Timber Man

"Bob please delete this right wing bashing post its WORTHLESS!!"

------------------

I'm sure glad, this is not the Fox News channel's fishing board, but Bob's fishing board. And Bob, being the intellegent person that he is, has welcomed both, the Right and Left Wing of both pollitical arena's, as long as we are respectful and not act like moron's and love fishing.

Seems like a wise position for a Guide to take while servicing the general public. Unless you don't want no sticking LEFT WINGER'S ON YOUR CHARTER BOAT, I think that's a good policy. For those Websites, Guides, and others that service the fishing community, it is wise to remember that, this is America and we are Free to choose to think, vote, surf or fish (hiring fishing guides-Fishing Websites) as we please. Try taking that to the bank!

Not all of us are Rednecked, as some of you assume and our feelings and opinions are not worthless.

my .02

TM: I suspect you posted the above on the wrong thread, as this was the one about hatchery fish. No matter, your thoughts came through loud and clear.

Just so you can work with facts I want to tell you that per Bush administration estimates, all recoverable energy sources in the Front Range would provide the U.S. with approximately one percent of our annual energy use. In return for that one percent we will do irreparable harm to several endangered fish stocks as well as seriously degrade opportunities for trophy mule deer and elk. (The roadless areas account for the vast majority of trophy class deer and elk killed in Idaho each year.)

One major problem, in addition to massive amounts of water pollution is the blockage of migration routes. The largest remaining antelope migration in the U.S. passes though the area where intense drilling and exploration is occurring. This is particularly troublesome because the area is a choke point where natural barriers force the animals through an area about a mile wide. Now that choke point is scheduled for intense drilling activity.

Regarding your suggestion to send jobs overseas, you should be proud of this administration that are quite supportive of that.

I believe we can have a vibrant economy, a democracy and capitalism without destroying out fish and game habitat. So did the republican president who signed the environmental protections this administration is working so hard to tear down. I don’t think the problem is republicans – just the ultra conservatives like GW.
t.

AMEN BROTHER AMEN!

The only way to responsibly harvest our fish resources is SELECTIVELY. The indiscriminate nature of gillnets has decimated and continues to pummel threatened runs of fish up and down the west coast. Just look at how much forgone harvest opportunity on hatchery fish the netters have to give up due to the impacts they have on wild fish. We all (netters AND recreational anglers) would benefit from reduced impacts on wild fish.... much more likelihood of maintaining longer seasons for both camps under that scenario.

But none of that matters at all until we can get this Hogan ruling reversed. That's the whole flaw in netters thinking that "hatchery = wild" will actually benefit them. It may in the short term... but over the long haul, that sort of thinking is doomed to failure. Why can't these pinheads figure out that sustainability is the key. The most sustainable way to produce fish is naturally. The most sustainable way to fish them is selectively.

Until fish managers have the backbone to give selective harvest and natural production top priority, there is little hope that these runs can be sustained for our children and grandchildren.

FNP,

I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree. Its not the fisheries managers that banned selective methods its the politicians.

Wheels, weirs, and fish traps were outlawed in the 30s by the state legislature. Unless, the legislature were to take up the issue, it can't be changed. THe level of organization of the sportsfishing community required to achieve this aim would be unprecedented given the gillnetters certain opposition.

It would also be a big capital outlay in placing the set gear again, but once in place costs would be much lower than operating the current commercial fleet. And as you say if operated properly, totally sustainable.

I'm afraid its a pipe dream, but I always hope.

From Time Magazine-When Salmon Are "Wild," And Other Word Games
Creative linguistics from the Bush Administration
By DAREN FONDA



Sunday, May. 02, 2004
President Bush may not be remembered as a linguistic innovator. But in the tradition of classifying ketchup as a vegetable, a classic from the Reagan era, the Bush Administration may leave a rich legacy of redefining terms for regulatory purposes. Perhaps you thought a wild fish is one hatched in the wild. You would be mistaken, according to Bush's environmental stewards. Under a new plan, the distinction between farm-bred salmon, which are later released into rivers and streams, and their cousins hatched in the wild will be removed. That will instantly raise the overall tally of salmon — and make it more probable that the government will eliminate or downgrade protections for 15 salmon species now sheltered under the Endangered Species Act. Such a change is favored by power and timber companies, whose development plans have been stymied by the government's protective net. Environmentalists complain that the action will jeopardize the survival of wild salmon.

It's hardly the first example of the Administration's creative wordplay. A recent report by Bush's economic team questioned whether burger-flipping jobs, now part of the service sector, ought to be reclassified as manufacturing jobs, a change that would have enabled the White House to claim that manufacturing-job losses aren't as bad as they look. That idea appears to have died. Bush's Labor Department also wants to allow employers to reclassify some middle-income workers as white collar managers, rendering them ineligible for overtime pay. Bush's Energy Department, meanwhile, wants to reduce the cost of disposal for millions of gallons of radioactive waste by switching the designation of some material from "high-level" to "low-level." At least the Administration isn't proposing to reclassify relish. Yet.

This thread and the several others I've read and participated in are interesting, to put it mildly. It's too bad that so many people are relying on biased and incorrect reports on what the Hogan ruling is and what it does. It also amazes me how people can get their "news" from sources that have an axe to grind without doing any research to speak of.

A case in point : on a thread on another board, I repeated something someone had told me about the Hogan decision and had a respondent take me to task because what I had repeated was in error. So I did some checking on the Hogan decision through a google search and ended up with an Oregon seagrant document that provided me with some balanced information.

The Hogan ruling didn't rule that wild fish were the equivalent of hatchery fish. What it did say was that on the river in question, NMFS (now NOAA Fisheries) could no longer count wild fish and hatchery fish as different stock SINCE originally it had lumped them together in the same Evolutionary Significant Unit. The "hatchery fish are the same genetically as wild fish" thing that everyone seems to be reacting to was a dicta, legalese for comments that were NOT part of the ruling or law.

This ruling applies to one ESU. It doesn't apply elsewhere. However there are challenges to other listings that will use, in all likelihood, the Hogan decision.

A lot of Bush bashing has gone on with people saying in print that this decision by the Bush administration will gut the Endangered Species Act. This ruling wasn't a Bush administration effort. It was a judicial ruling handed down by a different branch of government.

The same approach is being used, I think, to gorilla market the Bush administration as an enemy of the environment. That isn't necessarily the case. His administration is making changes that offend folks who would like to see wilderness locked up and rivers closed down. These people aren't conservationists by definition, but protectionists. There's a big difference there. Speaking as someone with a background in the natural sciences, I will stand up and say that not all logging or mining is bad. Some here apparently think it is. Not all roads into roadless areas are bad. Not all petroleum extraction is bad. Anyone who tells you otherwise is uninformed.

So, my point is to evaluate all information you get wtih respect to its source and look for balance (response from both sides of the issue) as well as the attempts of the source to sway you with absolutes and emotionalism. And certainly don't believe everything you read or hear in the media.

My $.02,

Keith

It's hard for any thinking person to be reassured by your comments. This misguided ruling sets a very dangerous PRECEDENT. It may be one measly ESU in Oregon for now, but it sets up the exceedingly high likelihood of a "domino effect" for dozens of other ESA-listed populations. It's like removing that first crucial brick that eventually brings the entire wall crashing down.

Mark my words.... if this one falls, they all fall.

FNP-- You're right; judicial rulings do form precedents from which other rulings then can be made; I believe it's called case law. The Hogan decision will have an impact on other cases. However, the gloom-and-doom hand wringing isn't warranted-- yet. This decision doesn't change the Endangered Species Act, and we still have a lot of species that need protecting, such as dolly varden and searun cutthroat.

My point was that there is a lot of misinformation floating around in cyber space of the subject, and it's not doing anyone any good. There is also a lot of biased information being promoted as truth, and that is not good at all.

There is a lot of good coming out of all this discussion--we're thinking (some of us) about the problems of wild fish and fish culture. I find a lot of comments like yours about selective harvest are right on the money. I had an eye-opening conversation with Gary Loomis about selective harvest and he made some valid points. His thought is that we bring back fish traps-- from which we can take hatchery fish and release wild fish back to the river. The traps could supply the treaty tribes with fish and commercials as well, if that's part of the game plan, and netting wouldn't be necessary.

But I'm digressing once again. The facts are available to anyone with a computer and the ability to download pdf files. Don't take my word for it. Do the research and come to your own conclusions.

Keith

Thank you kjackson for showing another side to this. Politics always skews an issue and what is a real shame is that to find a balanced viewpoint you have to go outside and do your own research. Thanks.

Kjackson,
Can you quote anyone of any standing in the environmental movement that has said that ALL logging or mining is bad? Trying to save some of the last 20% of old growth forest , restricting some of the most environmentally offending mining practices or advocating saving some wilderness is along way from saying all logging and mining is bad. The labeling of people that want to restrict the wholesale exploitation, with no consideration for sustainability or environmental damage, of our natural resources as radicals is underhanded tactic. The same thing is done to people advocating removal of a few of the most offending dams. The opposition invariably labels them as a group that wants to remove every dam in the western hemisphere. This is BS.

kjackson

You are absolutley correct in your explanation of the Hogan Ruling, and that is important information that everyone here needs, thanks. But what your posts fail to note is that while the original Hogan Ruling only applied to the Orgegon Coast coho ESU, this new policy being proposed by NOAA will apply to ALL ESUs. NOAA is saying that the new policy reflects compliance with the law as judge Hogan interpreted it, an interpretation that they now say they support.

When the new policy is formally announced on June 30, it will be accompanied by announcements of any changes to the indivicual listings prompted by the new policy. Expect at least a couple de-listings or downgrading of listings from Endangered to Threatened. But that won't be the end of it. The major threat of this policy is the unjustified acceptance of the notion that hatchery production by itself can be a legitimate path to "recovery" and delisting. Expect periodic review of ESUs to determine when the listed hatchery populations have "helped" the ESU meet the four criteria enumerated in the new policy (abundance, productivity, spacial distribution, and genetic diversity). The relevant hatchery programs will be "designed" (more likely simply re-labeled) to contribute to those criteria. The criteria are so broadly described in the very short and broad policy (less than one page) that it won't be difficult to for managers to determine that almost any situation would qualify, and there won't be any way to challenge the decision.

For instance, the policy says that hatchery fish "genetically no more than moderatley divergent from natural populations" can contribute to de-listing. Whether or not that is good science (it's not), it is very bad policy writing. Each of you, my friends, are genetically no more than moderately divergent from a chimpanzee, only aboout 2%. Expect de-listing of most ESUs with listed hatchery populations within, say, four years of this November.

The final policy has no basis in science, and in fact diverges significantly from the draft policy prepared by NOAA's NW-Region Science Center. Far from a road to recovery, hatchery production has been a significant factor in the decline of wild salmon and steelhead populations, and continues to jeopardize their actual biological recovery. The hows and whys have been discussed on this board at length, are well documented in the scientific literature, and are available to those interested. If you can stomach it, try starting at the WT website (www.washingtontrout.org).

The fact of the matter is that captive breeding programs are very bad ways to recover at-risk and declining wildlife populations, and should only be considered as the absolutely last resort, as when you have two sockeye returning to Redfish Lake, or are looking at the last several breeding pairs of California Condors. Even then we should take a very sober look at the record. In over 25 years of trying, the California condor program has NEVER produced a single pair of birds that have successfully bred in the wild. There was a lot of excitemennt a year or so ago when a pair actually laid and hatched an egg, but then the pair killed the fledgling. The program produces condors and releases them in the wild; the population of living birds in the wild has increased slightly since the beginning of the program. But it is looking increasingly likely that if we want condors flying around, we'll have to keep making them forever.

Is that a future we want for salmon and steelhead? It's the one this policy will deliver.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout

If the "hatchery = wild" ruling is upheld for all susceptible ESU's, this is exactly the downhill path wild salmon are headed. The longer we stay that course, the steeper the slope gets. I hope key decision-makers wise up before we slip past the point of no return.

Hey, folks--I don't have a bunch of time this morning because of some nasty deadlines, but I'll try to respond to a few comments above.

Thanks for the kind words, ET. You're right about the political scene skewing reality. There was a quote in this morning's Peninsula Daily News from a Saudi sheik who called the presidential race an "periodic tribal warfare;" I thought that was a pretty telling remark for this year.

Aunty M-- You're right; Gary Loomis is a very intelligent person. His Fish First group on the Lewis is doing some great things. He was even praised by George Bush in a visit to the NW within the past six months or so for his leadership in salmon restoration efforts. Of course, Bush was just saying that as a smokescreen to cover up his real agenda (sorry, couldn't resist).

Keta-- don't know where I labeled anyone as "radical" in my statements (or even used the word for that matter). If you define what you mean by "environmental movement" and "anyone of any standing", I'll try to find a quote or two. None come to mind at the moment, but then I tend to turn off diatribe (if I recognize it as such) unless it gets my knickers in a twist as some of this stuff has. But get this straight-- I don't propose wholesale resource exploitation of anything with no regard to consequences. The environment needs to be safeguarded, but I believe in conservation: the wise use of natural resources. Shutting up resources so that only a very limited few can enjoy them goes against the grain. That doesn't mean I'm against roadless areas, national parks and refuges for plants or animals.

FNP-- You seem to think that the Hogan decision is still up in the air-- is this a fair assessment of your position? I don't know for sure that it is as I'm still trying to find more info on the decision (and some things are changing still), but it's my understanding that the ruling is almost a certainty to stand. In a lot of ways, this parallels the Boldt decision-- and we know how long that has been in place. I don't know if you were around and aware of the controversy at the time, but I was. There was nearly a civil war over that decision. It was challenged over and over in court. How many court cases did the state of Washington win? None. Zero. Zip. Nada. The decision still stands.

It makes me wonder how much time and how many millions of dollars were wasted fighting that-- time and money that could have been used for habitat protection and fish restoration.

And if, as some have argued, this should go to the Supreme Court, then realize that the chances of it getting heard are almost as good as me catching a 40-pound steelhead this summer. The Boldt decision gave racial preference over a resource because of treaty rights. The Hogan decision said that NOAA had to count salmon the same way twice when making rules. Which decision has constitutional implications? I'll leave you to figure that one out. Since the Supreme Court deals with constitutional interpretation, I'm putting my money on the Boldt decision being the most likely. However, the Supreme Court refused to hear it.

If the Boldt decision wasn't heard, then the chances that the Hogan ruling will be are practically nil.

I would hope that all this discussion means that fishermen do become more involved in the process. It's given me some food for thought on how involved I am. And regardless of which side of the fence you're on regarding recent developments, one thing is pretty certain: we're all here because we like to catch fish. And that's a good thing.

My $.02,

Keith

Ramon-- Thanks for the reply and elucidation. So much for deadlines... where can I view an unedited version of the NOAA policy that is proposed? No offense, but this is something that I don't want interpreted for me; I'd rather read it myself.

While there are points to be made for condor reintroduction and the near-resemblance of some on this board to chimpanzees (JK), there are definite hatchery success stories as well. Looking at the Great Lakes salmon and steelhead fisheries, many of which are supported solely by hatchery stockings, I see a tremendous success story. I don't want to see wild salmon and steelhead disappear, but I don't want fishing to disappear either, and I'm afraid that could be where we're headed.

OK, now I really have to get back to work,

Keith

You are correct in your assessment of my position. Do you mean to say there is virtually no way to reverse this decision at this point? Somebody say it ain't so.


There must be some recourse at the state and local level.

Here is a draft of the policy from NOAA that was e-mailed to me today:

>
>1. Under NOAA Fisheries 1991 Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) policy (56 FR 58612: November 20, 1991), a distinct population segment of a
>Pacific salmonid species is considered for listing if it meets two criteria: (a) it must be substantially reproductively isolated from other
>conspecific population units; and (b) it must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. A key feature of the
ESU concept is the recognition of genetic resources that represent the ecological and genetic diversity of the species. These genetic resources can reside in a fish spawned in a hatchery (hatchery fish) as well as in a fish spawned in the wild (natural fish).
>
>2. In delineating an ESU to be considered for listing, NOAA Fisheries will identify all populations that are part of the ESU including
populations of natural fish (natural populations), populations of hatchery fish (hatchery fish), and populations that include both natural fish and
>hatchery fish (mixed populations). Hatchery fish that are genetically no more than moderately divergent from a natural population in the ESU are considered part of the ESU, will be considered in determining whether an
>ESU should be listed under the ESA, and will be included in any listing of the ESU.
>
>3. Status determinations for Pacific salmonid ESUs will be based on the likelihood of extinction of an entire ESU. In assessing the likelihood of extinction of an ESU, NOAA Fisheries will recognize the necessity of
>conserving natural populations within the ESU, in line with the ESA's stated purpose to conserve "the ecosystem upon which endangered and threatened species depend," section 2(b). Natural populations that are stable or increasing, are spawning in the wild, and have adequate spawning and rearing habitat reduce the risk of extinction of the ESU. Such natural
>populations, particularly those with minimal genetic contribution from hatchery fish, can provide a point of comparison for the evaluation of effects of hatchery fish on the likelihood of extinction of the ESU.
>
>4. Status determinations for Pacific salmonid ESUs generally consider four key attributes: abundance, productivity, genetic diversity, and spatial distribution. The effects of hatchery fish on the likelihood of
>extinction of an ESU will depend on which of the four key attributes are currently limiting the ESU, and how the hatchery fish within the ESU affect each of the attributes. The presence within an ESU of hatchery fish that are genetically no more than moderately divergent from a natural population in the ESU can reduce the likelihood of extinction of the ESU, and affect a
>listing determination, by contributing to increasing abundance and productivity of the ESU, by improving spatial distribution, and by serving as a source population for repopulating unoccupied habitat. Conversely, a hatchery program managed without adequate consideration of conservation
>effects can increase the likelihood of extinction of an ESU, and affect a listing determination, by reducing genetic diversity of the ESU and reducing the productivity of the ESU. In evaluating the effect of hatchery fish in reducing the likelihood of extinction of and ESU, the presence of a long-term hatchery monitoring and evaluation program is an important
>consideration.
>
>5. Hatchery programs are capable of producing more fish than may be immediately useful in the conservation and recovery of an ESU and can play an important role in fulfilling trust and treaty obligations with regard to harvest of some Pacific salmonid populations. For ESUs listed as threatened, NOAA Fisheries will, where appropriate, exercise its authority
>under Section 4(d) of the ESA to allow the harvest of listed hatchery fish that are surplus to the conservation and recovery needs of the ESU in accordance with approved harvest plans.

Comments?

KJ

Kjackson,

FYI, the Boldt Decision was heard, and upheld, by the U.S. Supreme Court.

FNP,

NOAA and the Justice Department did not appeal the Hogan decision (because policy officials did not want to appeal or reverse it); therefore, it stands.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Can't really point a finger at the Justice Dept.... honestly, what do they know about fish?

NOAA Fisheries (previously known as NMFS) on the other hand, should hang its head in utter shame! Aren't these the guys that are supposed to be protecting the troubled fish runs? Were these guys asleep? Why didn't they initiate an appeal/challenge to the Hogan ruling?

Is there an expert on judicial policy and procedure lurking out there that knows who, what, and where pressure needs to be applied in order to get this ruling reversed? Todd, where are you? Any ideas?

It seems like this whole policy hinges on what the phrase "moderately divergent" is interpreted to mean.

Such imprecise language could be construed to mean anything.

Somebody will have to decide what this means, whether its the administration policymakers or some judge that knows nothing about fish or biology.

Talk about being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

kjackson

To use a familiar phrase, "It ain't over till it's over"

I just re-read the original article cited in this thread:


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.

It is ironic that NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency charged with wild salmon recovery, could sit idly by, and worse yet, actually agree that Hogan was right. The Hogan ruling may have gone unchallenged by NOAA Fisheries, but I am confident that NOAA Fisheries will not go unchalleged by prominent conservation groups, scientists, and the angling community at large.

The proposed rule will be published in the next month with a 90-day public comment period to follow. I hope to see an avalanche of unified condemnation at that point. We need to be heard loud and clear!