Laserfiche WebLink
<br />GJ2'i85 <br /> <br />endangered fishes. Of these, channel catfish was considered the biggest threat. Other <br />species listed by at least 35.% of the respondents included red shiner, northern pike, <br />common carp, green sunfish, and fathead minnow. Lentsch et al. (1995) determined <br />that 6 non natives were existing threats (red shiner, common carp, sand shiner, fathead <br />minnow, channel catfish, and green sunfish), 7 were considered potential threats, and <br />21 were no threat to the endangered fishes. The findings of these authors agreed with <br />most of the fishes identified by Hawkins and Nesler (1991). <br /> <br />SECTION III. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK <br /> <br />General <br /> <br />Prior to 1950, fisheries programs in North America were devoted largely to <br />stocking gamefish. There were few ecologists, and "virtually all fisheries biologists <br />were fish culturists" (Wiley 1996). The introduction of nonnative fishes caused <br />considerable damage to native fish populations, but little concern was registered in the <br />scientific literature. Only recently have federal and state fisheries agencies developed <br />management measures for nongame species. <br /> <br />The roles and responsibilities of federal and state agencies for protecting natural <br />ecosystems have evolved gradually. Changes in policies of traditional fish and wildlife <br />agencies have occurred in response to a growing perception that biodiversity is worth <br />preserving and due to legislative pressures. The nonnative problem is so serious and <br />pervasive that proposals to extend federal responsibilities, which would have caused <br />considerable controversy with state agencies in the past, now have been met with a <br />majority of acceptance (63% of state game and fish Agencies; USOTA 1993). Even so, <br />gaps in federal and state efforts "constitute a serious threat to the Nation's ability to <br />exclude, limit, and rapidly control harmful fish and wildlife" (USOTA 1993), Recovery <br />efforts in the UCRB require the cooperation of federal and state agencies, as well as <br />local government. It will therefore be helpful to review the legal framework at the <br />federal and state levels, within which control actions may be taken in the UCRB. <br /> <br />Federal Agency Responsibilities <br /> <br />Federal wildlife agencies share the responsibility of managing natural <br />ecosystems in the United States with state agencies. Control of wildlife species by <br />federal agencies has arisen through a patchwork of laws that generally augment those <br />of the states (Gilbert and Dodds 1992). Direct control by federal agencies occurs on <br />lands under their control (e.g., Trust lands administered by the BlM; National Wildlife <br />Refuges administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Parks <br />administered by the National Park Service) or indirectly through regulation (e.g" <br />Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, lacy Act, Endangered <br /> <br />13 <br />