David Johnson
05-22-2001, 10:11 AM
To insure future salmon fishing oportunities let's do this.
CRITFC Legislation Would Stop Fin-Clipping
"There is no question that the selective fisheries management philosophy is ingrained... in the minds of many sports and commercial fisheries."
John Platt, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission testimony to the House Species Restoration and Stream Recovery committee, May 16, 2001
House Bill 3014 was passed out of House SR2 committee for a floor vote. HB 3014 as amended with the dash 2 amendments requires:
-Would exempt hatcheries in the Columbia basin above Bonneville Dam in Oregon "from the practice of clipping fins"
-Hatchery fish that "are raised in hatcheries under conditions that mimic natural conditions" shall be treated as wild fish.
-Requires hatchery propagation to be from "the closest suitable
broodstock of wild fish practicable."
Through this bill, CRITFC continues to erode at the progress NSIA has made on behalf of mass marking and selective fisheries. This bill is a step backwards, both for data gathering AND selective fisheries. Some see it as a thinly veiled attempt to harvest more fish to the exclusion of non-tribal anglers.
This bill would seriously limit the number of hatchery salmon and steelhead that could be raised by requiring native broodstock, increase the cost of running hatcheries by requiring prohibitively expensive improvements for questionable benefits of "mimicked natural conditions" and return sport angling to the dark ages of quota fisheries.
It is time to call your State Representative and urge their "NO" vote on House Bill 3014. Call your legislator toll-free at 1-800-332-2313 to express your opposition to this poorly thought out bill. If you don't know who your legislators are, call NSIA, 503 631 8859, and have your districts handy. A letter is always best, and be sure to cc: NSIA.
As to the first bullet, there is no need to articulate to YOU and YOUR business, the importance of mass marking.
On counting hatchery fish reared fish as "wild fish" and allowing them to spawn NMFS strongly stated in testimony given to a similar bill in Washington that using hatchery fish to replace wild fish is scientifically unproven and should be decided on case by case by fish managers, not a state-wide mandate. NMFS went so far as to state that such practices would put Washington State in violation of the ESA, and would "force a repetition of some of the most egregious hatchery practices of the past."
Finally, NSIA supports using "native broodstock" wherever feasible as one of the tools in the fish management toolbox. There are instances that suggest using native broodstock may not always be the best choice:
1) Sometimes there are not enough natives to mine-requiring native broodstock would dramatically reduce the number of smolt releases in many basins.
2) NMFS stated, at a conference on hatchery genetics in Portland, that separation in run timing was an acceptable way to avoid risk to wild fish in hatchery management. The Clackamas River Coho fishery is an example of a fishery that could go away under this legislation.
3) Raising native broodstock will in some areas require expensive changes in the hatcheries. If we legislate native broodstock, we could be closing hatcheries for lack of funds to upgrade. Let's update as quickly as we can afford to do so!
REMEMBER, ONE SIZE NEVER FITS ALL!!!
CRITFC Legislation Would Stop Fin-Clipping
"There is no question that the selective fisheries management philosophy is ingrained... in the minds of many sports and commercial fisheries."
John Platt, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission testimony to the House Species Restoration and Stream Recovery committee, May 16, 2001
House Bill 3014 was passed out of House SR2 committee for a floor vote. HB 3014 as amended with the dash 2 amendments requires:
-Would exempt hatcheries in the Columbia basin above Bonneville Dam in Oregon "from the practice of clipping fins"
-Hatchery fish that "are raised in hatcheries under conditions that mimic natural conditions" shall be treated as wild fish.
-Requires hatchery propagation to be from "the closest suitable
broodstock of wild fish practicable."
Through this bill, CRITFC continues to erode at the progress NSIA has made on behalf of mass marking and selective fisheries. This bill is a step backwards, both for data gathering AND selective fisheries. Some see it as a thinly veiled attempt to harvest more fish to the exclusion of non-tribal anglers.
This bill would seriously limit the number of hatchery salmon and steelhead that could be raised by requiring native broodstock, increase the cost of running hatcheries by requiring prohibitively expensive improvements for questionable benefits of "mimicked natural conditions" and return sport angling to the dark ages of quota fisheries.
It is time to call your State Representative and urge their "NO" vote on House Bill 3014. Call your legislator toll-free at 1-800-332-2313 to express your opposition to this poorly thought out bill. If you don't know who your legislators are, call NSIA, 503 631 8859, and have your districts handy. A letter is always best, and be sure to cc: NSIA.
As to the first bullet, there is no need to articulate to YOU and YOUR business, the importance of mass marking.
On counting hatchery fish reared fish as "wild fish" and allowing them to spawn NMFS strongly stated in testimony given to a similar bill in Washington that using hatchery fish to replace wild fish is scientifically unproven and should be decided on case by case by fish managers, not a state-wide mandate. NMFS went so far as to state that such practices would put Washington State in violation of the ESA, and would "force a repetition of some of the most egregious hatchery practices of the past."
Finally, NSIA supports using "native broodstock" wherever feasible as one of the tools in the fish management toolbox. There are instances that suggest using native broodstock may not always be the best choice:
1) Sometimes there are not enough natives to mine-requiring native broodstock would dramatically reduce the number of smolt releases in many basins.
2) NMFS stated, at a conference on hatchery genetics in Portland, that separation in run timing was an acceptable way to avoid risk to wild fish in hatchery management. The Clackamas River Coho fishery is an example of a fishery that could go away under this legislation.
3) Raising native broodstock will in some areas require expensive changes in the hatcheries. If we legislate native broodstock, we could be closing hatcheries for lack of funds to upgrade. Let's update as quickly as we can afford to do so!
REMEMBER, ONE SIZE NEVER FITS ALL!!!