Bush plan cuts wild salmon harvest
Proposal calls for shutting hatcheries that harm the fish

The Associated Press

PORTLAND — Conceding that using hatcheries to supplement dwindling salmon populations is harming wild salmon species in some cases, the Bush administration plans to move away from the practice in favor of a more direct solution: Catching fewer fish.

James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, announced the new policy Wednesday at a meeting of salmon scientists, many of whom have concluded that wild Pacific salmon will become practically extinct this century without big changes in how the harvest is managed.

“Our goal is to minimize and, where possible, eliminate the harvest of naturally spawning fish that provide the foundation for recovery,” Connaughton said in an interview before his speech.

Critics said the change in tactics does not address the combination of factors that have severely reduced salmon runs, from overfishing and development to hydroelectric dams.

“Hatcheries were intended to replace habitat behind dams,” said Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, which represents California commercial fishermen.

“If they close all the hatcheries, we want some dams down, too.”

Connaughton said the administration has a strong commitment to hydroelectric dams, which are important to the region’s economy.

Scientists have long criticized hatcheries as producers of salmon that dilute the gene pool, spread disease and compete with wild fish for food and habitat, while being less able to survive in the wild.

Connaughton did not say how much the administration wants to reduce the wild salmon harvest. He said NOAA Fisheries will review the 180 hatcheries in the Columbia Basin over the next year, shutting down those that harm salmon and helping others that contribute to recovery.

Connaughton said change will require the collaboration of regional federal regulators, Canada, Oregon, Washington and Indian tribes.

“We cannot improperly hatch and we cannot carelessly catch the wild salmon back to recovery,” Connaughton said.

About 2.75 million salmon are caught annually by commercial and sports fishermen in the Columbia and off the Pacific from Alaska, Canada and the West Coast.

Since 1991, 26 populations of salmon have been listed as threatened or endangered. None has been judged healthy enough to be delisted. Restoration efforts and technological fixes to dams have run up a bill of $6 billion over the past 10 years.

Connaughton, President Bush’s top environmental adviser, outlined the new policy at the Salmon 2100 Conference, where scientists gathered to consider new ways to prevent the extinction of wild salmon.

Current salmon runs are 5 percent of historical levels, said Robert Lackey, a fisheries scientist for the Environmental Protection Agency and chairman of the conference. Wild runs disappeared from Europe, most of Asia and the Northeast as populations grew.

Lackey said Connaughton’s proposals did not address the four primary drivers of wild salmon declines — a market economy that gives salmon short shrift, rapid population growth, increasing demand for clean water, and human lifestyle choices that ignore the needs of fish.

Spain, of the fishermen’s group, said fishing accounts for only 5 percent of human-caused salmon deaths in the Columbia Basin, while hydroelectric dams account for 80 percent.

The National Marine Fisheries Service, which oversees Columbia River and Snake River salmon recovery, recently decided against requiring the Idaho Power Co. to add fish ladders on its Hells Canyon dams.

Environmentalists say adding the ladders as a condition for renewing the company’s permits would help the fish survive passage through the three-dam system. The utility, however, complained that the ladders — estimated to cost $100 million — would be too costly and ineffective.

In Nov. 16 e-mails obtained by The Associated Press, the agency said it is focusing instead on recommending Idaho Power set aside money to clean up the river above the dams so the waterway will one day provide good habitat for salmon and steelhead. Both are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Has anyone watched this episode? I thought it was pretty informative the first time I viewed it, but Alan and his team didn't really draw any conclusions other than; the fish are declining rapidly and that there are many factors that contribute to the declining numbers.
He does a good job, however, of exploring how modern science is trying to at least get an understanding of how to best deal with it.

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1306/index.html

Is it bad for the fish or bad for the fisherman?

It is bad for the fishermen.

It's not that it's bad for wild fish. The problem is that closing hatcheries and fisheries won't recover wild fish. Wild fish recovery requires a very significant reduction in hydro system mortality. Although mentioned in Connaughton's speech, no specific action is prescribed for the number one factor relating to fish recovery in the Columbia.

The bushinator wants to keep the dams... at the cost of everything else.

End of story.

So what.. by the time any of this comes to anything Bush will not be the prez anymore. He has been in office 6 years now and not one thing has changed good or bad as far as fish goes. I expect that to stay the same through the next few administrations regardless of who they might be. Someone will make a statement, then another group will sue them, there will be a study, then a follow up study. A judge will make a ruling and somebody will sue him. After that there will be a conference or maybe a "summit" and more ideas and rulings followed by more law suites. A vast sweeping policy will be instated and a huge swarm of law suites will beat it down. BPA will get their power, the tribes will abuse their treaty rights, and you and I will go fishing.

Along the way, I'll push for WSR and anything else that is actually possible to help out the fish. If it was all C&R for everything all the time I would still go fishing.

Carefull.. somebody will sue you for saying that, and you will file a counter suite et al etc..

Seeing that the majority of the public does not fish but uses hydro electric power any politician is going to have trouble fowarding a plan to tear down the dams. Demand and Supply.

Sportman always seem to forget that the non using public and the fnece sitters control their fate we do not.

A few more thoughts compiled by other reviewers, including Save Our Salmon, that suggest this policy shift is not about recovery and is about delaying effective actions. I didn't see anything inaccurate in these.
-------------------------------------------

This is part of a coordinated plan to shift attention from the huge "harvest" done by the hydrosystem, and shift the burden onto the backs of the commercial, sport and tribal fishermen and fishing-dependent businesses. According to the 2004 BiOp, on average the dams/reservoirs kill 49% of juvenile Snake River spring/summer chinook and 15.4% of adults, 86% of SR fall chinook juveniles and 15% of adults, and 33% of upper Columbia spring chinook juvies and 8% of adults. Fishing, sport, commercial and tribal, accounts for about 5% of human caused salmon mortality in the Columbia Basin, while hydroelectric dams account for 80%. The single most effective and cost effiecient action we can take is removal of the four lower Snake River dams.

This is exactly what we thought the Administration would do –– cut a tack towards harvest and hatcheries, because they don’’t have any other options to address the problem, outside of the dams.

This is a distracting diversionary tactic that seeks to delay –– delay is victory for the Administration.

The bottom line is the dams are the big killer –– the science is clear. The feds’’ 2004 salmon plan sought to allow the dams to legally kill as much as 80% of a stock –– just for juvenile fish on their way to the ocean –– not including the impacts on adults returning.

Harvesters have already contributed to the solution –– harvests are way, way down compared to 15 years ago. Harvest is so low now that the feds’’ determined in 2000 that further reductions in harvest would not significantly protect –– and certainly not recover –– endangered stocks. Harvesters have been the victim in this –– giving whenever the pressure mounts.

This year’’s harvest on Columbia basin stocks will be determined today, and the numbers will be very small –– and coastal and fishing communities are going to take a hard hit. Meanwhile, the dams are allowed to go on killing like every other year (Actually, the spills on the dams last year and next will provide for increased survival –– we forced those spills on the BPA and feds in court –– they would not do them otherwise.)

These are some quotes from NOAA Fisheries' 2000 BiOp (2000 Federal Salmon Plan for Columbia and Snake Rivers) on harvest reforms:

““For most of the listed ESUs, opportunities to improve survival through additional harvest reductions are limited because they are not affected, or are affected only minimally, by today’’s much reduced fisheries.”” (9-144)

““Impacts on those ESUs that are still affected by harvest occur in fisheries targeting healthy and abundant stocks, particularly hatchery stocks. Even for the ESUs affected by these incidental harvests, impacts have already been greatly reduced in recent years in response to declining abundance of non-listed as well as listed species. As a result, even the complete elimination of all remaining fisheries would yield only limited benefits for many of the ESUs.”” (Id. Emphasis added).

““...further reductions in harvest may benefit some species, such as Snake River fall chinook or Snake River steelhead, but [] such additional reductions, even if achieved, will not help recover listed species.”” (9-143. Emphasis added.)

As for hatcheries –– there are some adverse impacts due to hatchery operations, and reforms are needed –– but a wholesale reduction of hatchery production, suddenly, without strong habitat restoration measures as the same time (like removing the 4 lower Snake River dams) would further devastate fishing communities, and while providing some benefits, will not alone (or coupled just with harvest elimination) be able to restore our endangered stocks.

Salmon declines do have multiple causes, but in the Columbia Basin, dams are the big problem –– especially the 4 lower Snake River dams, and we need to keep the Administration and the region focused on these causes, and not let them take us down some alternative path that is really a dead end.

looks like the citizens of the US have chosen electricty over fish.