I read in the newspaper today that the FEDS will be placing the steelhead & salmon on the endangered list next week. Will that be for the whole state?(rivers and saltwater?) They specifically mentioned the Nooksack chinook. Any thoughts or ideas what this will mean?

The fish that will be listed on March 23 will be the Puget Sound Chinook. That does include the Nooksack River. However, since the Nooksack is almost an entirely hatchery run, I doubt there will be much of an effect on that fishery.
Tons of other changes will be made, though. A fish listed as "endangered" is automatically off limits. Any activity that "takes" an endangered animal is immediately illegal upon listing.
The Puget Sound chinook will be listed as "threatened", and for marine species under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service, they are treated differently. First off, listing them does not have an immediate effect on their take. It will only become illegal after the NMFS passes so-called "4(d)" rules, which will outline the specific protections that will be afforded to the listed animal.
This is a huge difference. Things like the State's Salmon Recovery Plan can be considered when passing 4(d) rules. This means that if the state is perceived as doing a lot to protect the salmon, then the federal restrictions will be less stringent. If the state doesn't do anything to protect the salmon, then they can be treated as endangered by the NMFS, or anywhere in between endangered and threatened, and NMFS will dictate how we conduct ourselves.
This is a biggy, because if the restrictions are low due to state regulation, then more development and resource utilization, and fishing, can take place, in a much more flexible system. The state, of course, has an interest in protecting the salmon, and also has an interest in promoting growth and the economy. The feds, on the other hand, have only the fish in mind. I don't find that as a bad deal, since I mainly have the fish in mind, too, but some farmers and developers better figure out how it works before they continute stonewalling recovery efforts that are before our state legislature right now.
They think they're doing themselves a favor by dumping on all the water use laws that are being debated in our congress right now, but if they succeed in dumping them all, then what they have truly succeeded in doing is inviting the NMFS to regulate development and farming for us. Bad deal for them.
Anyway, to make a short story even longer, there will changes in how people living on Puget Sound live. Sensitive areas will probably have restrictions on washing your car or watering your lawn. Any growth in some areas will be flat out banned. Forest practices will be forced to change, as will all other road building and development practices.
This is a big wake up call for the metropolitan Seattle area, and I hope people realize that they are about to be lying in the bed they have made over the last thirty years.
On a lighter note, check out the WDFW web page, news releases. Looks like we're going to have a Buoy 10 fishery this year, and a coastal fishery, maybe even a Neah Bay fishery. The coastal streams are supposed to have an even better run of silvers this year than last, if you can believe that.
Fish on....
Todd.

IS THE LISTING GOING TO GET THE INDIAN NETS OUT? CAN WE STILL FISH FOR HATCHERY FISH? I WOULDN'T MIND GIVING IT UP FOR A COUPLE YEARS, THOUGH IT WOULD BE REAL HARD, IF NO NETS EVER AGAIN WERE PUT INTO WASHINGTON WATERS. IS THIS GOING TO HELP OR HURT THE B.A.N. INITIATIVE? I JUST SAW ON THE NEWS ABOUT THE LISTING & ALL THEY TALKED ABOUT WAS HABITAT. NOT ONE THING ABOUT OVERHARVESTING BY THE NETS. BETTER GET OUT & CATCH ONE BEFORE I CAN'T ANYMORE.

Initially, at least, there will be no effect on the Indian netting. The 4(d) rules, when they come out, may or may not deal with them then. Then there is the whole argument of whether or not the ESA applies to tribal activities. We may find out this time.
I think the listing will help pass the B.A.N. initiative because it will be educational to people who did not realize what trouble the fish were in. They may see B.A.N. as part of the solution.
The hatchery fish question is tougher. Listing chinook will likely mean less chinook raised in hatcheries so as to reduce the chances of genetic infiltration of hatchery stocks into the native stocks.
On rivers where the hatchery and native kings return together, without fin clipping the hatcheries, there will be no way to tell the difference, so probably no way to have a fishery. With both steelhead and silvers fin clipping has been able to allow us to fish over depressed stocks and selectively release the natives and keep the hatchery fish. Hopefully that can happen here, too.
Habitat will be the biggest issue because that's the one that will affect the most people, and especially the use of their property. They're only seeing the tip of the iceberg right now. It will be big, depending on the breadth of the 4(d) rules.
Fish on...
Todd.

Maybe your State will be able to use the ESA against the Alaska commercials taking your fish?

The Indians may be able to fish but selling them and transporting them off the reservation might be something else. I don't think it is legal to buy or transport endangered species. I don't think you can even have parts of them. Any legal guys out there?

Todd, thanks for your reply, I have a better understanding. I did read the Bellingham Hearld today about the meeting here last night, it was informative, but no real details. They says the Indians will be able to fish, but there was also an article on the Lummi's prespective. It too was good, too bad it is not being practiced like it it is printed. I have heard that the Kendall Hatchery is going to strictly focus on native return Springs and kill all rest that come to the hatchery.I don't know how true that is, but sounds good.

AkBill-
Unfortunately the ESA has a provision allowing incidental take of a listed species provided 1) the take is incidental to an otherwise legal activity, and 2) won't appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of the species.
This provision has allowed nearly all types of fishing, commercial or recreational, over listed stocks that are commingled with healthy stocks.
So long as the healthy ones are targeted and the incidental take of listed ones is negligible, the states of Alaska, Washington, and Oregon usually get incidental take permits covering their fishing seasons and fishermen from incidental takes that would otherwise violate the ESA.
I guess you may notice that the "doesn't appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival" part is pretty nebulous. In fisheries they always say "there is no neutral science". That means there will be fishermen who will hire scientists to say the take will not be bad. Oh, yeah, they have money, too, and political power.
They usually get permits. Not always, but usually.

Bruce-
You're right about the sale of endangered species, or even possession, being illegal. It's a little sketchy, however, if Indians are involved.
First, their fisheries MAY be covered by a state's incidental take permit (see answer to AkBill above).
Second, it is questionable as to whether or not the ESA even applies to Indians. If it does not, no one knows if that means that they can or cannot sell listed animals. It may be OK for them to catch them, but it may be illegal for non-Indians to buy them.
These have yet to be answered definitively by the courts. Hang on, it's coming.

[This message has been edited by Todd (edited 03-17-99).]

Fellas,

Thanks for the info Todd. Good stuff. I believe whole heartedly that B.A.N. is ours for the taking. This listing has made the environment perfect for passing this thing. There are way too many people, and developers that will be affected by the ESA listing if the feds get involved. King County makes or breaks an election. We have a great opportunity to pit dollars against dollars in this election by getting in bed with the big money in Seattle to battle the Commercial Fishing money. I really hope we take advantage of this opportunity. Give the runs 5 years with no netting and we are beginning the utopia of fishing again. My question is what will it take for the listing to be removed after the recovery?

Getting animals off the list has historically happened in two ways; either the animal has gone extinct or it has been recovered to due to actions outside the ESA. Few, if any, have been recovered because of ESA restrictions. Usually by the time it kicks in it's too late to do much about it.

Whales, grays and rights in particular, were recovered due to international agreements curtailing harvest, not the ESA. Peregrine falcons were recovered due to the actions of a private individual and organization that dedicated themselves to the recovery of falcons (sorry, can't remember who it was). Eagles recovered due to the ban on DDT, which occurred outside the ESA context.

To get fish off the list, particularly in the Columbia River or Puget Sound, will be a tall order indeed. On the Columbia, dams have been there for a while, and will continue to be there. Water withdrawals and irrigation return flows will still occur. Habitat destruction is rampant in the headwaters of all the tributaries. The trees that used to be there are gone. All types of fishers go after Columbia River fish. I'd be amazed to see recovery to the extent that any of those fish are de-listed.

To a certain extent, the same goes for the Puget Sound fish. Much of the problem may be addressed by changing harvest and hatchery programs, but the massive habitat destruction is done and may not be recoverable. No matter how harvest is managed, even if it is banned, which seems like a hell of an idea on PS Chinook, if the rivers are shot, then so are the fish. The trees are gone, and the water is still going. It will take a herculean effort by all the counties and cities on Puget Sound to actually recover the fish, rather than just keep the status quo of low numbers or slow the rate of reduction of numbers.

I don't mean to make it sound like the ESA is worthless, because it's not. It may, or may not, help the listed critters recover. It will, however, incidentally help everything else that depends on the same habitat or lives in the same places as the listed chinook. If harvest is banned on those fish, then hatchery fish returning with them, as well as other salmon species that are around them, will not be harvested either. They are in a position still to increase in numbers. Water quality issues that have to be addressed will benefit all the rivers and all the creatures in them, fishy or otherwise. The trees in watersheds that contain listed fish will be protected, and thus the birds and wildlife that depend on them will be helped out.
This kind of worked the other way around when the spotted owl was listed. Timber harvest was essentially halted on all federal lands, and the rivers that flowed through them were thereby protected.
It will take many years to see what happens.
Keep your fingers crossed, but don't hold your breath.
Fish on...
Todd.

Personnaly, I think the listing may be a blessing in disguise. It is making the general public much more aware of the problem that we fishermen stand on the bank and bitch about every time we go fishing. This is the reason I think B.A.N. will pass easily. The strategic move we need to make is to get in bed with the money that has an interest in preventing the listing from going to endangered. DOes BAN have a web site?

BAN's website is at http://www.banallnets.com. I understand they have the necessary signatures on the petitions, but will need more money in order to buy ads to convince citizens to vote for it in the election (primary or general)this fall. We can be SURE there will be heavy opposition, at least dollar-wise.

Hey Todd, About some Hood Canal stocks; I've been up and down the Dossi from top to bottom time and time again. It really hasn't been hit that hard by logging or devolopment. I know of streams on the west end that have been hammered much harder and still get good wild returns. What do you think is up with this? Is the Dossi the kind of stream the E.S.A. might help out?

Not knowing anything about the Dossi, the answer to your question is not an easy one. For that matter, knowing about it may not help anyway.

If there is no development or logging problems along the creek, then there must be some other problem if the creek's runs are not doing well. Probably incidental catch, but maybe the fish just aren't as hardy as others.

Hood Canal is not covered by the Puget Sound chinook listing, I think. However, Hood Canal summer chums are listed. I think they mostly return to the Quilcene, and perhaps other streams in that area. If Dossi has these chums, then it will surely be afforded some protection to protect those fish. Even if it doesn't, restrictions to protect summer chums may help, if the fish coming back to Dossi associate at all with the Quilcene chums and may be caught incidentally.
There are so many variables that play into the viability of a run, probably a lot more than we could ever quantify or imagine. Why some rivers get better returns than others is obvious if you see better habitat, but as you noted, some very developed rivers still get good returns. Who knows why? I'm sure an individualized study on those rivers, or those particular stocks, may shed some light on it.

I guess the bottom line is that any listing of a salmon or a steelhead will, to a point, afford greater protection to other anadromous fish in the same area. It sure won't hurt.

Sorry for the lame answer, but I just don't know what the status of Dossi Creek fish is.

Fish on...
Todd.