Environmentalist Group Wants to Put Coho On ESA List Based on Wolves!!

[FM2]

Today's Oregonian had an article in the Metro section regarding an environmentalist group (Earthjustice) wanting to intervene the temporary delisting of Coho based on a study of Wolves in Yellowstone National Forest.

Now, I am not an expert on this subject but this seems to me to stretch the limits of the ESA when land based animals are compared to fish. [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img]

This article had many disturbing comments such as: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The ESA(Endangered Species Act) allows for experimental populations to be listed as threatened when the main population is endangered, or they could even be treated as not listed at all <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> this quoted by an attorney for the group. Also at stake are ESA listings for 20 groups of salmon and steelhead in the West vulnerable to the same legal arguments as Oregon coastal coho!.

Another <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The National Marine Fisheries Service was arbiturary and capricious when it extended protection only to wild fish, although it had included hatchery fish in the same evolutionarily significant unit. Finding no genetic difference between individual wild fish and those from hatcheries <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is frightning comments made by another extreme environmental group trying to put coho and steelhead on a list based on a study of wolves. While newspapers don't provide all the information, what I am reading could have an impact on fisheries in Oregon. I don't have an answer at this time but try to keep tabs on this issue because if something like this happens this could have an effect on sport fisheries over the state with wide ranging economic and recreational implications.

[ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: FM2 ]

[garyk]

FM2,

A correction is needed to your post, regarding the second quote, which you characterize as -- "This is frightning comments made by another extreme environmental group".

Actually, that was the paper's summary of the judge's ruling.

By the way, what is not extreme about pushing wild coho further toward extinction?

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: garyk ]

[Phish_on]

Could we see the hands of everyone who believes wild coho in Oregon coast rivers are not endangered ?

[finclipped]

As it was explained by Jim Lichotowich at his speech in St. Helens a couple weeks ago, the issue is whether there is "legal" protection under the ESA for the Coho as defined.

You can only protect species under the ESA under two definitions. 1.) The entire SPECIES is at risk of extinction. Clearly not all coho are at risk of extinction. 2.) You can also use the ESA, to protect an ESU (evolutionary significant unit). This is what the NMFS chose to list them under and what Hogan is saying, is that you can't consider hatchery fish NOT part of the ESU. Thus the ruling.

The judge agree's that native coho are in dire straights, and need protection, but the NMFS errored in their original listing. What has to happen is that NMFS needs to redefine what actually is "endangered." That being the "NATIVE COHO." Somehow or another.

At least thats the jist of what he said.

[Mike Gilchrist]

After reading the court documents, I agree with finclipped.

Hogan ruled the way he did because he had to, on a technicallity so to speak. There is nothing in the documents that indicate that Hogan had any doubt that wild Coho are in trouble. He simply stated that NMFS did not follow the letter of the law when they listed the fish.

I don't see how anyone can perceive that Hogan had any Bias against the sepparation of Hatchery and Wild fish from reading the court documents.

[FM2]

As I stated I am not an expert on this issue and don't have a deep knowledge base regarding this topic like others here. I was aware of Judge Hogans earlier ruling and after reading the article which I stated "newspapers don't provide all the information" I was concerned about the information that was written.

I am pro-environment but I also believe a balance needs to be addressed given today's times. I would not like to see any fish or creature become extinct and will support this.

I appreciate factual and detailed information and knew by posting this topic that I could learn additional details of the meaning and intent of the article. Thanks to those who have provided clear and comprehensive explanations.

[Pete]

Fin, thanks for the additional perspective. I guess what's at issue then is really the definition of an ESU. It seems to me that with out-of-basin sources for hatchery fish (is this true, or has it changed?) it isn't hard to consider the wild, native fish as a different ESU, but I guess that must be where my thoughts differ from Judge Hogan. Perhaps my lay-understanding of ESU is too divergent from the legal/scientific definition. Is it possible to consider the locally evolved fish indigenous to the stream seperately from the hatchery fish? If it is possible, why wouldn't a continuation of the protection until proof support one or the other view be appropriate?

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Pete, your first post was one of the best I have read in a long time and I applaud your ability to deliver an un-biased statement, but as Finclipped eluded too it was how NMFS chose what Coho was to be listed that caused the ruling. Specifically, NMFS counted hatchery fish in some basins as part of the population but not in others. It would have been legally defensible had the hatchery stock been “out of basin” compared to “native” but as noted by the court NMFS arbitrarily included of excluded hatchery fish in run totals. In hind site NMFS should have proclaimed that all hatchery Coho are not part of any wild run and not allowed them to be counted in any wild run. This could have been legally supported by the ESA which will more than likely not allow domesticated hatchery fish to be considered a suitable replacement for wild fish living and interacting with their native ecosystem.
Courts historically support agencies who carefully and logically set rules and stick to them.

Although ODFW does have a lot of data that would support not counting hatchery fish with wild, they have not done the difficult task of putting this knowledge and understanding to paper in the form of administrative rules.
Not a task I would rush gleefully toward myself. Perhaps the idea of using puppets and cartoon characters to explain things to the Commission in a way they could understand is a little disheartening for ODFW staff.
I wish them luck

Pete, I visited your web page. It was very good. I would recommend that you change the title portion of the HTML document to not display your full name, just a suggestion.

Jazz-Opera- and the Grateful Dead, wow all over the board.

*** Clerk

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: *** Clerk ]

[Pete]

The Oregonian article was pretty slim and I think it missed the point ... the article tries to summarize the gist of what must be hundreds of pages of court documents. The issue is whether the Earthjustice Institute can intervene on behalf of a coalition of concerned groups in order to present arguments in the appeal of a lower court case which found that the ESA was in error when they distinguished wild and hatchery Coho. The lower court held that strong returns of hatchery Coho indicate a healthy Coho population and protection of the wild Coho is not justified. I read today that he denied the application of the Earthjustice Institute (EI) to intervene in the case under appeal.

The Earthjustice institute is just a legal organization which defends environmental issues. They used to be known as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. The fact that they argued on behalf of wolves in Yellowstone does not mean, as the Oregonion incorrectly implied, that they will make the same argument for protection of endangered Coho as they did for reintroduction of wolves.

EI represents a coalition of groups including both environmental groups and commercial fishing groups; the Oregon Natural Resources Council, Pacific Rivers Council, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Audubon Society of Portland, Coast Range Association, Siskiyou Regional Education Project, and the Sierra Club. They asked for a stay of the district court ruling that coho salmon born and raised in hatcheries must be included with wild coho when considering endangered species status. Failing to stay the lower court's decision means that runs will continue to be harmed and habitat lost while the appeal continues.

At the core of the case is that the fact that scientists agree - native coho are in dire straights ... they are virtually on the brink of extinction. Judge Hogan, by his ruling, asserts that hatchery fish fill the same biological niche as the hatchery fish ... I can't agree. Wild fish spawn in the wild, where they then die and provide nutrients which support the forest, emerging fry and all the wildlife that depend on them. Is Hogan asserting that hatchery fish carcasses will now be distributed along stream banks? I didn't see that in his ruling.

The issue is whether we, as a nation, have an obligation to maintain the habitat necessary to support indigenous species and to help keep a biological balance. I don't think the argument is that coho are like wolves ... I think its that the Earthjustice Institute has experience arguing on behalf of indigenous species and the protection of their necessary habitat that makes them an appropriate representative of the groups which retained them.

Wild Coho were already listed under the ESA ... Judge Hogan ruled that EI could not join the existing appeal of the case which ruled that they are not entitled to protection as there is no difference between hatchery and wild fish. The existing case is in the appeal process ... Hogan's ruling allows logging that resumed at the time of the lower court ruling to continue in the areas where critical Coho habitat exists, at least until the appeal is decided.

The studies have been done, the science is indisputable. The Oregon Plan (http//www.oregon-plan.org/) was developed in response to the emerging Coho issue and addresses the economic impacts and balances them with environmental and social conditions. It is ground breaking work with broad support developed to address the issues which Judge Hogan has deemed unworthy of consideration in permitting a resumption of logging in critical habitat.

Hogan's ruling ignores 15 years of research by ODFW, NMFS and others showing not just that the fish are different, but that they have a significant impact on supporting the plants and critters which exist along the streams where wild fish return. I find Judge Hogan's decision disheartening.

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: Pete ]

[birdhunter]

What can I say?

Right on Pete. You covered it all. Excellent post.

[Fishaholic]

check out this link. Seattle Times editorial by James Veseley 10-29-01

Editorials & Opinion : Monday, October 29, 2001

James Vesely / Times editorial page editor
Too many salmon? Well, that's one possibility

A healthy run of salmon coming back to Northwest rivers and streams this fall carries implications a lot farther than the Pike Place Market guys can throw a chinook. As usual with the potent symbol of everything we hold dear, the salmon are wrapped in enigmas of budgets and private agendas that run as deep as the sea.

A surprising court decision in Oregon seemed to lump together hatchery and wild coho under a single category, a ruling that dramatically undercuts the stilts on which a very large assumption of salmon recovery sits. That assumption is that hatchery fish and wild fish are so different that habitat protection of massive intervention is necessary to save the wild salmon.

But suppose hatchery fish and wild salmon are the same, especially after a season on their own out in the ocean somewhere. One environmental interpretation of the Oregon ruling is that if left to stand, it would close out fishing from all of Puget Sound because all the salmon — both hatchery raised and wild — would come under the Endangered Species Act. But here's another interpretation: If you add the two fish stocks together, there are too many fish and none could be listed as endangered.

"That's exactly right," said Dr. Ernest L. Brannon of the Center for Salmonid and Freshwater Species at Risk. I reached him at the Center's offices at the University of Idaho in Moscow. The Center conducts lab work on fish genetics for the Native tribes and state agencies. Like most fish academics I have encountered, he is reluctant to go along with the wilder statements of either side of the endangered salmon arguments.

"Elimination of the ESA would be a tragedy," Brannon said, "but we can also see a failure of the federal authorities to deal with different habitats. It's not the same to protect habitat on the Methow and near a city. The two are different."

In a conclusion to a report on listing Puget Sound salmon as endangered, Brannon wrote a few phrases that are particularly important now: "(Federal) listing of Puget Sound chinook, although well intended, exceeds the intent of the ESA... NMFS has demonstrated its inability to consider priorities unique to urban and industrial centers where salmon habitat has understandably diminished ... "

In other words, us.

"We are not living in an unaltered environment," Brannon told me. "The Cedar River watershed is a good example, one that is important to Puget Sound, yet it's been altered completely. We should recognize that things change and not every region has the same ecosystem."

I asked Brannon why there are so many fish lately. The 40-pounders coming back to the Issaquah hatchery may be wimps when they leave, but they are wimps no more, not after years in the Bering Sea. And why so many on the Columbia and elsewhere?

"The marine environment," he said. "In the 1980s and early '90s, Alaska saw the largest runs of salmon in recorded history. A median run of 5 million fish in Prince William Sound saw runs in the high 40-millions. Now, some of those runs may be shifting south toward us."

I bring you this conversation with Dr. Brannon not to wound environmental efforts but to warn that it's not just at Pike Place Market that people are throwing fish to make a sale. The salmon is as good a campaign logo as the one Nike has, but we should ask: What is the campaign about?

The implications of the Hogan decision, as the Oregon ruling is called, are that saving the wild salmon may be a moot campaign. If the ruling holds that coastal Oregon coho are the same fish, whether wild or sent into the wild to survive, one of the best soapboxes against development and suburban life will be muted. That's because we simply have too many fish, and the premise of a save-the-salmon campaign is that they are nearly gone.

Lest the property-rights activists find solace from this, I warn them that Dr. Brannon and others steadfastly maintain that habitat protection remains crucial. I see the balance in his arguments and they go something like this: We can do a lot to restore salmon runs in places where they have virtually disappeared. He and others have been working on the Dungeness River, as one example. We need to restore and adapt habitat wherever and as much as we can, but we should also recognize that urban centers are different and we should use our resources accordingly.

Now watch the fight over that simple statement.

James Vesely's column appears Monday on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is: jvesely@seattletimes.com.

[ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: Fishaholic ]

[blackdog]

Just a thought.....If wild and hatchery coho are lumped together as the same fish, why is there special protection and reintroduction of wolves? Weren't all dogs wild at some point in history? Wouldn't that, by there way of thinking, make all of our pets today the same as these wild wolves? In this light, there is no shortage of dogs around and no need for any special protections or reintroductions [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]