Bush Admin: Hatchery Salmon To Count as Wild

For all of you Bush supporters who love to fish, look what he's done now!!!

FYI: on the front page of the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51480-2004Apr28.html


Hatchery Salmon To Count as Wildlife

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 29, 2004; Page A01


SEATTLE, April 28 -- The Bush administration has decided to count hatchery-bred fish, which are pumped into West Coast rivers by the hundreds of millions yearly, when it decides whether stream-bred wild salmon are entitled to protection under the Endangered Species Act.

This represents a major change in the federal government's approach to protecting Pacific salmon -- a $700 million-a-year effort that it has described as the most expensive and complicated of all attempts to enforce the Endangered Species Act.

The decision, contained in a draft document and confirmed Wednesday by federal officials, means that the health of spawning wild salmon will no longer be the sole gauge of whether a salmon species is judged by the federal government to be on the brink of extinction. Four of five salmon found in major West Coast rivers, including the Columbia, are already bred in hatcheries, and some will now be counted as the federal government tries to determine what salmon species are endangered.

"We need to look at both wild and hatchery fish before deciding whether to list a species for protection," said Bob Lohn, Northwest regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Lohn added that the new policy will probably help guide decisions this summer by the Bush administration about whether to remove 15 species of salmon from protection as endangered or threatened.

From Washington state to Southern California, the decision to count hatchery-bred fish in assessing the health of wild salmon runs could have profound economic consequences.

In the past 15 years, the federal government's effort to protect stream-bred wild salmon has forced costly changes in how forests are cut, housing developments are built, farms are cultivated and rivers are operated for hydroelectricity production. Farm, timber and power interests have complained for years about these costs and have sued to remove protections for some fish.

They are enthusiastic advocates of counting hatchery fish when assessing the survival chances of wild salmon. Unlike their wild cousins, hatchery fish can be bred without ecosystem-wide modifications to highways, farms and dams.

"Upon hearing this news, I am cautiously optimistic that the government may be complying with the law and ending its slippery salmon science," said Russell C. Brooks, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, an industry-funded group that has challenged federal salmon-protection efforts in court.

Word of the new policy was greeted by outrage from several environmental groups.

"Rather than address the problems of habitat degraded by logging, dams and urban sprawl, this policy will purposefully mask the precarious condition of wild salmon behind fish raised by humans in concrete pools," said Jan Hasselman, counsel for the National Wildlife Federation.

"This is the same sort of mechanistic, blind reliance on technology that got us into this problem in the first place," said Chris Wood, vice president for conservation at Trout Unlimited. "We built dams that block the fish, and we are trucking many of these fish around the dams. Now the administration thinks we can just produce a bazillion of these hatchery fish and get out from underneath the yoke of the Endangered Species Act."

Six of the world's leading experts on salmon ecology complained last month in the journal Science that fish produced in hatcheries cannot be counted on to save wild salmon. The scientists had been asked by the federal government to comment on its salmon-recovery program but said they were later told that some of their conclusions about hatchery fish were inappropriate for official government reports.

"The current political and legal wrangling is a sideshow to the real issues. We know biologically that hatchery supplements are no substitute for wild fish," Robert Paine, one of the scientists and an ecologist at the University of Washington, said when the Science article was published in late March.

Federal officials said Wednesday that the new policy on hatchery salmon -- to be published in June in the Federal Register and then be opened to public comment -- was in response to a 2001 federal court ruling in Oregon. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan found that the federal government made a mistake by counting only wild fish -- and not genetically similar hatchery fish -- when it listed coastal coho salmon for protection.

To the dismay of many environmental groups, the federal government chose not to appeal that ruling, though it seemed counter to the reasoning behind the spending of more than $2 billion in the past 15 years to protect stream-bred wild salmon.

"There was an inescapable reasoning to Judge Hogan's ruling," said Lohn, chief of federal salmon recovery in the Northwest. "We thought his reasoning was accurate."

He said the Bush administration will continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on habitat improvement for salmon.

"We have major problems to overcome, both with habitat and with improving the way hatcheries are operated," Lohn said. "Run right, hatcheries can be of considerable value to rebuilding wild fish runs."

LOL....
Not funny.........!

A sad decision for sure. But not a surprising one.

Sad, very sad!!

......wonder if the secret service will be giving me a call for this icon?

George, George, George - GET A CLUE!!!

First, he does nothing for the environment, then when he is called out on it in an election year, he goes overboard! I wonder if there will a 4(d) exclusion though. I think he needs new advisors cuz apparently the ones he has don't understand science!

I am trying to remember, but somewhere in the back of my mind, there is this nagging feeling that I remember something being mentioned about this before.

Bush is a joke when it comes to the environment as this demonstrates. I am republican and have been all my life but stuff like this is causing me to rethink it. I may just not vote for a persident this year as I don't know if I could vote for the other side.

If they count hatchery fish and Wild fish the same then to protect the wild fish time to start looking about not producing hatchery fish.

JJ

if they count the hatchery fish with the wild, there wont be any protection for the salmon because the numbers will be such that it warrant listing. Bush is not one for the environment. I am non partisan, but to tell you the truth, the other side is looking a whole lot better to me. The Ag industry is behind alot of this. They have fought the listing of any fish that may mess with their ability to irrigate their fields. I say this even as the daughter of an irrigator. Just my view though..

I guess he wants the votes of

1. timber industry
2. irrigators
3. miners
4 commercial fishermen
5. certain segments of the sport fishing community
6 large industries near water
7. anyone who has a commercial stake in having restrictions lifted

Kinda funny When Bush spoke to farmers in Eastern WA he talked about how enviromental groups should stop sueing and start working together to come up with solutions.. Well The enviromental community has been trying to get their foot in the door with all the above listed industries for decades but have always been completely ignored because the companies didn't have to listen because the laws weren't there to force them to listen. That is what Bush wants to reestablish. He thinks that the purpose of the natural world is to make a few people money.

I have said this before but i'll repeat myself.
If you care about wild fish you cannot vote for Bush. Supporting Bush is the exact opposite of careing about wild fish. You might as well be out there bonking all the nates you catch...

I was thinking the exact same thing this morning. You're either pro fishing and pro environment or pro Bush...his administration has left no middle ground. Democracy is not the same as capitalism.

Burn Bush in 2004!!!

Same story, different article:

____________________

PORTLAND, Ore. - In a dramatic shift in salmon recovery policies in the Northwest, the Bush administration intends to count the hundreds of millions of fish produced in hatcheries when deciding whether salmon deserve federal Endangered Species Act protection.

In a policy to be announced in the coming months, the administration will adopt a strategy that considers the indoor tanks and concrete raceways of hatcheries extensions of natural rivers and mountain streams where salmon spawn, The Oregonian newspaper reported in Thursday's editions.

This means that salmon, long the focus of billions of dollars worth of restoration projects and bitter environmental conflicts, could more quickly be declared healthy. Previously, the government had drawn a clear distinction between salmon capable of reproducing in the wild and those reared in hatcheries.

The new approach could sharply redefine the standard for declaring when an imperiled species has recovered. A salmon population could be removed from endangered species protection even if it requires ongoing, multimillion-dollar hatcheries to survive, said Bob Lohn, regional administrator of NOAA-Fisheries, the federal agency that oversees salmon. "Just as natural habitat provides a place for fish to spawn and to rear, also hatcheries can do that," Lohn said . "Properly run, hatcheries can become a kind of extension of natural habitat."

The policy would relieve power generators, farmers and property owners of endangered species burdens - including limits on farm irrigation and the electricity production levels of dams - imposed by the federal government.

He said the benchmark for recovery under the Endangered Species Act is that a species is not likely to go extinct. But he said the species need not sustain itself without help.

"That doesn't preclude human assistance or intervention," he said by phone late Wednesday from Washington, D.C. The policy is now in draft form and headed for publication by June in the Federal Register.

Conservationists have said such a policy is akin to declaring a species safe if it can be reproduced in a zoo, while turning over its habitat to development.

"It sounds like the government is going to be setting salmon recovery back about 100 years," said Jim Lichatowich, an Oregon-based fishery biologist and author of "Salmon Without Rivers." Lichatowich said federal and state agencies attempted to use hatcheries to compensate for habitat lost to dams, mining and development for most of the 20th century but failed to stop the widespread collapse of salmon runs.

________________________

I find it extremely disconcerting that Bob Lohn, the head of NOAA, would say such things. NOAA Fisheries knows the problems associated with hatchery fish spawning in the wild, lower survival rates, and generally lower levels of fitness. This whole issue was started by agricultural interests in Oregon, but its the potential changes in regulations regarding power generation at Columbia basin dams and irrigation withdrawals in California (likely WA too) that have very real adverse consequences to salmon. Can't help but think this will affect spring flow requirements over the dams to facilitate juvenile outmigration on the Columbia. Take lots of pics of those springers we're now catching.

he is the worst president this country has ever had.!!!! cant say that i didnt expect it though... stoupid is as stoupid does... or whatever it was that forest gump says

Don't you think that it is funny how he keeps hurting the enviroment (i.e. hatcheryfish and wild fish both counted for ESA, and giving permission top cut many old growth forests) and he is from Texas? You think he would have learned something from his dad who is an avid outdoorsman.

Do you really think that this proposal will have as much impact as nets and seals? No way.

Maybe not on the total number of salmon, but I can predict that if this goes into effect and stays in effect for a few years, we'll never see a nate on most of the rivers around here again.

Edit: speeling

jimh

What's your point? That it's an acceptable policy as long as it doesn't impact as many fish as the nets?

I don't know the answers but here's some perspective. We all heard what happened on the Klamath--an estimated tens of thousands of fish dead because of irrigation withdrawals; thats a lot of fish, very comparable to commercial fisheries. Can this happen on the Columbia basin with no ESA restrictions? There's certainly a better chance.

All/most of us remember the state of the Columbia springer/fall chinook runs pre-2000; they were so poor that recreational fisheries on them were NOT the rule. Beginning in the mid to late-1990s smolt survival increased dramatically because of 3 high water years in a row, and after this, ocean conditions improved. The result is the current surplus of salmon, particularly springers on the Columbia. What happens when ocean conditions return to pre-1996 conditions? What happens if these low water springs we've been having the past couple of years continue? Continue in a regulatory climate of reduced restrictions on irrigation withdrawal and requirements for spring time spillage over the dams. Water going over the dam instead of through the turbines means less electricity generated by power companies. Do you think they will continue to spill water over the dams, facilitating juvenile outmigration, if not required too? Particularly during low-water years??? If the Pacific northwest goes into drought-mode, you can bet that there's going to be a lot less regulatory teeth to preserve conditions conducive to fish survival and there's going to be alot less fish to catch.

The point is, what will be the significant impact of the proposal while we continue to net indiscriminately and seals continue to become over populated? However, I can give the seals a break since they are only responding to what we've done for them.

On the surface, it is easy to bring back a particular run in an area as long as habitat is suitable. Stop the fishing season. However, in practice that doesn't work. The nets don't know what run they are decimating down river. Netting in the lower Columbia or ocean has the potential to take out one run after another. We can supplement with hatcheries, but it doesn't change the fact that a particular river's run may be extinct.

In other words, the problem isn't that we call fish wild or hatchery. The problem is that nets can't tell the difference. Be mad about the proposal, but focus on the real issue...nets. The only reason this is getting much press is that most of the people in this part of the country are so left.

So, if you want to save the fish, stop the nets.

JJ, what is a persident?

Yes the problem is what we call wild or hatchery. If you lump them all together, you'll never get rid of the nets. Why should you? The fish are all the same. We just produce more, then net more, then make more, net more, make, net.....

It's paramount that we keep the distinction between hatchery and wild so we can go after the netters for killing endangered wild fish. It's just like WSR - how do we make them stop netting wild fish if we won't release them ourselves?

And, Jim, don't try to make this a partisan issue by claiming it's only getting press because we're all left minded. You, yourself, want to rid the world of commercial netters. Commercial netting is BIG business. Big business typically equates to the right wing. So where does that put you?

Why should you get rid of nets even though you have plenty of fish? Fish caught by nets are worth a lot less to the economy than fish caught by sportsman. Show people how increasing fish numbers is important for the tax base, and you'll get the wild fish back for free.

On the other hand, even if you restrict the number of total fish caught by netters, you won't be able to eliminate wild fish being netted. One net can wipe out a wild run even though the some total of all of the nets looks "ok."

Jimh,

I think you hit the crux of it with this statement:

"as long as habitat is suitable"

Well guess what if they start counting hatchery fish, then all the habitat protections go out the window.

Why do we need good habitat when we can just raise them in the hatchery.

Big business gets cart blanche to rape the environment. All for the sake of a few extra bucks, that you and I surely aren't going to be seeing.

Hey, I'm with you there, Jim. But for some reason we can't seem to get the ones that matter to understand or care. It's been known for years that a sport caught fish is vastly more beneficial to the local economy versus a net caught fish. Why doesn't the state see that? Why can't the legislators look north and realize that we could draw just as much tourism, if not more, with world-class fisheries as Canada and Alaska does if managed correctly?

I wish I had an answer.

Maybe its time for another referendum on Nets.

Given the choice we had 4 years ago I dont think we're doing to bad...

We'd could be blowing up churches and busses and bowing to allah. We wouldn't need to argue about WSR or gun control because all fishing and hunting would be banned.

Hey! We wouldn't even need the parental advisory on music anymore... It would all be cleaned up I'm sure...


The statements above do not neccessarily represent the views of the sponser... The foil made me do it!

Jim,

Nets? Unfortunately, that's not even the half of it.

When salmon are delisted from the ESA, the Snake and Columbia River dams won't be required to spill water for the spring juvenile out-migration of both hatchery and wild fish. It won't matter whether ocean survival conditions are good or poor. Few adult salmon will return, and this excellent chinook salmon fishing we've had lately will return to obscurity.

A very small proportion of the Columbia River salmon and steelhead are taken by nets, treaty or non-treaty. The majority of the Columbia River salmon and steelhead are "harvested" by power dams, and lacking the protection of the ESA, I expect those "harvests" to increase.

Sorry, but nets are not the real issue. They are one issue, albeit a smaller one. Protecting fish so that they can survive throught their life cycle is the real issue if you want fish. The proposed policy will expedite the extirpation of salmon and steelhead on many rivers, particularly the Columbia.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

After reading into the issue today it seems that the federal judge in issuing his ruling in response to the lawsuit by farmers, constructions interests et al, he have put the Bush administration on notice to respond to the lawsuit within 30 days from yesterday. NOAA and NMFS are really the ones in the middle of this and they seem to be saying that their hatchery plans will also be out in 30 days. They claim that no doom and gloom will come out of this and that wild fish will still be protected.

In the absence of political oneupsmanship we might want to protest the idea of wild and hatchery fish being lumped together but we might want to also look deeper into the facts of the case. The lobby behind the lawsuit is made up of some really powerful stakeholders so I wouldn't underestimate their clout. I'm not sure what the response to the lawsuit will be but I'm sure it will have to be based on the legal merits of the case and not on anything emotional. Perhaps some of the good evidence gatherers here can dig up some substance.

Salmo, let's just say you are right and the dams are required to do exactly what they do now or better and the habitat is fantastic.

Nets can still destroy the wild fish, a run at a time, and that is why nets are more important.

Can you say one-termer?

Hatchery-raised fish would be counted with wild stocks
By: William Mccall - The Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. - Salmon conservation policy could be headed for a major change under a draft proposal by the Bush administration that would add hatchery-bred salmon to any decision about protecting wild fish runs under the Endangered Species Act.

The draft was immediately criticized by conservation groups.

"This policy circumvents the most basic tenets of the Endangered Species Act and effectively lets the federal government off the hook for any responsibility to recover salmon and healthy rivers and streams up and down the West Coast," said Kaitlin Lovell of Trout Unlimited.

But Bob Lohn, regional administrator of NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency that oversees salmon conservation, said the policy change was required by a recent federal appeals court ruling that forces the agency to count all fish that are genetically related.

"It's certain that a number of hatchery fish are genetically related, even identical to wild fish," Lohn said.

He said conservation groups overreacted to the draft.

"They assume it will be applied in some extreme manner, and even allow all fish to be hatchery fish and avoid habitat improvement," Lohn said. "But nothing could be farther from the truth."

The draft states that the genetic relationship between hatchery fish and wild fish must be considered when deciding whether to protect wild salmon runs. Lohn said the language may change, and a final policy may be ready by June.

The recent 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that led to the draft policy change resulted from a challenge to the Endangered Species Act led by the Pacific Legal Foundation, an industry-backed group.

"It's not a political decision by the Bush administration. It's simply the administration recognizing it has no choice but to comply with the law," said Russ Brooks, managing attorney for the foundation's Northwest center and lead lawyer in the case.

U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan ruled in 2001 that any genetically related fish must be considered under the Endangered Species Act, whether they spawn in the wild or are raised in the concrete tanks of a hatchery.

But conservation groups say that reasoning extends the act too far.

"In fact, the Endangered Species Act says we're here to protect species in natural habitat, and the last time I looked, concrete didn't qualify as a natural habitat," Lovell said.

The draft policy will allow the number of hatchery fish to be considered when counting wild fish to determine whether to maintain protection for wild stocks, environmentalists say. Instead of working to improve habitat for listed species of salmon, they say, the policy could allow fishery managers to rely on hatcheries for long-term recovery.

"A lot of conservation policy has dealt with hatchery fish but this draft policy is different," said Patti Goldman of Earthjustice. "This is first time they have said they'll count hatchery fish when deciding whether to list."

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.

Jim,

Dams can and do destroy multiple wild runs at a time. It has already happened, and more could wink out if safe passage conditions are not required. What makes you think dams will be continued to make improvements in passage? The current surge in improved fish passage is caused in large part by ESA listed fish. I don't think nets have extirpated many fish runs, altho a few smaller ones may have been or nearly so.

Now, again, why are nets more important?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Yes, Salmo, dams have destroyed runs. But those runs are already gone. The issue is about those wild runs that we have left. I'm assuming that the dams have already destroyed virtually all that they will since we aren't building new dams.

There must be something else that is causing the problems...nets?

Improving the salmon runs is a complex issue: spawning habitat, dams, Columbia river netting, ocean commerical fishing, seals, ocean conditions (am I forgetting anything) all play a role in the number of salmon we have. Focusing on whether it is the dams or the netting or commerical fishing is a distraction to this ruling. This ruling can turn salmon fishing into something like the put-n-take hatchery trout stock at city parks.

This ruling is scary enough as it stands but the legal precedent can make the ESA obsolete. Imagine, spotted owls keeping you from logging old growth? No problem, build a zoo to hold a couple dozen pair of spotted owls and log away.
Any species that get in your way can just be kept in a zoo and then you're good to go.

If this sounds far-fetched, just realize that this ruling separates out the species from the habitat.

Some think the nets are a major issue. I think the dams are the major issue, but this ruling is about native vs hatchery fish. If this policy goes into effect, the nets and the dam can stay or even increase, we just need to build a few more hatcheries. We wouldn't even have to worry about pollution, we can just barge the fish all the way to the ocean...better yet, just raise the fish to adult size and stock them in the city park pond.

--bdb

Can we apply the Tim Eymen approach to this?

Just put enough signatures together, get it on the ballet and ban nets all together?

Maybe ban nets that could effect any ESA listed runs. That ought to be generic enough to get votes.

The way fish are managed now banning nets would only change the way the fish were killed. Sure it could improve sport fishing greatly, but would it help the fish? No.

Instead of gillnetters ,the fish would be caught by commercial trollers, seiners, tribes, and sports fishers.

Banning the nets is just a way for sports anglers to get a bigger piece of the fish pie. I'm not opposed to banning the nets. However, it is disingenous at best to say you are doing it for the sake of the fish, because it won't help the fish, just your fishing.


Habitat is the problem, and dams are a big part of habitat degradation on many rivers.
Fix the habitat and they will come back. Ignore the habitat problem, and the will not come back. Its that simple!

Geoduck:

Your line of reasoning that banning nets it purely allocative is correct.... but

The point you miss is that a gillnet is exceedingly non-selective. It can't distinguish an imperiled species from a thriving one. Nets don't discriminate between killing hatchery vs wild fish.

Oh wait, that doesn't matter anymore.... I forgot that hatchery fish and wild fish are now all the same.

Jimh, you *seem* be implying that either the habitat is fine, or that you don't think it's a major contributor. Why is that?

You could send a million fish upstream and still get back nothing if the redds get silted over....unless they're humpies. :p

No, I wasn't implying that habitat didn't matter.

If you want the netters to be selective, bring back the set gear (ie the fish traps, reef nets, wheels, and weirs). Just pick the fish you want to keep out of the pen and release the others unharmed.


All of these can be very selective, but they were all banned in the 30's under political pressure by the gillnetters and seiners.

I must be missing something here. So the argument for counting hatchery and native salmon as the same is that nets and seals are non-selective between them? But if there is no difference, does it matter if nets and seals are non-selective?

Freekin republicans!

they just suck

God forbid we look for oil in our own country! lets let another country f*** there country up and lets pass our money out of this country .. Get a f***in grip . Hell lets just send all our jobs out of the U.S.A. ! better yet lets have the government take care of us thats what you liberals want! I call that socialist!

Bob please delete this right wing bashing post its WORTHLESS!!

Timber Man

"Bob please delete this right wing bashing post its WORTHLESS!!"

------------------

I'm sure glad, this is not the Fox News channel's fishing board, but Bob's fishing board. And Bob, being the intellegent person that he is, has welcomed both, the Right and Left Wing of both pollitical arena's, as long as we are respectful and not act like moron's and love fishing.

Seems like a wise position for a Guide to take while servicing the general public. Unless you don't want no sticking LEFT WINGER'S ON YOUR CHARTER BOAT, I think that's a good policy. For those Websites, Guides, and others that service the fishing community, it is wise to remember that, this is America and we are Free to choose to think, vote, surf or fish (hiring fishing guides-Fishing Websites) as we please. Try taking that to the bank!

Not all of us are Rednecked, as some of you assume and our feelings and opinions are not worthless.

my .02

TM: I suspect you posted the above on the wrong thread, as this was the one about hatchery fish. No matter, your thoughts came through loud and clear.

Just so you can work with facts I want to tell you that per Bush administration estimates, all recoverable energy sources in the Front Range would provide the U.S. with approximately one percent of our annual energy use. In return for that one percent we will do irreparable harm to several endangered fish stocks as well as seriously degrade opportunities for trophy mule deer and elk. (The roadless areas account for the vast majority of trophy class deer and elk killed in Idaho each year.)

One major problem, in addition to massive amounts of water pollution is the blockage of migration routes. The largest remaining antelope migration in the U.S. passes though the area where intense drilling and exploration is occurring. This is particularly troublesome because the area is a choke point where natural barriers force the animals through an area about a mile wide. Now that choke point is scheduled for intense drilling activity.

Regarding your suggestion to send jobs overseas, you should be proud of this administration that are quite supportive of that.

I believe we can have a vibrant economy, a democracy and capitalism without destroying out fish and game habitat. So did the republican president who signed the environmental protections this administration is working so hard to tear down. I don’t think the problem is republicans – just the ultra conservatives like GW.
t.

AMEN BROTHER AMEN!

The only way to responsibly harvest our fish resources is SELECTIVELY. The indiscriminate nature of gillnets has decimated and continues to pummel threatened runs of fish up and down the west coast. Just look at how much forgone harvest opportunity on hatchery fish the netters have to give up due to the impacts they have on wild fish. We all (netters AND recreational anglers) would benefit from reduced impacts on wild fish.... much more likelihood of maintaining longer seasons for both camps under that scenario.

But none of that matters at all until we can get this Hogan ruling reversed. That's the whole flaw in netters thinking that "hatchery = wild" will actually benefit them. It may in the short term... but over the long haul, that sort of thinking is doomed to failure. Why can't these pinheads figure out that sustainability is the key. The most sustainable way to produce fish is naturally. The most sustainable way to fish them is selectively.

Until fish managers have the backbone to give selective harvest and natural production top priority, there is little hope that these runs can be sustained for our children and grandchildren.

FNP,

I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree. Its not the fisheries managers that banned selective methods its the politicians.

Wheels, weirs, and fish traps were outlawed in the 30s by the state legislature. Unless, the legislature were to take up the issue, it can't be changed. THe level of organization of the sportsfishing community required to achieve this aim would be unprecedented given the gillnetters certain opposition.

It would also be a big capital outlay in placing the set gear again, but once in place costs would be much lower than operating the current commercial fleet. And as you say if operated properly, totally sustainable.

I'm afraid its a pipe dream, but I always hope.

From Time Magazine-When Salmon Are "Wild," And Other Word Games
Creative linguistics from the Bush Administration
By DAREN FONDA



Sunday, May. 02, 2004
President Bush may not be remembered as a linguistic innovator. But in the tradition of classifying ketchup as a vegetable, a classic from the Reagan era, the Bush Administration may leave a rich legacy of redefining terms for regulatory purposes. Perhaps you thought a wild fish is one hatched in the wild. You would be mistaken, according to Bush's environmental stewards. Under a new plan, the distinction between farm-bred salmon, which are later released into rivers and streams, and their cousins hatched in the wild will be removed. That will instantly raise the overall tally of salmon — and make it more probable that the government will eliminate or downgrade protections for 15 salmon species now sheltered under the Endangered Species Act. Such a change is favored by power and timber companies, whose development plans have been stymied by the government's protective net. Environmentalists complain that the action will jeopardize the survival of wild salmon.

It's hardly the first example of the Administration's creative wordplay. A recent report by Bush's economic team questioned whether burger-flipping jobs, now part of the service sector, ought to be reclassified as manufacturing jobs, a change that would have enabled the White House to claim that manufacturing-job losses aren't as bad as they look. That idea appears to have died. Bush's Labor Department also wants to allow employers to reclassify some middle-income workers as white collar managers, rendering them ineligible for overtime pay. Bush's Energy Department, meanwhile, wants to reduce the cost of disposal for millions of gallons of radioactive waste by switching the designation of some material from "high-level" to "low-level." At least the Administration isn't proposing to reclassify relish. Yet.

This thread and the several others I've read and participated in are interesting, to put it mildly. It's too bad that so many people are relying on biased and incorrect reports on what the Hogan ruling is and what it does. It also amazes me how people can get their "news" from sources that have an axe to grind without doing any research to speak of.

A case in point : on a thread on another board, I repeated something someone had told me about the Hogan decision and had a respondent take me to task because what I had repeated was in error. So I did some checking on the Hogan decision through a google search and ended up with an Oregon seagrant document that provided me with some balanced information.

The Hogan ruling didn't rule that wild fish were the equivalent of hatchery fish. What it did say was that on the river in question, NMFS (now NOAA Fisheries) could no longer count wild fish and hatchery fish as different stock SINCE originally it had lumped them together in the same Evolutionary Significant Unit. The "hatchery fish are the same genetically as wild fish" thing that everyone seems to be reacting to was a dicta, legalese for comments that were NOT part of the ruling or law.

This ruling applies to one ESU. It doesn't apply elsewhere. However there are challenges to other listings that will use, in all likelihood, the Hogan decision.

A lot of Bush bashing has gone on with people saying in print that this decision by the Bush administration will gut the Endangered Species Act. This ruling wasn't a Bush administration effort. It was a judicial ruling handed down by a different branch of government.

The same approach is being used, I think, to gorilla market the Bush administration as an enemy of the environment. That isn't necessarily the case. His administration is making changes that offend folks who would like to see wilderness locked up and rivers closed down. These people aren't conservationists by definition, but protectionists. There's a big difference there. Speaking as someone with a background in the natural sciences, I will stand up and say that not all logging or mining is bad. Some here apparently think it is. Not all roads into roadless areas are bad. Not all petroleum extraction is bad. Anyone who tells you otherwise is uninformed.

So, my point is to evaluate all information you get wtih respect to its source and look for balance (response from both sides of the issue) as well as the attempts of the source to sway you with absolutes and emotionalism. And certainly don't believe everything you read or hear in the media.

My $.02,

Keith

It's hard for any thinking person to be reassured by your comments. This misguided ruling sets a very dangerous PRECEDENT. It may be one measly ESU in Oregon for now, but it sets up the exceedingly high likelihood of a "domino effect" for dozens of other ESA-listed populations. It's like removing that first crucial brick that eventually brings the entire wall crashing down.

Mark my words.... if this one falls, they all fall.

FNP-- You're right; judicial rulings do form precedents from which other rulings then can be made; I believe it's called case law. The Hogan decision will have an impact on other cases. However, the gloom-and-doom hand wringing isn't warranted-- yet. This decision doesn't change the Endangered Species Act, and we still have a lot of species that need protecting, such as dolly varden and searun cutthroat.

My point was that there is a lot of misinformation floating around in cyber space of the subject, and it's not doing anyone any good. There is also a lot of biased information being promoted as truth, and that is not good at all.

There is a lot of good coming out of all this discussion--we're thinking (some of us) about the problems of wild fish and fish culture. I find a lot of comments like yours about selective harvest are right on the money. I had an eye-opening conversation with Gary Loomis about selective harvest and he made some valid points. His thought is that we bring back fish traps-- from which we can take hatchery fish and release wild fish back to the river. The traps could supply the treaty tribes with fish and commercials as well, if that's part of the game plan, and netting wouldn't be necessary.

But I'm digressing once again. The facts are available to anyone with a computer and the ability to download pdf files. Don't take my word for it. Do the research and come to your own conclusions.

Keith

Thank you kjackson for showing another side to this. Politics always skews an issue and what is a real shame is that to find a balanced viewpoint you have to go outside and do your own research. Thanks.

Kjackson,
Can you quote anyone of any standing in the environmental movement that has said that ALL logging or mining is bad? Trying to save some of the last 20% of old growth forest , restricting some of the most environmentally offending mining practices or advocating saving some wilderness is along way from saying all logging and mining is bad. The labeling of people that want to restrict the wholesale exploitation, with no consideration for sustainability or environmental damage, of our natural resources as radicals is underhanded tactic. The same thing is done to people advocating removal of a few of the most offending dams. The opposition invariably labels them as a group that wants to remove every dam in the western hemisphere. This is BS.

kjackson

You are absolutley correct in your explanation of the Hogan Ruling, and that is important information that everyone here needs, thanks. But what your posts fail to note is that while the original Hogan Ruling only applied to the Orgegon Coast coho ESU, this new policy being proposed by NOAA will apply to ALL ESUs. NOAA is saying that the new policy reflects compliance with the law as judge Hogan interpreted it, an interpretation that they now say they support.

When the new policy is formally announced on June 30, it will be accompanied by announcements of any changes to the indivicual listings prompted by the new policy. Expect at least a couple de-listings or downgrading of listings from Endangered to Threatened. But that won't be the end of it. The major threat of this policy is the unjustified acceptance of the notion that hatchery production by itself can be a legitimate path to "recovery" and delisting. Expect periodic review of ESUs to determine when the listed hatchery populations have "helped" the ESU meet the four criteria enumerated in the new policy (abundance, productivity, spacial distribution, and genetic diversity). The relevant hatchery programs will be "designed" (more likely simply re-labeled) to contribute to those criteria. The criteria are so broadly described in the very short and broad policy (less than one page) that it won't be difficult to for managers to determine that almost any situation would qualify, and there won't be any way to challenge the decision.

For instance, the policy says that hatchery fish "genetically no more than moderatley divergent from natural populations" can contribute to de-listing. Whether or not that is good science (it's not), it is very bad policy writing. Each of you, my friends, are genetically no more than moderately divergent from a chimpanzee, only aboout 2%. Expect de-listing of most ESUs with listed hatchery populations within, say, four years of this November.

The final policy has no basis in science, and in fact diverges significantly from the draft policy prepared by NOAA's NW-Region Science Center. Far from a road to recovery, hatchery production has been a significant factor in the decline of wild salmon and steelhead populations, and continues to jeopardize their actual biological recovery. The hows and whys have been discussed on this board at length, are well documented in the scientific literature, and are available to those interested. If you can stomach it, try starting at the WT website (www.washingtontrout.org).

The fact of the matter is that captive breeding programs are very bad ways to recover at-risk and declining wildlife populations, and should only be considered as the absolutely last resort, as when you have two sockeye returning to Redfish Lake, or are looking at the last several breeding pairs of California Condors. Even then we should take a very sober look at the record. In over 25 years of trying, the California condor program has NEVER produced a single pair of birds that have successfully bred in the wild. There was a lot of excitemennt a year or so ago when a pair actually laid and hatched an egg, but then the pair killed the fledgling. The program produces condors and releases them in the wild; the population of living birds in the wild has increased slightly since the beginning of the program. But it is looking increasingly likely that if we want condors flying around, we'll have to keep making them forever.

Is that a future we want for salmon and steelhead? It's the one this policy will deliver.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout

If the "hatchery = wild" ruling is upheld for all susceptible ESU's, this is exactly the downhill path wild salmon are headed. The longer we stay that course, the steeper the slope gets. I hope key decision-makers wise up before we slip past the point of no return.

Hey, folks--I don't have a bunch of time this morning because of some nasty deadlines, but I'll try to respond to a few comments above.

Thanks for the kind words, ET. You're right about the political scene skewing reality. There was a quote in this morning's Peninsula Daily News from a Saudi sheik who called the presidential race an "periodic tribal warfare;" I thought that was a pretty telling remark for this year.

Aunty M-- You're right; Gary Loomis is a very intelligent person. His Fish First group on the Lewis is doing some great things. He was even praised by George Bush in a visit to the NW within the past six months or so for his leadership in salmon restoration efforts. Of course, Bush was just saying that as a smokescreen to cover up his real agenda (sorry, couldn't resist).

Keta-- don't know where I labeled anyone as "radical" in my statements (or even used the word for that matter). If you define what you mean by "environmental movement" and "anyone of any standing", I'll try to find a quote or two. None come to mind at the moment, but then I tend to turn off diatribe (if I recognize it as such) unless it gets my knickers in a twist as some of this stuff has. But get this straight-- I don't propose wholesale resource exploitation of anything with no regard to consequences. The environment needs to be safeguarded, but I believe in conservation: the wise use of natural resources. Shutting up resources so that only a very limited few can enjoy them goes against the grain. That doesn't mean I'm against roadless areas, national parks and refuges for plants or animals.

FNP-- You seem to think that the Hogan decision is still up in the air-- is this a fair assessment of your position? I don't know for sure that it is as I'm still trying to find more info on the decision (and some things are changing still), but it's my understanding that the ruling is almost a certainty to stand. In a lot of ways, this parallels the Boldt decision-- and we know how long that has been in place. I don't know if you were around and aware of the controversy at the time, but I was. There was nearly a civil war over that decision. It was challenged over and over in court. How many court cases did the state of Washington win? None. Zero. Zip. Nada. The decision still stands.

It makes me wonder how much time and how many millions of dollars were wasted fighting that-- time and money that could have been used for habitat protection and fish restoration.

And if, as some have argued, this should go to the Supreme Court, then realize that the chances of it getting heard are almost as good as me catching a 40-pound steelhead this summer. The Boldt decision gave racial preference over a resource because of treaty rights. The Hogan decision said that NOAA had to count salmon the same way twice when making rules. Which decision has constitutional implications? I'll leave you to figure that one out. Since the Supreme Court deals with constitutional interpretation, I'm putting my money on the Boldt decision being the most likely. However, the Supreme Court refused to hear it.

If the Boldt decision wasn't heard, then the chances that the Hogan ruling will be are practically nil.

I would hope that all this discussion means that fishermen do become more involved in the process. It's given me some food for thought on how involved I am. And regardless of which side of the fence you're on regarding recent developments, one thing is pretty certain: we're all here because we like to catch fish. And that's a good thing.

My $.02,

Keith

Ramon-- Thanks for the reply and elucidation. So much for deadlines... where can I view an unedited version of the NOAA policy that is proposed? No offense, but this is something that I don't want interpreted for me; I'd rather read it myself.

While there are points to be made for condor reintroduction and the near-resemblance of some on this board to chimpanzees (JK), there are definite hatchery success stories as well. Looking at the Great Lakes salmon and steelhead fisheries, many of which are supported solely by hatchery stockings, I see a tremendous success story. I don't want to see wild salmon and steelhead disappear, but I don't want fishing to disappear either, and I'm afraid that could be where we're headed.

OK, now I really have to get back to work,

Keith

You are correct in your assessment of my position. Do you mean to say there is virtually no way to reverse this decision at this point? Somebody say it ain't so.


There must be some recourse at the state and local level.

Here is a draft of the policy from NOAA that was e-mailed to me today:

>
>1. Under NOAA Fisheries 1991 Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) policy (56 FR 58612: November 20, 1991), a distinct population segment of a
>Pacific salmonid species is considered for listing if it meets two criteria: (a) it must be substantially reproductively isolated from other
>conspecific population units; and (b) it must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. A key feature of the
ESU concept is the recognition of genetic resources that represent the ecological and genetic diversity of the species. These genetic resources can reside in a fish spawned in a hatchery (hatchery fish) as well as in a fish spawned in the wild (natural fish).
>
>2. In delineating an ESU to be considered for listing, NOAA Fisheries will identify all populations that are part of the ESU including
populations of natural fish (natural populations), populations of hatchery fish (hatchery fish), and populations that include both natural fish and
>hatchery fish (mixed populations). Hatchery fish that are genetically no more than moderately divergent from a natural population in the ESU are considered part of the ESU, will be considered in determining whether an
>ESU should be listed under the ESA, and will be included in any listing of the ESU.
>
>3. Status determinations for Pacific salmonid ESUs will be based on the likelihood of extinction of an entire ESU. In assessing the likelihood of extinction of an ESU, NOAA Fisheries will recognize the necessity of
>conserving natural populations within the ESU, in line with the ESA's stated purpose to conserve "the ecosystem upon which endangered and threatened species depend," section 2(b). Natural populations that are stable or increasing, are spawning in the wild, and have adequate spawning and rearing habitat reduce the risk of extinction of the ESU. Such natural
>populations, particularly those with minimal genetic contribution from hatchery fish, can provide a point of comparison for the evaluation of effects of hatchery fish on the likelihood of extinction of the ESU.
>
>4. Status determinations for Pacific salmonid ESUs generally consider four key attributes: abundance, productivity, genetic diversity, and spatial distribution. The effects of hatchery fish on the likelihood of
>extinction of an ESU will depend on which of the four key attributes are currently limiting the ESU, and how the hatchery fish within the ESU affect each of the attributes. The presence within an ESU of hatchery fish that are genetically no more than moderately divergent from a natural population in the ESU can reduce the likelihood of extinction of the ESU, and affect a
>listing determination, by contributing to increasing abundance and productivity of the ESU, by improving spatial distribution, and by serving as a source population for repopulating unoccupied habitat. Conversely, a hatchery program managed without adequate consideration of conservation
>effects can increase the likelihood of extinction of an ESU, and affect a listing determination, by reducing genetic diversity of the ESU and reducing the productivity of the ESU. In evaluating the effect of hatchery fish in reducing the likelihood of extinction of and ESU, the presence of a long-term hatchery monitoring and evaluation program is an important
>consideration.
>
>5. Hatchery programs are capable of producing more fish than may be immediately useful in the conservation and recovery of an ESU and can play an important role in fulfilling trust and treaty obligations with regard to harvest of some Pacific salmonid populations. For ESUs listed as threatened, NOAA Fisheries will, where appropriate, exercise its authority
>under Section 4(d) of the ESA to allow the harvest of listed hatchery fish that are surplus to the conservation and recovery needs of the ESU in accordance with approved harvest plans.

Comments?

KJ

Kjackson,

FYI, the Boldt Decision was heard, and upheld, by the U.S. Supreme Court.

FNP,

NOAA and the Justice Department did not appeal the Hogan decision (because policy officials did not want to appeal or reverse it); therefore, it stands.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Can't really point a finger at the Justice Dept.... honestly, what do they know about fish?

NOAA Fisheries (previously known as NMFS) on the other hand, should hang its head in utter shame! Aren't these the guys that are supposed to be protecting the troubled fish runs? Were these guys asleep? Why didn't they initiate an appeal/challenge to the Hogan ruling?

Is there an expert on judicial policy and procedure lurking out there that knows who, what, and where pressure needs to be applied in order to get this ruling reversed? Todd, where are you? Any ideas?

It seems like this whole policy hinges on what the phrase "moderately divergent" is interpreted to mean.

Such imprecise language could be construed to mean anything.

Somebody will have to decide what this means, whether its the administration policymakers or some judge that knows nothing about fish or biology.

Talk about being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

kjackson

To use a familiar phrase, "It ain't over till it's over"

I just re-read the original article cited in this thread:


Federal officials said Wednesday that the new policy on hatchery salmon -- to be published in June in the Federal Register and then be opened to public comment -- was in response to a 2001 federal court ruling in Oregon. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan found that the federal government made a mistake by counting only wild fish -- and not genetically similar hatchery fish -- when it listed coastal coho salmon for protection.

To the dismay of many environmental groups, the federal government chose not to appeal that ruling, though it seemed counter to the reasoning behind the spending of more than $2 billion in the past 15 years to protect stream-bred wild salmon.

It is ironic that NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency charged with wild salmon recovery, could sit idly by, and worse yet, actually agree that Hogan was right. The Hogan ruling may have gone unchallenged by NOAA Fisheries, but I am confident that NOAA Fisheries will not go unchalleged by prominent conservation groups, scientists, and the angling community at large.

The proposed rule will be published in the next month with a 90-day public comment period to follow. I hope to see an avalanche of unified condemnation at that point. We need to be heard loud and clear!

''The same approach is being used, I think, to gorilla market the Bush administration as an enemy of the environment. That isn't necessarily the case. His administration is making changes that offend folks who would like to see wilderness locked up and rivers closed down. These people aren't conservationists by definition, but protectionists. There's a big difference there. Speaking as someone with a background in the natural sciences, I will stand up and say that not all logging or mining is bad. Some here apparently think it is. Not all roads into roadless areas are bad. Not all petroleum extraction is bad. Anyone who tells you otherwise is uninformed."

kjackson,
I read the above statement as implying that people who are against Bush policy are also against all logging and mining. This implies that they are radicals or extremist. The only purpose that I can see for a false statement like this is to solicit an emotional negative response toward a group of people you disagree with.

"If you define what you mean by "environmental movement" and "anyone of any standing", I'll try to find a quote or two. None come to mind at the moment, but then I tend to turn off diatribe (if I recognize it as such) unless it gets my knickers in a twist as some of this stuff has."

Ah, the define every word game. You can use any definition you feel comfortable with. I don't think you will find any quotes from anyone here on this board or from environmental groups stating " all logging and mining is bad", as you put it. Could it be that quotes don't "come to mind" because they don't exist rather than being some " diatribe" that you "tun off".

Salmo-- Thanks for the correction; there goes my life-long record of being absolutely right all of the time! Seriously, I'd forgotten about the Supreme Court challenge...and still don't remember anything about it. It could have happened while I was living in Montana or when I was too busy fishing.

FNP--Hogan's decision still stands until it's overturned on appeal. HOWEVER, the policy that is coming out of it is up for comment, and you can have an impact on that. That part of this isn't over. I'm still reading and re-reading the draft policy to see if I can de-code it. I'm still looking for the portion that says that hatchery fish and wild fish are of the same stock....on the quick read that I gave the policy draft I didn't see it. But it could be there.

Keta--Your first quote was of my opinion-- as you will notice with the phrase"I think". I'm not tagging anyone as radical or extremist-- that was your reading and not my intent. Nor am I trying to influence anyone's feelings in regards to people--ideas that I believe are wrong are another matter. When I see an issue I care about, where incorrect information is being bandied about, I sometimes jump in with the idea of providing accurate info.

As far as the definition game as you call it-- all I want to do is find out if we're on the same page before I spend any time pursuing quotes that might or might not exist. You're the one who brought up the idea of quotes-- can you find any with the same restrictions that say logging/mining/resource extraction are good?

Back to work,

Keith

FNP,

I'll try to explain a possible reason why NOAA didn't appeal Hogan. Justice (DOJ) handles appeals for all federal agencies - they don't know about any specialty like fisheries; they're govm't lawyers.

NOAA is composed of several types of members. Managers who manage things like budgets, administrative secretaries who get a lot of the work done, keeps staff supplied with pencils and computers, etc. Technical folks, scientists, like the oceanographers, the meteorologists who predict the weather and track hurricanes, and biologists who manage whales and fish, etc. And then there are policy people. Recall that the root of policy is politic, i.e. policy folks are political appointees or work directly for political appointees. The decision to appeal or not appeal Hogan is not made by the secretaries; nor is it made by scientists, altho scientists who are in management may recommend an appeal. But the decision that counts is made at the policy level, someone who is a political appointment. D. Robert Lohn, Regional Administrator (not to be confused with administrative assistants) is a political appointee. He is in the unenviable position of performing NOAA Fisheries management and conservation functions, which may at times be at direct odds with the policy intent of the President who appointed him. The Regional Administrator, or the other political appointees he reports to, decide what court decisions the agency will appeal or not.

Hope that helps.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

kjackson,
I'm sorry,I think I may very well have missed the intent of your comment. All I can say is I have been dealing with a barrage of Bush supporters that have, in my opinion, been indulging in a concerted effort to pin the label of environmental extremist on any person or group that objects to Bush policy. I'm sure you can tell that I am one who is very discourage by the path that this Bush administration is leading our country down. Add to this the new wild/hatchery salmon policy that I consider a punch below the belt to something I have a passion bordering on insanity for, wild salmon and steelhead, and I guess I have become a hothead. I apologize for the misplaced rant.

Keta-- No problem and thanks for the reply. I do understand where you're coming from.

I'm not trying to re-open this, but I feel strongly about mis-information on environmental subjects (that I know something about) no matter who spreads it. And that's one reason I tend to jump on "Bush is a bad guy" threads that don't seem to be logical or accurate. It's not that I'm an avid Bush supporter, but just because his administration proposes something on the environment doesn't make it a bad decision. It doesn't make it a good decision, either. Each proposal should be evaluated on its merits in my view.

I'm interested in your spin on the NOAA Fisheries policy draft-- not to debate its points necessarily-- but more to find out what you've found objectionable. The several readings I given it tell me that it makes sense, but I'd like your spin.

Thanks,

Keith

I think if you go back and read the news release from a few days ago you will see that the federal government has 30 days to respond....not one day. As far as I know they have not done so and will be coming out with plans in June.