993 28.3 Mar 17, 1993 28.4 3 Male Oct 15, 1992 35 Mar 17, 1994 52.9 8 Male Oct 23, 1992 36 Mar 14, 1993 36.3 8 Male Nov 23, 1992 36.5 Mar 15, 1993 38 24 Male Nov 23, 1992 34.2 Mar 15, 1993 36.1 29 Male Nov 23, 1992 37.5 Mar 19, 1993 38 34 Male Nov 23, 1992 34.5 Mar 15, 1994 46.9 2 Male Nov 23, 1992 35.2 Mar 15, 1994 46.9 2 Male Nov 23, 1992 352 Mar 14, 1994 43.7 13 Male Nov 24, 1992 34.6 Mar 15, 1994 48 2 Mate Nov 24, 1992 35.3 Mar 15, 1994 44.5 2 Male Nov 25, 1992 37.1 Mar 14, 1994 49 13 1993 Immature Jul 8, 1993 28.5 Mar 14, 1994 36 4 Immature Aug 18, 1993 36 Mar 17, 1994 36,8 4 Immature Sep 21, 1993 24.3 Mar 15, 1994 28 2 fish were recaptured during the 1994 spawning pe- riod. The majority of fish collected in both 1992 and 1993 were spawning males (Gustafson 1975). One male taken in 1993 had reached adult size (50-55 cm) in just 2 years. Discussion The NFWG recognized, as others before us, that any attempt to manage an Endangered species should also adhere to social, political, and economic constraints (Johnson 1977; Wydoski 1977, 1982). Four basic issues and their relationship to the Lake Mohave razorback sucker population provided guidance for our activities: recovery, management considerations, genetics, and economics. One of the first questions asked was, "Is recovery of the razorback sucker (i.e., attainment of a self- sustaining population) in Lake Mohave a realistic goal?" The team agreed recovery would be nice but not realistic. Recovery of the razorback sucker would require habitat restoration or at least changes in resource management. The water re- source of the lower Colorado River and its associ- ated politics would prevent any rapid modifications to existing river operations. Reservoirs would not be drained nor would dams be removed before the existing population disappeared. Evidence showed that dam removal would not be necessary if nonna- tive fish could be eliminated (Minckley 1983; Minckley et al. 1991). The current fishery of Lake Mohave, Lake Mead, other upstream reservoirs and the Colorado River is dominated by nonnative fishes that constitute a valuable recreational fishery. The removal of this biological component would be undesirable to the general public and logistically impossible to accomplish. State and federal agencies have legislative com- mitments under the Endangered Species Act; how- ever, often political and environmental issues con- cerning recovery are complex and controversial. Administrative processes, inaction justified by un- certainty, inadequate resources, and conflicting management goals often lead to slow or ineffective recovery programs (Rohlf 1991; Tear et al. 1993). The rapid decline of the Lake Mohave razorback sucker population was warning us that we no longer had the luxury of time for further debate or re- search. Our choices were simple: either continue the debate and monitor their decline, or, for the present, accept something less than total recovery by actively managing the species. Minckley and Deacon (1991) recently pointed out that technology and resources are normally available to sustain or replace endangered popula- tions. The critical question is whether the affected agencies have the political conviction to do so. We found the agencies would support an active Endan- gered Species management program as long as the effort did not unreasonably conflict with other re- source management objectives. Any major conflict would demand formal coordination, consultation, and, most importantly, time necessary for resolu- tion. Recognizing that time was our greatest enemy, we concluded our best chance to implement a main-