Most of you are probably aware of the decision rendered by Oregon District Judge Michael R. Hogan in the case of Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans which will remove Endangered Species Act protections for coho in Oregon's coastal rivers. A loophole in the ESA apparently allowed the plaintiffs to claim that the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife had violated the act by trying to differentiate wild and hatchery coho. Using this decision as a precedent, the Columbia-Snake River Irrigators Association has petitioned NMFS to de-list Snake River steelhead, spring-summer chinook, sockeye and fall chinook, as well as mid-Columbia steelhead and upper Columbia steelhead and spring chinook. Portland attorney James Buchal has filed a petition on behalf of the Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners and the Skagit County Cattlemen's Association to do the same with Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal summer chum. NMFS has not yet decided to appeal Hogan's decision! Call the Portland office of NMFS (503-230-5400) and ask them to do so! The ramifications of this decision are far-reaching and would undermine many of the salmon and steelhead recovery efforts that are already under way.

An appeal for wild salmon
The Oregonian Editorial
11/08/01

If the federal government lets stand a judge's ruling that blurs critical distinctions between hatchery and wild salmon,
it will undermine the basis of West Coast salmon restoration.
Tomorrow is the deadline for the National Marine Fisheries Service to appeal the Sept. 12 ruling by U.S. District
Judge Michael Hogan that stripped federal protections from coastal coho salmon in Oregon.
There's risk in taking the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals -- a defeat would leave Hogan's ruling as legal
precedent throughout the range of all Pacific salmon, rather than a matter affecting only Oregon coastal coho. Yet
property-rights groups opposed to restoring rivers already are filing lawsuits against salmon recovery on other
Western rivers based on Hogan's legal reasoning. The fisheries service should stand up to them now.
Hogan ruled that the fisheries service should have taken into account hatchery-born fish when it listed wild Oregon
coastal coho salmon as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. The judge said it was arbitrary for the
fisheries service to recognize that hatchery and wild coho were part of the same "evolutionary significant unit" of fish,
but fail to count or extend endangered species protections to hatchery fish.
It's a narrow ruling, but already it's being eagerly exploited by those seeking to roll back federal efforts to protect
rivers and streams and restore wild fish runs. We are not wild-fish purists -- well-run hatcheries are important tools
in providing salmon runs -- but we're worried about where Hogan's ruling will lead.
If there's no distinction between hatchery and wild fish, why worry about timber sales that bury spawning gravel in
silt, why bother to maintain instream flows, why keep new developments from crowding salmon rivers and streams?
As Brian Gorman, a spokesman for NMFS said, ". . . we could literally have our rivers lined with concrete, and as
long as the hatcheries produce fish, it doesn't matter how many die along the way."
Hogan's ruling has renewed debate about hatchery and wild fish, about whether there are significant genetic
differences, whether they interbreed and whether it's wrong to club excess hatchery fish to death. Those are all
interesting arguments, but they miss the main point: The No.1 priority of salmon recovery must be restoring river
health and the natural reproduction of fish.
To do otherwise is to ignore the lessons of the past century, as one salmon run after another plunged because of
habitat loss to dams, pollution and urban development. Hatcheries have kept salmon runs and fisheries alive, but
now we spend tens of millions of dollars raising fish in concrete tanks next to rivers where they could reproduce
naturally.
Congress approved the Endangered Species Act to protect creatures and plants and the habitat they need to
naturally reproduce, not to save animals in zoos or build more fish hatcheries. The National Marine Fisheries Service
must not shrink from its duty to restore wild salmon runs in Oregon and throughout the West.


Copyright 2001 Oregon Live. All Rights Reserved.

Western Salmon Could Lose Federal Protection

By Cat Lazaroff

WASHINGTON, DC, November 12, 2001 (ENS) - A judge's ruling overturning federal protections for a single population of salmon has prompted the National Marine Fisheries Service to launch a review of at least 20 other populations, and possibly overhaul its policies toward hatchery raised salmon. Environmental groups fear the agency's decision could strip many wild salmon of protection.

The decision "could potentially affect, in addition to Oregon Coast coho salmon, 23 out of 25 listed salmon and steelhead populations on the West Coast," the agency said.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), announced Friday that it will not appeal a September court decision which found that hatchery born salmon are biologically indistinguishable from naturally spawned wild salmon. A federal judge in Oregon reversed NMFS's action listing the Oregon Coast coho salmon as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, calling the listing "arbitrary."
The 21 page decision by Judge Michael Hogan stated that, "the NMFS listing decision creates the unusual circumstance of two genetically identical coho salmon swimming side by side in the same stream, but only one receives ESA protection while the other does not."

The court ruled that the wild population should not be viewed separately from the thousands of hatchery reared coho born each year. The inclusion of hatchery fish would expand the population to the point where it would not warrant federal protection, the judge said.

Hogan's decision was applauded by property rights advocates, including the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), which represented the Alsea Valley Alliance in the case challenging the salmon listing.

"This ruling will go a long way in forcing NMFS to restore some level of common sense to listing species under the Endangered Species Act," said PLF attorney Russell Brooks.


)
But environmental groups warned that the ruling could set a precedent removing protection from all wild salmon populations, and urged the Bush administration to challenge the decision.
A coalition of conservation and fishing groups, led by Earthjustice, is working to overturn Judge Hogan's decision. Last month, a federal district court denied the request by the eight groups to reinstate federal protections for Oregon coast coho salmon.

On Friday, NMFS announced that it will "immediately implement actions to improve salmon protection and recovery efforts, including a comprehensive, public review of its salmon hatchery policies." The agency said it would maintain its current protections for listed salmon species, but will also review the status of about 20 salmon populations with an eye to whether hatchery bred salmon should be considered part of those protected populations.

"Recognizing the successes of local restoration efforts, we are determined to build on this momentum and bring state, local and tribal groups together to discuss salmon restoration efforts in a new and meaningful way," said Bill Hogarth, NMFS assistant administrator. "Our goal is to apply the best science and take into account public input in developing a salmon protection model that will benefit people, our environment and ensure healthy fish populations for generations to come."

Hogarth said NMFS plans to encourage local initiatives to restore salmon runs, focusing on working with public/private partnerships such as the Hatchery Scientific Review Group, Puget Sound Shared Strategy, Lower Columbia River Estuary Program and a multitude of local watershed recovery efforts throughout the Northwest and California.

"We look forward to a thorough review of our hatchery policies that addresses the court's decision in the Alsea case in a timely manner, while also ensuring that wild stocks of Pacific salmon are protected during our review," Hogarth said.


Judge Hogan ruled that NMFS can list salmon under the Endangered Species Act, and can decide which populations of the fish should be considered part of the protected population. However, once a decision is made to include hatchery fish in the protected population, all of the fish - hatchery and natural alike - must be listed or not listed together.
Earthjustice attorney Kristen Bowles said the group will continue to oppose including hatchery raised fish as part of dwindling populations of wild born fish.

"The bottom line is we are losing native salmon runs up and down the coast, and the [Endangered Species Act] recognizes that raising fish in hatcheries is no substitute for the real thing," said Boyles.

NMFS views the judge's decision as a chance to update the agency's policies with the help of new information, and with the input of local governments.

"This decision affords the Northwest region the ability to reevaluate and improve salmon protection efforts," said Bob Lohn, NMFS northwest regional administrator. "By working with local communities to strengthen existing state and federal protections and learning from the successes, including tribal programs, we can build a broad community based approach to protecting salmon and their critical ecosystems."

Besides Oregon coast coho, NMFS has listed some 20 additional salmon and steelhead populations that also have hatchery populations that are not listed. NMFS will immediately begin updating its information on these groups, and will review their status after the agency updates its policy concerning hatchery raised fish.

"We will proceed with protection and recovery activities for all listed salmon species," said Lohn. "We are committed to sustaining the partnerships that we've built to work together on conserving our salmon and steelhead and their ecosystems."

Details of the agency's actions are contained in its 'Salmon ESA Review Action Plan' available at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov. The agency's policy review will include opportunities for public input, and is expected to be completed by September 2002.


So, does this mean no more fin clipping? Will we be allowed to keep wild and hatchery fish? Will we be allowed to fish for salmon or steelhead at all? What does this mean for state wide cnr of wild steelhead? What a can of worms!

If appeals aren't successful it could spell the end for coho nates. I just hope it doesn't set a legal precident toward steelhead and chinook native fish!!!

RT

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: RT i ]

RT,
As I said above, the ruling is already being used as a precedent to petition for the de-listing of chinook, steelhead and other species on the Columbia and Snake, as well as Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal summer chum. You can expect to see plenty more. The next step is to see whether a group of conservation organizations which have asked for intervenor status will be allowed to appeal the decision. Unfortunately. Judge Hogan will be making that decision as well.

This is a moot point. NMFS has elected not to appeal but they have also decided to undertake a complete examination of their hatchery policy, all their listing decisions, and the implications of the judge's ruling. So, even if there is an appeal, it would not change the fact that NMFS will be reviewing all their listing decisions. In fact, if the conservation groups appeal to the Ninth Circuit and lose, all the ESA protections for salmon would no longer be in effect. Given NMFS's proposed actions, an appeal at this point might do more harm than good.

It's important to recogize that the judge did not rule that hatchery fish and wild fish are the same. He ruled that the ESA does not legally allow NMFS to differeniate stocks any finer than an Evolutionary Significant Unit. In this case, the Oregon Coastal coho. Most folks would agree there are differences between hatchery and wild salmon but the ESA doesn't provide the authority to seperate them. I'll bet that in the end, NMFS will list both hatchery and wild salmon and then provide for the taking of hatchery fish thru special regs (a 4(d) rule for the ESA buffs).

I'm more optimistic about this ruling now than I was when it first came out. It will be important for anglers to participate in the listing/hatchery review that NMFS will be undertaking. Our fishing future will be affected by the outcome.

Imortant read on this subject-

http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/local/46319_salmon12.shtml

This issue is important, and I am going to need some help with it. My organization has great access to NMFS, department of commerce (the department over NMFS) and several members of the congressional fisheries sub-committee. But I need help weighing the risks of each potential route NMFS can take. We can discuss this right on the board, or I can set up a meeting with people who care to speak face to face. But we should come to a consensus on this and push one direction. This rulling has the potential to turn our whole world upside down and I don't care to sit by and wait to see what NMFS is going to do, I want to impact their decission.

Mike,

We can start right here on the board. I've invited some guys to join in that have fishing biology backgrounds and/or fishing politics understanding. I just sent the e-mails out so hopefully some will respond soon.

In the meantime can you give a brief outline here of what should be done and what us sportfishers can do to help?

RT

I am not well versed on this issue, I only know what I have read here. But, it seems that the judge is forcing people in fisheries to think outside of their tight little box. Something that every govt. employee I know doesn't and maybe can't do. My gut tells me there are some real positives here. Looks like to me he is forcing the issue of harvest restoration first then habitat. I know that most Bios that I know when asked off the record will say that the genetic strains are so blurred anymore that they may be indistinguishable.

I will think on this more...I know it flies in the face of purists but lacking the ability to appeal...what are the positives. It is very refreshing to me to be able to think outside of the box. We holler and scream at our F&W people for not doing a good job, if this changes the rules how can we get them bent in the sportsmans direction>

Mike...what is your organization?? Tell us more how you think it could help! And maybe have someone in your organization that is maybe smarter than us put together a Pro/Con list.

Hmmm....lets turn this positive I will be it can be done.


Gill

Gillraker,

My orginization is Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA). We are a 501c4 political action orginization representing anglers. What we are not is a group of people who want to come in and tell everyone how to run their state. Rather, we would like to take the information provided form all the anglers here and push that agenda at the political level. We use grass roots backed by direct lobbying. If you have the opportunity to see a copy of "the reel news" we are the cover story this month. We started developing a chapter in the state of Washington about this time last year, and currently I represent about 700 here. Our overall membership is about 100,000 nation wide.

RT:
The first thing we have to do is figure out what NMFS is currently doing. Obviously there has been a press release put out, but I am not really that trusting of those releases to tell the whole story. I have a message out to the RFA director but Jim is in Spain this week for ICCAT meetings (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna) and won't be back until next Tuesday. They work with NMFS all the time and should be able to get the whole story.

The Endangered Species Act is an area I am not real strong in. I know just enough to get by. I would appreciate help from those who know it well, legally and scientifically, so we can really make an educated decission. Not knowing all the information, it looks as if the options are:

1) List all fish, hatchery and wild, as protected.
This option would seem to open up the possibility of too many fish to be endangered except in places like the Methow river in central Washington where hatchery fish are considered vital to rebuilding.

2) De-list all fish and remove any ESA obbligations
This removes some federal control, but it also removes the public perception of fish in trouble. That seem as dangerous as anything to me.

3) Break down the hatchery and wild fish into different ESU's.
This option keeps things as similar to as they are now as we can find. But even as I sit here typing, I can think about questions about wild broodstock programs and hatchery management that would need to be considered.


Once we figure out what to do, that when we start making our impact. Since this is a federal decision, the agencies have to be concerned with the opinions of all the voters not just the voters in the Pacific Northwest. I can provide the infastructure for a grass roots campaign nation wide, and then back that up with direct lobbying by either Jim or Sharon or possibly the firm we retain called Washington Stadegies (or a combination of all three).

I don't have time to get up to speed on this issue at least until midweek of next week. Does ES ratings affect tribal netting?? Again for those who are smarter than I, how can we make this positive?? How do we make it work?? Think positive instead of negative.


Gill

Mike G. - In my view, your first option is the best course of action. List both hatchery and wild stocks. The basis for the listing would be the intent of the ESA, which is to protect the ecosystem (i.e, the habitat) that supports these animals (or plants). The intent is not to produce as many animals or plants as can be created artifically. So no matter how many salmon there are in the hatcheries, there still may not be enough to justify de-listing the stock, given the intent of the ESA. So, my suggestion is for NMFS to list both hatchery and wild salmon.

But the next question becomes "Does that mean we anglers/tribes/commercial folks can't catch any salmon since both hatchery and wild fish are listed?" The answer is yes, unless NMFS issues special regulations to the States of Oregon and Washington (and the tribes) governing the taking of listed fish. This is called a 4(d) rule (from section 4(d) of the ESA). 4(d) rules authorize the taking of listed species (sort of) provided the State abides by the rules. These rules usually contain strict conservation measures to ensure affects to listed species are minimized. If NMFS did this, anglers/tribes/commercials could still fish, provided they target hatchery salmon (presumably) and abide by whatever 4(d) rules that NMFS establishes.

The catch is that 4(d) rules can only be established for threatened species or stocks. If a species/stock is listed as endangered, NMFS can't do a 4(d) rule for that stock. Therefore, fishing for that stock would not be authorized, particularly since it can't qualifiy under incidental take coverage either because fishing is not incidental take, it would qualify as direct take. But that's another story....

So, if you're looking for a position for your organization, my suggestion is to look into the pros and cons of having NMFS list both hatchery and wild salmon and then develop 4(d) rules for threatened stocks that include a hatchery componet. That would allow the ESA protections to remain in place but also allow a fishery to continue.

But most of all, don't take my word for it. Ask around. On this BB, Salmo g can probably give you an informed opinion too. Good luck.

Gill,
Yes, the ESA does effect the tribes, because its an act of congress.

Coho,
Not knowing any differently, I will assume that everything you write is true and base my concerns from your statement. Regardless of what the ESA says in its text, or does not say, there is going to be a public perception problem if we are protecting hundreds of thousands of fish, calling them all endangered, and then fishing for them. Anything could happen, including an amendment to the ESA. Thats my current opinion, subject to change. Lets see what otheres think about it.

Birdhunter posted:
"chairman of the Northwest Power Planning Council reacted favorably"

I am not trying to disrespect the chairman, but I must ask the question, Is the chairmans interests the same as ours? Is this statement a good or bad thing?


I want to encourage everyone who wishes to weigh in on this to do so, but I want to remind everyone that this is a political problem. Lets use the best science we can come up with to create our opinion, and then look at it through political eyes so see if it is likely to produce the outcome we want.

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Mike Gilchrist ]

Gillraker,

You Wrote --"I know that most Bios that I know when asked off the record will say that the genetic strains are so blurred anymore that they may be indistinguishable."

With all due respect, I have to take issue with this statement. It is not supported by the literature, at least as far as NW steelhead and trout are concerned. Steelhead and trout have largely retained their genetic integrity. I've not seen anything disputing this for coho or chinook either - but I can't put my hands on those documents right now.

The "They're so interbred there's no such thing as a wild fish anymore" is a red-herring argument
designed to undercut conservation efforts.

I'm not getting down on you personally, Gill, you were told what they told you, but it is not in accord with the facts, for NW salmonids in general.

Some more interesting speculation from tidepool:

link-enhanced version of this column appears at http://www.tidepool.org/ebbtide/ebb.cfm

NO APPEAL, NOW WHAT?

ebbTIDE never expected the National Marine Fisheries Service to appeal the September 10 court ruling that resulted in dropping Oregon Coastal Coho from Endangered Species Act protections.

Trying to apply ESA listings to salmon is a political nightmare, and U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan's decision offered NMFS a possible opportunity to wake up. That's the cynical reason. The less cynical reason is that little would be lost in terms of protection for salmon in Oregon if the case was left to lie. On the other hand if the feds appealed the decision and lost, about 20 other listings could be thrown out by the legal precedent that would be set.

Last Friday after we went to press, NFMS announced that they would not appeal Hogan's decision and would instead launch a reevaluation of their salmon recovery policies -- possibly stripping other salmon and steelhead runs of federal protection.

Legally and politically it is the path of least risk, but still will likely mark a titanic shift in Northwest salmon policy.

As vigilant readers know, this all comes down to telling the difference between hatchery fish and wild fish swimming in the same watershed. When NMFS made the coastal coho and many other salmon and steelhead listings, they counted the hatchery fish the same as the wild fish, but they then managed the wild and hatchery fish separately -- protecting the wild fish while clubbing the hatchery salmon to keep them from competing with wild stocks for limited food and habitat resources.

Hogan's decision essentially ruled that hatchery and wild salmon are the same, while, the "cornerstone of the government's salmon-rescue blueprint ... boils down to this: the wilder, the better," the Seattle P-I reported this week.

Now it appears that "salmon rescue blueprint" will be thrown out and a new one drawn up.

With a "yearlong reexamination of the fitness of hatchery fish now underway," the question is which way will the Feds go? Integrate hatcheries into recovery? Eliminate hatchery production? Count hatchery and wild fish the same -- thus delisting more salmon stocks where hatchery fish numbers are strong?

Some -- including the Columbia River Inter Tribal Fish Commission -- are arguing that hatchery practices can be reformed to boost salmon recovery. The tribes say that hatcheries can be managed in a way that aids salmon recovery while not hurting remaining wild stocks. Inter-tribe wants to use hatchery fish as a temporary supplement to a future date when naturally spawning fish can sustain themselves. To get to that point, fish habitat needs to be repaired of course. Killing the hatchery system without fixing the salmon habitat first, doesn't make any sense.

"We ought to figure out as a scientific community in the Northwest how best to make these fish as natural as possible and integrate them with the wild populations," Inter-Tribe's Don Sampson said. "Hatcheries ought to be used for a period of time. If that is 25 to 50 years so that wild populations can sustain themselves and survive, then we ought to plan to use hatcheries to get us through this bottleneck of mortality."

Some comments from NMFS spokesfolks this week seem to indicate sympathy with the tribes' position.

There has also been support for Sampson's approach in Washington State Fish and Wildlife for years. Biologists in Washington have even called for using hatchery fish to "create" naturally spawning runs where the habitat is underutilized or unoccupied by surviving wild runs.

This week, Gov. Gary Locke and other Washington state officials "applauded" NMFS decision to take a closer look at hatcheries role in salmon recovery. Locke's advisor and Power Planning Council chairman Larry Cassidy Jr told the Vancouver Columbian this week that he sees it as a "sign the federal government may give some credit to hatchery practices that have been modified recently to more closely mimic nature."

That goes against the growing conventional wisdom among salmon-savers that hatchery fish are bad news for wild stocks. Critics of hatcheries say that the changes in hatchery practices are still experimental "tinkering" that has yet to prove out. Instead of using hatcheries to help recover wild fish, these critics have been arguing for years that hatcheries need to be closed down to give wild fish a fighting chance.

"Where we've closed down hatcheries in the past," according to Bill Bakke of the Native Fish Society. "At least in some cases, the fish population has actually increased. It's this mythology that the hatchery is the source of our fish that is the problem."

Politically, there could advantages to including hatchery fish as a part of salmon recovery. It would reduce some of the heat from property rights advocates and landowners frustrated with salmon habitat protections for fish that "wind up clubbed or caught." And, by maintaining hatchery production -- odds are you get to keep your fishing seasons -- sport, commercial and cultural. Thus ensuring the support of three strong constituencies.

Politically, hatcheries are winners. If they weren't, they would have disappeared a decade ago.

Meanwhile, counting and protecting hatchery fish together with wild fish could have a number of different results. Runs where hatchery fish are strong could lose ESA protection even if the wild fish are on the verge of extinction -- something environmentalists fear will be politically tempting for the feds.

In theory, fishermen could also lose out on catching plentiful hatchery fish if a run is weak enough to still warrant ESA listing. Fishing groups actually wanted the Feds to appeal the Hogan decision, fearing they would lose fishing rights to hatchery fish. But, I'll shave my head if that actually happens.

"Give NMFS credit. They're not stupid," Cassidy told the Columbian. "They're not doing this so they can go for more listings."

Gary,
I will honorably disagree...I will take what a bio tells me over what studies say anyday of the week. The Bios I know and trust....studies are....well...studies, done for a purpose to prove something.

Anyway doesn't matter.

I am determined to see the positive.

Gill

I have no idea how this things going to settle out. But I'm hoping that it forces the feds and states to step back and take a commonsense look at their socalled restoration efforts. I'm all for restoration but not the way they're approaching it. Examples: $600,000 for estuarine restoration that will increase wild fish about 2 to 3 dozen per year; or how about $5 mill to restore the ecosystem back to what it was 200 years ago in an estuary where there is no listed stocks? There's something definitely wrong. How about buying out property ownership if an entire town and paying to relocte them? It's in writing as part of a recovery plan! Maybe someone else neds to be in charge of how restoration is determined and funded?

Gooose

It is only though scientific study that a F&W bio could determine if hatchery fish affected the genetic integrity of wild stocks. To say that F&W bios know something that isn't published in the open literature defies the process by which they themselves derive their understanding. simple enough - the bios don't have the eyes of God

Keta, the quote of Don Sampson:



Is this why the media reported more than once this year the Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission included in their planning and allocation negotiations that they want all hatchery finclipping of Columbia salmon and steelhead stopped right away? Maybe to a small degree. Maybe not at all. This is, at the least, inconsistent with the Sampson quote above; if not outright counterdictive.

There has been credible strong speculation that they don't want anymore finclipping because that has allowed non-Indians to partake in a small allocation of spring chinooks for the first time this year in nearly 3 decades. This was predicated on sportfishers having to release non-clipped fish. No clipping = no sportfishermen to share the ESA harvest allocation with. And greater numbers of fish considered to be wild fish so as to get even higher ESA allocation numbers. Seems to fit their pattern. They have also tried to take away the Columbia fall chinook sport fishery without due basis.

And they continue to push for higher percentages of ESA impacts on netted native fish. And refused the urgent request of the states to switch to the new tooth tangle nets which are more selective in allowing live release of the small % of native fish. I don't see a pattern of true care about maximizing native fish protection and restoration by that Commission! I see maximum yield motives for themselves, while trying to elimiate sportfishing. How about that "bottleneck" Mr. Sampson?

So, in line with the topic of this thread, is the Judge Hogan Decision now going to help these Indian fishing agendas? And how will that effect sportfishing, beyond what the Indians would have it be?

RT

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: RT i ]

Question as a Bio. For the whole history of this mess some questions? 1. Names of the bios who contributed; 2. Names of the politicians who helped out; 3. Names of the industries who made profits; 4. Why not a memorial with all these names?

Gooose

Is this an Oregon problem or does this decision directly affect Washington also? Is it a Federal ruling or a State ruling?

I am closer to getting to speed on this one....


Gill

Here are some links for those who want more info on this subject.

www.newsdata.com/enernet/fishletter seach archives for recent articles

http://znetprime.znetsolutions.com/cbb.nsf/cbbView

http://www.tidepool.org/subjects/id.artshow.cfm?category=salmon

www.pacificlegal.org

http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isab/isab2001-3.htm

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Keta ]

Gillraker,
At the present time it is only an Oregon problem but, as I said, it is already being quoted as a legal precedent to enable various interest groups (Columbia/Snake River Irrigator's Association, Kitsap County Property Owners Alliance, Skagit County Cattlemen's Association) to petition for removal of Columbia/Snake River chinook, steelhead and sockeye, Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal summer chum from the Endangered Species List.

Preston,
Call me dense...those special interest groups are groups that want more access to lands surrounding watersheds...I understand that battle, I have lost over 400 acres of prime timber to the process of watershed restoration. I didn't lose it actually they still let me pay taxes on it but I can't do anything with it. Anyway, why is it that these special interst groups are excited about this decision? Will it give them more rights to log/farm/build...to the water line?

Am I correct in assuming that if a river has 1000 wild fish returning and 20000 hatchery that were broodstocked from that river years ago returning that according to this ruling there are actually 21,000 "genetically wild" fish returning not 1000?? So there is no need to protect anything. Is that a fair extrapolation of the ruling? (readers digest version of course)

Anybody??

Gill

Gillraker,
I'm not using "special interest group" in a pejorative sense, I suppose that we, as anglers, represent a special interest group as well. The obvious motive of the groups that I mentioned is to remove ESA protection from various populations of fish in order to get rid of the restrictions that the act places on their activities. In essence, Judge Hogan's ruling says that, since the 1978 revision to the act does not allow differences below the sub-specific level to be taken into consideration, that differences between wild and hatchery fish cannot be addressed. In effect: hatchery and wild salmon and steelhead must be considered the same, and if there are plenty of hatchery fish in the rivers then there is no problem and no reason to extend protection. I have no doubt that the decision is legally valid; a case of the narrow wording of the law invalidating the spirit of the law. James Buchal, the Portland attorney who was been instrumental in bringing about the Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans case as well as the recent petitions in Washington, makes no bones about wanting to take salmon protection out of the hands of the federal government entirely. Whether you think this is a good idea or not, do you think that local jursidictions could do a better job in the face of well organized and well funded groups whose interests would be better served by ignoring the problems salmon and steelhead currently face?

Preston,
I certainly someday hope to meet you...I think were on the same page so bare with me. I am trying my best to get people to think outside of the box on this one.

Everybody that I know of has moaned and groaned and complained about the lack of ability of WDFW and ODFW to effectively manage our anadromous fish runs. Most applauded when the Feds stepped in and said if you don't we will. Feds did and more moaning and complaining.

Looks like this is a great potential opportunity to ride a new wave. I still have not had ample time to study but I think there is some room here for some awesome opportunity.

However for any of it to work, mass marking must continue and improve to the point of all anadromous hatchery fish are clipped. This means us sportsman need to step up to the plate and donate maybe 4 weekends a year to sore backs, good laughs and feelings of accomplishment in the clipping process. There, theres a beginning, will anybody else be brave enough to play outside the lines here??

Lets Go!!!


Gill

I'm new to this board but am glad to see some strong, informative dialogue going on.

I live in So. Oregon and have been pretty active in fish issues in our region, especially the Rogue for some time. I am active in the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association and make my living peddling Sporting goods as a wholesale distributor rep.

I am of the school that says we should be doing the most we can while disrubting the fewest possible to rebuild naturally reporoducing runs of fish in our NW rivers.

My thoughts are that the arguining over the genetics is, to some degree at this point in time a moot point and not where our energy needs to be focused.

The fact is, after over a 100 years of pouring hatchery fish into our systems they still can not sustain themselves without the yearly infusion of more hatchery fish in the vast majority of cases.

Genetics be damned (for now) these fish do not reproduce succesfully, period.

My fear as a fisher and one that dpends on the industry to support my famimly, is that if we succumb to the pressure to list hatchery and wild as one in the same, the next time our return numbers go down (and they will go down) we will get cut off from fishing. Protected fish must not be 'taken', regardless of their origin

We are told that NMFS will relist after their one year study and make accomdations to take hatchery fish out of the count mix in some fashion.

The problem is, this will take at least two years to get done but what will come of the restoration efforts that have gained great momentum? How many restoration steps backwards will we take in two years?

The property rights folks are applauding this because it is the directives of the ESA, in order to protect listed COHO, that prevent the continuing resource trashing that, in a very large way, has put us where we are today in terms of fish populations.

The property rights folks feel they should be able to do just as they please on their property with no thought to the responsiblity these rights bring with them to be good stewards of the resources.

As in many cases, not all resource extractors or developers are bad or do there thing in a negative fashion. Unfortunately we need the power of the ESA or something similar to keep the bad apples in check.

These same property rights folks are the same ones that will scream the loudest that since a judge (not a bio) determined that hatchery fish are 'ok', we need to stop 'wasting' tax money on habitat restoration. What will become of the funding?

Very interesting thread. Allow me to throw my $0.02 in too. I'm not going to cite any science studies or law, so beware that this post contains whatever biases I have.

I think Cohoangler describes the best alternative in terms of legality, political acceptability, actual conservation achievement, and continuation of fishing on marked hatchery fish. That alternative is to list both Oregon coastal hatchery and wild coho as threatened. They would qualify under the intent of the ESA to recover and preserve natural species and their critical habitat. Then, under a section 4(d) rule, healthy segments of hatchery populations that are marked could be allowed to be taken in certain fisheries, as has been occuring these last couple years.

The Hogan decision is a federal district court decision and applies only to Oregon coastal coho. However, it is alledgedly being cited as a precedent in the lawsuits against all the other NW salmon and steelhead ESA listings. If NMFS has chosen to appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and lost, then that would be precedent setting and would adversely affect many, if not all, the remaining ESA listings in the Pacific NW.

Regarding the notion that hatchery and wild stocks are so intermixed that there are no longer any pure wild fish remaining: BEWARE of broad general statements of ABSOLUTES. There are damn few absolutes in ecology and biology. There are a few, tho, like dead fish don't spawn, regardless of whether they were caught on hook-and-line or a gillnet.

The hatchery/wild allegation is pretty much a site and stock specific one. Some hatchery and wild stocks are indeed thoroughly blurred and no remaining genetic distinctions can be found. The Oregon coastal hatchery and wild coho may be among them. In other cases, Puget Sound wild steehead populations seem to remain genetically intact, probably because the Chambers Creek hatchery stock has been so selectively bred and inbred that it doesn't very often get a chance to spawn with actual native wild fish in the rivers it has been stocked in. And when it does get the chance, it is so unfit for survival in the natural environment that the offspring shortly disappear from the gene pool. Just keep in mind that some wild stocks are very pure, some have slight hatchery introgression, and some (like Green River fall chinook) are thoroughly mixed and cannot be distinguished as wild.

Another thought about the course NMFS pursues. Lohn is the new Administrator, appointed by GW Bush. Stelle was Gore's man (Clinton had Gore take care of this stuff, after his spotted owl adventure in ESA land.). Do you think there is a difference in the two administrators' committment to conserving species?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo, I'm glad to see your posts here again.

The only problem I can see with Cohoanglers scenario is where adding the number of hatchery fish to the number of wild fish would come up with a total that would suggest that de-listing the whole run was appropriate. Now, I don't know if there are any runs where this would have a possibility of happening. Also I have never heard of any numbers that would define recovery to the extent of de-listing, so maybe this is a moot point.

Some where I read that Lohn came from some executive position in a large seafood processing co. Is this true? If so, it sounds like the fox guarding the hen house.

One more guestion, not to get off the subject,but, a while back there was a thread about the flows coming from the PSE dams on the Baker River. You said you were concerned about the daily fluctuation in the river level and it's effect on steelhead smolts that were in the system. My question is, how do these fluctuations adversly effect these fish? I can see this washing out reds, but I don't know what it would do to fish already free swimming in the current. Could you explain this for me? Thanks.


The only thing we have learned from history is that we don't learn anything from histoery.

Keta,
Perhaps this doesn't directly address your question, but a few months back I heard some comments by Curt Kraemer. His contention was that steelhead in the Skagit and Sauk basins had evolved to produce some of the latest spawning winter steelhead in Washington state. He felt that this was due to the Skagit and Sauk Rivers' headwaters being in higher mountain terrain which, in turn, kept the waters of these rivers high into the late spring and early summer. The late spawning of the winter fish (in some cases not until June or even July) assured that the eggs would not hatch until the spring runoff had declined enough that the newly hatched fry would have a more benign environment in which to grow. He also felt that diking and the drainage ("reclamation") of sloughs and oxbows had significantly reduced the available rearing area for steelhead parr and smolts, further reducing the carrying capacity of the system.

It's good to see Salmo here, and many knowledgable people sharing thoughts and ideas of how best to respond and take action.

But I have very strong concerns. Salmo and Coho', you said you think the best alternative "is to list both Oregon coastal hatchery and wild coho as threatened". And under section 4(d) we will be allowed limited clipped hatchery sportfish harvest in some areas. Well, so very obvious to me is that this is a whole lot easier said than accomplished; given this precident setting Hogan Decision!

Special interest groups such as the timber industry, agricultural industry, barging industry, commercial trollers, commercial netters, Indian netters, and the electrical power industry, etc., are all going to have strong representation that hatchery fish are too plentiful to list as threatened. And since this legal Decision takes away the distinction, it appears the protections can be taken away from wild stocks as well; as long as there are good numbers of the fish combined. Look at the regional hordes of fish the last two years, and likely in the next few years also.

I see this as a golden opp for the special interests to get back to HABITAT AND RESOURSE DEGREDATION for the dollars scenario. And for the commercial fishers and Indian fishers to net wild runs into extinction, enabling them to make eventual claims against the Feds for financial recourse for the decimation of the fish. I can see the claims coming. Billions will be asked for by the Tribes and millions by the commercial guys, and asking addtional for license and boat buy outs, after the wild fish are gone and hatchery funding gets lowered in the economic times to come.

OK, this is a worst case scenario. But it is now possible as it stands. How many of you think we can get hatchery fish listed as endangered in the present climate, or for the foreseeable future? Especially with special interest group "fish counters" putting their numbers on the table? I'm now very much more concerned for the habitat and for wild fish runs where they still exist!

For the fish and for us sportfishers, I see this as likely having to go thru the legislative route, to enact other laws to protect habitat now. A big part of that will be getting the hundreds of thousands of sportsfishers out of their historic lethergy and into writing campaigns, and giving of money to political lobbying entities and efforts, such as the RFA, to get to where we want to go. Unfortunately, I am not optimistic about general sportfisherman committment. I've been beating that dying horse for a long while now. Maybe this will be what it takes to get them as a group united in doing what has to be done - WRITING REPS AND GIVING MONEY FOR OUR LOBBYISTS AND CAMPAIGNS!

We are now going to find out!

RT

RT,

I agree that there will be plenty of lobbying pressure to not list "abundant" hatchery fish that are part of a ESU. However, consider an analogy. Grey wolves are listed as threatened in the lower 48. But the wolves in zoos and certain preserves are not listed. Hatchery coho are like animals in the zoo, an artificial construct that would not and can not exist, absent the intervening hand of man. So it may be reasonable and possible to find a legal path through this conflict.

The new RA at NMFS, Lohn, may be even less enthusiastic about listing salmon than his predecessor. New listings are likely only as a result of losing in litigation. Score 1 for the forces of habitat degredation, thanks to judge Hogan.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

According to your analogy, which I understand, then the hatchery/man dependant runs of fish would have to be replentished by those hatcheries if their numbers slip to a level low enough to be listed; like they do at the zoo. That's a rough deal. Because many credible signs point to the hatchery fish being detrimental to the native fish runs. That's the hallmark reasoning for the NMFS to have cut the smolt plantings down and to club hatchery coho to death by the thousands! And hatchery programs are failing for reasons not attributed to habitat degredation. We do agree on one cetain outcome - "score one for the forces of habitat degredation". And to me, score a big one toward the detriment of saving runs of remaining viable true native fish in the places they still exist. And maybe even score one for returning to much of the status quo of the failing maximum yield management of the hatcheries, amide emence multi-factored pressures to keep them off the endangered list? Not a good deal here in the long run. And I thought we had finally learned that phenomenon!

Obviously we should also be including in discussions and actions the subject of much needed improvement in hatchery practices; if they are attainable in the near and distant future, given expected political and natural environments. In a hurry!

In my humble opinion we (fishers and members of the sportfishing industy) are at times our own worst enemy.

One, too many of us are unwilling to get off our arses and do something.... write a letter, make a phone call, have a discussion with a local or non local elected official, etc.

Secondly, and this one is really starting to fry my fritter, is this notion that has been succesfully generated by the property rights folks that if one talks of or encourages habitat restoration over hatcheries or even in conjunciton with hatcheries then one is a "#&%@& enviro-wacko" (thank you Rush..) and you can't agree with no dang enviro-wacko, don't you know!?!?!?

I spend practicaly every working day of my life in a tackle store or department and hear it constantly.

Our own forces are so ignorant (no offense intended, many don't make this like a religion as I do, they simply don't have knowledge of the issue)that they are pulling for the other side!

Like it or don't, our ranks are made up of a lot of rednecks that are ignorant to the facts and have no desire to learn them.

How do you think a small group of people were able to take a home video and end up with such a dramatic change in outlook concerning the Endangered Species Act?

This was not a rapid, huge uprising of masses of people. No, this was a small group of very vocal people that went out and got a lot of grass roots support from a large pool of people that are anxious as hell to do away with the ESA and any habitat protection or restoration it may prompt.

Sad part is, many of these same people are fishers and some are even in the industry but have been fooled into believing that we can do just fine having the state or feds. supply us with fish for eternity.

Sadder yet is that these same conservative republicans will tell you we should make government smaller, stop the subsidies and welfare and keep government out of our lives....... unless the governmnet is going to be our sole provider of fish in the rivers, then that is ok.

We have our work cut out for us folks but we can't stop our efforts.

Good points by all, particularly RT and Salmo g.
However, let me throw in another thought.

Just because there are lots of salmon in hatcheries, I believe the stocks are MORE at risk, not less. If the justification for not listing a stock is the prescence of a hatchery, the likely scenario is that the majority of the fish will end up being hatchery origin. That's the situation we have today.

But what happens when the hatchery experiences a power outage, or a landslide upstream of the water source, or a major disease outbreak, or vandalisum, or an interuption of the water supply, or some other technological/natural/human caused problem? You lose virtually the entire stock!! This has happened many times, just ask anyone who has worked on a hatchery. Just last year Coleman National Fish Hatchery (in Northern. California) lost 500,000 juvenile Chinook salmon because they lost their water supply at night and the alarm failed.

This does not happen in nature. Fish runs are segregated both in time and in space. They spawn over many months and in various tributaries. So if a stock is wiped out by, say a landslide, there are usually several generations of that stock in the ocean or some of the stock may have spawned upstream or elsewhere. They will, over time, recolonize the habitat.

So just because there are lots of hatchery fish, doesn't mean they are not endangered. After all, they represent the majority, or sometimes the overwhelming percentage, of the ESU. I can easily make the argument that listing these fish is every bit as important because they are so vulnerable and there are so few wild fish. In other words, when you are totally dependent on a hatchery system for your fish, all your eggs are in one basket (literally). A better definition of endangered would be hard to find.

All of you guys have obviously had more time to study this cuz all of you keep spouting off how much you know...but you know nothing without a solution...whats the solution?? what should sportsman jump on and say this is the way we want it to go.

I could care less anymore about the details of the ruling or the science behind any past practices or decisions.

What will work for the benefit of the fish?? The ruling is the ruling...attorney will battle it out if in fact that ever happens in the mean time...what do we do??

I don't know!!

Gill

I will throw out a suggestion on which way we should push, then you can all pick my ideas apart and we can go from there.

Lets throw the de-listing option out, I don't think it accomplishes what we want.

Break all the production hatcheries out into their own ESU and do not ESA list them. (The question I don't have an answer for yet is if this is legally a possibility.) This preserves our fisheries and maintains the separation between the majority of hatchery and wild fish.

Retain all the current ESA listings on wild fish ESU's.

Add to the wild fish ESU's all "improved hatcheries". I am talking about all wild broodstock hatchery programs with improved hatchery facilities. This would protect those fish the same as the wild fish and allow 4D exceptions to allow harvest of those fish as needed. These facilities will need to be evaluated for efectiveness at both reducing overall mortality and for sucessfull wild spawning. If these hatcheries are successfull at repopulating wild runs, we can look at further improved access to these fish in our fisheries.

somehow you all managed to blast this all the way off the first page in half a day! Too important to ignore, back to the first page.

Mike G. - Interesting suggestion. Create two seperate ESU's and list the wild one but not the hatchery one. It would probably serve the same purpose as listing both and doing a 4(d) rule.

However, the catch is whether there is sufficient biological basis for the distinction. Hatchery fish and wild fish are virtually identical, right down to their DNA. They even live in the same habitat and spawn at about the same time. The differences are related to behavior and survival, both in freshwater and salt. So are these differences sufficient to allow NMFS to list one but not the other thru an ESU? Clearly, the differences are sufficient enough to affect the returns of adults. Witness the large number of hatchery adults vs. the number of wild adults returning to spawn. But are they sufficient enough to warrant different listing decisions?

Unfortunately, it really isn't that clear. There's probably enough ambiguity in the data to allow the decision to be driven more by political consideration than by biological facts. But if there is enough information to justify different listing decisons, it might be a good position to take.

Just a couple of points. The decision was not based on whether or not there is a difference between wild and hatchery fish. The decision was based on the wording of the ESA, which forbade NMFS to differentiate below the sub-specific level. In other words, if hatchery fish cannot be identified as a subspecies of the existing wild fish they cannot be treated differently. As I said above it's a case of the letter of the law countering the spirit of the law. The latest word I have (Fish Net's NW FISHLETTER.134 11/21/01) says that the environmental and fisheries groups mentioned above were granted intervenor status on November 16th by Judge Hogan. They immediately filed a brief asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stay Hogan's decision. According to the above source, NMFS had argued against allowing these groups to intervene. So, now, NMFS is developing "a new hatchery policy" and "..will begin reviewing the status of affected stocks and promises the review will be finished by next fall.", meanwhile the intervenors' brief will eventually go before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. ...And so it goes.

Keta,
I couldn't agree more with you. Where, oh where, is there an organization to speak for the sport fisherman! There are certainly a couple of groups who would like to take on that job; the Wild Steelhead Coalition (to which I belong) is one of them. Although it was founded as a more or less single-issue group, with getting wild steelhead made catch-and-release year-round and statewide its main aim, it will, hopefully, be looking for new issues to address after the upcoming round of fishing regulation hearings. I'm sure that most of us are aware of the financial impact of sport fishing on the state's economy, as opposed to that of the commercial fishing interests, but the state legislature doesn't seem to be. As one who spent years pissing and moaning about the decline of our sport fisheries without doing anything about it, I can only say: whatever good I might have done, it's been more of a hassle than I ever thought it would be but, at the same time, it's given me a sense of having helped to accomplish something that I'm proud of. So, join a club, put in some time and effort and tackle it one step at a time. I don't mean to sound like a recruitment poster, but we do outnumber the *******s, and numbers count.

DOCUMENTS FROM NW FISHLETTER 134

SCIENCE PANEL KNOCKS NMFS OVER HARVEST POLICIES

An independent panel of scientists has issued a report that recommends the National Marine Fisheries Service re-examine its policies for setting salmon harvests that include ESA-listed fish, and take another look at the legal constraints under which it operates to determine whether Indian treaty rights and the Magnuson-Stevens Act are superceded by the Endangered Species Act. They suggested creating more opportunity for terminal area harvests to overcome some of these constraints.

The group, known as the Salmon Recovery Scientific Review Panel, includes six nationally respected experts in genetics, ecology and conservation ecology appointed by NMFS to oversee the work of the Technical Recovery Teams (TRT), who are being put together to develop recovery plans for listed stocks on the West Coast. The scientific panel meets with the Technical Recovery Teams several times a year to review their work on behalf of endangered salmon and to make recommendations.

The Scientific Review Panel concluded that NMFS continues to permit "biologically unsustainable" harvest levels of listed salmon, and they advise the federal fisheries agency to develop a more "rational policy."

They noted frustration "... to hear discussion of optimal harvest strategies, as if no other factors were involved... it is our view that it is this isolation that led to some counterintuitive recommendations, such as to continue the harvesting of declining populations."

The panel said it appeared that "harvest decisions are never connected with other factors in an overall restoration and recovery plan."

"The NMFS Scientific Review Panel shares many of our concerns over the way ESA-listed salmon are being harvested," said Kurt Beardslee, director of Washington Trout, a statewide conservation organization from the Seattle area. The group has filed a notice to sue NMFS over the agency's approval of its Puget Sound salmon harvest plan. -Bill Bakke

Meeting Report, Salmon Recovery Scientific Review Panel, Aug. 27-29, 2001
http://research.nwfsc.noaa.gov/cbd/trt/RSRP_Aug01.pdf

this is the url for the whole newletter
http://www.newsdata.com/enernet/fishletter/

Fishaholick

More Information

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS HAS PETITIONED A U.S. DISTRICT Court in Washington, D.C., for permission to submit new evidence in its challenge of the National Marine Fisheries Service's designation of critical habitat for 19 Northwest salmon populations listed under the Endangered Species Act. (Greenwire, Nov. 21) Although the case has already been argued, the judge has not issued a ruling. The builders association wants to add to the record a memo written by Donna Darm, former acting Northwest regional director for NMFS, that says the agency doesn't bother with conducting an economic analysis, as required by the ESA, "we just designate everything as critical ..." (See NewsWatch, Nov.

19) NAHB President Bruce Smith said the memo could lead to eliminating the critical habitat designations altogether.

Fishaholick