ODFW has new Native Fish policy...

[POS Clerk]

News release

"Commission Adopts New Native Fish Conservation Policy

With a unanimous vote Friday, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission culminated a year of review and adopted the newly written Native Fish Conservation Policy to guide work toward recovery and sustainability of native fish species.

Before the vote, the Commission engaged in a lengthy discussion on the public comments received in the last month and heard from several members of a task force that met for several months to craft the final draft language of the policy. The discussion and the testimony prompted several amendments to the draft proposal.

The final adopted policy:
- Identifies a primary purpose to remove fish species from Endangered Species Act lists and avoid future listings;
- Focuses on the sustainability of naturally produced native fish and identifies naturally produced fish as providing the foundation for hatchery programs and fisheries;
- Provides a basis to manage hatcheries, fisheries, habitat, predators, competitors and fish pathogens in balance with sustainable naturally produced native fish;
- Embraces case-by-case management for individual watersheds and situations;
- Uses conservation plans and measurable criteria to implement the policy for groups of fish populations with similar geographic, genetic and ecological characteristics;
- Calls for managing native fish to provide for sport, commercial, cultural and aesthetic benefits for current and future generations;
- Uses hatcheries responsibly to help achieve the goals of the policy;
- Requires proceeding with precautionary strategies scaled to the risk if scientific uncertainty exists;

- Uses existing statutes and administrative rules to manage fish populations until individual conservation plans can be written; and
- Requires regular status reports and a education and training program.

Before the vote, the Commission removed all references to a requirement to form an 11-member Native Fish Citizen Advisory Committee. Instead, the panel was in favor of forming an advisory committee on as as-needed basis. Additional amendments were made to remove time deadlines in the rule and to make other wording changes suggested through public comment.

The Commission also adopted an order that requires staff to propose salmon and steelhead species management unit designations by December, 2003, and to review all ODFW's current fish management administrative rules for consistency with the new policy by September, 2003."

Happy dance
http://www.gifmaniacos.com/Dibujos/Calvin_y_Hobbes/calvin2.gif
(SOUND) (http://www.whocutthecheez.com/Multimedia/wavs/monkees.wav)

Thanks to everyone at Ifish who sent in comments

POS Clerk

[ 11-08-2002, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: POS Clerk ]

[The Fishing Geek]

Essentially, they're going to work harder on boosting the native fish stocks. Makes sense.

[Salmonator]

POS, I can see a million ways to read into your post. Could you in simple terms (for a guy like me :grin: ) explain your post as you percieve it? The overall gist seems similar to what I thought was going on already. What do you see as the biggest difference?

[boater]

[ 11-08-2002, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: boater ]

[POS Clerk]

Salmonator

Without going into great detail I have been “watching” the process of creating this new policy for the past year. The new NFCP will be the guiding policy for nearly all fish issues within the state of Oregon for the next 10 years or more. The highlights of this policy (from my prospective), is for the first time ODFW will place Natural production ahead of Hatchery production with regards to importance and effort. The NFCP recognizes hatcheries as a management tool but does not give them the “end all” importance that they have historically held. The NFCP also sets ODFW on the path to recovery, this and all other issues are for the first time set in rule and will require that all programs and effort done by ODFW staff conform to this policy.

The resource extraction people are not happy :grin:

[dogfishboy]

I support ODFWs efforts to increase and maintain native fish population levels, but I hope this can be accomplished without devastating local communities.

edit: Oh, THOSE kind of resource extraction people. Thanks Gary, your post cleared things up a little for me.
I was concerned that hatcheries would be abandoned and communities would suffer. I view hatcheries as a stop gap measure until wild fish populations can be restored. I hope this is a step in the right direction.

[ 11-08-2002, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: dogfishboy ]

[Wild Chrome]

If there were more native fish near rural communities, I'd spend more time and money in rural communities. As it is, I spend more time fishing in March than any other time of year because there are a lot of native steelhead in area rivers then. I just value them more as sportfish.

I'm glad ODFW has updated their priorities.

[garyk]

This is good news indeed, and POS is being rather restrained when he says -

"Before the vote, the Commission removed all references to a requirement to form an 11-member Native Fish Citizen Advisory Committee."

And.

"The resource extraction people are not happy"

What was going on was the committee was stacked with anti-fish people like the Cattlemans Assoc. and ORegonians in Action. With the support of some ODFW staff, they wanted to make the advisory committee - and their place on it - permanent, in order to weaken efforts to restore wild fish.

It was a bold move by the ODFW commissioners to axe that proposal.

On this board, a lot of flack gets aimed at ODFW. This was one of those fairly obscure administrative decisions which 99% of fisherman will never know about or understand, but will have very meaningful impact on our fish and help perpetuate fishing in Oregon.

[POS Clerk]

Unfortunately in my haste for brevity I failed to explain who was for and against this and why. Garyk is very well informed as to who were really trying to stop progress.

The sportfishing groups were generally in favor of the draft as written, Allen Flanagan -Vice President for the Association of Northwest Steelheaders, Charles Lang- Conservation Director for the Oregon Bass Federation, Liz Hamilton- Executive Director for the Northwest Sport Fishing Industry Association, Rod Brobeck- Executive Director of the Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation all expressed favorable views of this new policy at the October 11th Commission meeting.

POS Clerk

[Crashin' Bait]

I was told that the new policy focused more on watershed healt rather than just the genetics. Also, the definition of "native" fish encompasses both wild and hatchery components. Is this true?

[ 11-09-2002, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Crashin' Bait ]

[Bill Monroe]

I was in and out for the discussions yesterday and in October, but the policy clearly had unilateral support. I didn't see a great deal of opposition, either, from the cattlemen or others. The commission decided against mandating an advisory committee, but in its debate did note a committee can be created at any time if the need arises.
It seems to me that this revision and policy are vital to saving hatcheries and, in fact, have the blessing of Oregon Trout and others who have been so sharply critical. The stage is set for discussions in the next several months about precisely what role hatcheries will play. My impression is that the ultimate picture will be, like the plans for the Sandy, for example, a blend of hatchery production and wild fish that incorporates basin genetics while still allowing harvest as well as preservation. What isn't clear yet is how it will all mesh with the federal court rulings.
Whew! Look at all those long words.
Anyway, the story will unfold over the winter and spring. At least for the first time everyone will be on the same page. Hopefully this also will help support the system in the Legislature. We may still lose some hatcheries on the coast, but the department and constituents are getting closer to catching up with each other.

[fish forever]

POS Clerk, well said in your posts.

As the Steelheaders rep I am very happy to see this come to a vote and move this process on to the next phase.

The one thing I'd add is that a lot of the meat in the policy is yet to come. This new framework relies a lot on instituting local/regional management plans that have yet to be drafted. Monitoring, population thresholds, and actions will be defined in those plans. There is a great opportunity for anglers and convservationists to play a role in how the recovery takes place at a local level now. IMHO, this is a good thing as long as anglers step up to support the effort. If anglers are not involved, the remainder of the public will shape the plan for how our fish are managed.

For those of you that do not have the time or interest in participating in this ongoing effort, I would urge you to join or support a group that does. Northwest Steelheaders other conservation groups have been and will remain to represent fishing and conservation interests in managing our fish resources.

[Fishbulb]

Unfortunately I don't see this as a big victory. There is too much left out there to be decided later and just too many fuzy lines to make a determination as to exactly what this written policy will mean in the field. It sounds like well written lip service to written to passify groups that support it. Implementation of this type of policy will likely take years and since the national election Tuesday did a 180 degree turn from this type of thinking one or two years at the Fed level may make the state extremely powerless to affect change. It will at least make challenges as to its validity easier. I believe the last point about scaling risks when uncertainty exists make for an easy in for opposition groups.

I wonder if NSIA will still be in support of this policy when springer fisheries end because hatchery production has ended. No native springer stock is healthy enough (or will be for at least decades) to support a target fishery on them. Remaining springer stocks are not strong enough to provide a foundation for future hatchery stocks. How will they reconcile this to those who bankroll them?

Dogfishboy: It has been documented by ODFW studies on coastal streams that there is a negative correlation between placing hatchery fish into streams where native populations occur and subsequent native population trends. Hatcheries are not a stop gap they make the gap worse. Hatchery fish and native fish occupy the same spaces and therefore compete with one another for the same resources. Hatchery fish do not rear in a vacuum separate from wild fish.

Just my 2 cents

[Straydog]

I see this as a very good starting (restarting?) point and wish to thank all that have been involved in this debate, especially the guy we all love to dislike the most, POS. :wink:

I think he is understating his role in this although for the sake of "cover" imagine he must...... :grin:

Fishbuld, where did you get the information that hatchery production and fishing will end for springers?? What value is this sort of preconcieved opinion in leading us to long term recovery of our naturally produced fish or crafting plans that will get us there?

Lead, follow or get out of the way is timely advice in my mind. :cool:

[GoFish]

I'm still confused...

Is this a good thing or a bad thing if I just want to catch a lot of fish? Don't need to kill them necessarily, but want to feel the pull through the rod.

_________ Yes :grin: ,or, _________ :depressed: No

Please place a check mark next to the correct response so that when I check back later I will know whether to smile or not.

[POS Clerk]

Crashin' Bait

Yes this policy is a step toward ecosystem management and away from solely genetic resource management. The IMST and others have been recommending that ODFW take a more macroscopic view of aquatic ecosystems. This does not abandon genetic conservation; it simply builds upon it and encompasses many other issues.

Bill Monroe

The opposition was in the workgroup phase of the process. The last stab by the cattlemen and others came in the form of a near “dissertation” from Jim Lannon on behalf of this group. However the legal points brought forth by Mr. Lannon were quashed by an opinion released by Steve Sanders – DOJ that the Commission had asked for previously to the Lannon white paper. With the writing on the wall there was no need for opponents to fall on their swords for a lost cause. As I have mentioned in the past, the real negotiation that occurs with these types of issues is over and done with before the Commission meeting. The part that the public generally sees is the final formality. The Columbia Basin Bulletin did some articles based on the workgroup that exposed some of the dynamics that took place. You are very correct about the Conservation groups, ODFW, Feds, and fishermen working together on upcoming issues. Personally I am pretty pumped about it.

Fish forever

You are very correct. The real meat occurs in the next step. But Mr. Bowles has indicated during the creation of this policy how open and straight forward with regard to this initial policy it will be. It does require a portion of trust that ODFW will not sandbag the next steps but I for one trust Mr. Bowles. You are correct; the sport fishermen must be willing to add our input and our efforts in the upcoming policy work. Informed comments are what can do the most good.

Fishbulb

Good to hear from you, I see you have not posted here since last May. I wish you would express your views more often.
The basis for this policy is to bring ODFW in line with both the Oregon plan as well as the state / federal ESA and the new NMFS de-listing guidelines. It is an attempt to base goals on scientific principals and ecosystem wide management. What would you have based it on?
I am so confused as to what NSIA’s intentions and goals are that I have not a clue how their money people will react or what changes in strategies will occur. I diagnose them with multiple personality disorder and I will leave it at that. I wish them all the luck in the world and I hope they will continue to support this policy and work to move forward.

[Straydog]

POS,

My guess is that, as with most groups, the board of NSIA will be quite varied in its opinion of this development and the closed door meetings will be "lively" when it is dicussed.

I have not discussed this particular issue with Liz or others on the board as my geographic location keeps me somewhat isolated at times.

One of the goals of NSIA remains to restore naturally produced fish to harvestable levels and I see this framework as fitting into that mission very well.

[ 11-11-2002, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[POS Clerk]

Straydog

Mission Statement / NSIA

"Dedicated to the preservation, restoration and enhancement of sport fisheries and the businesses dependent upon them"

(you can not imagine the trouble I went through to get that :wink: )

Regards

POS

[Fishbulb]

This is not an opinion it is fact based on my knowledge of Columbia river stock status and current hatchery production levels ( You can have this knowledge too by calling ODFW and getting ahold of the most recent version of the Columbia river stock status report) It is a terribly dry report that is about 2 inches thick and if full of graphs, charts and tables but will answer your questions. Our wild Columbia river spring Chinook make up a pathetic portion of the total spring run. Too small to have a full fleet fishery that occurs for a period of time as to facilitate real participation from user groups. Check out NMFS web page and you will see the spring Chinook stocks that are listed as endangered. Since our allocated impacts to those stocks are extremely small the loss of hatchery production will mean no selective fisheries. This was the situation from 1977 to 2000 (I am talking about a main stem fishery but I can envision similar situations on tributaries) Here is the senario: Springer season opens Jan 1. Since there are no more hatchery fin clipped fish there is no selectivity (all fish are taken home). No one begins to catch fish until the end of Febuary. By the end of the first week in March the Compact ( the WDFW/ODFW Columbia River decision making team) gets worried as we get close to our allowed impact rate. The season subsequently closes the second week in March by emergency closure. Sounds like a good fishery huh? Duplicate this for Columbia river summer steelies, Coho and trib fisheries for winter steelies. This is why NSIA's position completely baffles me. If POS clerk is right they just went completely against their mission statement. They are paid to procure take fisheries for their clients, period. This policy may well hamper take fisheries. Straydogs assertion that their mision statement involves bringing wild fish population levels up to harvestable levels seems unlikely to me if that means curtailing or stoping hachery production and thus take fisheries in the short term. They would loose their jobs.

OF COURSE THIS IS ONLY THE SENARIO IF INDEED THE NEW WILD FISH POLICY ENDS HATCHERY PRODUCTION ON THESE STOCKS. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT MAY VERY WELL DO JUST THAT BECAUSE THERE IS MUCH EVIDENCE NOW THAT POINTS TO A NEGATIVE CORRELATION BETWEEN HATCHERY PRODUCTION AND WILD STOCK POPULATION TRENDS. THIS IS MY READ ON THE FOURTH ITEM FROM THE BOTTOM IN THE POLICY.

I also acknowledge that Oregon is more than the Columbia river and that this will likely have good ramifications in other locations. I do worry for fisheries occurring in locations where wild stocks are at such low levels and have gone through really tight genetic bottlenecks (example: snake river sockeye) that this policy may mean the end to very productive fisheries while hopelessly attempting recovery. How will ODFW pay for recovery efforts when folks aren't buying tags? Will the people of the state continue to support these efforts when they may not see fisheries restored in their lifetime? Will the state still take a lead role in this effort if abandoned by the ESA the next time it is up for authorization? Once the hatchery stocks are gone thats it until wild stocks are heathly enough to recruit wild fish into a new hatchery system. Worst case senario is recovery fails due to environmental pressures and there are no fish to recruit ever again. This senario moves us forward to extiction of wild and hatchery stocks. It is a big gamble in my opinion. I do, however, respect the opinion of those who wish to play that hand.

Gofish: Catch and relese fisheries still have impacts associated with them. If hatchery production ends you can connect the dots. If recovery attempts work you may just have to wait a few decades, give or take, to enjoy the result.

[SSPey]

HOOORAYY!!!

[Bill Monroe]

POS

Please feel free to patronize the others, but not me. You should be careful to avoid the impression you're a department employee. That could be a danger to others trying to make decisions based on what they learn here. Perhaps you've pointed that out in the past and I missed it.

These deals are discussed in back rooms and over the telephone, but not cut. This subject alone took several hours of Friday's meeting and a good share of that was commission debate. Commissioners also hammered at it extensively during monthly meetings in September and October. This is not a commission that rubber stamps the crumbs it's tossed. Marla Rae alone had a laundry list of changes, some even attributed to outsiders who'd asked for them...Don Sampson, etc...Jeff Feldner, Don Denman and John Esler also had clearly thought it all out. I don't think you were there Friday or you wouldn't have been so hasty to judge.
Anyway, the new policy is not a panacea and it's unlikely the coming debate will include what I believe is the most important aspect of this debate...and was raised in the next to last post on this thread...keeping us all in the game as passionate anglers. Salmon as a species count on straying for genetic diversity. This whole process merely alters the way man has contributed artificially to this straying...from flat put and take to a more scientific approach. We still need places like the Trask, Three Rivers, Salmon, etc., to keep us all out there and interested.

[Straydog]

POS,

My error. I should have written "a goal of" or "part of the mission of" in reference to NSIA.

My statement was not intended as a quote of their mission statement

A question for you. What exactly is meant when you say that the fishing groups were "generally" in agreement with the new plan? :whazzup:

Was there concern about general direction of the broad plan or where the real meat and potatoes of any plan, the details, will take the plan?

Fishbulb,

I guess I am just not ready to throw in the towel and say all the hatcheries will be closed due to this new plan or any other reasons. I also am looking at this as someone from So. Oregon so am not as focused on the Columbia system as you mentioned.

[ 11-10-2002, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Jerry Dove]

Bill Monroe, well said, and thank you. Jerry

[POS Clerk]

Fishbulb

As always a very good and technical post. I for one appreciate your point of view and think that any information you can provide is a benefit to any discussion. You are correct that we would only need to worry if this policy halts hatchery production of endangered salmon however Mr. Bowles indicated that hatcheries would be needed in these instances to preserve the genetic resource that are these runs. He acknowledged that using hatchery stock to rebuild wild runs of fish is undesirable and unproven over the long run but when desperate it may become necessary. No tool will be left out of the bag was his sentiments.
I do have one disagreement with your post, what do you mean “IF POS Clerk is right”…Grrrr :grin:

Mr. Monroe

I do not know from where the hostility in you post is derived, perhaps it is a latent grumbling from the “Big Foot comment”. I would like to apologize to every one else but Mr. Monroe who somehow thought I was employed or affiliated with ODFW. For the record I do not work for or with them. I am a Point Of Sale Clerk. I chose that moniker so even people who were less than attentive would be able to surmise that I sell fishing tags. I should have tried harder, seems nothing is fool proof to a talented fool. :wink:

It is my understanding that much of the information found here at Ifish regarding the NFCP is true and accurate. Many people, including myself, have taken the time to learn and discuss this policy and this process. Perhaps we could form our opinions from all the articles the Oregonian has done on this process to date. I believe that would be Zero? A one sided view of these issues is the last thing I believe would benefit anyone.

Good or bad it is my opinion that you hate the Internet, for you I am sorry… :depressed:

Straydog

There are aspects of the policy that some of the groups I mentioned were not comfortable with. If you would like I can forward you the Commission meeting testimony of these groups to your e-mail address. (To much info to post here.) :smile:

Jerry Dove

I was hoping to hear a more comprehensive post divulging your thoughts on this policy. I think we should discuss this and other things privately. With your permission I would like to e-mail you privately. (yes I do have you e-mail address) :cheers:

POS Clerk

[Bill Monroe]

I don't mind the internet, but "Mr."????
Dang, I HATE that...sigh

(Oh, by the way, if I could figure out a way to make that whole native fish business more interesting than a sneaker wave at Barview or in some way, any way, related to sports, I'd sure as shooting get the space for it...)

No animosity at all, POS, just wanted to let you and others know there's a lot more to the process...which I cover in person, not on the net. It deserves a little more respect than simply tossing it all off as behind closed doors.

Enough of this for me...

[POS Clerk]

Bill Monroe

Bill.... fair enough :cheers:

POS Clerk

[Bill Monroe]

POS...email me, please...thanks

[Wood N' Fish]

:smile: :cool: :shocked: graemlins/stupid.gif Okay!!!!!

[Straydog]

POS,

Thanks for the transcipts.

I havent had time to read them thoroughly but in skimming have come to the conclusion that, as expected, there will be a lot of work taking place to get the details of the policy established.

Then, there will be a lot of work getting them put into action.

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and realize this is a work in progress and will be molded and implemented by Watershed which is how it should be in my mind.

Depending on what NMFS does with it's definitions and counting procedures in light of the Judge Hogan ruling, I don't see any imminent nor immediate threat to Hatchery production at this time.

All of us should stay in the know a this moves forward.

I do have to wonder as Liz did where the money for fine tuning, implementing and monitoring will come from.

[ 11-11-2002, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Nanook]

Originally posted by Bill Monroe:
POS...email me, please...thanks<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">If you want to take him out behind the barn, I am in. LOL! http://65.68.63.156/mysmilies/otn/funny/tomato.gif

[CATCH AND EAT]

******, I worry about you sometime. :wink:

[timinthegorge]

******..... you're finer than frog hair! :grin:

Want me to cut you a switch for these bad boys? :cheers:

[boater]

was there any talk of what they want the hatchery stray rate to get to or will they just kill them all off and turn all the hatcherys to brood stock hatcheries ?

[POS Clerk]

Boater

The NFCP does not set a predetermined limit on hatchery stray rates. The basis of this policy is not to craft a one-size fits all limit for all rivers. If straying is shown to be a problem on a particular river then local managers can address the problem using a variety of solutions. It is important to remember that the soul of this policy is, when unsure, act conservatively. Because straying hatchery fish have been shown to affect naturally produced wild population negatively over the long run ODFW will more than likely be sensitive to this issue. NMFS representatives did express that they at the federal level were considering new stricter rates of 5 or 10 percent total.

******
http://utenti.lycos.it/lagrecaphp/gif/altre/images/souttpark/sp8.gif
(SOUND) (http://www.whocutthecheez.com/Multimedia/wavs/farts.wav)
:grin: :grin: :grin:
POS

[ 11-11-2002, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: POS Clerk ]

[ssteelheadsteve]

History
About 15 years ago I walked out of the ODF&W Headquarters with Bill Bakke. I was 10 feet tall and I'am sure Bill felt the same way.Greeted by a slashing rain,darkness and cold we shook hands firmly and headed our seperate ways. We had just seen the commission pass their first "Wild Fish Policy" into law. We both were sure Oregon would be a better place with this new policy in place.

TEN ( 10 ) YEARS LATTER it was funded and implamentation was begun.
Now we have a new " Native Population Policy "

My thoughts ?

ODF&W decisions are made behind closed doors. These days decisions are still made by politicians not biologists. These days they are for the most part "PC" decisions.

This policy went through the process too quickly and cleanly to carry much weight. The "administrative rules" which will govern the devlopment of this policy in the future will still be at the perview of the Govenor and the Senate. This policy will be no more effective at returning management of Fisheries to the State than the current policy on Pinepeds. Oregon will not regain management with this weak loophole riddled " NEW" policy.

Proponets of Wild/Native Fish be wary. But only if you intend to fish.
The only 2 stocks that I believe can withstand "harvest" are Rogue WS and Columbia River Fall Chinook. MCB's Mid Columbia Brights. NMFS agrees with this. The carrying capacity of our other rivers will not allow fishing/harvest. No matter how much stream improvement you implement. The habitat is just not available. Remove Alaska interception of our fish, Grand Coulee Dam and things might be different.

It was sugested above that NMFS might consider 10 % stray rates too high. If so you can forget placing Steelhead in most streams.
Anglers need to consider that our current catch rate in most of our popular streams exceeds the maximum number of Wild fish these streams are capable of producing.

What this policy will do !

It will maintain jobs. Anti-Fishing groups,Government Employees,Consultants and Lawyers will all stary involved in the "Process ". Thus taking away even more money for Hands on repair of our watersheds. More white shirts fewer blue shirts. This policy will disenfranchise the angler.Allready devided this percived victory will weaken the voices from those who enjoy the woods and waters.
This policy will work well for devlopers and big business.A few fish will be saved the white shirts will stay employed and devlopment will continue at a rapid pace unabated by the fact that "growth" is not a sustainable economy. Tell the Govenor. Growth is not a sustainable economy. " The solution to pollution is in the bedroom . " GB&TL

[Trick]

LMAO.......just when I thought we were having a serious discussion......****** brings us back to reality!

That's just nasty!

[Bill Monroe]

******...POS and I are cool...cooled off anyway...just peeing on our bushes, sorry for interrupting the thread. I don't get to do that in print and shouldn't here, either...

Most of the questions will get hammered out in the next six months or so (not 10 or 20 years)

[Nanook]

Ok Bill - but remember, you can always call
1-800-Albino-Rhino if POS gets out of hand. :grin:

http://www.gifmaniacos.com/Dibujos/Calvin_y_Hobbes/calvin2.gif

[fishinlady97140]

"basis to manage hatcheries, fisheries, habitat, predators , competitors and fish pathogens in balance with sustainable naturally produced native fish"

A new way to raise money for ODFW...licenses to kill seals! yes?