Originally Posted By: MPM
Interestingly enough, the WFC complaint doesn't mention incidental mortality from the recreational fishery on the hatchery fish as one of the forms of "take". Not sure why that is.

The allegations regarding how the hatchery programs constitute "taking" of threatened fish under the ESA are in paragraphs 42-47. Again, worth a read if you're interested in the topic.

Tasty Salmon, nothing in the statutory definition of "take" requires death of a listed fish. For example, "harm" and "harassment" count as forms of take as well. I'm wondering if there is some other basis for your statement that you need quantifiable deaths to show take.

A complaint always presents a one-sided view of things, but I think it would be awfully hard to deny that some take is occurring through the hatchery programs. In that posture, the decision to stop releasing smolt rather than fighting the complaint tooth and nail (thereby reducing both the fees you pay your own attorneys to defend a tough case and the amount of the opposing party's fees, which you are at a serious risk of being ordered to pay) makes some sense.


"(19) The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

Can anyone tell me how early winter steelhead programs harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, trap, capture or collect listed steelhead?

Therefore, and as I said in a previous post, the only form of take that can apply to these programs is through harm. Harm as defined by the ESA must involve mortality of an individual of the listed stock.

Title 50: Wildlife and Fisheries
Part 17 Subpart A
17.3 DEFINITIONS

"Harm in the definition of 'take' in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering."