Duro,

The trial itself is a few years old...but the implementation of its ruling was stayed during appeal...and the 9th Circuit just ruled on the appeal, affirming the trial court. So while the case is relatively old, the ruling will start to be implemented now.

CFM,

Nowhere in the case does it say that the intent is to do away with fish and fishing...that's not what the case was about. It was about removing ESA protection for endangered wild fish to make development and timber cutting more profitable.

If PLF gets their way, though, there are only a few possible outcomes.

First, any habitat issues we have now will assuredly get worse...habitat destruction is caused by all the members of the PLF...that's the point of the lawsuit, to be able to wreak havoc profitably.

Without habitat, there are no wild fish. With no wild fish, there are no long term succesful hatchery programs, or no hatchery programs at all. With no successful hatchery programs, there are no hatchery fish. With no hatchery fish, there is no fishing.

The fallacy of fish without healthy rivers has been proven over and over...it just doesn't work, for hatchery or wild fish.

So, to answer your questions, it is my opinion...but based on what I know about politics and biology, I don't really see another outcome that is more likely than the situation outlined above.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd

I think that you may want to refrase that statement
Oh really! If that was true, how do you explain the hatcheries on the Cowlitz? They been going at it for 40 years now, and they are one of the biggest hatchery in the state. The only thing that shows down production there is the lack of money from Tacoma. Those native were all gone many, many, years ago, and they still produce lots of hatchery fish for both the commercials and the sport fishermen. The Cowlitz hatchery can produce more fish then you can count, and all they need is the money to run those hatcheries.


Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,

The last few years, before any proposed reductions in hatchery plants, the winter run hatchery fish in the Cowlitz have been nosediving, haven't they?

Also, the Cowlitz, as noted before, is not very similar to any other situation in the State, so extrapolating stuff from the Cowlitz hatcheries to other watersheds doesn't really work.

Dont' forget the option to just not have hatcheries at all, if PLF gets their way. If the State of Oregon is serious about recovering wild coho, and can't use the ESA to help because of all the hatchery coho, might they stop planting coho to avoid the problem?

I don't know which way they would go, I just know that it would be bad for fish and fishing either way.

Fish on...

Todd

They been noise diving for two reasons only!

1) NMFS came in a couple of years ago and demanded a huge cut in hatchery production of winter run steelhead to protect a fish that doesn't even exist!
2) Because of NMFS listing, early winter steelhead mitigation has been shifted over the "late" timing run and added to the summer run production so that it wouldn't interfere with the fake late run that they are now trying to develop. If NMSF would have keeps its nose out, the Cowlitz winter runs would still be pretty damn good!

I can sure see why PLF took NMFS to court! Maybe we should be doing the same! The Cowlitz Hatcheries were doing just fine, until NMFS stepped in and screwed everything up with their so called "science".

It's nothing more then a joke, and the joke is on us!

CFM,

It is not NOAA Fisheries' (not NMFS anymore) job to protect hatchery programs...they're mandated with protecting wild fish through the ESA.

I don't mean to argue that the run of "wild" fish in the Cowlitz is bogus or not, I personally don't see how many wild fish could be left after the netting, incredibly intense sport fishing, dams, and all the other habitat destruction there.

You are, however, making my point about the two possible responses by ODFW...if there are wild fish to protect (like they say there are in the Cowlitz, whether there are or not), then one of the possibilities is to cut hatchery production to protect them, especially, as in Oregon, if the mere presence of the hatchery fish is why the wild fish are threatened with de-listing.

1. a. NOAA Fisheries says there are wild fish in the Cowlitz
b. There are wild coho on the Oregon Coast

2. a. NOAA Fisheries/Tacoma Power wants to protect the fish
b. ODFW wants to protect the wild fish

3. a. NOAA/TP cut hatchery production in the Cowlitz to protect the "wild" run.
b. ODFW cuts hatchery production of coho to protect the wild run.

ODFW has to cut the hatcheries to protect the wild fish, because if they don't, then the fish lose their ESA protection, and so does their habitat.

Or...they don't cut hatchery production, the habitat gets further destroyed by PLF's members, the wild fish go extinct, and the inbred hatchery fish have no river habitat to rear in or migrate back up in. They are facing both genetic inferiority, which implodes upon itself more and more with each generation of inbreeding, plus continually worsening habitat.

Again, the idea of "salmon without rivers" has proven to be an absolute disaster...it doesn't provide wild fish, hatchery fish for broodstock, or hatchery fish for harvest, in the long run.

The very thing you are battling on the Cowlitz will likely happen in Oregon with their coho. To protect wild fish, hatchery production may go down.

Fish on...

Todd

If you're trying to say that NMFS is now NOAA, I knew that! But somehow the word NMFS, pimps, and wimps all seem to fit the same shoe!

Hello!!!!

What in the devil to think they are doing now Todd???
I will use what you like to use, science…It is a fact! They are bogus! And when I say it's a fact, you know that I have already done my homework.



1. The courts say if wild fish and hatchery are the same stock, then there is no reason not to use both wild fish and hatchery fish in the Cowlitz for recovery! That means that "any winter stock" steelhead from the Cowlitz hatchery can be used in the upper Cowlitz for natural production and for fish passage "triggers" to put fish ladders over the dams! Now all wild fish people support that one!


2. Tacoma Power doesn't want to "protect the fish" they just want to create the restrictions, so they don't have to pay to produce the hatchery fish! You know that Todd!


("3. a. NOAA/TP cut hatchery production in the Cowlitz to protect the "wild" run.")

3 That's all Bull $hit and you know it! See answer # above 2

"ODFW has to cut the hatcheries to protect the wild fish, because if they don't, then the fish lose their ESA protection, and so does their habitat."

If those fish are all from the same stock that's all BS too! But a bunch of environmental people may not be needed, and be looking for a new job soon
You're dead wrong Todd!
There is no reason why wild fish and hatchery fish can not co-exist in this day and age! You know it, I know, and maybe someday PIMPS, I mean NMSF, no, I mean NOAA will know it too. It takes a balance between both man and fish, and that is what we are now seeing.

PS... Todd, I have never ever seen you post so much about nothing! It couldn't be some kind of distracter now ...could it

Could this be "damage control" ...?

Did I take the bait?

Not to worry, I have lots more!


Cowlitzfisherman

If your actions have consequences that cause the destruction of something else you by deffinition hate the thing you destroy..
Love money made from destropying habitat is the same as hating salmon..

From the PLF site, dated 1996.

A few board members should consider where the line is drawn between advocate, zealot and whaco over the edge extremist. .

A persons property rights end well before thoes rights destroy public resources including fish. No one should have the right to destroy salmon habitat on their private property.. The exsistence of wild fish is more important than individual property rights!

Also note that it is impossible for a single individual to own any surface water.. All streams are owned by the states.. The little creek in your back yard does not belong to you even if the ground under it does and you have no right to destroy it..

Hairlip,

I assume you also checked to see who their members are?

Timber Companies
Cattle Companies
Land Developers
Property Managers
Construction Companies
Management Consulting Firms
The attorneys for all of the above

Friend of fish and the environment all...I'm sure.

I'm also sure that they have the good of fishermen, fishing, and fish in mind, as all cattle, timber, and construction companies do.

And I'm sure that they are champions of the environment, clean air and water, too.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd

You just listed 2/3 of the employers in the Washington state.

So is every one that works for them also against wild fish recovery?

Cowlitzfisherman

There are so many excesses today in the name of the ESA and many environmental causes. So much extremism and one sided restrictions that really are not necessary I don't blame these people for lashing out. Notice how many lawyers are in that group?

Ever seen a mudhole with newly planted stumps and artificial "habitat" required of the developers? No fish ever lived there and never will but we MUST restore the habitat. Sometimes it is not only silly but unfairly punitive. Don't blame these people for wanting atleast some relief. They are not all evil. So many of the most extreme groups are chock full of hypocrits. Property has gotten so expensive as a result of some of these extreme "cause related" restrictions that only the rich can enjoy the natural environment everyone is so proud of protecting. Sorry to say it but blame the lawyers.

CFM,

As I said above...

Not being friends of the environment, or fish, or fishing, or fishermen, doesn make PLF against wild fish recovery, or the environment, or against fish or fishermen.

It means that for them, what they are doing has nothing to do with fish or the environment, it just has to do with money.

For us, it does involve the environment and fish, and fishing.

My entire first post on this thread is about exactly that...I specifically pointed out that they are not against the environment...they are for money, and the environment doesn't even come into their mind.

And just to make it clear, if I don't like PLF or what they do, that does not make me anti-jobs, or pro-unemployment, or pro-poverty.

It means that I don't like what PLF does, and that's it.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd, remarks like yours are your opinion. I simply went to the site to see for myself what they were about. I found out that there's more to the member list than laywers and developers. It's the last hope for actual people too. When the gov. takes your land, or places a burden on you that drives you out of business, or crippels an industry, this group will litigate for them.

I'm not siding with anyone, but the PLF, like WSC, has a right to exist. They have a right to equal representation when it comes to making policies that will affect them. Just like WSC.

As much as i'd like to join the wild steelhead effort, reading through that site put a real face on all the displaced people I so easily dismissed before. IMO, there's more both sides could do towards cooperation.

I dont fish for steelhead much, once a year at best. So most here have more of an impact on them than I do. I'm trying to not be one sided, but comments iv'e heard here like "catch n kill" vs "catch and release", or"pro-money", show me there is a lack of understanding on behalf of those who say them. How about "catch and consume", and "pro-individual rights". I have lots more questions than answers, but I can recognise a one-sided opinion when I read one.

I'm still in the infancy of my fisheries education, and I know this has been discussed here before, but why is a hatchery fish that comes back to spawn naturally, different from a wild fish that does the same? Ive heard the "stupid fish" theory, but if someone could explain or direct me to that thread I would be gratefull. Look at it this way, if i'm reading that I cant post anymore conspirascy comments......


Thanks, Hairlip

Hairlip,

Here on this BB, and on IFish.net, there have been recent posts entitled "Broodstock Programs", or something like that. They both have lots of information on studies about hatchery fish spawning in the wild. Some of the studies are on steelhead, some on silvers.

Post on PP

The post on IFish.net has more people and conversation, but I just went there and the site is closed and won't reopen until tomorrow morning. The post is called "Broodstock Programs".

Both are mainly about steelhead broodstock programs, but some of the studies and conversations are applicable to salmon, too, spawning in the wild.

Fish on...

Todd

nwmallard:
“I've got to share a dirty secret with you. The WDFW did not clip any of the hatchery fish for several years”

Here’s the deal. As judge Hogan said and the NMFS (NOAA) admitted in the federal register there is a very good chance that there are NO “wild” salmon or steelhead. That is because hatchery fish have been mingling with wild stocks for years and years. We need to get past this worship of a “wild” fish which allows the various parties to play us against each other. We should use the word “native” which describes the 5 salmon, the rainbow trout (including steelhead) and a couple of Cutthroats that were here when Lewis and Clark came out.

Rob Allen:
“they are irresponsible people who don't deserve to own land. PERIOD!!!!!”

Rob, Rob, Rob, Do you think that there are no fishermen in that whole bunch? I doubt that any of them want their streams and other waters despoiled. I’d guess that they would negotiate with the sportsmen if they considered the consequences. By the way you don’t get to negotiate for me. We’ll call you if there’s an impasse and you can make them an offer they can’t refuse.

Federal Register: August 18, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 159)]
Oncorhynchus mykiss exhibit one of the most complex suites of life
history traits of any salmonid species. Oncorhynchus mykiss may exhibit anadromy (meaning they migrate as juveniles from fresh water to the ocean, and then return to spawn in fresh water) or freshwater residency (meaning they reside their entire life in fresh water). Resident forms are usually referred to as ``rainbow'' or ``redband'' trout, while anadromous life forms are termed ``steelhead.'' Few detailed studies have been conducted regarding the relationship between resident and anadromous O. mykiss and as a result, the relationship between these two life forms is poorly understood. Recently the scientific name for the biological species that includes both steelhead and rainbow trout was changed from Salmo gairdneri to O. mykiss. This change reflects the premise that all trouts from western North America share a common lineage with Pacific salmon.


Judge Hogan Hits A Homer: Oregon Coastal Coho Listing Is Unlawful

On September 10, 2001, United States District Judge Michael R. Hogan issued a long-awaited ruling in a case brought by the Alsea Valley Alliance challenging the 1998 Endangered Species Act listing of Oregon coastal coho salmon. There are, of course, no endangered salmon species; all the listings are premised upon expansive language in section 3(16) of the Act permitting listings of "any distinct population segment of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature..................


..................As for the second option, Judge Hogan warned NMFS that it "does not appear to be possible". Among other things, Judge Hogan advised that the hatchery and natural runs "share the same rivers, habitat and seasonal runs" and most of the so-called "natural" fish are in fact the offspring of hatchery fish. Indeed, Judge Hogan noted that "NMFS considers progeny of hatchery fish that are born in the wild as "naturally spawned" coho that deserve listing protection................

here is a wake up call for some of you...

every drop of water west of the cascade mountains is or directly effects critical salmon habitat. Before human development wetlands or mudholes as some people call them were thr reason for prolific coho salmon runs.. clean gravel and cool water is not all not takes to have good runs of salmon.. rearing habitat is absolutely vital and wetlands are the best form of that habitat..

you cannot say one thing and then do something else.. if you destroy salmon habitat you by deffinition do not want salmon to recover. if you claim that you can then you are a liar and have no grasp of reality.

when the unintended consequences of your action have a negative affect yet you continue with that action thoes unintended consequences become what you desire..

therefore it is the desire of logging companies to destroy salmon runs.. if they desired not to destroy salmon runs they wouldn't destroy salmon habitat..

Yes if someone works for a company that destroys salmon habitat it means they are against salmon recovery!!!!

In my opinion it matters more what the law says than who is litigating to force its true and fair application.

In this case the envromentalists have pushed the limits of interpretation of the ESA beyond reasonableness and their misuse of that act is being challenged.

The ball is bouncing in the other direction.

Pacific Legal Foundation has recently established an "Endangered Species Act Program" designed to put an end to the regulatory abuses due to the misapplication of this law.

*****

Protecting Humanity from the Endangered Species Act

Contact: M. Reed Hopper
Phone: (916) 362-2833

The Endangered Species Act - motivated by good intentions and inspired by high-minded visions of responsible environmentalism - has proven in practice to be a bad law. As now structured, it cheapens humanity and produces unconscionable results that defy common sense.

Most people would agree, including Pacific Legal Foundation, that saving significant species and protecting the environment are important public policy issues. However, the top responsibilities of government are to protect human life and preserve individual freedom. Those values must never be jeopardized or otherwise denigrated or subordinated to animals, plants or insects. Yet throughout America, peoples’ lives and their livelihoods are jeopardized by the federal bureaucracy’s inflexible regulations and enforcement actions under a harsh law that needs to be questioned - and challenged - on ethical/moral grounds, on constitutional grounds and on common sense grounds.

PLF has established a special program that systematically puts the Endangered Species Act on trial. The program has two key components: Litigation and Public Education .


Litigation

Attacking "Junk Science" - Before enacting laws and regulations, legislators and regulators must ask whether the science behind the measure justifies the often enormous social and economic costs involved. Unfortunately, environmental policy is often based on politically motivated pressure from environmental activists and federal agencies trying to justify their budgets. The Endangered Species Act is no exception, and PLF is fighting in court to expose the gross misinformation regulators rely on to unfairly restrict the use of private property.

Limiting Federal Authority - The U.S. Constitution’s limits on federal governmental power have not been respected by the Congress. And that abuse has been encouraged by a long line of court decisions that have given the widest possible interpretation to the Constitution’s Commerce Clause which allows Congress to "regulate commerce...among the several states." As a result, Congress has authorized intrusive regulations that control our daily lives, cradle to grave, in areas only remotely associated with interstate commerce. Overzealous enforcement of the Endangered Species Act is a prime example, and PLF is fighting in court challenging federal authority to regulate purely local species that have no connection to "interstate commerce."

Demanding Accountability - In the process of designating critical habitat for species listed under the Endangered Species Act, regulators are required to consider the potential economic impacts of their actions. All too often this critically important analysis is given little or no real consideration. Accordingly, PLF is challenging critical habitat designations around the country bringing into question whether the government truly has considered the real economic impact of their actions.


Public Education

Much of the misinformation and half-truths we receive each day on environmental issues come from a mainstream media that is hopelessly biased in favor of big government regulation and against private property rights and free enterprise. To augment its legal challenges against the Endangered Species Act, PLF is conducting an aggressive public awareness campaign through targeted media relations and public education.

*****

I personally believe that the wild runs deserve protection whether they are or are not federally listed. I also believe that this can be done, although it might be done in a manner lacking the drama and fanfare commensurate with protecting them within the media spectacle of the current ESA status.

Boogles the mind to think anyone could swallow as big a stinking turd as that.