Reported by The New York Times:

Three years ago, Mark C. Rudnick was the timber industry's top lawyer trying to overturn fish and wildlife protections that loggers viewed as overly restrictive. Back then, he outlined to his clients a new strategy for dealing with diminishing salmon runs. By counting hatchery fish along with wild salmon, the government would help the timber industry by getting salmon off the endangered species list, Mr. Rudnick wrote.

Now, as a high-ranking political appointee in the Bush administration who is a legal adviser to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Mr. Rutzick is helping to shape government policy on endangered Pacific salmon. And in an abrupt change, the Bush administration has decided for the first time to consider counting fish raised in hatcheries when determining if some species are going extinct.
The new plan, which officials have said is expected to be formally announced at the end of the month, closely follows the position that Mr. Rutzick advocated when he represented the timber industry.

Who is surprised that this administration is willing to abandon wild salmon protections to help the timber industry? Some on this board have expressed views that this has come about because the administration didn’t have any appointees who understood wild salmon protections. Now we learn that this is a deliberate attack.

Dave-- As a journalist, you have the responsibility to accurately report the facts without bias unless you're writing an editorial.

You've missed the ball on this one by a country mile. Read the NOAA Fisheries policy draft I posted on the thread about the same subject. I won't interpret it for you. Do your own work.

Although I doubt it will change your mind, at least the policy draft will show you what NOAA is proposing. That way you'll have some of the facts of the issue, and you won't have to rely on the NY Times for your research.

Keith

HEY DAVE,

WE'VE FIGURED IT OUT--YOU HATE GEORGE BUSH AND ALL OF HIS CAPITALIST PIG ENVIRO-NAZI FRIENDS. WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

BLAH, BLAH BLAH.

I'VE NEVER MET YOU IN PERSON, BUT I HAVE ENJOYED READING SOME OF YOUR WRITINGS ON FISHING AND TALKED TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE SEEN YOUR FISHING SEMINARS--AND OTHER THAN YOUR POLITICS YOU SEEM LIKE A VERY NICE MAN.

I'D MUCH RATHER LOG ON TO P.P.'S FISHING FORUM AND READ YOUR ADVICE TO HELP ME CATCH A STEELHEAD--THAN GET MY BLOOD PRESSURE RAISED READING YOUR THREADS THAT SEEM TO SHOW YOUR CONCERN FOR THE ENVIROMENT AND OUR BELOVED SALMON--WHEN IN ACTUALLITY THEY'RE JUST THINLY VAILED ATTEMPTS TO SLAM GEORGE BUSH AND IRRATIONALLY ANGER ANGLERS AND TURN THEM IN TO ONE ISSUE VOTERS LIKE YOURSELF.

IT'S A FREE COUNTRY AND I'LL GLADLY DEFEND YOUR RIGHT TO CAMPAIGN FOR RALPH NADER OR ENVIROMENTAL CHAMPION 5 S.U.V. AND 7 AIR CONDTIONED HOME OWNING PRIVATE JET FLYING JOHN KERRY. BUT PLEASE DO IT OPENLY--AND KEEP THOSE GREAT PHOTGRAPHS AND FISHING ARTICALS COMING.


MY 2 CENTS,

SCOWAK


"IF YOU'RE NOT A LIBERAL AT TWENTY YOU HAVE NO HEART--IF YOU'RE STILL A LIBERAL AT FORTY YOU HAVE NO BRAIN".

SCOWAK: I have always attacked ANY administration that proposes to harm our fish. I was not on P.P. during the Clinton years, but if you go back and read some of my STS editorials during the Clinton years you will see that I also took them to task for poor environmental choices. While I freely admin to not liking Bush, the main reason for that is his relentless assaults on the environment.

Kjackson:

Perhaps you are confused. P.P. IS an editorial forum. I did not post this as an article that I had researched, but simply as what it was, a news item in the N.Y. Times. I clearly stated my source, and made no claim for it to be any more than that. I’m guessing the N.Y. Times, like all major papers, does require that news articles are thoroughly researched. I have carefully read all you posts on this as well as a great deal more info. You have no right to assume I am uninformed simply because my reading of the facts seems to result in an opinion different than your. While I do not agree with all your conclusions, I did not take you to task for presenting the facts as you see them. IMHO this is a clear attack on wild fish restoration. That is my OPINION. OK?

P.S. Plese feel free to list the errors in the NY Times artilce. I did not post the entire article, so you may find more info by reading the rst of it. it is also in the Sunday paper here.

KJackson: One more small point. I spent more than 30 years interpreting, enforcing and even writing regulations promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations (CRF) I can tell you from first hand experience that when an administration, be it republican or democrat, proposes a rule that they seriously want to implement, the public comments have VERY little impact.

I helped rewrite a regulation related to reimbursement of administrative costs for administering federal grants. We got thousands of comments from almost every sate and many cities and counties. Almost all comments were against the proposed rule. The rule was issued with only a few tiny changes thrown in as a sop to the protesters. The administration, in this case, Clinton, had an agenda and was not going to be deterred by any amount of comments. I can promise you the final rule will look almost exactly as the current administration wants, irrespective of the comments received.

That said, I will carefully read the notice and I will comment long and loud if it does not clearly contain language to protect wild salmon and steelhead runs, and not by simply calling a closely related hatchery fish the same as a wild fish. I think that if there is enough public pressure in an election year there is a small chance that significant changes can be made. If not there are always the courts. This would first be heard in a federal district court. If you are right the Supremes would not hear the case then all we need to do is win at the district court of appellate level.

From reading your posts I suspect you are in fact a concerned angler and do want to restore wild salmon runs where possible. We simple see this issue though different lenses.

Dave-- We do differ on the idea that this is an editorial forum. Since many of the submissions here are factual or supposed to be (here I'm referring to some of the "fishing stories" I've read and not your submissions necessarily), I don't think that you as a journalist should be presenting a strongly biased argument without identifying it as your opinion.

Because you are a journalist, you need to hold yourself to a higher standard of discourse than other "civilians." If you don't, you stand to lose credibility. The threads that you've initiated lately or contributed to on the issue of the Hogan decision, the NOAA policy and the Bush administration's environmental proposals seem to be full of emotion and emotionally charged words.

If you state that you're offering an opinion, editorializing or assuming certain statements are true or false, then have at it-- that's free speech.

The case in point that spawned my intitial response is the word "Attack" in the title of this thread. If you read the NOAA policy draft, you will see that the proposal not only recognizes natural fish as an important part of the run component of any given stock but also recognizes that hatchery fish have the potential to cause the extinction of the ESU. How is that stand attacking wild fish? The only thing in there I can see that even comes close to the idea of "attack" is that when a hatchery produces more fish of a listed run than the stream will support, they will be allocated for harvest. And since we have fin-clip capabilities, identifying wild stock from hatchery fish is fairly easy.

So-- having said all of that, if you want more of my views of journalistic ethics, we probably should handle that through e-mails as this is a fishing forum.

And you're right-- I do want to keep wild salmon around, but I'm also concerned about the loss of fishing opportunity through bad science and emotionalism.


My $02,

Keith

KJ: You can e-mail me all you want, but you are not going to tell me in a public forum, what your views are on my journalistic ethics, get in the last word, then say we can discuss this is private. I have NO problem saying what I want in public.

Your ATTACK was unwarranted and illogical. You seem to be saying that to post a news article that appeared in the NY Times and the Seattle P.I. means that I also have to fact check the content of the posted article. That's pure hogwash, and I suspect even you know it. If you quote someone are you required to fact check what they said? I note you declined my invitation to point out all the errors you implied were in that article!

Or are you saying that my chosen title should somehow be edited so everyone knows that it is my opinion? How dumb do you think the P.P. readers are? They KNOW it’s my opinion. In my opinion, this is an attack on wild fish. That happens to be an opinion shared by every other person I have spoken to about the subject and the vast majority of the posted on this board. No we are not the unwashed, ignorant. I have read everything I can get my hands on about this. You disagree. Fine. But do not question my ethics!!!!!

I assume all posts here are opinions, even those presented as facts. You tell me I need to ascribe to your notion of journalistic ethics, which apparently includes making sure of all the facts in an article someone else wrote. Like you did when you posted that the Boldt decision was never tested at the Supreme Court level?

You have insulted me. You were wrong and I believe you need to apologize. I don't mind a bit that you disagree with my OPINIONS. But to question my ethics is inexcusable. I believe you would have had no problem with my post had it agreed with your opinion.

BTW Last week I received the Enos Bradner award, which is awarded annually by the 160 plus outdoor writers of the Northwest Outdoor Writers Association. It is awarded to only one person per year for “. upholding the high professional standards of outdoor journalism practiced by Enos Bradner." Somehow I think that award speaks more to my journalistic ethics than your opinion! If you think I'm angry - you are right!

Sounds like they will give anyone a Enos Bradner award no days.

Dave-- Cool down. I didn't attack your ethics as you seem to think. But your choice of words and your blatant electioneering (I'd say a near-constant stream of anti-Bush messages is electioneering even if you didn't urge readers to vote for Kerry, Nader or Bob Ball) really need to be qualified.

As far as going private, I wanted to give you a chance to think about what I'm going to say. However, since you want to wash laundry in public, here is my take on your original post.

The quote from the NY Times wasn't the entire article, or at least not what I read in the Seattle Times this morning. You changed the first graph at least-- there you, not the article, identified the lawyer, not a "timberman", as a fellow with the last name Rudnick. You did that twice. Later you identify him as Rutzick. That tells me that you weren't carefully transcribing or proofreading the post you made. Did you make other errors as well? I won't know until I compare the two. I'm not saying you did, so relax even though you're probably even hotter under the collar now, BUT I am saying that it's apparent to me that you could have done so because you did in this instance.

That last graph was pretty shaky as well-- was that in the original article or was that from Dave Vedder?

Another case in point came up somewhere in one of the similar threads I've been contrbuting to or reading. If it becomes important, I'll find it, but since it illustrates a point of bad writing and fuzzy thinking, I'll use it . A reporter from the Washington Post (not sure on these details or I would give it exactly) wrote that the Bush administration was equating wild salmon with farm-raised salmon. Farm raised salmon and hatchery salmon are different animals as I'm sure you'll agree. But the writer/reporter so badly confused the details that the rest of his information was useless to the reader.

On to fact checking: Where did I suggest that you fact-check the piece? I missed that on my second read. But as you know, biased reporters can spin an article anyway they want by what they leave in and leave out. On top of that, newspapers make errors all the time, not intentionally but because reporters have to get their stories in on deadline and sometimes don't have the time to do a thorough job, hoping that they can repair any errors on re-write the next day.

I don't see where I questioned the ethics of Dave Vedder, but I did say that I think journalists have a responsibility to hold themselves to a higher standard of truth and conduct than the average person. If you feel this attacks (your word) your ethics personally, that's your own read. I will not apologize for saying that journalists should adhere to higher standards. I would imagine you'll find that somewhere in the creed of NOWA, but not being a member, I wouldn't know.

Yes, I did offer to give you my view on ethics in journalism, but in reality, I would parrot a lot of what I learned in journalism school, from a couple of editors, plus an added portion of my own philosophy in regards to outdoor writing.

And you're right on the Boldt screw up: I did say that it hadn't been heard in court because that was the way I recalled it. I wasn't quoting from something I'd read.

As far a reporting back on errors in the NYT/Seattle Time article, I've been busy. It's Mother's Day, you know, AND the grass won't mow itself.

So that's my spin: you pulled a quote from an article that illustrated a point you wanted to make and presented it, I think, poorly. You still haven't addressed the questions I asked about how the NOAA Fisheries draft policy attacks wild fish, and that's where this started. How does it do that when it recognizes the need to preserve wild stock?

My $.02,

Keith

KJ: Too much to respond to. But, please know what I posted was purely a cut and paste. I changed not one letter. Possibly the NY TIMES site, from which I did the cut and paste, was slightly diffrent them the site you looked at ? But I can see no way a simple cut and paste could cause any changes. Hell, I'm too lazy to rewrite all that just to shift the emphasis! I thought the article was damming enough as written. You really shoud be more careful, as a journalist, to be sure your facts are right - especially before accusing somone of altering a document for politicl reasons. That's not nice!


I'm tired of this. I know that what I did was to post an article that appeared in the NY and Seattle times. Apparently you didn't like the article. Fine, go find one you like, and post it. As you said its a free country. But you should not be so quick to attack the messenger. Read, analyze and reach your own conclusions. Again as you said, we need to read all sides. I gave you that chance. Your welcome.

I'm headed out to do what we all need to more of, chase fish and stalk the wiley morel.

I do hope your read on this issue is right and mine is wrong. Let's check back once the NPR is out and again after the final rules are announced.
If I am wrong I will be oh so happy to say so.

Dave is honest enough to have earned his right to his opinion if he chooses to air it in a public forum. I can tell you it is not easy to represent a group and still air your own controversial opinions as you will always upset someone.

There a a bunch of smart people who lurk here who would not dare speak their minds here for fear of being found out and for fear of ruffling the wrong feathers. I can respect that anonimity as well but I just don't subscribe to it and neither does Dave (if I can make an assumption).

I understand the PLF side of the argument as did the courts. I understand the backlash that is happening after many years, many billions of wasted dollars and thousands of unnecessary and punitive environmental and ESA rulings. That is not to say I am an exploitive and uncaring Republican...one of those guys Dave doesn't care for. I am for fresh cold water for the preservation of our wild fish runs. I also post news articles and editorials here so others who may not look at the news can atleast see many different slants on the same story....

Too often, on PP in particular, things are black and white....you are for WSR or you are kill everything that moves neandrathal idiot. No room for both sides because there is only one side to many here.

I think Dave might agree that no matter how much he dislikes GW Bush he can't pin everything on him but he does seem to try. Hopefully we can either agree with him or show the other side in the hopes that he will atleast read it....changing minds is not so much the goal here as getting out anecdotal evidence that our opinions hold water. Personal attacks are tough to resist sometimes but probably not the best way to win an argument.

Congratulations on the award Dave.

here is a snippet from another article by the Associated Press concerning the 9th circuit ruling on hatchery/wild salmon:


"Indian tribes welcomed the policy change, so long as it is used properly as a tool to improve hatchery stock and management.

"This shift causes us to be cautiously optimistic that we may be able to get some thoughtful use of hatchery fish for restoration," said Charles Hudson of the Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission.

"In no way do we see this as a fast track way out of the Endangered Species Act listing," Hudson said.

The act requires the fundamental causes of the salmon decline be addressed and mitigated, and fishery managers recognize that simply flooding the rivers with hatchery fish is not a solution, he said. "

"write-on" Dave, "write-on"!!!

I cant think of a single thing you have written that was "against" fishing and I think that is what this board is for. If others want to politicize, it's only a minor distraction from your fine posts.

my $0.02

AM: I agree witrh you. Wish I had picked a diffrent title. I think the article called him a timberman and went with it.

Doug Sutherland is trying to repair the damage to the timber industry caused by Jennifer Belcher. She tried to shut down the woods, and limit cutting in every way. She is also acting as an advisor to Sutherland's opponent this fall. If you are for jobs, and economic revival, vote for Doug for Commisioner of Public Lands this fall, that is, unless you want the folks in Canadia to benefit by shipping timber jobs out of the country.

Timber harvests are now projected to increase to 750MM board feet off of state land within 5-7 years, close to their historical harvest, compared to the 400MM board feet Belcher reduced us to.

Using this higher harvest rate, the age of the average tree in the forest over the next 200 years increase, as does the quality of the wood.

The increase in old growth forests (160+ years per DNR, 80+ years for USDA) increases, as do the sources of LWD (large woody debris), a necessary component of healthy streams.

It is nice to see us putting people back to work. Grays Harbor County has an unemployment rate of about 8.5% now. This is higher than the state and national rates of 5.7%, but considering that we haven't seen unemployment in single digits for over two decades, it is outstanding.

In case you didn't know, a large amount of the funds generated from logging directly benefit public schools. Every timber dollar is multiplied by 5 when considering the benefit to the economy.

People complain about lost jobs, and I see jobs being created. First hand. I see an economy recovering, yet others expect to see some magical increase in jobs, but they only want to see it in the industries they choose.

A healthy economy requires growth in all sectors. Magazines are printed on what? Paper. You live in a house that is made of? Wood. The source of many of the products we use every day come from trees.

I have a client who has a great sticker on his logging truck. It says, "Run Forest, Run!" I always smile when I see his truck.

I fail to see how going from 400 mil board ft to 750 is supposed to increase the average tree size if logging will take place on both state and private forests. It doesn't make sense how you are going to have any old growth forests under that same area. I don't suppose that the plan is to thin out present forests and leave them be for a long time before harvesting the "old growth". Is this proposed increase in logging just another boom and bust operation or would there actually be an effort to revitalize an ailing industry and keep it busy for many decades? Realistically, how many jobs would actually open up considering the amount of mechanization that is ever-present? I am curious to know how much money is generated for schools by logging on state trust lands. Even then, I think the more important issue is how that money is spent for schools.

What the statement about the increase in logging represents is that harvest at this level is sustainable, and that the forests add/grow wood at a greater pace than harvest takes place.

Planned harvest increases the health of the forest. Severely limited logging can decrease the health of the forest by not allowing the removal of fire damage, insect damage, and other issues like laminated root rot, a fungus, that can kill off widespread stands of timber if not addressed in a timely fashion.

The logging of today is not like it was 20 or 30 years ago. Logging on state lands is now treated more like crop rotation, rather than the "cut it all" mentality of the past. The harvest timelines are in the range of 60+ years, so those are the target trees. Science is used as a tool to determine what type of harvest and management method will best suit the health of the stand, and maximize benefit to the trustee, usually the public schools.

Few mills today are equipped to even handle the larger sized old growth logs, with many of the mills set up to saw logs in the 8"-36" range. Some mills are capable of producing usable lumber from logs less than 6" in diameter.

Harvest rates are determined to provide for a healthier forest. The timelines they use are centuries, not decades, since the target trees the foresters are looking to produce are in the 60 year old range. Now imagine you need to plan the harvest of a crop that takes that long to grow. Now plan for the harvest for the next 60 years, and the following harvest, and so on. There are a whole bunch of trees out there. Wise use, conservation, is more benficial to everyone, than non-use, preservation. Preservation means non-use for everyone and everything.

The timber industry has seen some major consolidations, and the efficiencies have greatly improved. This has happened in many industries. Why would you fault increased efficiency, and the increased use of science as a management tool?

When unemployment goes from 12% down to 8.5% in a blue collar town, a new mill is constructed that runs two shifts currently (about 300 jobs with one company in a town of 16,000), and trucking companies are buying new trucks because of increased demand from mills, these are signs that this is helping the economy. This is just one town. Now spread that across the city as those workers spend their pay, and so on. Imagine this across the state.

The DNR must provide at least a 75% return to the trustee of the particular state land they are having logged. This means that the schools and other trustees receive the lions share of the funds from the logging activity. The return is so high because the state already owns the land. Logging costs come out of the other 25%

Logs cut on state land cannot be exported. They must be modified somehow, either into lumber or other products, here in the US. This provides additional jobs and opportunities for many communities to maximize that timber dollar. This is part of the multiplier effect.

Rockhopper, it is pretty easy to be idealistic at 20, not having to look after the welfare of a family, or having some experience in the real world. I am glad to see that you are looking into the issues, but you need to look at the issues from all sides. Use reason, not emotion, when you vote.

Those lousy hatchery fish aint no native. Lets see them spawn on their own :rolleyes: The ospreys will clean em out

Mr. Vedder,
Its a free country. Write whatever you like. I am STIHLHEAD and I approved this message

Dogfish, I am following this discussion with interest, I really don't have an opinion about what Dave originally wrote about. However, one line in a post of yours really got my attention.
"Planned harvest increases the health of the forest. "
Since this thread got legs on the basis of looking at opinions - it is important to note that your statement is an opinion and one that I would disagree with. The type of harvest has a great deal to do with increasing or decreasing the health of a forest. Also, how the trees that have been harvested are replaced has a lot to say about the health of a forest. I just couldn't let your statement stand without comment.

Second time I've tried this: Dave Vedder asked me to post a copy of the New York Times piece that he quoted from at the beginning of this thread.

I've done that but have had to edit the thing to get this forum to accept it. I've altered no text but have gotten rid (I hope) of the extraneous things such as advertisement notices.

If you want specifics on where to get the unaltered article, let me know.

Despite what some of you may think, I'm not anti-Vedder. More than that I won't say because Dave said he was out of town for five days and would not be able to respond.

Keith

 




Shift on Salmon Reignites Fight on Species Law
By TIMOTHY EGAN

Published: May 9, 2004

EATTLE, May 8 — Three years ago, Mark C. Rutzick was the timber industry's top lawyer trying to overturn fish and wildlife protections that loggers viewed as overly restrictive. Back then, he outlined to his clients a new strategy for dealing with diminishing salmon runs. By counting hatchery fish along with wild salmon, the government would help the timber industry by getting salmon off the endangered species list, Mr. Rutzick wrote.


Now, as a high-ranking political appointee in the Bush administration who is a legal adviser to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Mr. Rutzick is helping to shape government policy on endangered Pacific salmon. And in an abrupt change, the Bush administration has decided for the first time to consider counting fish raised in hatcheries when determining if some species are going extinct.

The new plan, which officials have said is expected to be formally announced at the end of the month, closely follows the position that Mr. Rutzick advocated when he represented the timber industry.

Mr. Rutzick, a Portland lawyer who was suggested for the fisheries job by Senator Gordon H. Smith, Republican of Oregon, would not comment on his role in shaping government salmon policy. Officials at the fisheries service say Mr. Rutzick was part of a working group that shaped the new plan, but would not give further details.

The policy shift has caused a furor among some members of the scientific community and has touched off a fresh battle over what may be the nation's most powerful environmental law.

To most biologists, salmon that are born and raised in a cement tank are no replacement for wild fish, even if they share a common genetic makeup. The new approach, which was contained in a single-page draft, dated March 25 and leaked to reporters last month, ignores the findings of the Bush administration's own panel of outside scientific experts, as well as long-held views within the fisheries service.

These biologists say that including hatchery salmon in the calculation for when a fish can be listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act is akin to counting animals in a zoo. By this reasoning, river or forest habitats of a rare species will never be protected, so long as the animal can be reproduced by artificial means.

"This is a direct political decision, made by political people to go against the science," said Dr. Ransom A. Myers, a fisheries biologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, who was on the six-member panel named by the fisheries service to guide salmon policy. The panel's recommendations were rejected for a policy more favorable to industry groups fighting land restrictions, Dr. Myers and other panel members have said.

Bush administration officials say they are boxed in by a court decision that forces them to include hatchery fish in deciding the fate of a particular run of salmon. They say the scientists inside and outside the agency have overstepped their expertise, and are trying to write policy.

"You have an interaction between science and the law here," said Jim Lecky, a government adviser who speaks for the fisheries service, which is a branch of the Commerce Department. "We don't treat hatchery fish the same as wild salmon. But we do have to consider them."

"I think you have a tremendous internal debate" within the fisheries agency, said Russ Brooks, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which successfully sued the government to force a reconsideration of how it uses hatchery fish. The foundation is financed by developers, timber and agricultural interests angered by what they see as regulatory zealotry.

"Initially, the environmental side was winning out," Mr. Brooks said. "And now you have the other side coming to the fore."

Mr. Brooks said he met with Mr. Rutzick in Washington in late March, about the same time the new policy memorandum was drafted.

Asked about Mr. Rutzick's role in shaping the plan, Mr. Brooks said, "Well, he's very familiar with the issues and from what I understand he has a lot of influence."





 

(This is the beginning of page 2)


As a lawyer for the timber industry, Mr. Rutzick wrote a memorandum in November 2001 praising the use of hatchery fish to restore overall salmon runs, after the court decision forced a rethinking of policy. The old approach, of trying to protect the habitat of wild species, was not working, he wrote. He favored a new approach, directing the fisheries service "to use hatchery fish more aggressively to restore salmon runs." This would "benefit timber-dependent communities and industries," he wrote, and it would help salmon.


"Experts think this will bring the runs back sooner and in greater numbers," he wrote. Asked to comment on Mr. Rutzick's statement about the use of artificially created fish as a way to quickly restore salmon runs, Dr. Myers said, "No credible scientist believes this."

With more than a hundred hatcheries in the Northwest, fish managers have been able to turn out millions of salmon in concrete pools and to release them into rivers. The fish return to their hatchery birthing grounds to spawn and are stripped of their eggs, which are used to replenish the fish population. But after more than a century of human-induced production, wild salmon runs have diminished, with 26 species listed as threatened or endangered with becoming extinct.

To protect the habitat of these wild fish — which many biologists say are superior to hatchery fish, with more genetic diversity — the government has put restrictions on logging and development along streams from Southern California to Washington. Private property groups have sued to overturn these protections, saying it costs them millions of dollars.

In the 2000 election, property rights, agriculture and timber interest groups gave nearly $1 million to the Bush campaign. And although the laws that protect fish and forests have not been changed, the way they are enforced has been. Critics say the administration conducts its land policy by settling lawsuits with groups that oppose environmental laws.

Federal officials agree that the change in course is a response to a successful lawsuit filed by property rights groups. In that suit, decided in September 2001, a federal judge in Oregon, Michael R. Hogan, said the government method of treating hatchery and wild fish differently was unlawful.

But the judge did not tell fisheries officials how to determine if a species was endangered. He ordered the fisheries agency to "consider the best available scientific evidence" in coming up with a new policy.

The fisheries service hired an outside panel to guide it. Among the responsibilities of the scientists, according to the fisheries service guidelines, was to "ensure that well accepted and consistent ecological evolutionary principles form the basis for all recovery efforts."

Inside the fisheries service, the same approach was taken. In a policy draft issued 10 months after the court decision, the fisheries service still indicated that counting hatchery fish was no way to judge the health of wild salmon.

The law, they wrote in July 2002, requires the service to list a species as endangered or threatened "based on whether they are likely to be self-sustaining in their native ecosystem."

Mr. Rutzick was appointed early last year, and his duties included shaping policy on the fate of the 26 threatened or endangered salmon runs. It is the biggest legal issue facing the fisheries service and affects millions of acres of land and rivers along the coast.

When the outside experts reported their findings, they were censored, they said. They went public and had their conclusions published in the journal Science.

"We should not open the legal door to maintaining salmon only in hatcheries," the panel's chairman, Dr. Robert Paine, an ecologist at the University of Washington, said in a statement in late March. "The science is clear and unambiguous — as they are currently operated, hatcheries and hatchery fish cannot protect wild stocks."

Some conservation groups, which have long looked on the fisheries service as an ally, say they feel betrayed by the proposed change.

"The Endangered Species Act doesn't say: protect museum pieces in a zoo," said Chris Wood, vice president for conservation at Trout Unlimited. "Hatchery fish are genetically inferior to wild fish. Find me the peer review paper that says otherwise."

Mr. Brooks, the lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said environmentalists were overreacting.

"The sky is not falling," he said. "The devil is still in the details. And this is not to say that they will do away with everything, because there will still be very stringent restrictions by the state."