|
<br />802'194
<br />
<br />authority of the State of Colorado is provided under Title 33, Article 1 of Colorado Law,
<br />and all wildlife not lawfully owned by private individuals is the property of the state. No
<br />"right, title, interest, acquisition, transfer, sale, importation, exportation, release,
<br />donation, or possession of wildlife shall be permitted only as provided. . .' by state laws
<br />or regulations (Title 33-1-102). Utah Code 23-1.5-2 states that "All wildlife within this
<br />state, including but not limited to wildlife on public or private land or in public or private
<br />waters within this state, shall fall within the jurisdiction of the Division of Wildlife
<br />Resources", who shall protect, propagate, manage, conserve, and distribute protected
<br />wildlife throughout the state." Wildlife laws in Utah are determined by the Wildlife
<br />Board, which has responsibility under Utah Code 23-14-3 for establishing the policies
<br />best designed to accomplish the purposes and fulfill the intent of all laws pertaining to
<br />wildlife and the preservation, protection, conservation, perpetuation, introduction, and
<br />management of wildlife."
<br />
<br />Any collection, importation, transportation, or possession of wildlife species or
<br />their parts are prohibited or controlled in the UCRB by state law. In general, this
<br />includes the operation of a private fish installation or pond requires (See Utah
<br />proclamation R657 -3. Collection, Importation, Transportation, and Possession of
<br />Zoological Animals, Part IV. Certificates of Registration). Private fish facilities cannot
<br />be installed or developed on natural lakes or natural flowing streams, or reservoirs
<br />constructed on natural stream channels within these states without regulation.
<br />
<br />Management policies for state wildlife agencies have been influenced by the fact
<br />that the agencies were established to regulate hunting and fishing (Gilbert and Dodds
<br />1992) and most revenues are derived from sales of hunting and fishing licenses. Now
<br />that states are also responsible for managing federally protected species (e,g.,
<br />migratory birds, endangered species) by permit, the task has become more complex
<br />and subject to controversy, For example, states have stocked game fish to expand
<br />recreational opportunities, but these nonnatives now pose a threat to endangered
<br />fishes. All upper basin states are now active participants in the Program and have
<br />expressed their desire to control nonnative fishes. However, little action has been
<br />taken because no final decisions have been reached about the fish species that should
<br />be controlled, where this control should take place, and what control methods should
<br />be used. There is a valid concern held by the states and others that actions taken in
<br />the UCRB to restrict intentional introductions (i.e., to remove the game fish, stop their
<br />release, or prevent their escapement) of certain injurious species would be met with
<br />political resistance, as has occurred elsewhere (Goodrich and Buskirk 1995).
<br />
<br />18
<br />
|