What a difference good outreach makes

Endangered Species Bulletin, Dec, 2004 by Randi Thompson

"You are going to destroy a very lucrative recreational fishery," said Tom Smith, president of the Truckee River Fly Fishermen. "You consider the fish that are in the river now as invasive species; well, we consider you federal employees invasive species, invading our state fishery." That sentiment was shared by 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 system in Nevada and California.

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

Why the change? Communication. Tom and hundreds like him participated in the process to help scientists on the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Implementation Team develop the action plans for restoring this fish. Their participation gave them the opportunity to be part of the process, and that inclusion helped them understand our goals and objectives. We, in turn, heard their concerns and developed 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 on such a huge task. A little history explains why.

The Lahontan cutthroat trout is the only trout native to the Truckee River system 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 settlers, who considered them quite tasty, and anglers sometimes caught fish weighing up to 40 pounds (18 kilograms). By 1940, however, the fish was gone from the Truckee, primarily due to overfishing and the completion of Derby I)am, which blocked fish passage. In 1970, the Service listed the fish as threatened. Although the states of California and Nevada did some recovery work for this fish, there was little interest in tackling restoration in the Truckee River due to multiple conflicts. The river is not only a popular recreational fishery for both states, clue to decades of stocking nonnative rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown (Salmo trutta) trout, but it is the water source for Reno. It's also used by kayakers and rafters, is a water source for irrigation, and has over 40 different dams and diversions that block 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. People weren't afraid that we would halt fishing, but that we would change it. It was the unknown that concerned them.

We knew we had two big obstacles to overcome. One, some people did not trust us. Two, they did not understand our intentions. To overcome these barriers would take communication on both a broad and personal level.

We needed to involve anyone who was interested or would be impacted by the actions--anglers, environmentalists, kayakers, landowners, and governmental agencies. We developed a mailing list and sent out meeting notices and letters, each time requesting other names to add to the list. A quarterly newsletter we created provided notice of future meetings, minutes from past meetings, proposed action items, websites with more information, and a list of contact persons. We also explained different elements of the Endangered Species Act and reproduced newspaper articles from the late 1800s and early 1900s. These stories told how thousands of pounds of fish were brought to market in one day, but they also covered the impacts that old papers mills had on the river and its fish. Such historical information provided a long-term perspective, reminding us all of what we once had and lost.

To reach the general public, we engaged the media. We worked with reporters to not only inform people of upcoming meetings, but to talk about the planning process, its goals, and its impacts. Simple events, such as stocking Lahontan cutthroat trout for recreational fishing, became media events 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, yes, fish. We were doing more than restoring a fish; we were improving a river system that would directly benefit people, too.

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

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