RA3--

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply, but family obligations and too little sleep left me little ability to either read or reply is a useful manner.

First, forgive me if I went into my teacher mode. I have strong beliefs about how language is used (and sometimes misused) and as a result, am more conscious of its application than most others. When I get on a roll, I tend to take no prisoners. Also, I have strong beliefs about fish and fishing, and when the two coincide, I can get wound up. Fortunately, most of the time I edit my comments so as not to offend too many people. Actually, I try not to offend anyone and try to stay away from comments about the person. Ideas are something else, however.


Having said that, I thought I should post a copy of a post I made on another forum that was in response to Todd's post (NOAA Policy Op-Ed's) also posted here in a different thread. It gives my view of the way I think things should work.

Here 'tis:



Todd-- thanks for taking the time to clarify your position. It takes a lot of work to respond thoughtfully, and I know it takes time. And FT-- as always, you're a big help.

I think there are two issues coming out of this re-drafting of policy. The first, as you noted, is the "moderately divergent" phrasing. The second is the use of hatcheries to supplement or complement wild runs, and they are so closely intertwined as to be inseparable.

It is likely, in my opinion, that the folks who want to de-list stocks for benefits of relaxation of ESA rules will push for the broadest definition possible. It seems imperative that it be kept as narrow as possible; perhaps a restriction that eggs taken for hatchery purposes come from fish native or returning to the river and not from other watersheds or broodstock. Certainly egg-taking should occur from all stages of the run: early, middle and late. To conserve the genetic resources, it's imperative that as many individuals as possible contribute to the spawning efforts, albeit done in the hatchery.

I realize that a report on hatchery reforms is coming out, and it seems a good idea to wait until it's out to comment further. I do believe we can get some help in wild-fish restoration from hatcheries, but it would have to be evaluated carefully to make sure that it helps and doesn't hinder restoration efforts.

Unlike some on the board (and perhaps contrary to the WSC), I would like to see hatcheries used to produce more fishing opportunity, especially for salmon. This is a selfish reason: I like to catch fish, and hatchery stock is great on a barbecue. However, I think some efforts need to be made to evaluate whether massive hatchery production of salmon interferes with wild stocks outside of the river. As an example, the Hamma Hamma, Duckabush and Dosewallips rivers used to have pretty good runs of coho, but now they are effectively non-existent. Is this somehow correlated to the large hatchery programs at Finch Creek and the Skokomish drainage? Does it have anything to do with the commercial harvest of chum that takes place in the Canal each fall?

A side issue that is coming out of the policy re-draft and the de-listing are issues concerning habitat and riparian land use. De-listing a stock doesn't remove all protections, and I think some believe it does. There are state regulations in place, but I need more information on the TFW protocols before I could comment. Besides, in many watersheds, other listed stocks that are threatened or endangered (such as bull trout/Dolly Varden and searun cutthroat) will control land-use decisions. I think that it's necessary to separate land-use concerns from whether or not the NOAA-F policy is workable or not.

I ramble, and I apologize. I wanted to thank you guys for the efforts you've put into this and for helping me see more clearly what I should be concerned about and working on.

Keith