I should clarify that to say, "the war on ecosystem terror." (BTW, I posted this same topic on I-fish and neglected to do it here.)

That's basically what the Hogan ruling (hatchery = wild) amounts to... a free pass to commit terrorist acts in wild salmon habitats throughout the PNW. For more background info click:

??? hatchery = wild ???

This is a serious call to arms, folks. Every fish organization that has ever claimed to stand for the fish should stand up now and be counted. Lay the divisiveness of gear vs fly, bait vs artificial, boat vs bankee, catch-n-keep vs catch-n-release to rest for just a few moments. We are at a crossroads where a united front of solidarity is mandatory if we wish to preserve any semblance of a wild salmon legacy for our children and grandchildren!

What we need is a multi-state regional coalition of every major fishing organization coming together to endorse a highly publicized position statement rejecting this irresponsible ruling. If you are a member of such an organization, call on your officers to take action and seek the support of other leaders of other organizations. We can make this happen at a grass-roots level. There are thousands of you out there who spend hours a week (or perhaps like me, hours per day) in these fishing chat sites. You have the time! Just do it. You can make a difference!

Da Good Guys Says...



And ain't no lynching mob gunna change it.

For those who are so inclined, here's a link to the I-fish discussion on this topic. Happy reading.

I-fish thread

Thanks for the support Plunk.... I always knew I could count on you!

Nice idea but I think you may want to add some research to your grassroots effort so you can debate the issues head on . Emotion is great but without a grasp of the facts the debate could go against us as it has already in two courtrooms. Conjecture is ok here but will fall short when the rubber meets the road in a month or so when the government's response to the court is heard. NOAA is already brushing aside the emotive arguments of doom and gloom. The tribes are actually on board with this new policy as you might imagine, too, so the oponent is not GW Bush....I know it's fun to bash here but it won't work in court.

OK Gramps, what do you suggest? In the meantime.....

Here's a draft of the letter I will be sending to all of my elected/appointed politicians and fish managers in Washington State:

I am writing you with grave concerns about recent administrative policy changes regarding restoration efforts to save imperiled salmon and steelhead stocks throughout the Pacific Northwest, many of which are currently protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

In 2001 U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan ruled that ESA-listed Oregon coastal coho salmon were being “miscounted” because hatchery-bred coho were not included in the counts of wild coho stocks. Essentially, he ruled that hatchery salmon were equivalent to wild salmon, and that the sum of both sub-stocks should be considered in determining ESA status. Hogan's ruling led to these fish being taken off the threatened species list, some national forest timber sales being released for harvest, and NOAA Fisheries starting a review of ESA protection for 24 of the 26 different salmon and steelhead populations.

NOAA Fisheries recently drafted a new policy that would include hatchery fish in the counts of wild fish in determining whether ESA protections are warranted. The health of wild runs 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. Rather than address the problems of habitat degraded by logging, hydroelectric dams, irrigation, and urban sprawl, this policy will purposefully hide the precarious condition of wild salmon behind the illusion of “healthy” fish populations raised by artificial propagation in concrete pools.

This irrational and irresponsible policy is completely contrary to the best fish science. Six of the world's leading experts on salmon ecology concluded (Science March 2004) that fish produced in hatcheries cannot be counted on to save wild salmon. In fact, excessive hatchery fish are partly to blame for continued declines in many wild fish populations. 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," said Robert Paine, one of the scientists and an ecologist at the University of Washington.

It is a dangerous conceit to believe that we can just manufacture salmon at will in order to mitigate for past and ongoing insults to self-sustaining wild salmon ecosystems. This new policy is based on the false premise that hatchery equals wild. It is principally driven by those seeking to side-step ESA protections for short term economic gain, an inherently flawed mindset that has historically led us down the path of degraded ecosystems and depleted runs of wild salmon. The time to choose a different path is long overdue.

I respectfully ask your support in rejecting this draft policy and re-directing NOAA Fisheries to adhere to its federally mandated charge to advance the cause of genuine wild salmon restoration.

Sincerely yours,

Francis V. Estalilla, M.D.

TO ALL:
Feel free to use any or all of it in contacting your decision-makers. BTW, that invitaion goes to you too Gramps.

I hear that the polititians are really into those dorky pocket protectors...

Especially the ones made of 1000 dollar bills....

fnp

You are on the right track but maybe a little late in the process. It is NOAA that will make the difference here. The PLF won in court and I submit studying what they accomplished and why is important. Unfortunately, I am still working on that so I won't form an opinion quite yet as to what can be done.

Perhaps what you are seeing is a backlash from years and years of environmental groups attempting and succeeding in shutting down many valuable activities like logging and irrigation completely in the name of saving the fish. I think what you are seeing is the result of the all or nothing policies of the past 10-15 years. I honestly don't feel that we will witness wholesale destruction of our fish runs.

You have quoted the author of Fish Without Rivers a few times on this BB . He is part of the hatchery reform program that is a part of this current debate, as is Long Live The Kings....The reforms sound promising and will be laid out when the government's formal response to the 9thcircuit court's order is offered publically in about a month.

I would direct your concerns to NOAA.

thanks for getting involved.

Hey Doc, I wouldn't in ayway want to pretend I know anything about poltics, but I believe that any effort to keep this from happening to our salmon is worth while. Don't let anyone discourage you.

I appreciate the sentiment fnp but at some point can we please quit equating everything to a terrorist act? In doing so the line between what is and what is not truly 'terrorist' becomes blurred...

In this day and age I think that's pretty dangerous.

I'm sincerely hoping it's a case of "better late than never."

Still not sure about the whole political structure/heirarchy of who decides what in these issues, but it seems like NOAA Fisheries, under the leadership of Mr Lohn, has made up its mind and is going forward with its draft policy next month. That was the gist of the article.

Someone with a lot more clout than this podunk country doc has to be the one to sternly send NOAA-F back to the drawing board. Perhaps a governor, senator, congressman.... hell, maybe all of them in a multi-state coalition..... with the backing of their respective state's chief fish manager(s). We all need to put some pressure on the folks who may have some influence in this matter. I'm waiting on an e-mail list from Todd. I would be happy to share it with anyone with the determination to write his/her own letter of concern. Speak now or forever hold your peace. It'll be too late to b*t*h when our rivers are devoid of wild salmon.

Can you say, "2002 Klamath fish kill?"

If you recall, an estimated 30,000-40,000 chinook perished because the administration thought irrigators needed that water more than the fish did. I'd have to say that 30,000-40,000 fits the description of "wholesale destruction" pretty damned well.

As I recall, that run was considered "healthy" (ie not in need of ESA-listing). I guarantee we can only expect more of the same "wild-salmon-take-a-back-seat-to-industry" approach if endangered runs are de-listed as a result of the H = W policy.

We have been through this a few hundred times now.

1. this is not a scientific descision it's a political one.

2 if it were about science and what is good for fish Hogan would have had to rule contrary to how he did.

3. Wild fish and hatchery fish are not the same. A hundred years of hatchery plants has had very little effect on the genetic structure of salmon and steelhead runs in the northwest. That means that wild fish today are just as genetically pure as they were before hatchery operations began. Hatchery fish that spawn in the wild almost never have offspring that survive to adulthood even if they spawn with a wild partner. This ensures the integrity of the wild fish gene pool.
The idea that somehow wild fish have been bred out of exsistence is absolutely false. Anyone who believes that it's true has not read the science behind this issue.

What really irks me. We have people on this board who..

1. oppose the moratorium inspite of more than ample opportunity for public involvment and inspit of having had things their way ever since sport fishing began in Washinton.

2. they oppose any kind of activity that might hurt the population of hatchery fish. Inspite of having more than ample opportunity to harvest these hatchery fish in nearly ever river and small stream in the state.

3. they oppose any kind of habitat protection that might harm certain industries that are known to be destructive to wild fish. Inspite of these industries having had free reign for a hundred years.

What these people appear to me to want is to be able to kill any fish, any time they want, any where they want any way they want..

This decision by the Bush administration is wrong. It's a strategy that has completely failed from the beginning of fish managment til it was stopped a couple years ago. This type of managment is exactly what this thread is called it's a terrorist attack against wild fish. What i mean by that is , this decision is malicious, they intend to strip away protections for these fish so that they can do whatever they want. It's not about science or law. It's 100% about doing something evil, knowing that it's evil, not careing that it is evil, knowing that it is destructive, knowing that it will wipe out whats left of our wild runs. it's not knowing all that and not careing.

The Bush administration see wild fish, unzip their pants pee on them, flip them off and walk away. That's the kind of malice and hatrred we are talking about.

Nice photo there Plunker... those kids in Iraq know almost as much about wild steelhead as you do... :rolleyes:

One of the beauties about the Hogan decision is that it spurred fishermen in the Northwest to decide what is important to them.

One of the sad realities is that too many fishermen, or at least too many posters on this and other boards, argue/debate/whine from poor information. They let their emotions control their argument instead of using logic to decide whether something is good or bad. They also let others provide them with "facts" without checking. If you debate from a factual stand, then your argument is likely to be heard. If you debate using incorrect "facts" you stand to be thought an emotional person with no knowledge of the situation.

Be accurate and get your opinion heard; be inaccurate and lose. (At this point I wanted to say "be thought a fool" instead of "lose" but I don't want to argue about that... we have better things to do.)

In some of the postings I've made lately about the "wild=hatchery" foolishness floating around, I've challenged a couple of people to read the draft policy and quote from it. Show me and others on the board where the draft says that wild fish are the same as hatchery fish. Show me where the policy says that wild fish should be replaced by hatchery fish. So far no one has responded, but it could be that those folks are still working on it. If you argue from the stand that the Hogan decision and the NOAA policy (also known as Bush's policy in some circles) is all about hatchery and wild fish being the same, you'll probably find that your argument will be disregarded.

I strongly support the idea that sports fishermen in the Northwest should be a strong presence in determining the future of our sport. I also support the need for sports fishermen to contact their representatives, but please, write from good, solid information and FACTS. Don't be thought an emotional fool.

Here are some suggestions: Don't blame the current administration for problems that have been going on for decades; keep your political views out of it. It is OK, I think, to let the representative know that you voted for him/her and are going to be watching how they deal with your concerns, but don't be threatening. Keep the conspiracy theories out of it.

For example: FNP:hile I mostly think your suggested letter will be well received, there is a small error that you should address: you say that the Hogan decision required that coastal coho from hatcheries be counted as part of the ESU-- correct, but not quite what the ruling was about. According to info I got from a Seagrant publication, the decision required that in this run, since hatchery coho were considered part of the ESU originally, they had to be considered as part of it when counted again to determine status. I would also be careful to avoid the hint of conspiracy further down in the letter.

Roballen3-- you're not going to win friends or influence anyone with an argument like that. If you want to be taken seriously, you will need to do some fact checking and clean up your argument.

Grandpa2--I think you offer a voice of reason.

If I sound like a pompous... then it's because I care about fish and fishing, I care about the Northwest, my home, and I don't want to see the decades of wasted effort and stupid decisions that followed the Boldt decision.

I really do believe that this is a great opportunity for sports fishermen to make things much better. But it will take logic and facts and effort.

My $02,

Keith

WHEW!

OK, I just finished my e-mails to all the politico's that might have any influence in challenging NOAA-F's new policy.

Thank you Todd for assembling that very comprehensive list. I also sent webform letters to our US Senators, Patty Murray and Marie Cantwell, as well as one to my district congressman , Norm Dicks.

Anyone who has written a letter of concern can PM me for that list of e-mail addresses. Come on guys, I dare you to overflow my PP inbox!

Keith

The science is clear wild fish are different from hatchery fish. counting them the same is ignorance from a scientific standpoint.

Also NOTHING is being done to save wild fish. We are spending millions on windowdressing and feel good projects and doing nothing meanigfull. I stand by every word i said. The truth hurts but it is no less the truth because of the pain it inflicts.

The fact is that many people on this board are exactly the way i describe. The oppose WSR, they oppose meanigful change at hatcheries, they oppose habitat protection. How can anyone taking thoes positions be anything but anti wild fish???? if pointing out the truth makes me an unbearable jerk then so be it. I'd rather be right than popular.
I have tried over the last few years to have meanigful dialog with many people on this board and offered up all kinds of hypothetical compromises and they want none of it. what that tells me is that they wanna be able to kill as many fish as often as they want in every stream they want. If that were not the case they would have entered a meanigful conversation long ago.
I challenge any of them ( and they know who they are) to come up with anything in the way of compromise on either wild harvest or hatchery plants or both.

ttt

RA3--

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply, but family obligations and too little sleep left me little ability to either read or reply is a useful manner.

First, forgive me if I went into my teacher mode. I have strong beliefs about how language is used (and sometimes misused) and as a result, am more conscious of its application than most others. When I get on a roll, I tend to take no prisoners. Also, I have strong beliefs about fish and fishing, and when the two coincide, I can get wound up. Fortunately, most of the time I edit my comments so as not to offend too many people. Actually, I try not to offend anyone and try to stay away from comments about the person. Ideas are something else, however.


Having said that, I thought I should post a copy of a post I made on another forum that was in response to Todd's post (NOAA Policy Op-Ed's) also posted here in a different thread. It gives my view of the way I think things should work.

Here 'tis:



Todd-- thanks for taking the time to clarify your position. It takes a lot of work to respond thoughtfully, and I know it takes time. And FT-- as always, you're a big help.

I think there are two issues coming out of this re-drafting of policy. The first, as you noted, is the "moderately divergent" phrasing. The second is the use of hatcheries to supplement or complement wild runs, and they are so closely intertwined as to be inseparable.

It is likely, in my opinion, that the folks who want to de-list stocks for benefits of relaxation of ESA rules will push for the broadest definition possible. It seems imperative that it be kept as narrow as possible; perhaps a restriction that eggs taken for hatchery purposes come from fish native or returning to the river and not from other watersheds or broodstock. Certainly egg-taking should occur from all stages of the run: early, middle and late. To conserve the genetic resources, it's imperative that as many individuals as possible contribute to the spawning efforts, albeit done in the hatchery.

I realize that a report on hatchery reforms is coming out, and it seems a good idea to wait until it's out to comment further. I do believe we can get some help in wild-fish restoration from hatcheries, but it would have to be evaluated carefully to make sure that it helps and doesn't hinder restoration efforts.

Unlike some on the board (and perhaps contrary to the WSC), I would like to see hatcheries used to produce more fishing opportunity, especially for salmon. This is a selfish reason: I like to catch fish, and hatchery stock is great on a barbecue. However, I think some efforts need to be made to evaluate whether massive hatchery production of salmon interferes with wild stocks outside of the river. As an example, the Hamma Hamma, Duckabush and Dosewallips rivers used to have pretty good runs of coho, but now they are effectively non-existent. Is this somehow correlated to the large hatchery programs at Finch Creek and the Skokomish drainage? Does it have anything to do with the commercial harvest of chum that takes place in the Canal each fall?

A side issue that is coming out of the policy re-draft and the de-listing are issues concerning habitat and riparian land use. De-listing a stock doesn't remove all protections, and I think some believe it does. There are state regulations in place, but I need more information on the TFW protocols before I could comment. Besides, in many watersheds, other listed stocks that are threatened or endangered (such as bull trout/Dolly Varden and searun cutthroat) will control land-use decisions. I think that it's necessary to separate land-use concerns from whether or not the NOAA-F policy is workable or not.

I ramble, and I apologize. I wanted to thank you guys for the efforts you've put into this and for helping me see more clearly what I should be concerned about and working on.

Keith

I missed this AP article in my local paper a few weeks ago.

FEDERAL AGENCY ASKS FOR EXTENSION ON SALMON PLAN by Matthew Daly

The article states that NOAA-F is requesting a 6 month extension on its revised salmon recovery plan. The original deadline of June 2 was set by US District Judge James Redden. There was inuendo that the move was driven by those seeking to postpone the politically sensitive issue until after the Nov 2 election.

Not exactly sure what the implications are for the debate on this thread, but a delay would certainly give conservation groups a little more time to mount an organized challenge, and each of you to personally contact key decision makers. So far I've only gotten one request for their e-mail addresses. Come on, we can do better!

Keep the Faith!