6001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r~ ~~~ ~ ~"~ G~ ~ ~. ~~_'. t% ~' DONALD A. SMITH 1596 West North Temple/Stilt Lake City, Utafi~ 84116/801-533-9333 ~Y L)irrrrur 3, 1978 4 -~ y` tc, ~;~: ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~Mr. Robert H . Shields , Area Manager U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Building, Room 1426 125 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84138 Dear Bob: Forgive the extended delay in replying to your request for comments on the draft Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan. The step-down plan appears to be logically arranged and fairly complete . However, the narrative is inadequate in many areas; only one or two sentences ~.l are presented in explanation or guidance, yet we are to use this plan in our efforts to benefit and restore the species. As an example, 221. Monitor reintroduced populations has subheadings 2211. , 2212. , and 2213. and the whole subject is covere in three short sentences . What, in fact, would we -do under this section, if the plan was accepted as now presented ? If monitoring procedures and techniques are detailed elsewhere, they should be referenced here . I notice that reintroduction of the squawfish is a Priority 2 task but that resto- Q-1 ration of unoccupied sites prior to reintroduction is Priority 3 . This seems to be acart-before-the-horse approach; one that is hard to support considering the lack of specific data concerning habitat requirements of the species on a year-round basis . It is in the area of habitat requirements that we feel major emphasis and top priority must be placed . Not only will optimum monetary efficiency be realized in the restoration program but proper and defensible decisions concerning the species' welfare will result from full and complete understanding of its needs . In this- vein, we seriously doubt much can be done to manage many of the physical aspects of the habitat, as suggested in Section 131. and 132. , and agree with the lower priority assignment for these tasks . However, future technology may reveal methods unknown at present . Artificial propagation will no doubt be necessary at some time during implemen- tation of the plan, and we agree that development of brood stock is a high ~.3 priority task. I would hope, however, that full-scale production comes only at a time when needs are demonstrated by facts revealed as other portions of the plan are implemented . J GOVERNOR DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES WILDLIFE BOARD Scott M. Matheson Gordon E. Harmston Roy L Young. Chairman Exec. Director Lewis C Smith C'. Pau! String!^.am Leland S. Swaner Leslie J. Anderson