This says it all:

De-listing thwarted... look who\'s fuming!

It's obvious after reading this article that de-listing of salmon/steelhead runs was the prime objective of the resource extractors. To suggest there was anything else driving the NOAA-F plan is plain denial. It was industry that led the crusade to get Oregon coho de-listed by counting hatchery fish in 2001, and they just figured it would be a slam dunk after that precedent setting decision.

Glad to see NOAA-F will be upholding its commitment to habitat protections and self-sustaining wild fish populations.

Thanks to all who contributed in the effort to keep NOAA-F on the straight and narrow. This is proof that we can make a difference!

For those who can't get the link to work, here's the text:

Saturday, May 15, 2004 - Page updated at 12:40 A.M.

West Coast salmon likely to remain protected

By Craig Welch and Hal Bernton
Seattle Times staff reporters


The Bush administration yesterday infuriated Northwest developers and farmers by telling Congress it expects to keep Endangered Species Act protections for 25 of 26 troubled runs of West Coast salmon.

Environmentalists welcomed the news, but some said the administration acted only because of a backlash over its hatchery proposals.

To stem what it called "erroneous accounts" of its plan to deal with the impact of hatchery-produced fish on the region's once-legendary wild salmon runs, Commerce Undersecretary Conrad Lautenbacher Jr. wrote to Congress that the central tenet of hatchery policy will remain "conservation of naturally-spawning salmon and the ecosystems upon which they depend."

The move surprised environmentalists and business interests alike.

Just two weeks ago, based on leaked documents showing that federal agencies planned to count millions of hatchery fish alongside wild fish in assessing the health of salmon and steelhead runs, both sides assumed that the Bush administration was laying the groundwork to remove endangered-species protections.

Despite changes in fish-counting methods in some places, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) plans at the end of the month to propose leaving most of the West Coast runs protected under the Endangered Species Act, Lautenbacher said.

Among those that will remain protected are several runs in Washington: Puget Sound chinook; Snake River sockeye, chinook and steelhead, and Columbia River chinook, chum and steelhead.

The administration is still considering whether to remove protections from one Columbia River steelhead run.

"NOAA's decisions are driven by science," Lautenbacher said. "Simply put, some well-managed conservation hatcheries are fostering recovery of species, some hatcheries are having little or no effect, and some potentially hinder recovery."

Yesterday's announcement "is absolutely ridiculous," said Timothy Harris, an attorney with the Building Industry Association of Washington, which had sued NOAA Fisheries to force it to scale back salmon protections.

"Up and down the West Coast there are millions of chinook, chum, sockeye and coho. What other species that number in the millions even come close to meriting listing under the ESA?"

The controversy dates to 2001, when U.S. District Court Judge Michael Hogan ruled that the government had wrongly excluded hatchery fish from its analysis when determining that Oregon coastal coho needed federal protection.

Since decisions on 26 other dwindling salmon runs from Southern California to Bellingham were made using the same process, conservative and business groups sued NOAA, arguing that all its listings were illegal.

NOAA declined to appeal, and eventually agreed to reassess the status of all listed salmon runs and take a new look at how it counts hatchery fish.

Bob Lohn, regional administrator for NOAA Fisheries in Seattle, said the administration decided to release the results yesterday because it wanted to make two points.

"First, NOAA has a strong commitment to habitat restoration, and to preserving and restoring naturally spawning fish runs, and nothing in our discussions was intended to distract from that," he said. "Second, we wanted to make clear that in our status reviews, we were not making a decision that would cause massive delistings of salmon."

Some environmentalists argued that the administration reversed its intentions only after a backlash from scientists and members of Congress over its hatchery proposals.

Lohn said that wasn't true.

"This is what happens when the public spotlight is put on an issue of such importance to people in our region," said Kristen Boyles, an environmental attorney with Earthjustice. "When the hatchery policy was leaked, people here responded immediately and passionately for wild fish and clear, unpolluted rivers."

Some business groups accused Lohn and the administration of allowing NOAA bureaucrats to take salmon policy out of the hands of White House officials.

Just last week, Tom McCabe, vice president of the building-industry association, slammed Lohn in a letter also sent to Republicans in Congress, as a "disappointment to thousands of Washington citizens — farmers, ranchers, builders, small businessmen, property owners — who expected the Bush administration to delist salmon."

"You have pandered to the radical environmentalists who are no friends of the Bush administration, and never will be, no matter what you do."

McCabe and Russ Brooks, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, both promised to take the administration back to court to remove salmon protections.

Brooks, whose group filed the initial suit on Oregon coho, argued the administration's actions yesterday were based on "wrongheaded misinterpretation" of the law.

Boyles, of Earthjustice, called Brooks' argument nonsense.

"What would be illegal would be to delist wild salmon populations that need protection," she said.

Lohn said the assessment of salmon will continue to consider four factors: their abundance, their ability to reproduce and sustain themselves, their genetic diversity and their distribution.

In other words, "if we're not getting back two natural fish for every two that spawn, then a hatchery won't solve that problem," he said.

Lohn said the administration is still considering lifting protections on Columbia River steelhead, which return to spawn in tributary rivers above Bonneville Dam.

These include the Yakima, Walla Walla and Klickitat rivers in Washington, and the Deschutes, John Day and Umatilla in Oregon.

The administration will make its decision on the Columbia River steelhead by month's end.

Craig Welch: 206-464-2093 or cwelch@seattletimes.com

Aunty

Lets go and release some animals from a scientific shelter

Thanks for passing along the good news!!!

He there's one thing missing here....Aren't you going to give the Bush Administration credit for maintaining protection for wild fish? You all blasted the administration when you jumped the gun big time...I remember posting that NOAA was the agency in charge of this and that they had no plans to gut the safeguards in place....Yet the Bush bashing went over the top ....Anyway if the Bush folks took the blame they should now be praised to helping to protect our fish like they have been doing the last couple of years. ....NAAA that won't happen here....

Come on Aunty....you are starting to sound less thatn informed...NOAA is simply doing what they eluded to when the court came out and told the administration they had 30 days to respond. They said they would not be making drastic changes and that they would continue to protect fish. That is what they said they would do and that is what is happening....Absolutely nothing to do with Bush in the first instance and absolutely nothing to do with Bush in the end.

My comments were tongue in cheek to remind those who blindly blame the wrong people and see the sky falling when it is not.

Whatever the politics, one thing is clear.... this time around, the fish win!

I can only say it's typical. People will hold the Administration responsible for any possible negative issue, even if they have no direct influence in the situation, yet if there is a positive result they will give no credit or have a "oh, it was too slow" or "they had nothing to do with it" reaction. It's a total double standard and shows a closeminded bias.

For those of you who are bashing Pres. Bush, do you really think John Kerry gives a rip about the salmon and steelhead? After all, Heinz does sell millions of dollars of tartar sauce every year.

Grandpa ok i'll do it... The Bush administration did the right thing. woo hoo yippee. I guess they aren't completely screwed up..
Hmmm ya know in past times people weren't praised for doing what they are required to do they only got praised for going above the call of duty but i'll give it to you. Bush's administration did the right thing.

Grandpa,

I'd give the Bush administration credit for doing the right thing, if doing the right thing was actually their plan. The preliminary draft hatchery policy was leaked a couple weeks ago, not by the scientists, but by high administration officials to see how it played with the public and Congress. The negative play resulted in Connie L's letter to Congress saying NOAA has made a preliminary decision to continue to protect threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead populations. The administration's appointees in NOAA would prefer to de-list, but they haven't been able to develop the necessary scientific and legal basis. The scientists and attorneys understand what the administration wants, but they are telling them that the science and ESA doesn't support their agenda.

The Hogan decision will require that some hatchery populations be listed along with their threatened counterparts, and some hatchery populations may be cast into separate ESUs if they are genetically divergent from the remaining wild populations. For instance, Green River hatchery chinook are ubiquitous throughout Puget Sound. However, they are genetically extremely divergent from Skagit, Stillaguamish, and White River chinook.

It's one thing to credit Bush for doing the right thing when that's his intentiion. It's absurd to credit him for doing it only because he cannot develop the scientific and legal basis to carry out his preferred plan.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Welcome back, Rob. That was a short "few months." I guess good news has a way of bringing people back around.

"Hmmm ya know in past times people weren't praised for doing what they are required to do "


You think they are REQUIRED to protect our fisheries? Or to protect opportunity for sportfishermen? I personally think it is a responsibility, but I am one person. Fishermen are not everyone. What about the people who would have benefitted from the ruling? To them, the Administration is "required" to make the decisions that benefit them. Don't get me wrong, I think that the delisting, and the whole comparison of hatchery to wild, was a fairly backwards idea. But you have to understand that we have a representative government and our administration is supposed to represent all the people, not just "us", whoever us may be. So, there was pressure to enact policy benefitting a specific group and hurting another, and it was possibly considered and then rejected. Welcome to democratic republic known as the US, that's how things work. Again, IMHO the result was the correct one, morally, scientifically and just plainly simply, but that doesnt mean it was a no brainer. When you are in a position to attempt to represent 300 million people equally, maybe you'd see how much consideration and "backpedalling" it takes to find what is the true consensus, or at least majority. And that's not even considering personal morality factors. The Government gets hammered for standing firm on moral issues because they are "biased" and then hammered by the same people when they DON'T uphold other moral issues because they are "corrupt".

Hmmm, I got way off-track, sorry about that. I just have one more thing I wanna say, and honestly I am not trying to spark more contreversy and name calling .

Think about WSR. Similar situation, but opposite direction. This legislation benefits(or seems to, I am not sure I can see clear evidence either way) people who are predominantly catch and release fishermen, who fish for sport. It hurts fishermen who fish for food, or professionally guid for customers who want to take that trophy nate home for the wall or to brag or whatever. Somebody is going to be unhappy, no matter which way it goes, or they could find some compromise and EVERYONE is unhappy . The point is, just because something doesnt go your way doesnt mean the person(s) responsible is evil and is out to destroy all you hold sacred.

Oh, and to preempt a comment I know I will get, I am NOT saying cancelling WSR would be even in the same ball park as delisting, jsut a comparison to show satisfying opposing sides.

I give the Bush Administration credit. They had the legal ruling they needed to really do some screwing of the fish, and it looks like they won't use it to benefit some potential campaign contributors.

In an elction year, that's not small potatoes.

Salmo...I was never trying to lobby for the Bush Administration in the beginning nor the end of this....I simply point out that you and others who are rabidly against Bush jump to conclusions oftentimes....When the court decision came down from the 9th circuit court of appeals (not a Bush court)..The administration was given 30 days to respond. NOAA came out immediately trying to dispel the doom and gloom by assuring that they would not be altering their approach much to protecting fish if at all. Now the review is over and what a surprise , NOAA upholds what they said they would do and continue to work to protect fish here in the Northwest.

I simply point out your hypocrisy at times blaming the Bush administration for something that has not happened and when things work out favorably to your way of thinking you still find a way to either bash Bush or say he has nothing to do with the decision...If he has nothing to do with it then why was he the demon in the beginning...no wait! I'll answer for you...because your opinions are shaped by your partisan politics and are not unbiased.

Looks like the Bush administration is flip-flopping on this issue. This isn't over yet.

Just wait till the election is over then this administration will will rip the enviorment a new A-hole. I am not a Bush basher. Bush is the friend of Big Oil, Big Tmber and Big Business not the friend of the Big Outdoors.

Regards IB

Grandpa,

I'd thank you not to answer for me. I don't need that, and I don't think you'd appreciate me doing so on your behalf. We are each capable for answering for ourselves.

I would bash Bush for what he actually does and for what he tries to do when it goes against my interest. I don't have to wait until he succeeds in destroying the resources that are important to me before I say something against him.

As for my politics, if they appear partisan it is only because Republicans have over the past 20 years or so become generally predisposed to environmental degradation. Perhaps it would interest you to know I long ago supported Slade Gorton in a couple elections before he turned to the "dark side," environmentally speaking. I've actually voted for other Repubs, too, when their environmental politics corresponded with mine. But that's getting to be some time ago, now.

Regarding your point about Bush being the demon in the beginning, he has appointed several high-ranking figures at NOAA Fisheries who have and are working hard to undo salmon protection, just has been alleged here and elsewhere. For example: no Jeopardy determinations are allowed in ESA consultations (with a couple exceptions) even when the science and law so dictate; and the enviromental baseline for consultations in some branches is limited to other than the plain reading of the ESA. These are conveniently unwritten policies that directly contradict science and law that did not exist prior to the Bush appointments. These policies have the direct effect of reducing the protection extended to listed fish. Demon? Each decides for his or her self.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g.,

Where can I find out who appointed who? Just for grins.

fishMD just taking a break from the real controversial stuff on ifish.. all that stuff over the north Umoqua regs and people ( one person actually) talking badly about certain people who are freinds of mine really irked me.. People can say anything about me I don't reallt care but when they insult people of exceptional charecter who are my friends i get a bit protective and will fight back.