What a Difference Good Outreach Makes

"You are going to demolish a very lucrative recreational fishery," said Tom Smith, president of the Truckee River hover Fishermen. "You consider the fish that are in the river now as invasive species; well, we consider you federal employee invasive species, invading our state fishery." That sentiment was shared by dint of most of the people attending a public meeting held several years ago to discuss the Fish and Wildlife Service's plan to restore the native stock of the Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorthynchus clarki henshawi) to the Truckee River a whole in Nevada and California.

By the fall of 2003 however, Tom's regard had changed a bit. "So when can we have cutthroat trout ovums for our streamside incubation boxes?"

Why the change? Communication. Tom and centurys like him participated in the proces to help scientists upon the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout recuperation Implementation Team develop the action plans for restoring this fish. Their participation gave them the opportunity to be part of the proces and that inclusion helped them understand our goals and objectives. We, in move round heard their concerns and exhibited actions to address them.

How we got here is a story of persistence and consistency. We were persistent in communicating with the public, and our message stayed consistent. This approach was vital for facing resistance and reluctance. Many anglers were extremely resistant to changing their fishery, and the states were reluctant to take upon such a huge task. A little history explains why

The Lahontan cutthroat trout is the alone trout native to the Truckee River a whole of Nevada and California. A migratory fish, it would swim upstream from Pyramid Lake via the Truckee River to Lake Tahoe, a 120-mile (190-kilometer) trip. Lahontan cutthroat trout were popular with early colonists who considered them quite tasty, and anglers sometimes caught fish weighing up to 40 beats (18 kilograms). By 1940, however, the fish was gone from the Truckee primarily to be paid to overfishing and the completion of Derby Dam, which obstructed fish passage. In 1970, the Service listed the fish as threatened. Although the states of California and Nevada did more [i]or[/i] less recovery work for this fish, there was little interest in tackling restoration in the Truckee River owed to multiple conflicts. The river is not solitary a popular recreational fishery for the one and the other states, due to decades of stocking normative rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown (Salmo trutta) trout on the other hand it is the water source for Reno. It's also used by the agency of kayakers and rafters, is a water source for irrigation, and has above 40 different dams and diversions that stop up fish passage.

We understood the states' reluctance and the public's resistance to the restoration effort. The plan was perceived as adversely impacting a popular and lucrative recreational fishery. clan weren't afraid that we would halt fishing, on the contrary that we would change it. It was the unknown that bear uponed them.

We knew we had sum of two units big obstacles to overcome. single some people did not trust us. sum of two units they did not understand our intentions. To defeat these barriers would take communication upon both a broad and personal level

We extremityed to involve anyone who was interested or would be impacted by dint of the actions - anglers, environmentalists, kayakers, landowners, and governmental agencies. We lay opened a mailing list and sent on the outside meeting notices and letters, each time requesting other names to add to the list. A quarterly newsletter we created provided notice of time to come meetings, minutes from past meetings, propos action items, websites with more information, and a list of contact ones We also explained different simple bodys of the Endangered Species Act and reproduc newspaper articles from the late 180O and early 190O These stories told by what mode thousands of pounds of fish were brought to market in single day, but they also overlayed the impacts that old papers mills had upon the river and its fish. like historical information provided a long-term perspective, reminding us all of what we one time had and lost.

To reach the general public, we engaged the media. We worked with reporters to not single inform people of upcoming meetings, on the other hand to talk about the planning proces its goals, and its impacts. Simple facts such as stocking Lahontan cutthroat trout for recreational fishing, became media occurrences that illustrated how fish are reared, tagged, released, and monitored. We also showed crumbling river banks and explained that repairing these areas would benefit water quality, water quantity, water users, birds, mammals, and, ye fish. We were doing more than restoring a fish; we were improving a river combination of parts to form a whole that would directly benefit tribe too.

To keep people engaged in the planning proces we provided them opportunities to be involved in ways that worked for them. For those who could not attend meetings, we exhibited a website giving meeting minutes, maps, propos action items, emails, and phone numbers and mailing addresses for comments

Our early public meetings were workshops facilitated through a contractor. Sessions on Saturdays and mid-week evenings accommodated various schedules. Large maps displayed around the meeting scope allowed local citizens to help us identify streams that wanted restoration or that would be serviceable for stocking and monitoring Lahontan cutthroat trout They also showed us areas that were evidence of victory fishing areas for brown and rainbow trout that they would like to diocese remain that way.