Laserfiche WebLink
<br />UJ25~6 <br /> <br />Much less effort has been expended on developing practical solutions and <br />prioritizing tasks. In essence, the Program lacks a strategic plan that will guide efforts <br />to control nonnatives. A formal strategic plan is presented in the final section of this <br />document. In developing a useful strategic plan, answers to four basic questions were <br />required: (1) In what geographic areas would control measures have the greatest <br />benefit? (2) Which life history stages of the endangered fishes are most susceptible to <br />negative interactions with nonnative fishes? (3) Which nonnative species pose the <br />most serious threats? (4) Which control methods will be most effective? Answers to <br />questions 1 and 4 are required for developing more site-specific implementation plans, <br />which are beyond the scope of this document. <br /> <br />The Program specified that a logical step in the development of a strategic plan <br />would include a workshop to tap the collective expertise of scientists and managers <br />familiar with problems in the UCRB. The workshop would focus on nonnative fish <br />control issues as perceived by experts from different geographical areas and <br />governmental agencies within the basin, It would provide an opportunity to expand the <br />information base for control options, and be a forum for reviewing the problem and <br />establishing priorities for future action. <br /> <br />Workshop Format <br /> <br />A facilitated workshop on control of nonnative fishes in the UCRB was held on <br />November 30 and December 1, 1995. Every effort was made to identify and include all <br />major stakeholders, and to involve a wide range of technical and managerial expertise. <br />The agenda and a list of participants with their agency affiliations are given in the <br />Appendix. The workshop dealt with the technical issues and consisted of three parts. <br />In Part 1, six presenters discussed potential control measures and factors that could <br />affect the success of those measures in the UCRB. In Part 2, state representatives <br />discussed present opportunities for fish control in their respective jurisdictions. In Part <br />3, all workshop participants assisted in developing elements of the strategic plan. The <br />workshop specifically avoided sociopolitical and economic issues. The workshop <br />provided an opportunity for mapping areas where consensus already exist and for <br />identifying areas where additional information is urgently needed. It was not intended <br />as a vehicle for forging consensus, <br /> <br />The first workshop session consisted of formal presentations by experts familiar <br />with fish control issues and techniques. National and regional perspectives of <br />technical and management issues immersed participants in the various facets of fish <br />control. In the second session, representatives of State fish and wildlife management <br />agencies in Colorado and Utah described fish control practices and possibilities <br />appropriate for their jurisdictions. The third session began at the end of the first day <br />when all participants received a packet of handouts (see Appendix) that outlined the <br /> <br />25 <br />