Laserfiche WebLink
<br />TABLE IV: Negative responses - Federal It State Government Agencies <br /> <br /> Comments 1 2 3 4 5 6 T <br />Risk of unaut horized stocking X X 2 <br />Impact on endan gered and X X X X 4 <br />native fish <br />Escapement potential X X X 3 <br />Escapement not short-term X X 2 <br />concern-long lived fish <br />Need more info on control if X X 2 <br />escapement occurs <br />What are .significa nt" X X 2 <br />escapement levels <br />Need more info on rationale X X X 3 <br />of selecting tiger muskie & <br />alternative fish <br />Need info on forage X X X 3 <br />preferences, behavior, <br />habitat <br />Too much focus on trophy X X 2 <br />fish. consider other benefits <br />Tiger muskie harvest low, X X 2 <br />fish from boats <br />Report not adequate decision X X 2 <br />tool. needs more info <br />~cy: (1 ) (;U Div ot vvuallTe ( gaanerr <br /> <br />(2) US Fish & Wildlife <br />(3) Arizona Game & FISh <br />(4) US Dept of Energy <br />(5) Wyoming Game & FISh <br />(6) CO Div of Wildlife (Martinez) <br /> <br />Additional concerns mentioned: <br /> <br />1) Need background of criteria used for evaluating escapement potential <br />2) Potential escapement from deep reserviors when water levels are low <br />3) Need information on native fish found immediately above and below reserviors proposed for stocking <br />4) Purpose of introduction of tiger muskie not clear <br />5) Public demand for tiger muskie and angler support not established <br />6) Information needed to support assertion that tiger muskie resulted in decline of carp and sucker <br />populations <br />7) Need thorough analysis of current tiger muskie fisheries, including stockings in Colorado <br />8) Need information on frequency. location. and duration of stocking <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />4/14/94 <br />