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."