New Federal Draft Proposal for Hatchery fish

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Oregonian article (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/front_page/1027598257287641.xml)

Large hatchery runs are irrelevant, the agency said, because the federal act is designed to protect both the species and the ecosystems they depend on -- rivers and streams, in the case of salmon and steelhead. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Thoughts?

[speyfly]

Yeah. I agree. The ecosystem and wild fish is the most important part and that includes NATES :grin:

[TheRogue]

My thoughts......

Yup, makes sense to me.

If the ESA just had a "human" component to it!!! It was designed to protect whales and eagles, everything else is just icing on the cake. It's very likely it's saved many species from extinction, but unfortunately, it makes no distinction between a 1/4 inch bug in the Mojave Desert and a 80 ft whale, with no consideration to anything else.

kyle

[crabbait]

You guys better read the whole article. If I got it right, they are saying that they must protect both the wild and hatchery fish because they are the same species. It sounds like they intend to stop fishing for hatchery fish when wild fish of the same species are endangered.

This is not good news, folks. It appears to me that a lot of hatchery fish are going to die with their noses pressed against the concrete because their wild bretheren are endangered.

[Pete]

Has anyone seen the text of the announcement? All I saw was the story by Brinkman in the Oregonian. NMFS web site doesn't have it, yet.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/HatcheryListingPolicy/HatcheryListingPolicy.html

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/HatcheryListingPolicy/DraftPolicy.pdf

[Pete]

I knew you'd come through, ***, Thanks! ... now I have to read it.

[boater]

well, if they closed fishing for hatchery fish on a river with a listed run of wild fish because they were geneticaly close they would have to quit clipping future hatchery fish out of that river, it would make no sence to clip them if you couldnt keep them.

[birdhunter]

Kyle,

Look to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for your human component.

All major federal actions that affect the environment (including the natural and physical environment and the relationship of the people with that environment) are subject to NEPA procedures. Economic and social effects are not considered early on in the Environmental Assessment, which briefly examines the extent of impact to the natural and human environment created by the proposed rule. Provided there is not a FONSI (finding of no significant impact) an EIS(Environmental Impact Statement) is prepared. There the agency must include a cost-benefit analysis for all the proposed actions and alternatives.

In implementing the provisions of the ESA, federal agencies may be required to perform duties that are considered major federal actions by NEPA definitions. Not all of these actions mandated by the ESA trigger NEPA however. Legal precedence demonstates that the listing of a species and the designation of critical habitat for a listed species do not engage NEPA procedures. Provided the ESA requirements are adequate to reach the goals of the statue without supplemental information from NEPA actions, the agency is exempt from completing NEPA procedures. Otherwise NEPA procedures must be implemented in all circumstances.

While it is clear that parties suffering economic injury have standing to litigate under the ESA, there has not yet been a similar Supreme Court decision for NEPA.

Just a quick late night law lesson.

[garyk]

Glad you asked ...

There's no technological fixes to damaged river systems. Healing our rivers while also eventing MORE damage from being done is the only way to bring back abundant salmon runs.

Of course repairing our rivers will also provide a lot of other benefits too -- more usable water, less flooding, aesthetics, and the gratitude of our grandchildren.

(Aside to Crabbait, my understanding is that NMFS is going to treat hatchery and wild fish as distinct and separate populations. As they should have done originally; this is the silver lining to Judge Hogan's decision. You'll be able to bonk hatchery product, while we work on repairing the systems that are needed to sustain wild populations).

[crabbait]

Read in today's paper that Oregon Trout is trying to get hatchery fish classified as a completely different species! What new wrinkle is this?

My head hurts.............. :sick: graemlins/eek13.gif

[boater]

crabbait, if that happens the hatchery fish would be non-native fish and ot and all these other groups that are on the genetic bandwagon would go to court and try to get them removed.

[Pete]

I can't imagine Oregon Trout would be successful changing the taxonomic classification of hatchery fish ... even the NMFS recognizes that both fish are likely to have the same genetic composition, although expressed differently through the factors in their rearing, particularly since a "species" is defined as a distinct population segment that interbreeds when mature. The difficult distinction is whether hatchery and wild fish in a river system can be distinguished under this consideration. This will probably be done by recognizing that hatchery propagation is a conservation effort, thus should not be considered in making the determination to list a species under the ESA. The really difficult question seems to me to be the one discussed by Mark Chilcote earlier this year, whether hatchery fish may have a negative impact on long term species survival of wild breeding populations. It's t_h_orney stuff.

[ 07-26-2002, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Pete ]