Laserfiche WebLink
begin immediately. We fear that hesitation or intransigence may preclude the direct capture <br />and husbandry of wild larvae in numbers that assure maintenance of genetic variation into the <br />future. If the old, wild population begins to disappear, it may become too late. <br />We advise even more strongly against temptations of tradition which could dictate the <br />use of known and established methods (e.g., hatchery culture) to satisfy a desire to quickly <br />produce large quantities of individuals to replace the existing Lake Mohave stock. Population <br />size can clearly be maintained through stocking hatchery cultured fish, but at substantial cost <br />to innate genetic variability and with unknown future results. <br />On the other hand, we in no way advocate an end to the hatchery grogram, since it is <br />imperative that a large, diverse broodstock be maintained in case other efforts fail. The <br />present, inbred broodstock at DNFH should, however, be replaced with wild-caught <br />individuals and production should be designed to maintain documented genetic variability in <br />offspring produced for any future purpose. Progeny of the current broodstock should not be <br />released into the wild, especially not to replace the existing Lake Mohave population. The <br />bay-culture program should also be continued, and expanded to provide habitat where wild- <br />caught larvae can grow. Rearing should be geographically as near Lake Mohave as possible <br />to minimize costs in money and fish losses through handling. We strongly recommend <br />magnanimity, keeping all three options open if economics allow and under continuing <br />refinement if dedication and mandate are sufficient incentives, so that if one fails the others <br />may be brought on-line. <br />29 <br />