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.

This is a very informative thread. It is nice to see some really heavy thinking going on.
Several points I wish to address:

One, Judge Hogan’s ruling was legally correct because NMFS mistakenly included hatchery salmon in population counts on some river systems while excluding them on others. Had they been more restrictive and not counted any hatchery salmon they could have withstood this court challenge.

Two, it is important to note that Judge Hogan decided not to allow parties not included in the original lawsuit the right to appeal. This was also legally correct, after a ruling is made a new party can not go to the judge and say “but you forgot about this…” It is more than likely that filing a new action based on ESA presidents will gain a stronger legal foothold with regards to protecting habitat. Rulings from the Snail Darter case will more than likely provide ample case history.

Three, in Oregon, state statutes require ODFW not to just protect salmon runs from extinction but also to return them to historic levels. We as sport fishermen need to emphasize the importance of habitat in any recovery. Reliance on hatcheries while neglecting habitat is what put us in this mess we call salmon recovery. We also need to emphasize sport fishing’s selective harvest ability. This will give us the lion’s share of the harvestable salmon and will greatly improve wild runs. Gill nets are the worst harvest method we have now, but are still utilized. Getting rid of gill nets should be a no-brainer.

It is important that we as sport fishermen take action to protect both our sport and our natural resource. This is however, a very fluid situation. It may not be possible to predict exactly what is going to happen or who is going to do it and when, but it does not mean we should not plan and strategize for any or every contingency. Politics is a lot like Chess; we must have all of our possible choices planed out 6 to 10 moves in advance. We must be aware of what can happen and not seem to be reactionary to each new turn of event. But foremost, we must strive to do what is best for the wild fish themselves. They are the most important in this entire equation. Focusing on the wild salmon’s needs will lend credence to our position as well as educate the people at the upper levels to our sincerity. Doing what is best for wild salmon will also be best for sports fishermen, Farmers, and loggers “in the long run”.
It is the short term that decisions that pose the worst threat.

POS Clerk

Keta,

There is some risk with every alternative. If the wild fish segment of a ESU is at risk of extinction, and the hatchery segment of the ESU is not, then it may take litigation to determine if the ESU can be listed. NMFS’ science center would probably say it should be listed because they are not persuaded that hatchery populations are sustainable over the long term, and therefore the ESU should be listed to protect and recover the wild segment of the ESU. (Heck, maybe wild and hatchery populations should always be listed as separate ESUs - a hatchery is a very different evolutionary environment.) A recovery team will be named that will prepare a recovery plan for each ESU, and recovery plans do include numbers necessary for de-listing.

On the other hand, Lohn may say the combined hatchery/wild ESU should not be listed according to some hearsay I heard attributed to him. Lohn was the director of the Fish and Wildlife Program at the Northwest Power Planning Council. The NPPC should be among the good guys as they spend about $200,000,000 a year of BPA funds to recover Columbia basin fish and wildlife. Unfortunately most of that money is spent on actions other than the detrimental effects of the hydropower system on fish. Probably the main reason for lack of success. The dams continue to kill fish. Nonetheless, Lohn was selected by Bush after a period of many months. I think that speaks volumes.

Off subject, Baker fluctuations. Hmmm, I don’t recall that. I would be concerned about large flow fluctuations from the Baker under these conditions pertaining to these effects: 1) Large flows during the autumn that cause chinook, pink, or chum to spawn at higher elevations than can be protected during the incubation period, especially mid-winter freezing spells with low tributary inflow. That could cause a loss of eggs or fry to freezing and or dessication. 2) Large flow fluctuations during February to June could cause the stranding of newly emerged salmon fry. 3) Large flow fluctuations in August and September could cause stranding of newly emergent steelhead fry. Hmmm, looks like large flow fluctuations from the Baker can be a potential risk any time of the year when Skagit tributary flows are fairly low. You are correct in that steelhead smolts are large enough not be affected much by hydro flow fluctuations.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

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