OK Gramps, what do you suggest? In the meantime.....

Here's a draft of the letter I will be sending to all of my elected/appointed politicians and fish managers in Washington State:

I am writing you with grave concerns about recent administrative policy changes regarding restoration efforts to save imperiled salmon and steelhead stocks throughout the Pacific Northwest, many of which are currently protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

In 2001 U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan ruled that ESA-listed Oregon coastal coho salmon were being “miscounted” because hatchery-bred coho were not included in the counts of wild coho stocks. Essentially, he ruled that hatchery salmon were equivalent to wild salmon, and that the sum of both sub-stocks should be considered in determining ESA status. Hogan's ruling led to these fish being taken off the threatened species list, some national forest timber sales being released for harvest, and NOAA Fisheries starting a review of ESA protection for 24 of the 26 different salmon and steelhead populations.

NOAA Fisheries recently drafted a new policy that would include hatchery fish in the counts of wild fish in determining whether ESA protections are warranted. The health of wild runs will no longer be the sole gauge of whether a salmon species is judged by the federal government to be on the brink of extinction. Rather than address the problems of habitat degraded by logging, hydroelectric dams, irrigation, and urban sprawl, this policy will purposefully hide the precarious condition of wild salmon behind the illusion of “healthy” fish populations raised by artificial propagation in concrete pools.

This irrational and irresponsible policy is completely contrary to the best fish science. Six of the world's leading experts on salmon ecology concluded (Science March 2004) that fish produced in hatcheries cannot be counted on to save wild salmon. In fact, excessive hatchery fish are partly to blame for continued declines in many wild fish populations. The scientists had been asked by the federal government to comment on its salmon-recovery program but said they were later told that some of their conclusions about hatchery fish were inappropriate for official government reports. "The current political and legal wrangling is a sideshow to the real issues. We know biologically that hatchery supplements are no substitute for wild fish," said Robert Paine, one of the scientists and an ecologist at the University of Washington.

It is a dangerous conceit to believe that we can just manufacture salmon at will in order to mitigate for past and ongoing insults to self-sustaining wild salmon ecosystems. This new policy is based on the false premise that hatchery equals wild. It is principally driven by those seeking to side-step ESA protections for short term economic gain, an inherently flawed mindset that has historically led us down the path of degraded ecosystems and depleted runs of wild salmon. The time to choose a different path is long overdue.

I respectfully ask your support in rejecting this draft policy and re-directing NOAA Fisheries to adhere to its federally mandated charge to advance the cause of genuine wild salmon restoration.

Sincerely yours,

Francis V. Estalilla, M.D.

TO ALL:
Feel free to use any or all of it in contacting your decision-makers. BTW, that invitaion goes to you too Gramps.