Washington Trout Action Alert :
Protect ESA Listings for Wild Fish; Attend Public Hearing Oct 5 in Seattle

NOAA Fisheries is holding a Public Hearing on Oct. 5 in Seattle regarding a Bush Administration proposal to count hatchery fish with wild salmon and steelhead in determining the health of individual wild stocks in federal ESA-listing decisions. This irresponsible proposal is arguably the biggest threat currently facing wild salmon and steelhead populations in the Northwest. If the proposal is approved, it could result in the early and inappropriate removal of ESA protections from declining wild-fish populations and their habitats. The proposal is opposed by regional scientists, wild-fish advocates, environmentalists, community leaders, policy makers, and members of Congress.

NOAA Fisheries is holding Public Hearings throughout the region, where the public can offer input about the proposal. The Seattle hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 5. Washington Trout urges its members, supporters, and anyone concerned with the future of the Northwest's wild-fish resources to turn out for this critically important hearing; let NOAA know that you oppose this risky and irresponsible proposal, that wild salmon, steelhead, and their habitats need continued protection, that hatchery fish can NEVER replace wild salmon and steelhead, and that concrete raceways are NOT habitat!

The foundation of this proposal, that hatchery salmon are capable of contributing to the recovery of ESA- listed wild populations, is completely unproven. Hatchery fish threaten the long-term viability of wild salmon and steelhead populations by decreasing the genetic fitness of wild populations, competing for food and habitat, spreading disease, and promoting increased predation. Hatchery runs create harvest pressures that declining wild runs cannot support. Even if hatchery salmon were not an actual threat to wild fish, the statutory mission of the ESA is to recover naturally reproducing populations by preserving and restoring the natural ecosystems they depend on, not mass-producing artificial facsimiles.

Make sure to attend the hearing on Tuesday October 5th at 6:30 pm at the Radisson Hotel (Sea Tac Airport) 17001 Pacific Hwy South, Seattle.

To find out more about the policy, the science of salmon, and what you can do to help, visit the Washington Trout website, http://www.washingtontrout.org, for important information and links.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

I also encourage all to attend this hearing and listen to BOTH sides. Not just the anti-hatchery side. Ramon's notice is , as usual, peppered with rhetoric. I'm all for wild salmon but also think, unlike Washington Trout, that hatcheries have an important role in our fisheries management. Responsible reform of the hatchery system just might do some good.
Go to the hearing and do your homework.

I'll have to agree with grampa that hatcheries can and should play an important role in the protection and recovery of all NW salmon and steelhead including the ESA listed salmon.

--- --- ---

About the NOAA proposals:

On May 28, 2004, Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., (U.S. Navy, ret.), Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and D. Robert Lohn, Northwest Regional Administrator for NOAA Fisheries, announced the release of a new hatchery policy, status reviews and proposed listing determinations for 27 groups of populations (called "evolutionary significant units" (ESUs)) of Pacific salmon and steelhead.

The listing determinations and status reviews are based upon a report produced in early 2003 by NOAA Fisheries’ Biological Review Team detailing the biological status of naturally spawning populations, as well as its assessment of the effects of hatchery programs on ESU viability, and conclusions from the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop held in April 2004.

For more information see:
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1srd/Prop_Determins/index.html


The comment period on the proposed listings determinations has been extended. Comments may now be provided through October 20, 2004. In addition, 8 public meetings have been scheduled around the Pacific Northwest.

For the meeting announcements see:
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/AlseaResponse/20040528/meetings.html

plunk

aren't these guys you mention the ones that Ramon refers to as "Bush"....I think his wolf fur is showing through the sheep's clothing again.

Im totally with you on this one, i recently had to write a 5 page report on a controversial topic of our choice, and this is the same one i chose. Anyone notice that the acts and propositions put up by the bush addmin, all do the opposite of what they say. Like clean skys act, which actually lossens regualtions for certain groups. Or the no child left behind act which is really F-ed up so i wont go into detail. Last but not least, the patriot act, which actually takes away your freedom and privacy to "thwart terrorist"

I see no flaws in the above logic. I am unaware of any instances where dumping hatchery fish in a river has helped wild salmon.

If our goal is to save wild salmon we cannot allow a sham that counts a hatchery fish when determination the health of wild runs.

If all we want are rivers full of hatchery fish this is a great proposal. If we truly want to save wild runs this is smoke and mirrors. I see a role for hatcherys in maintaining DNA from seriously imperiled stocks, but restoration of wild runs should NOT be based on long trem hatchery supplementation.

Excuse me but dumping hatchery fish into rivers is one COMMON tool used to save wild fish.... or at least to reduce the harvest rate on wild fish. Just look at the marine coho fisheries in this State. Mark selective fisheries are the norm now. These hatchery coho are "dumped into the rivers" (or released from multiple hatcheries into rivers) for the primary purpose of providing sport fishing opportunities for you and me... while lessening the fishing pressure on our wild stocks.

PacificN:

Don't misunderstand me and conclude that I am anti hatchery. I understand that without hatcheries we would have precious few fishing opportunities. Marking hatchery fish is a great improvement over the old days when the harvest of unmarked hatchery fish contributed significantly to the over harvest of wild fish.

We need hatcheries. But we do not need to say that the presence of hatchery fish negates the need to try to protect wild runs.

All I am saying is that I do not want a decision on the need to protect wild fish based upon the abundance of hatchery fish.

I am aware of some innovative program to restore wild fish that are based, at least in part on use of hatcheries to protect brood stock and even to supplement, temporarily, wild runs. But simply calling a hatchery fish a wild fish will not help our wild runs.

And, simply put, there is a hatchery coho program that exists (in large part) to absorb most of the tremendous pressure that we insist on placing on our wild coho populations.

I am just trying to point out to everyone, pro-hatchery and anti-hatchery alike, that coho fishing opportunities would not be nearly as broad and as numerous as they are today without production of hatchery coho, for example.

People can, and do, say what they want about the hatchery fish listing policy being floated by this administration. I do not necessarliy agree with it. But I do recognize that it will, generally, allow our current hatchery production to continue which will, generally, support our current range of fishing opportunities.... AND it helps us conserve our wild stocks.

In the wise words of Bart Simpson, "Au contraire, mon frere."

Ramon's diatribe does have a least one fallacy: the idea that the NOAA proposal says wild fish can be replaced by hatchery fish is a fallacy. Any person who is willing to put aside the conviction that preservation equals conservation, to put aside the partisan idea that any environmental proposal coming from the Bush administration is bad, can see that the NOAA proposal not only honors wild fish but promotes wild fish. There is not one line in the proposal I've seen (here I'm talking about the formal proposal and not the first working draft) that says hatchery fish are the equivalent of wild fish. That urban myth started back in the Alsea litigation where NOAA got its hands spanked for counting hatchery fish as part of the ESU during the listing process but ignoring them when evaluating the health of the run. No matter how many times that fallacy is repeated on the internet, it still won't wash.

What I have seen in the Washington Trout propaganda is the organization's intent to do away with hatcheries. However, without hatcheries, sport fishing in this state would largely turn to bass and walleyes. Without hatcheries, you could say goodbye to the fishing at Neah Bay, Sekiu, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the steelheading in all rivers except for a limited few-- heck, just take a look at the regs and see where you can keep wild fish-- that would be the limit of sportfishing in this state for salmon and steelhead. To me that's pretty scary. If you want to put a spin on Washington Trout's take on things, it's easy to say that this organization is against sport fishing.

Hatcheries do have their place; they are producing just about the only salmonids we can catch and keep in this state.

But trying to lay all the problems with wild fish on the doorstep of hatcheries, or dams for that matter, is 'bad science' (in the terms of Washington Trout) and shows little understanding of natural processes.

My $.02,

Keith

kieth I agree, hatcherys support our current excellent sportfishing oportunities, but they are not the solution to our problems. Good post kieth

QUOTE]Originally posted by kjackson:
where NOAA got its hands spanked for counting hatchery fish as part of the ESU during the listing process but ignoring them when evaluating the health of the run.
Keith [/QUOTE]

KJ: I have not seen the final proposal. Can you give us a link to it?

My concern is that, as you said, NOAA will be required to consider hatchery fish in evaluation the health of a run. I cannot see how the amount of hatchery fish can be considered as a determinate of the health of a run.

I am NOT against hatcheries. I know we need them to sustain any decent sort of sport fishing. But that does not mean we can call a wild run healthy just because there is a strong hatchery run.

I believe we can and should have strong hatchery runs, but that we can still work to minimize their deleterious effects on wild runs.

There is no doubt that the declines of our wild runs have been caused by a plethora of problems ranging from dams, gill nets, clear cuts, pollution, dredging and many other causes. But that does not mean we should not continue to work to solve any other problems we can identify.

Dave-- I haven't found the direct link on the NOAA site after stumbling around on it for 15 minutes or so. However, I was able to find this post I made in another forum with the latest proposal I've seen. I can't say it's final as I'm guessing this upcoming meeting is part of the "public comment" period.

I will try again later, probably tomorrow, because someone in my office didn't meet a deadline and has to finish a piece on the Kenai.

However, the NOAA site has some interesting things on it: Did you know that Puget Sound herring stocks are now being considered for ESA listing? I didn't, but then I was gone for most of August.

You'll see the proposal below.

Keith

Sorry about the abortive attempt on the now-edited post. That was the initial draft that floated around and caused the hooraw.

I have yet to find what you're asking for, but I did find this link:

http://leopardshark.nmfs.noaa.gov/search...F%2Fwww.nmfs.no aa.gov%2Fsearch%2Fsearch.xslt&output=xml_no_dtd

That has some of the issue papers and such in government speak relating to the NOAA position. There are a number of things here that make interesting reading and background.

I will continue to search.

KJ

KJ: Thanks. I did get a copy of the proposed rule making today at the RFA meeting. It's waaaay to long for me to retype. It is interesting reading. From an initial review I would say that it might not be too bad if properly implemented. But id clearly does allow for counting hatchery fish that are genetically similar to the native fish when determining if a run is in need of protection. Those are not exact quotes, but that is the gist of it.

grandpa was just pulling Ramon's chain...I do have a serious opinion on this but don't want to get into the blame the Bush administration game which seems inevitable here. The NOAA officials behind alot of this predate Bush. I think the science coming out showing how a mix of hatchery and wild can be beneficial should enter into this debate. I do not honestly believe that this proposal is intended to stop protecting and helping wild runs.

Now that I have a moment, I found this-- it's not what I'm looking for, but it's a start. I will continue looking...

And, Aunty, what do you mean we're not experts? Surely you jest...

ttp://leopardshark.nmfs.noaa.gov/search?q=salmon+hatchery+policy+draft&btnG=Go+fish%21&site=nmfs_pub_collection&client=nmfs_pub_collection&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nmfs.noa a.gov%2Fsearch%2Fsearch.xslt&output=xml_no_dtd


NOAA 2004-R910A — PDF Version of Letter
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jordan St. John
5/13/04
NOAA News Releases 2004
NOAA Home Page
NOAA Public Affairs


LETTER FROM NOAA ADMINISTRATOR CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER CONCERNING PROPOSALS TO RENEW LISTINGS OF NORTHWEST SALMON AND PROPOSED HATCHERY POLICY CHANGES

May 14, 2004

Dear Member of Congress:

I am writing to inform you about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) upcoming proposals to renew listings of Northwest salmon populations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), to explain how hatcheries will be taken into account in the proposals, and to correct recent erroneous accounts of how our hatchery policy will be used.

At President Bush’s direction, recovery of salmon is the major focus for NOAA in the Pacific Northwest, an objective widely shared in the region and the nation. We have been pleased to work with you and Congress to direct over $100 million of NOAA’s budget, and hundreds of millions more from other federal agencies to the cause of salmon recovery this year alone. These substantial resources are enabling the hard work of countless communities to improve hundreds of miles of fish habitat, to enhance fish passage to the habitat, and to rebuild fish stocks in order to re-establish sustainable natural salmon populations. Combined with favorable ocean conditions, this hard work is producing dramatic increases in nearly all of the salmon runs. Much work remains to be done to expand the habitat to support future generations of naturally spawning populations.

NOAA will shortly propose a renewed set of listings of salmon populations under ESA. Since 1991, the federal government has listed 26 species of salmon and steelhead in the Northwest and California for protection under ESA. In a lawsuit that followed these listings, a federal judge set aside the listing of Oregon Coast Coho salmon because NOAA failed to include closely-related hatchery fish in the listing decision. Since the same flaw was present in almost all of the other listing decisions, NOAA voluntarily agreed to reconsider all of our earlier listing decisions and to adjust our policy for considering hatchery fish in making those decisions – and NOAA will be asking the public to comment on both. NOAA’s decisions are driven by the science, which suggests benefits, risks, and uncertainties regarding salmon hatcheries. Simply put, some well-managed conservation hatcheries are fostering recovery of species, some hatcheries are having little or no effect, and some hatcheries potentially hinder recovery.

After re-evaluating the listing of 26 species of salmon and steelhead, and considering the science on hatcheries, we have preliminarily determined to propose relisting at least 25 of the 26 species, with evaluation of the remaining species still underway. A final proposal will be completed in the next two weeks and the new hatchery policy will be only one factor for the evaluation still under way.

The central tenet of the hatchery policy is the conservation of naturally-spawning salmon and the ecosystems upon which they depend. As our preliminary conclusions indicate, appropriate consideration of hatchery fish does not lead to wholesale de-listing of species as some are claiming. Equally erroneous is the suggestion our policy would allow the purposes of ESA to be satisfied by having all the salmon in a hatchery. Salmon hatcheries have long played an important role in the Northwest, including fulfilling trust and treaty rights of Northwest Indian tribes, and supporting sport and commercial harvest cherished by Northwest citizens. NOAA is encouraged by improvements in hatchery management, and is seeing their increasing contribution to speeding the recovery of salmon.

The communities of the Northwest have set high standards for their stewardship of land and water and NOAA urges them to continue this important work. NOAA strongly applauds the inspiring collaborative efforts underway in communities across the Northwest states and is pleased to be one of the region’s most committed partners.

Sincerely,

Conrad C. Lautenbacher Jr.
Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere

I have read this letter before and think it speaks very clearly to what the policies being promoted really say and what their intent is. The intent is not to abanandon wild fish but to use hatchery fish as an useful tool.....I just don't see the boogie man here other than some who insist that everything with Bush's name anywhere near it must be evil. Let's look at the science and not the WT rhetoric or the Bush bashing partisan conspiracy theories.

Oh I almost forgot...AuntyM ....No one is claiming to be an expert. But I can claim I am directly involved and studying every day to become better informed. How about you?

Lewiston Morning Tribune, Oct. 1, 2004

Audience questions wild fish science


Eric Barker
People who attended a public hearing on salmon and steelhead protection
policies Thursday questioned the logic and science behind a proposal to
include hatchery fish in protected populations of wild fish.

They also criticized a proposal to include rainbow trout in protected
populations of steelhead trout.

John Claassen of Clarkston doesn't believe officials from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have sufficient understanding of
the
genetic differences between wild and hatchery fish to pursue the
policy.


"We need to be cautious in playing around and defining gene pools." he
said.


Others were more blunt.

"I'm not sure we know what the hell we are doing," said Ray Collard, a
fisherman from Pocatello, who is in the area steelhead fishing.

The comments were made during a presentation by Rob Jones of NOAA
Fisheries.
Jones and several other representatives from the agency were in
Lewiston
to
present information on the agency's new hatchery policy and its
reassessment
of Endangered Species Act protection for 26 salmon and steelhead
populations
on the West Coast, including Snake River salmon and steelhead. The
officials
also recorded public comments at the meeting.

The new policy was announced in May and stems from a federal court
decision
in Oregon that found fault with the way the agency listed coho salmon
there.
Judge Michael Hogan ruled the agency erred when it included both
hatchery
and wild coho in the same population, known as an evolutionary
significant
unit, but protected only the wild fish. Hogan said all of the
population
must be protected or none of it.

After analyzing his decision, the agency concluded it needed to
reassess
all
of its salmon and steelhead listings on the West Coast because most
were
prepared in the same way as the one Hogan found illegal.

"We agreed with the judge's decision and we recognized this situation
occurred coast-wide," said Jones.

The agency will add one run of salmon to the list of threatened species
and
move one run of steelhead from endangered to threatened.

The new policy includes hatchery fish in protected populations of
salmon
and
steelhead. For example, if adopted, steelhead from Dworshak National
Fish
Hatchery at Ahasahka would be considered a threatened species because
they
are genetically similar to wild steelhead in the Clearwater River.

But the policy also says rainbow trout in places like the Clearwater
River
drainage, and even those above Dworshak Dam, are similar enough to wild
steelhead to be included as part of the threatened population.

"It is clear to us where rainbow trout and steelhead coexist they share
a
common gene pool," said Jones.

In fact, he said rainbow trout can produce offspring that migrate to
the
ocean and return years later as much larger steelhead. But Jones said
listing rainbow trout with protected steelhead will not affect angling,
and
listing hatchery steelhead as a threatened species would not prevent
states
like Idaho from continuing to hold fishing seasons on them.

"We do not expect any regulations to change with respect to rainbow
trout
fisheries," said Jones.

Angler Collard asked if adding rainbow trout and hatchery steelhead to
the
populations of threatened wild steelhead would cause them to be
delisted
simply by bolstering their numbers. Jones said the answer is no and
assured
the audience salmon and steelhead need healthy wild populations to be
considered recovered.

"If we have 1,000 hatchery fish and one natural fish you have a
problem,"
said Jones. "It is the same with resident and anadromous fish."

But some, like Jeff Holmes, hunting and fishing coordinator for the
Sierra
Club at Spokane, said the policy is laying groundwork to remove salmon
and
steelhead from federal protection.

Holmes asked Jones to what extent rainbow trout contribute to steelhead
runs. Jones cited studies that suggest as many as 10 percent of the
steelhead in Oregon's Hood River are the offspring of rainbow trout.
But
he
also said the studies linking rainbow trout and steelhead populations
are
few and need more study.

"It seems very interesting," said Holmes. "But not very conclusive."

Plunker/ Grandpa... why don't you just come out and say that wild fish should be done away with and replace them with masses of hatchery fish, based on all your statments through the years that is what you want.


There is nothing going on with our hatcheries that shows any promise for restoring wild stocks .. NONE there is not one example of using hatchery fish to restore a wild run.. NOT ONE.. It has never happened...

The only hatchery reform that will help wild fish it to stop planting them in nearly every single river and creek in the state...