Quote:
Originally posted by Salmo g.:
I have always thought of WT as a fish conservation minded organization. Challenging hatchery programs can be consistent with fish conservation. However, it appears to me that WT has missed the mark in its challenge to Puget Sound chinook hatcheries.

Do PS hatchery chinook adversely affect wild, ESA listed chinook? In some cases, yes, of course. No affect is an almost impossible standard to achieve. Is any amount of adverse effect illegal under ESA? No, a limited adverse effect is permitted under the ESA.

I spoke with the biologist who wrote NMFS' opinion on the PS chinook hatchery and genetics management plan a few days ago. He said that comparing past hatchery practices to present and proposed practices under the approved plan is an apples and oranges type of comparison. Hatchery practices are being modified to REDUCE, NOT ELILMINATE, adverse effects on wild chinook. That is legal under the ESA. Eliminating all adverse effects might require closing so many of the hatchery operations that there would be NO commercial or recreational chinook fishing opportunity. Given the diverse interests, I think WDFW and NMFS are saying that would be an action of final resort to achieve recovery of the listed chinook. It's legitimate to ask why anyone would choose that alternative if it isn't necessary.

More importantly I think is that WT's lawsuit includes the "conservation" hatcheries. There are small hatchery operations that exist almost for the sole purpose of maintaining chinook populations that are at most risk of extinction. WT's suit is opposed to the Elwha channel program that prevents extinction of Elwha chinook and will provide the broodstock to restore that population when the dams are removed. WT's suit opposes the Whitehorse program that maintains the fragile NF Stillaguamish chinook and provides marked fish for a valuable stock indicator project. Anyone who knows the Stilly is aware that there isn't enough remaining stable chinook spawning gravel to maintain the population in the near term. This program is necessary to restore and recover the chinook run in the future. WT's suit also opposes the White River spring chinook hatchery, without which, the recover of White River chinook is impossible.

I agree that most PS chinook hatchery production occurs for the sole purpose of providing commercial, treaty, and recreational fishing opportunity. To the extent that those operations really do get in the way of survival and recovery of wild chinook, the hatchery practices do need to be modified, reduced, or perhaps closed down in some cases. But to seek the closure of conservation hatcheries that are essential to the recovery of some very unique PS chinook stocks is irresponsible, and misguided, conservation in my opinion.

The state's fisheries, and WT, would be better served by having WT oppose WDFW's slot limits on Columbia River walleye. The regulation is designed to produce more and larger walleye broodstock. Walleye are an exotic species imported from the mid-west. Walleye are known to be an effective predator on salmon and steelhead smolts. Seems like a lawsuit to extend the northern pikeminnow bounty to include walleye, and the elimination of protective regulations for walleye would be a more effective and dedicated conservation action.

WT is like most conservation organizations. Like Audibon, Sierra Club, or Wilderness Society. Their hearts are in the right place. I might agree with many of their positions and actions, but I disagree when they get it wrong. It does look to me as though WT missed the mark with their total opposition to PS chinook hatchery operations.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.