Important Info that I haven't seen posted.

[corkyking]

If this has been posted or discussed, I apologize for bringing it up again.

I think it supports my contention that we really don't know a lot about where we are going with this "native" or "wild" fish question.

link to other post.

Seattle,WA; March 04, 2004: Pacific Legal Foundation today asked a federal court to invalidate three illegal listings of West Coast steelhead as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). PLF is charging the federal government with unlawfully manipulating fish counts in an attempt to bolster justification for otherwise unneeded listings by refusing to count hatchery and resident steelhead in the Columbia and Willamette Rivers. Stringent ESA regulations resulting from these unnecessary and illegal listings have for years crippled critical parts of Washington’s and Oregon’s economies.

The lawsuit comes one week after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed environmentalists’ appeal of PLF’s landmark victory in Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, invalidating the ESA listing of Oregon Coast coho salmon. The Ninth Circuit let stand the high-profile federal District Court decision holding that the government violated the ESA when it illegally distinguished between naturally spawned and hatchery coho . In a statement released last week, House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA) said PLF’s Ninth Circuit victory "could be the best precedent ever set in Endangered Species Act case law."

[ 03-09-2004, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: corkyking ]

[corkyking]

PLF's legal breif:

29. O. mykiss which migrate to the ocean, commonly referred to as steelhead, and O. mykiss which retain freshwater residence, commonly referred to as rainbow trout, are both scientifically classified as O. mykiss. 62 Fed. Reg. 43,937, 43,938 (Aug. 18, 1997). Because they are the same species inhabiting the same streams, members of O. mykiss, both steelhead and rainbow trout, interbreed with one another. 63 Fed. Reg. 13,347, 13,350-51 (March 19, 1998). Migratory O. Mykiss can produce resident O. mykiss offspring and vice versa. Id. Thus, on nature’s whim, any given O. mykiss may become a steelhead, while its O. mykiss kin from the very same stream may remain a rainbow trout. Likewise, hatchery O. Mykiss inhabit the same streams and often interbreed with naturally spawning O. mykiss. Hatchery and naturally spawned O. mykiss are also scientifically classified as the same species and, in most cases, considered by NMFS to exist in the same populations.

32. On September 12, 2001, the Federal District Court for the District of Oregon entered a judgment affirming that NMFS erred in distinguishing between hatchery salmon and naturally spawned salmon in the Oregon Coast coho ESU. Alsea Valley Alliance, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or 2001), appeal dismissed, Ninth Circuit, No. 01-36071, February 24, 2004)). That decision reversed the action by NMFS listing only naturally spawned salmon from the Oregon Coast ESU of coho salmon as threatened under the ESA. The Court ruled that no ESA provision contemplates the listing of only some fish as a species while excluding other fish of the same species in the same river.

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

I dont know but looking at the fact that the people that make up the alience are big money interest groups.

I would say they dont give a rip about steelhead wild or hatchery and only care about themselves,and are just wanting to use the land and rivers in any manner that they choose, no matter how unhealthy for the watershed it is.

its kind of funny even though I am for hatchery supplimenting of our rivers that need it I m also strongly opposed to no protecting our wild stocks.

15 years ago when I started salmon and steelhead fishing it was very rare for me to catch a native steelhead.

I am guessing here but I would think that in the first 7 yrs I fished for them I didnt catch more then 1 or 2 on the river I fish mostly in that entire time.

the last 7 yrs I have seen a remarkable rebound in the wild fish population of that river and now I know I am going to hook 5 to 10 natives a year. the protections we have in place are working. they may not be as strong as some would wish but they are working.

I would really hate to see big interests, farmers, irrigation users, timber land owners, that only care about how profitable their lands are reverse what the last 7 or 8 years of protection has done.

ok before I get told that 5 or 10 a year isnt a remarkable increase be aware I used to fish for them 3 or 4 days a week , now I fish once or twice a month for them so for the amount of hours I spend fishing now compared to 7 yrs ago I say that is a huge increase in the wild fish population.

Quasi

.

[bait boy]

I wonder what would happen to the gillnetters if there were less of an ESA restriction on them? and the sports fishers for that matter. Would that mean no more closures due to ESA impacts or just less of a chance?

[Salmonator]

Originally posted by Quasimodo the fish killer:


15 years ago when I started salmon and steelhead fishing it was very rare for me to catch a native steelhead.

I am guessing here but I would think that in the first 7 yrs I fished for them I didnt catch more then 1 or 2 on the river I fish mostly in that entire time.

the last 7 yrs I have seen a remarkable rebound in the wild fish population of that river and now I know I am going to hook 5 to 10 natives a year. the protections we have in place are working. they may not be as strong as some would wish but they are working.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Quasi, I'm guessing you don't want to name the river you mostly fish, but can you tell what kind of enhancement or protection that has been done to your river in the last 15 years for those native steelhead to rebound?

[garyk]

CorkyKing, mix two already complex topics ESA law and fish biology and you get something of a linguistic birdsnest. And that’s what we have here.

In your first post, the sentence you have bolded, "...the government violated the ESA when it illegally distinguished between naturally spawned and hatchery coho.", shown in the limited context, would lead one to believe that Judge Hogan ruled on biology. However, that is not the case.

Writing this as simply as I can - NMFS erred in the originally listing of coastal coho, when it did not distinguish between beleaguered wild coho (which the ESA listing was meant to protect) and abundant, artificially propagated hatchery coho. This was the original error.

Subsequently, rules were enacted that recognized only WILD coho. The rules distinguished between the two stocks, while the original listing did not. This provided the legal opening for PLF to mount its attack.

I hope you fully appreciate that PLF has no interest in wild fish or their survival.

[Siwash]

Sorry, but PLF's opinions run counter to years and years of widely-published, peer-reviewed biology. They are a bunch of lawyers (hence, the "LF"--Legal Foundation--in "PLF") representing private property interests. Advocating on behalf of private landowners, developers, extractive industries, etc, is a valid, legitimate position to take, but please don't confuse the lawyers with biologists. I would also include "biologists" on the PLF payroll as having no credibility. It's not like they have a better plan for improving the health of our fish runs; quite the contrary, they see fish protection (i.e., the ESA and other regulatory entities like it) as an obstacle to their financial gain. They are perfectly entitled to that opinion, but let's just make sure that bias is clear in evaluating their "science".

The old saw that hatchery fish and wild fish are the same, that they've been interbred so long there are no truly "wild" fish left, is simply not true. If you do your homework, the evidence is clear. I apologize profusely I don't have links to the reports ready to paste right here and now, but I've seen them posted on this board before by others, so I know they're in the archives somewhere. The fact is that hatchery fish reproduce poorly in nature (no surprise, since that is the life stage at which the mechanisms of natural selection have been defeated by artificial spawning and rearing), and therefore the results of their interbreeding don't persist well at all in the population as a whole. Just because we have trouble measuring some of the genetic differences in a small sample of fish at this point in time doesn't mean they don't exist across larger populations over a longer period of time, as evidenced by years of observational data in their relative behaviors (i.e., spatial and temporal distribution, and spawning success as measured by returning adults in subsequent generations). Saying there is no such thing as a "wild" fish anymore is an intellectually lazy way of evading our responsibility for the situation and trying to improve it. I've never heard that argument from anyone who didn't have a vested stake in reducing wild fish protection for one reason or another.

I'll grant that the ESA is far from perfect, but it's stood the test of time as being the best tool we've got in certain situations. While unpopular, there are times when the stick still gets better results than the carrot. Sure, we should re-evaluate our management practices as we go along and that can lead to modifications (as it has before), but I agree with Quasi that we're generally on the right track over the last decade or so. This is no time to throw the baby out with the bath water, as PLF would have us do.

[corkyking]

GaryK : can you provide documentation that; “NMFS erred in the originally listing of coastal coho”

“Writing this as simply as I can “ My opinion is, as I have stated many times before I knew there was a PLF (yesterday) there is no difference. If you can convince me otherwise I’m all for a “wild” strain that I can fish for and protect but the evidence is overwhelming to the contrary. You ask me to “believe”. I have enough trouble with religion.

Siwash: “Sorry, but PLF's opinions run counter to years and years of widely-published, peer-reviewed biology”

Documentation please.
I read time and time again that we should pay attention to “the science” provided by the the gov’t and other nebulous "experts".

I submit for your perusal:
Federal Register: August 18, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 159)]

And excerpts from the same:
Oncorhynchus mykiss exhibit one of the most complex suites of life history traits of any salmonid species. Oncorhynchus mykiss may exhibit anadromy (meaning they migrate as juveniles from fresh water to the ocean, and then return to spawn in fresh water) or freshwater residency (meaning they reside their entire life in fresh water). Resident forms are usually referred to as ``rainbow'' or ``redband'' trout, while anadromous life forms are termed ``steelhead.'' Few detailed studies have been conducted regarding the relationship between resident and anadromous O. mykiss and as a result, the relationship between these two life forms is poorly understood. Recently the scientific name for the biological species that includes both steelhead and rainbow trout was changed from Salmo gairdneri to O. mykiss. This change reflects the premise that all trouts from western North America share a common lineage with Pacific salmon.
A particular problem occurs in the main stem of the Columbia River where listed steelhead from the Upper Columbia and Snake River Basin ESUs migrate at the same time and are subject to the same fisheries as unlisted, hatchery-produced steelhead, chinook and coho salmon . Incidental harvest mortality in mixed-stock sport and commercial fisheries may exceed 30 percent of listed populations.

[corkyking]

GaryK: "Had NMFS designated ONLY wild coho in the original listing........"

From what I've read in the Federal Register I get the impression that NMFS was very careful NOT to designate a fish as "wild" because they knew they knew that their own data did not support the existence of such stocks.

Would you post a link to judge Hogan's ruling for me pls. I want to know all I can about this subject.

Thanks.

[garyk]

Sorry, I don't ahve a link readily available, but I'm sure you can Google it.

[blacktail519]

Salmonator..... If you want my opinion, I think the fin clipping is a way the state has found to control the retention of not only wild fish, but hatchery fish as well. I truly believe that in some hatcheries, they finclip, and also dont clip a certain percentage of fish, and release unclipped fish as well, to help increase there returns, by limiting the catch by not only sport anglers, but gillnetters as well. I have been out fishing and all to often got into a small school of smolt hitting my line and in catching these fish in a shool, about 70 percent are clipped, and 30 percent are not. Is it just coincidence that these fish are the exact same size, and running together Or is my opinion not so far fetch :whazzup: I feel the state is using fin clipping in there advantage in more ways then one!! But thats just my feelings.

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

Salmonator my river isnt a secret it has graced the pages of fishing and hunting news many time and I read about it in oregon washington fishing and hunting mag. I have floated most sections of this river and have hunted in areas around the sections I have not floated here is a list of things that I have personally seen during my adventures on the river.

logs anchored into the bedrock with rebar and cables

root balls anchored into the bed rock .

rock piles placed to give smolts a resting place

small rock dams placed across the entire river

these enhancments are in place on most every feeder creek dumping into the system on several of the creeks they have done enhancments close to 30 miles up from the mouth of it. they have spent a lot of time and effort working on this river system it seems to be paying off I am in no way saying that the river has completely rebounded but there is a noticable change.

by the way those logs across the river are usually stacked 2 or 3 high and have a notch cut out of the center of the top one and go the entire width of the creek or river. they arent a joy to boat. I boated them when I was young and dumb. now I am old fat lazy and dumb so I stick to the main river :blush:

Quasi

.

[Salmonator]

Quasi, thank you. Blacktail, yes I think your conspiracy theory is a little far fetched, especially on the Oregon coast. On some Columbia tribs to the WA side, I might believe it [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

[blacktail519]

Honestly, i am still trying to understand, and learn what all is involved in hatchery programs. Dont want to stir the pot by any means

[corkyking]

GaryK:
I followed your suggestion and here's what I found. I'm afraid it bolsters my argument rather than yours unless I’m missing something.

Judge Hogan Hits A Homer : Oregon Coastal Coho Listing Is Unlawful

On September 10, 2001, United States District Judge Michael R. Hogan issued a long-awaited ruling in a case brought by the Alsea Valley Alliance challenging the 1998 Endangered Species Act listing of Oregon coastal coho salmon. There are, of course, no endangered salmon species ; all the listings are premised upon expansive language in section 3(16) of the Act permitting listings of "any distinct population segment of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature"......................

........... Judge Hogan advised that the hatchery and natural runs "share the same rivers, habitat and seasonal runs" and most of the so-called "natural" fish are in fact the offspring of hatchery fish . Indeed, Judge Hogan noted that "NMFS considers progeny of hatchery fish that are born in the wild as "naturally spawned" coho that deserve listing protection".......................

[garyk]

CorkyKing: I followed the link you provided. It appears to be an editorial by some organization, who by it's use of perjorative language throughout which I'll not quote here, appears to be strongly opposed to the conservation of wild salmon.

The following quote from them is worth noting - "In this case, NMFS defined the DPS to include both hatchery and wild coho salmon along the Oregon coast, including at least nine hatchery populations along with so-called "wild" populations."

As I've said, this was a procedural error by NMFS. The PLF cleverly exploited it to reduce habitat protections. They won the point - it was a smart legal move.

It will force NMFS to be more precise in re-listing the stocks that need it.

The bottom line though is that reducing salmon habitat protections certainly does nothing to help fish. Do you disagree with that?

[garyk]

CorkyKing - your answer lies in Judge Hogan's actual ruling, in it's entirety - not in press releases from PLF or short excerpts

Like I said this is tricky busniness.

Had NMFS designated ONLY wild coho in the original listing, PLF would not have had this procedural error to exploit.

Again, the judge's ruling was about process and procedure, not about biology. That is why the defendant's (including ODFW) voluminous testimony about the difference between wild and hatchery stocks didn't move the judge. He was only looking at the listing document which basically said 'coho', one and all.

I hope this clarifies for you what the Judge did and did not rule on.

[Siwash]

A quick tip of the hat to Garyk for astutely pointing out the messy, oft-clouded relationship between law and biology. PLF’s lawsuit obviously gained their desired traction on legal grounds, but that is not the same thing as having their broader views validated on scientific grounds. My original point was in response to the common assertion that there’s no such thing as a truly “wild” fish anymore (not to pick on CK personally, because that’s something I hear a lot all over), and the corollary inference that since we’ve already P’d in the pool, there’s no point trying to protect whatever’s left.

CK,
Sorry I’m a bit slow to respond (work & family—you know the deal…), but since you asked, here’s the first good link I could dig up, originally posted by *** clerk on a broodstock thread:

http://home.comcast.net/~lway3/Clack...h_genetics.pdf

The point of the study was that hatchery fish do negatively impact wild fish, but mostly due to competition for habitat, whereas the long-term influx of hatchery genetics is relatively minor because the hatchery offspring are not as viable over following generations and therefore they tend to remove themselves from the equation due to poor reproductive success. If you care enough to keep looking, there’s plenty more info out there (following the bibliography trail for scientific journal articles such as this one is a good way to start), but I’m sorry I don’t have time to help you out more with the homework.

I tried to check out the link you provided in post #3, but only got a blank page; not sure why. However, I’m still left with 2 points:

1) The excerpt you posted is interesting, but it doesn’t support your argument in that it addresses different life histories of the fish (i.e., resident vs anadromous forms), not whether/how those histories are affected (or not) by hatchery introgression. They may seem like similar issues, but really they’re talking apples and oranges.

2) Since I couldn’t get the link to open, I don’t know the source and what they do or don’t bring to the table, but based on the previous post (quoting PLF’s claim) and the most recent post (an op-ed piece by Mr. Buchal, whose name I recognize as a long-standing critic of any environmental policy that gets in the way of profits), there’s a lack of credibility. Quoting the PLF to back up the PLF’s position is at best circular reasoning—it’s kinda like submitting a statement from a crime suspect that “I didn’t do it” in order to “prove” his innocence. And offering Buchal in support isn’t much better—it’s no more persuasive than saying that Bush is a liar and a cheat just because Michael Moore said so (or that the Democratic candidate is such-and-such just because Rush Limbaugh said so, take your pick).

Again, the PLF has an agenda that is clearly hostile to the ESA and land-use regulations in general, and undermining the fish listing is simply their Trojan Horse in trying to dismantle the system. I do accept that they have the right to try and promote their views both in the courts and with the general public, and of course all of us here in good ol’ Ifish, USA are free to agree with their agenda or not (it’s surely obvious by now that I don’t), and that’s OK. However, as the saying goes—You have the right to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. To validate a point should require some sort of hard data, or at least data from a third party that doesn’t have a dog in the very same fight. Granted, ODFW has a huge stake in the matter, but not such that I discount the biologists’ objectivity. If anything, they have an interest in promoting hatchery fish, since having hatchery fish available for harvest provides a critical revenue stream through license and tag fees. The current wild fish conservation policy has evolved over many years based on the observable evidence in the field (with a little political give-and-take stirred in, of course); I can’t see where an unsubstantiated pro-wild fish bias would cause ODFW anything but grief in terms of having to jump through more complicated hoops in developing, implementing, and monitoring a comprehensive management plan to address legislative mandates, Fed/ESA compliance, treaty rights, etc. It would be far easier to just give up on wild fish and spend their time, money, and effort on cranking out more hatchery fish (wait, we tried that already, and it caused at least as many problems as it fixed). Fortunately, the biologists tend to turn over less often than the politicians, so the more rigorous science can gradually take root, and the bio’s can begin to apply the lessons they’ve learned while the PLF’s hired guns were off studying law instead.

That’s at least $.03 (my meter’s undoubtedly expired), so I’m done now. Last word is available to whoever wants it. Have a nice day.