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."

That last line in the story is such a crock of $hit! I challenge ANYONE to produce a paper or study that shows a wild native run was restored with the aid of hatchery supplementation/enhancement.

This is a major step BACKWARD in salmon restoration that overshadows WSR by several orders of magnitude. What a travesty! Just more ammo for all the camps that subscribe to the dangerous conceit that we can just manufacture salmon at will to mitigate the past and ongoing damage caused by all the various resource extractors.

The phrase "salmon without rivers" was coined by Jim Lichatowich to bring decision makers to an enlightened realization of where we had gone wrong for over a century. It now appears they have embraced the phrase to spearhead a self-fulfilling prophecy toward extinction of wild salmon.

Counting hatchery fish as wild fish is beyond irresponsible, it is reprehensible. Reminds me of a Saturday Night Live spoof about the Federal Reserve based on the old Smith Barney motto, "We make money the old fashioned way, we EARN it!" The Fed version goes something like this...."We make money the old-fashioned way, we MAKE it!"

"The phrase "salmon without rivers" was coined by Jim Lichatowich to bring decision makers to an enlightened realization of where we had gone wrong for over a century"

That phrase was originally said by a Washington state fisheries manager touting the "success" of hatcheries in the 60's or 70's

Still a little green on this one so be patient with me.

Am I reading this and the above responses correctly to understand that they will be counting the overall return to a river (hatchery + wild) to determine whether the wild run is healthy? Are they trying to say that if the hatchery run is strong then the ecosystem has stabilized and the threat to the wild fish is not significant?

They are trying to say or do anything that will sweep the problem under the carpet and remove the restrictions on the poor industries that rape habitat. Vote in November.
So where will this lead? Reducing hatchery production will now be against the law? Will hatchery production be instead stepped up? Can you have regulations for clipped versus non-clipped since the government say's they are both wild? I see a lot more court time to follow.

Thats just lame... First thing I saw in the paper this A.M

Yeah, I can't imagine that any sane judge would agree with this if presented good sound science. Hopefully the courts will expose this.

That is unbelievable! But, I can't imagine this would get by without a lawsuit.

The ninth curcuit court has already upheld Judge Hogans ruling.

Duroboat,

You honestly think that hatchery fish=wild fish?
Maybe on the dinner plate, but not on the spawning bed.

Perhaps, is it just that you think that habitat should be sacrificed on the alter of short term economic gain?

From an ecological point of view this is going to have disasterous long term consequences.

If this policy really becomes law of the land, the only way to save wild fish in many places will be to adopt WTs close all hatcheries agenda.

What a mess . . .

Yep.......the right direction. I can't wait until a painting of a forest becomes a National Park.

In fact, if we had a half-dozen redwood decks side-by-side, we could call it Sequoia National Park and claim we had DOUBLED the number of redwood forests nationwide.

Ooooh, I just love the clever wording and thinking from the Bush Administration.

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.

Reason number 1, 000, 001 to get Bush out of office, NOW!!

I can think of more reasons than that

Well, the solution is obvious....we simply need to:

Tear down all dams and hatcheries

Forbid irrigation and production of sewage (gotta cork?)

Halt all construction

Stop all fishing (except of course, Tribal fishing - that wouldn't be PC)

This must come from the same science that swore there were wmd in Iraq. Let's show this F*&^head the door.
President Bush, Wrong on Salmon.

As you all might expect, WT has a strong position on this. We have maintainted for some time that beside the negative biological and ecological impacts of hatchery production, the political, policy, and legal impacts are just as damaging. Hatcheries make habitat destruction and overfishing possible and "acceptable." NOAA has now made it official. The chicken is coming home to roost. Now hatcheries will operate for the benefit not just of commercial, tribal, and recreational fishers, but for the benefit of irrigators, loggers, and other industrial/economic stakeholders.

I would imagine that this development may cause some to reevaluate how they feel about WT's position on hatcheries and their impact on the recovery of our wild-fish resources. But I should clarify that WT's agenda has never been "close all hatcheries (as characterized above, or in a related thread). WT's agenda is fix all hatcheries or close them. It is true that we believe many hatchery programs are beyond repair or reform, and we are skeptical any hatchery program could meet what we would consider responsible performance standards. But we are absolutely willing to allow hatchery reform efforts to play out (we do believe they should get started yesterday).

We have been asked what we would accept. The minimum that we would consider acceptable is the following: Any hatchery program should included clear, measurable performance standards both for benefits and impacts (ideally including high, low, and intermediate performance thresholds and indicators); the program must include a monitoring plan adequate to determine if the performance standards are being met; the program must include detailed options for management responses to the monitoring data. For instance, take stray rates: an individual hatchery program must include a performance standard for the percentage of hatchery fish allowed to spawn in the wild, say 15%; the program must include a monitoring plan adequate to determine what percentage of hatchery fish actually are spawning in the wild (would include 100% marking and annual field surveys to determine spawning percentages); a suite of potential/contingent management responses to the monitoring data should be described (ie: at 20% stray rates the program might a) cut production, b) change release strategies, c) change brood-collection practices, d) make no change but increase monitoring effort; at 25%, a) cut production, b) change brood stock, c) suspend program; I'm completely making up numbers and options here, but you get the idea). Admittedly, that is a much more expensive program than any we now have; we have suggested that the overall program be cut to make money available for remaining programs to include the above measures. I expect this position will be unpopular in some quarters, but I hope most can at least accept that it is not "close all hatcheries."

But whatever; rest assured this new attempt to weaken ESA protections and jeopardize salmon and steelhead recovery won't go without a fight. TU (national and state), Oregon Trout, WT, Native Fish Society, Earthjustice, American Rivers, and a host of other fishing and environmental groups are working together to oppose this policy. Expect more details to come.

In the meantime, here is a Press Release from national TU. WT doesn't necessarly endorse every single thing in the PR, but it does present most of the main arguments.

Press Statement April 29, 2004
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Pages: 2

Trout Unlimited – National Wildlife Federation
- Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations –
Earthjustice – American Rivers – WaterWatch of Oregon

Contact:
Jeff Curtis, Trout Unlimited: 503.827.5700 x. 11; c. 503.419.7105
Jan Hasselman, National Wildlife Federation: 206.285.8707 x. 105
Glen Spain, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Assns: 541.689.2000
Steve Pedery, WaterWatch of Oregon: 503.295.4039 x. 26
Jim Lichatowich, Alder Fork Consulting: 503.366.6959
Kristin Boyles, Earthjustice: 206.343.7340 x. 33

Bush Administration Poised to Strip Federal Protections from Pacific Salmon Stocks

Broad collection of fish interests joins to oppose new policy

(PORTLAND, Ore.) – Calling it the latest in a series of administration failures to protect imperiled stocks of Pacific salmon and steelhead, conservation and fishing business groups and scientists today condemned a new and yet unreleased Bush administration policy that could remove federal protection for many, if not most of the 27 listed salmon and steelhead stocks from the northwest tip of Washington down to southern California and inland to central Idaho.

“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 and inland to Idaho,” said Kaitlin Lovell of Trout Unlimited. “Hatchery fish certainly have a role in restoring salmon runs and mitigating some of the damage inflicted by salmon declines, but they have no place in determining federal protections.”

The new policy, said to be released in June by NOAA Fisheries (the federal agency charged with protection of salmon and steelhead) effectively allows hatchery fish to be considered alongside wild fish in determining whether the wild stocks retain current federal protections. Instead of working to improve river habitat for listed species or other viable recovery measures, the policy instead relies on hatcheries for long-term recovery.

“Wild salmon and steelhead are still at risk of extinction throughout the Northwest,” said Jan Hasselman of the National Wildlife Federation. “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 in concrete pools.”

“The Bush administration has proven itself to be no friend of salmon,” added John DeVoe of WaterWatch of Oregon. “Under this new policy the wild coho of the Pacific Northwest could go extinct, but as long as we produce millions of manufactured fish in concrete tanks the administration would call it good. This is a continuation of the flawed thinking that strangled water flows in the Klamath River during the summer of 2002 and left us with 34,000 dead salmon.”

The groups said the new policy could also have devastating effects on wild stocks through loss of habitat currently protected by the listings. Over 148,000 acres of federal lands in four states are managed to provide habitat for salmon. It could also mean the end of federal safeguards for fish such as requirements to protect sensitive watersheds and improving the operation of hydroelectric dams.

“Reducing protections for wild salmon means that protections for river habitat will also be reduced,” said David Moryc of American Rivers. “And when habitat protections are reduced, clean water is threatened, as are all of the economic and social benefits healthy rivers provide.”

A large number of scientists recently have concluded that a policy including hatchery fish alongside wild fish when determining the need federal protections spells danger for the wild stocks.

“The resulting false impression of abundance this policy creates could have devastating effects on wild stocks,” said Jim Lichatowich, author of Salmon without Rivers. “Interbreeding between wild and hatchery fish could reduce the fitness of wild populations and reduce their ability to survive, and the productivity of wild populations could be further reduced by forcing them to compete with large numbers of hatchery fish. Relaxed protections on mixed-stock fisheries, too, could lead to over-harvest of wild fish.”

The groups are quick to point out that de-listing of salmon and steelhead stocks should be the goal of any group, individual or interest vested in the future of those fish, but that de-listing should be due to the return of strong, healthy fisheries, not simply to avoid the responsibility of species and habitat protection.

“Genuine salmon recovery should be an investment in a future with sustainable, harvestable fish runs as nature intended them, in the wild,” said Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. “This new Bush administration policy abandons true recovery and moves us closer to a world where salmon only exist in hatcheries, not watersheds.”


Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout

Just more reason to shut down more hatcheries.

As you long as you continue to support Bush my friend that will never happen....and I think you know that.

Thanks Ramon for a concise report. This issue will no doubt get much attention. I appreciate your restraint from simply using this as a Bush bashing exercise like most have done. You obviously have a more fact based grasp of the issue. I think it is worthwhile to point out that it was the PLF who filed suit and won in the courts. The ninth circuit is not exactly a Bush mouthpiece and that court upheld the ruling. The ruling purports to have been made on science so it would be most helpful to address that science which obvioulsy is at odds with what most of us see as the the real problems causing declines in wild salmon and steelhead. I think it is also a good idea for those of us who value wild fish survival to accept the fact that the "other side" is not made up of whacko fools who have no place at the table. The farmers , loggers et al are citizens with concerns that must be atleast considered even if we only see things in black and white terms of saving the wild fish at all costs. They do not. We cannot simply dismiss them as evil.

Perhaps the money spent on fish recovery in this region has been largely wasted as well, furthering the argument of the "other side".

I'm not ready to jump on the WT or TU bandwagon but not ready to accept the "other side" either. Keep us informed Ramon if you will as to the science behind what is right from your viewpoint.