PRESS RELEASE
WASHINGTON TROUT
PO Box 402 Duvall, WA 98019 · Tel 425/788-1167 · Fax 425/788-9634 · wildfish@washingtontrout.org
NATIVE FISH SOCIETY
6261 SW 47th Place Portland, OR 97221 · Tel 503/977-0287 · Fax 503/977-0026 · bmbakke@teleport.com


Contact: Ramon Vanden Brulle, Washington Trout, 425/788-1167; ramon@washingtontrout.org;
Bill Bakke, Native Fish Society, 503/977-0287; bmbakke@teleport.com
For Immediate Release: May 27, 2004

Washington Trout, Native Fish Society, Environmental Community, Oppose New NOAA Hatchery Policy

Federal Policy Still Ignores Science; Opens Door for Inappropriate De-Listings

The Bush Administration is scheduled to formally announce on Friday a new policy regarding the treatment of hatchery and wild salmon and steelhead in federal ESA-listing decisions. A one page draft of the policy, developed by NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency in charge of managing ESA-listed salmon and steelhead, was leaked several weeks ago, and appeared to indicate the administration intended to count hatchery fish with wild salmon in an attempt to remove ESA protections from declining wild populations, provoking broad opposition throughout the region from scientists, environmentalists, community leaders, regional policy makers, and members of Congress.

Since then, the administration has appeared to back away from some of the most potentially damaging immediate impacts of the policy, sending a letter to Congress stating that at least 25 of the 26 currently listed populations of salmon and steelhead would likely remain protected under the new policy. However, the administration has made no indication that it intended to revise any language presented in the leaked draft, and while temporarily retaining federal protections for wild fish stocks, the policy will still include hatchery fish along with wild fish in determining health of individual stocks, something most scientists say likely will impede long-term recovery.

A wide range of respected fisheries scientists and ecologists have gone on record in recent weeks maintaining that a policy that combines hatchery fish in with wild fish in making decisions on protections will jeopardize the recovery of listed wild populations. Representatives from NOAA's own scientific advisory panel noted in an article that appeared in the prestigious journal Science, “much evidence exists that hatcheries cannot maintain wild salmon populations indefinitely,” and warned that while it is contrary to the science, including hatchery fish in listing decisions “opens the LEGAL door to the possibility of maintaining a stock solely through hatcheries.” (Emphasis added.)

The new policy will be the subject of public hearings and comment periods. Conservation groups do support the opportunity for the citizens of the Northwest to voice their opinions on what is clearly an important issue. Also reacting loudly to speculation about the legal implications of the policy have been industry and development groups, who favor the removal of ESA protections for both hatchery and wild fish, and the reduced restrictions on logging, agriculture, and development that would result. It is clear they believe this policy should open the door to early de-listings, and plan on using the policy to further that agenda.

The foundation of NOAA's new policy, that hatchery salmon are capable of contributing to the recovery of ESA-listed wild populations, is completely unproven. While hatcheries can produce fish for harvest, not one hatchery program designed specifically to supplement and recover a wild population has any record of proven success, and the preliminary results from these programs are far from encouraging. A review of hatchery supplementation programs in the Columbia River, published last year by the Columbia River Power and Conservation Planning Council's Independent Science Advisory Panel, was extremely critical of current conservation-hatchery programs in the Columbia Basin, and found few encouraging results.

“This is not based in science, and it's bad public policy,” said Kurt Beardslee, Washington Trout's Executive Director. “At best, it is irresponsibly premature to even partially base a salmon-recovery strategy on such an unproven and risky approach. At worst, it's a cynical attempt to circumvent true recovery, for the benefit of particular stakeholders.”

In fact, far from being a means to recovery, the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence strongly suggests that hatchery fish threaten the long-term viability of wild salmon and steelhead populations. Hatchery fish decrease the genetic fitness of wild populations, compete for food and habitat, spread disease, and promote increased predation. Hatchery runs create harvest pressures that declining wild runs cannot support. The offspring of wild-hatchery mating survive and reproduce much less successfully than true wild fish, weakening a population's ability to sustain itself.

Current science strongly suggests that hatchery fish can “replace” wild salmon populations only insofar as they are likely to wind up eliminating the true wild population. The region would be accepting not recovered populations of wild, native salmon, but substitute populations of artificially produced animals significantly different than the lost wild population, and significantly less likely to be able to sustain itself in the wild, no matter what how high the quality of the wild habitat is. It is important to understand that hatchery salmon are not just different than wild fish; they are demonstrably inferior in the traits necessary to survive and reproduce effectively in the wild. Mating between hatchery/hatchery fish and between hatchery/wild fish both result in lowered spawning success relative to wild/wild mating, generally 50%-80%. Healthy, abundant salmon populations generally replace themselves at ratios only slightly above one to one. Even seemingly small reductions in reproductive success at the population level could have devastating results.

In recent weeks, administration officials have claimed they were at the mercy of a 2001 court decision by Judge Michael Hogan to lump hatchery fish in with the wild fish in making ESA determinations. Conservation groups say that simply isn't true. Judge Hogan did not lump together hatchery and wild salmon under a single category. In fact he did not address the scientific distinction between hatchery and wild fish. On purely legal grounds, Judge Hogan found that the government had acted improperly in the way it had made the distinction. He did not preclude it making that distinction in a different way.

Environmentalists point out that NOAA could have accepted 15 petitions to separate hatchery and wild fish and just list the wild fish, which is both legally possible under Judge Hogan's opinion and biologically necessary to protect wild fish, they say.

Conservation and fishing groups have also voiced concern over what could lead to relaxed protections for salmon habitat resulting from the policy. Even if hatchery salmon were not an actual threat to wild fish, the statutory mission of the ESA is to recover naturally reproducing populations by preserving and restoring the natural ecosystems they depend on, not mass-producing artificial facsimiles.

The successful recovery of biodiversity and ecosystem-function requires both high quality habitat and high quality animals to interact with that habitat. Even a policy that preserves salmon-habitat protection through continued ESA-listing of wild salmon and steelhead, but allows those fish to be substituted with unfit hatchery fish, will not result in true or sustainable salmon recovery, and could in fact lead the region's native salmon populations closer to extinction.

# # #

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's no secret how I feel about this administration but have you noticed that environmental roll backs are normally released on a Friday or Saturday and coincidently timed with a heightened terrorism alert? Pushes the roll back to the back pages of the newspaper. I'll be surprised if the local TV news even covers it.
Vote for fish in November.

Hey guys, read the NOAA-F press release on the other thread.

It may not be perfect, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.

I think the scary part is ....

"However, the administration has made no indication that it intended to revise any language presented in the leaked draft"

Sounds like a wolf in lamb's clothing to me. Right after the election, or anytime after, they could fall back to their original intention.

I fear that this is pure election year politics and this time the survival of wild salmon is the unfortunate pawn.

Is there any chance that this incredibly bad ruling can be overturned?

So discussions (if there are any further) can be somewhat balanced, here's the press release from NOAA's website. I've inserted paragraph breaks so that it can be read more easily and removed some bogus diacritical marks that were changed in the cut and paste

Keith.

NOAA Fisheries Expresses Continued Commitment to
Pacific Salmon Recovery with New Hatchery Policy
Agency Praises Regional Efforts to Protect Salmon through Habitat Projects and Hatchery Reforms


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) today announced its continued commitment to protect 27 Pacific salmon and steelhead populations listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). At the announcement, a new hatchery policy proposal and a report outlining its assessment of the current biological status of each of the West Coast's naturally spawning and hatchery origin salmon stocks were unveiled. The listing of the stocks would be reinstated under the proposal. Two stocks have improved from endangered to threatened. One stock has gone from “threatened@ to endangered, and one has been added as “threatened.” NOAA is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

NOAA Fisheries' proposed hatchery policy follows a court's finding that the agency should better account for hatchery fish in its ESA listings. The new policy’s central focus is unchanged from prior policy: the conservation of naturally spawning salmon and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The policy would consider hatchery fish that are closely related to naturally spawning salmon in all of the current ESA-listed salmon groups. NOAA would also take into account the fact that some well managed hatcheries are contributing to the recovery of species, some hatcheries are having little or no effect, and some hatcheries are potentially hindering recovery. Better management practices in the Northwest’s hatchery system are encouraging and should continue to help speed the recovery of salmon.

“This hatchery policy will re-enforce NOAA’s commitment to protect naturally spawning salmon and their ecosystems,” said retired Navy Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator, adding that the proposed policy will allow 90 days for the public to weigh in with their views. “We commend our state, tribal, and non-governmental partners for helping to identify and address needed salmon habitat improvements, and also for their outstanding work to reform hundreds of hatcheries in the Northwest.”

The proposed policy notes that increased salmon numbers alone are not sufficient, and that scientific studies have found poor hatchery management practices can pose risks to the fitness of naturally spawning salmon. The policy recognizes science is developing on potential contributions of properly and carefully managed hatcheries to the rebuilding of depressed natural stocks. It also recognizes the important role hatcheries play in fulfilling trust and treaty tribal responsibilities. The proposal would restrict harvest of hatchery fish only to the extent necessary to aid in the recovery of listed fish.

“Although this status report does not propose major changes in the current classification of listed stocks, many of these stocks are in much better condition than when they were listed. Favorable ocean conditions have helped, but local recovery efforts are also making vital contributions,” said Bob Lohn, Northwest Regional Administrator for NOAA Fisheries.

Lohn said that local recovery efforts such as the Shared Strategy in Puget Sound, the Oregon Plan and Oregon’s “1010” water quality initiative, and the Northwest Power Planning Council’s sub-basin planning initiative for Idaho, Oregon and Washington are encouraging. He noted that real progress is being made in reforming hatcheries to complement naturally spawning runs through efforts such as the Puget Sound Hatchery Reform Project, the Yakama Nation’s Cle Elum hatchery, the Nez Perce tribal hatchery and the comprehensive evaluation of Columbia and Snake River hatcheries.

Both the proposed listing determinations and the draft hatchery policy will be published in the Federal Register early next month and will be open for public comment for 90 days. Public meetings or “workshops” will likely be scheduled to allow interested parties the opportunity to present their views. The proposed listings would become final determinations a year from now; the hatchery policy will be published as a “final rule” shortly after its comment period closes.

Currently there are 26 salmon and steelhead populations under ESA protection on the West Coast. Twenty of those populations are considered threatened and five are in the more perilous category of endangered, meaning they are in danger of extinction. Today's proposal would maintain most of those categories with the following changes: Sacramento Winter-run chinook would change from endangered to threatened, Upper Columbia River steelhead (whose population includes resident rainbow trout) would change from endangered to threatened, and Central California Coast Coho would change from threatened to endangered.

While no immediate change is proposed in the listing status of the Oregon Coast Coho , the stock has experienced a remarkable rebound. The Oregon Governor’s Office, in partnership with state and federal agencies including NOAA, is leading a scientific review of the problems causing the previous decline and the extent to which they have been addressed through Oregon’s conservation efforts. The results of the review are expected this fall and NOAA has agreed to reopen the listing determination when those results become available.

In addition, the Lower Columbia coho group that was a candidate for consideration just before the 2001 court decision is proposed for threatened status.

NOAA Fisheries is dedicated to protecting and preserving our nation’s living marine resources, and the habitat on which they depend, through scientific research, management and enforcement. Our stewardship of these resources benefits the nation by supporting coastal communities that depend upon them, while helping to provide safe and healthy seafood to consumers and recreational opportunities for the American public.

NOAA is dedicated to enhancing economic security and national safety through the prediction and research of weather and climate-related events and providing environmental stewardship of our nation’s coastal and marine resources. On the Web: http://www.noaa.gov.

You seem to be jumping the gun a bit here Ramon.

I would think that you and Bill would at least wait to see what the policy says before you bad mouth it.

I think I will read the new policy before my mind is set but I guess I have more faith in my fellow mankind to at least try to do the right thing than you.

Sorry you live in such a sad world.

Oops! My turn to jump the gun. No policy released yet. Just the press release.

The Bush basher's jumped the gun again..big surprise....read the NOAA press release before you leap...O h I know Ramon won't like it because it doesn't close all the hatcheries but what else is new.

Plunker,

It is just the press release, but if you click the link, you can go to a list of documents that includes what will be published in the Federal Register notice.

Ramon,

True, hatchery use to re-establish natural salmon runs has not proven itself over time. An important reason is that such programs are recently begun and therefore have no record against which to measure. However, there are positive signs. The artificial production programs for listed Hood Canal summer chum have resulted in large returns and recovery of natural production origin summer chum such that those programs are now going to be phased out. The managers are at least confident enough that the risk of depending on naturally self sustaining production is an acceptable one. Extirpated runs of coho and steelhead are being restored with hatchery fish in the upper Cowlitz River basin. While unproven over time, wild fish have been returning for several years. All indications so far are that improving juvenile downstream passage will result in accelerated production of wild fish in the Cowlitz. There is presently no indication that because hatchery fish were used for the restoration that it won't work.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

If the president came to your house with a bag full of $100 bills and handed them to you I think you would look in the bag and see a sack fulla crap.....Juat gotta be somethin wrong in der..gotta be. juss gotta be

Salmo g,

Found the list...

I think the first seven links at the following address are what you were referring to.
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/AlseaResponse/20040528/

Thanks!

Salmo..good points and thanks for making them as related to some new programs that show promise using hatcheries to help restore wild runs.

WT won't like those programs but I think they deserve a chance to function and succeed. If they don't then atleast we tried.

After the election Bush is coming to your house and taking away all your fishing gear and then Ashcroft will put you in a dtention camp until you repent and take back your unsubstantiated accusations.

Hey Grandpa-- I bet those two guys will be too busy looking for a job after the election than to come looking for me.

Frankly, my intent was not to turn this into a political discussion/bashing, but rather to support salmon. Most politicians, regardless of party, are untrustworthy IMHO.

Because the ruling is NOT going to be reversed, it's a time bomb waiting to go off at some point in the future when other interests prevail. This is just the kind of wiggle room/loopholes that politicos love. I can just hear it now... "I was just following the law...."

Looks like some others are skeptical too. Here is an article from the Washington Post today.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64375-2004May28.html?referrer%3Demail

Hatchery Salmon Plan Announced
Fish to Be Used in Stream Rebuilding
By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 29, 2004; Page A03


SEATTLE, May 28 -- The Bush administration announced here on Friday a plan to consider hatchery salmon, which are bred in concrete pens, when deciding whether wild stream-bred salmon deserve protection under the Endangered Species Act.




In explaining the new policy, which caused a regional uproar when it was leaked last month, the regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service said that hatchery fish will be used to "contribute to the rebuilding" of endangered wild runs of salmon.

But Bob Lohn emphasized that hatchery fish will not, by themselves, become "the solution." Hatchery salmon are pumped into regional rivers by the hundreds of millions each year.

"We are not saying that all these fish are considered equally," Lohn said. "That is not the heart of this policy."

He said hatchery fish will be used to "contribute to the rebuilding" of endangered wild runs of salmon. "It has been done," he said, "and it appears to work."

Many fish biologists say there is no convincing scientific evidence that hatcheries can be used to help recover wild, self-sustaining populations of salmon.

Environmental groups have criticized the hatchery plan as a gift to timber, home-building and power-generating interests. Those groups have complained for decades about the high cost of protecting and restoring vast stretches of habitat for wild salmon.

In apparent response to that criticism, Lohn said the Bush administration will not flood local rivers with hatchery fish as a way of escaping legal responsibility under the Endangered Species Act. "Abundance alone, large numbers of fish, is not a determination of what we call viability," he said.

To reassure Northwest residents that the new policy will not cause any sudden change in the 15-year federal effort to save salmon, federal officials announced here that the government will continue to protect 26 species of fish now listed as endangered or threatened. For good measure, it added one new salmon species to the list.

While welcoming this news, a number of fish biologists remained dubious about the motives behind the federal plan. They said the new policy could be used any time the government wanted to bring hatchery fish into the survival equation and take genetically similar wild fish off the endangered list.

Robert T. Paine, an ecologist at the University of Washington and one of six scientists asked earlier by the federal government to comment on its salmon-recovery program, told reporters he had a "Machiavellian perception of what is going on."

Paine said that the Bush administration, by making hatchery fish a required part of any legal calculations about the health of wild salmon, will "set into action an increased series of lawsuits" by business interests.

The government will be pleased to lose these lawsuits and to take various salmon species off the endangered list, Paine said, thereby saving some of the $700 million a year it spends on salmon recovery.

Paine said that, by letting the courts do the dirty work, the Bush administration will be "off the hook" for any responsibility for extinction of wild fish.

Asked about that criticism, Lohn dismissed it as "conspiracy" thinking.


© 2004 The Washington Post Company