Silvers: hatchery = native

[Chrome Bumper]

Heard on the radio that a judge found there is no difference between a coastal silver raised in a hatchery and a native fish. Now it is OK to log and build roads around all these rivers! Thank to GW and Company! Is this really true?

[ 02-25-2004, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Chrome Bumper ]

Judges went to law school and don't have a clue about fish genetics. This ruling will help me with my irrigation water but I don't have to like it

PS:
Bush didn't have anything to do with this. It would never have gone this far if the extreme environmental lunatics hadn't used the coho as a spotted owl.

[ 02-25-2004, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[slabhunter]

Sounds like the Judge is booksmart but doesn't have any common sense!

[lost_sailor]

It's just wrong.

Pouring hatchery fish into the water doesn't mean the species has recovered.

[Ty]

Did u guys read those articles....NMFS is the one to blame they where the one's that screwed up no the judge... NMFS data failed to show significant differences in the genetics #1....
And they also failed to include hatchery coho in their ESA listing! #2...

http://www.ocs.orst.edu/reports/salmon/salmon0901b.html

There may not me genetics significant differencees either....All you at out there with out a genetics backgroud always jump on "genetics bandwagon"... when really the real differences my be physiological and morphological because there has not nessisarily been solid proof there is genetic differences between hatchery and wild stocks.

My main concern with hatchery genetics is that they use bare minimum brood stock numbers by to produce the number of fish they need. It would be far better to increase the number of parents of prodogy, i.e. triple the number of parents and throw 2/3 of the prodogy away and have more genetic diversity in their prodogy equalling better survival and gentic fitness to the ever changing environment they face.

[ 02-25-2004, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Ty ]

[SlimPickens]

My paraphase of the decision by the judge was how can hatchery fish be from the same group of coho on the Oregon Coast, yet only the wild ones are listed under the ESA. He said you can't say hatchery fish are from the same ESU, yet only protect the wild ones. You have to consider the whole group of fish (hatchery and wild), and not just wild fish if you're evaluating them.

The ESA is clear on how you get fish off the list, it's got to be naturally reproducing runs in the wild. Hatchery runs are not a substitute....

[northriver1]

TY - I do not believe an editorial is the best place to get the facts. An editorial is one mans opinion based on certain facts which are than slanted towards the outcome they wish to achieve.

[northriver1]

TY - I do not believe an editorial is the best place to get the facts. An editorial is one mans opinion based on certain facts which are than slanted towards the outcome they wish to achieve.

Ty is close to the truth here. This ruling is going to cause problems for wild fish recovery.

[articulate leech]

This decision is a shame.

This decision occurs in the context of a more politically conservative government, the President of which has regularly demonstrated apathy and even antipathy towards the health of the environment. While "Bush didn't have anything to do with this" directly, his administration has created a climate in which poor decisions like this one are politically acceptable. If you love your rivers, don't vote for Bush in the election. If he is President again, there will be more environmental losses like this one.

[Born to be Wild]

This started well before Bush was even running for President.

I think you can thank the Alsea River Alliance for this one!

It started when the Alsea Alliance goofballs made a big splash regarding the clubbing of Fall Creek hatchery coho.
Then they sued ODFW in an attempt to keep ODFW from terminating the Fall Creek hatchery coho stocks.

Well the Alsea Alliance and Jim Lanan (sp) lost the court battle but then they continued on by taking the case to another court (Federal Court?) in their attempts to persuade the judge that there wasn't any difference between a wild and hatchery fish.
I think you know "the rest of the story".

So I think you can thank the unimformed fishermen like Ron the banker that seem to know something that science and biologist don't.

I talked to some of the Alliance members just prior to the court hearing.
Lord help us! [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

Dano

HEY! BUSH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS! GET THE FACTS BEFORE ENGAGING KEYBOARD! As a matter of fact when this was over ruled the Bush administration chose to not appeal it SOME FACTS

Thanks Dano!

[ 02-25-2004, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Ty]

Dano u are wrong... So, u are saying that the Alsea Alliance wrote the ESA listing for NMFS?

Oh please... Get a grip on the facts.....

Since some of you didn't like my sources that I put in another repley that was in "laymens terms" here are some with the "facts." Please read them and try to understand what the real issue's here are. I am not a supporter of the Alsea Alliance, however they won fair and square and NMFS is to blame for this one.

Letter from John A Kitzhaber, M.D:
http://www.coastrange.org/cohoprotection.htm

NW Power Planning Council Press Release:
http://www.nwppc.org/library/2001/rulingoncoho.htm

What the court decision did not hold: (1) The court did not tell NMFS that it cannot list the Oregon coast coho as threatened, only that NMFS wrongfully failed to consider the ESU as a whole when making its listing determination. (2) The court did not hold that there is no difference between a hatchery produced fish and a naturally spawning fish, only that when NMFS made the distinctions between the two when listing at a level or division below the ESU level, this took the listing decision to a level not allowed by the ESA. (3) And, the court did not hold that NMFS was correct or incorrect to establish an ESU policy that linked hatchery spawners and natural spawners in the same ESU, or that NMFS was correct or incorrect to include the hatchery stocks in this specific ESU -- the determination as to what went into the Oregon coast coho ESU was taken as a given, and the issue decided was whether NMFS properly considered that ESU as a whole in making the listing decision.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[ 02-25-2004, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Ty ]

[onebadfish]

drop the political mumbojumbo and lets get back to fishing. it doesn't matter who's in office, you're just a guy paying their way.

[garyk]

Judge Hogan's ruling was mostly about process and not about biology.

Unfortunately, it appears that at least in the short-term, a more lax set of rules governing coho habitat, especially habitat outside of Federal lands will apply.

Estuary and lowland water quality issues will fall entirely on Oregon DEQ (they are responsible for enforcing the Federal Clean Water Act, under a memo-of-understanding with the Feds). Unfortunately (again) DEQ doesn't have the resources or the backbone to do enforcement - and they cannot be compelled to do so.

This is a single example of the far-reaching and damaging effects this ruling can have on coho and other species that rely on this habitat.

Lots of attention gets paid to the forests, but it's actually the lowland habitat that is at greatest risk.

[Siwash]

Garyk is right. We do mapping and graphics work for the state watershed enhancement board (OWEB), so we get to see a lot of the state (ODFW, OWEB, & DEQ)'s geographic data first-hand. Most of the best coho habitat (HIP, or high intrinsic potential, is the buzz term) is in the lower-gradient reaches, which generally coincide with the more private and/or developed areas (farms, rural homesteads, etc). The forested uplands are proportionally more in public ownership (USFS, BLM, etc), where there are already more legal and/or administrative habitat protections in place (how effectively these are carried out is another debate).

The major crux of Kitzhaber's original salmon recovery plan was precisely to get wider cooperation from private landowners because they tended to be where there was the greatest potential benefit, but also where the state had the least amount of oversight. Like it or not, ESA was the stick to help persuade folks to take a more proactive approach with the Oregon Plan. As BtbW has pointed out on several occasions, the OCNs population trends are vastly improved over the last few years, and those of us who support the Oregon Plan would like to think that the state's efforts have at least some positive role in that.

On the other hand, I don't believe the Alsea Alliance and similar groups like the Pacific Legal Foundation have the best interests of the fish in mind at all. Their suit is not because they have a more effective plan for fish recovery, but because they are just plain hostile to environmental regulations in general.

I don't see this ruling as favorable to the fish, put it that way.