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!!