Laserfiche WebLink
<br />082<i91 <br /> <br />Lead federal fish and wildlife agencies responded and clarified their policy and intent in <br />a proposed rule that would guide development of any future regulations (US Fish and <br />Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service 1995). This proposed policy <br />acknowledges the potential for conflict between recreational fishing and the need to <br />protect and recover federally protected species. Furthermore, it pledges that the <br />Services will work with other Federal and State, Tribal, and Local agencies to reduce <br />conflicts. <br /> <br />State Responsibilities and Regulations <br /> <br />State agencies regulate take, transport, culture, and other aspects of resident fish <br />and wildlife by statute and regulation. States also protect and manage migratory (non- <br />resident) species of fish and wildlife. As indicated above, there are overlapping <br />responsibilities between federal and state jurisdictions, and as an example, federal <br />agencies must fully cooperate with states when dealing with endangered and <br />threatened species. Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act states: "In carrying out <br />the program authorized by this Act, the Secretary shall cooperate to the maximum <br />extent practicable with the States. Such cooperation shall include consultation with the <br />States concerned before acquiring any land or water, or interest therein, for the <br />purpose of conserving any endangered species or threatened species." <br /> <br />The three states involved in the UCRB recovery program are Colorado, Utah, and <br />Wyoming. The involvement of Wyoming in proposed nonnative fish control efforts is <br />likely to be minimal because waters of that state do not support populations of the <br />endangered fishes, and because the state fisheries agency no longer stocks fish <br />species that might compete with or prey upon the endangered fishes. Colorado and <br />Utah are directly involved with the development of fish control programs and are <br />cooperating with the Program. <br /> <br />Both Colorado and Utah have issued regulations that prohibit the "taking" of <br />protected species (e.g., Colorado Division of Wildlife Regulations Chapter 10, <br />Nongame Wildlife; State of Utah Code 23, Natural Resources Proclamation R657). <br />While these regulations are important and necessary, they may not be sufficient for <br />protecting endangered species. For example, Wilson (1992) reported that excessive <br />harvesting, or illegal taking, has been a factor in the demise of less than 15% of the <br />endangered fishes in North America. In addressing this problem, some states have <br />passed their own version of endangered species statutes (e.g, Title 33, Colorado <br />Revised Statutes) in an attempt to restore populations of endangered species and to <br />remove the need for Federal listing. <br /> <br />General protection of wildlife is similar in the states of Colorado and Utah, and <br />the principle agencies regulating fish and wildlife (wildlife) within these states are the <br />Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Wildlife <br /> <br />17 <br />