A very concerning Trend

ESU's are a very good thing! Are Keni River Kings the same as our Chinook? Are coastal Steelhead the same as Idaho Steelhead? Are Fall Chinook the same as Spring Chinook? Are Mule Deer the Same as Blacktails? (they are technically the same species) No none of these are the same and Ide hate to think of what would happen if they were all managed the same.

Lets use your quote,

"It also throws out any scientific genetic proof that the species is different. This is very troublesome. I can claim that blacktail in my region breed at a different time than the ones in the valley. They grunt differently and tend to act a bit different than yours do. Therefore, my numbers of animals are down significantly so they could qualify for an endangered list even though genetically they are exactly the same."


Basically yes they can, and do, but with less hassle. This is why there are different seasons and regulations for different units. It's even more extreme on the east side where we have a draw system. They can limit the number of tags and types of tags given out in each unit. And yes they can find genetic differences it just depends on how "hard" they look.

Another quote
“The scariest part of this, is that it can be applied to every region and species in your area. Just imagine what they could come up with to close your favorite river. It wouldn't be hard to prove one salmon is different from another because of the time of year it returns. Find a strain in one of the tributaries that has a low year for returns and classify it as endangered. You're shut down....... "


I guess the really scary part is this has already happened. On the Columbia you can keep wild fall Chinook but only hatchery springers and they structure the seasons to allow upriver escapement of endangered up river brights.

I would hardly call ESU’s a bad thing.

-blake

I have to agree somewhat with Tail chaser here. Just take the logic of it and take it to humans. Only Norwegian blondes should breed with Norwegian blondes, and so on. I think we all know what in-breeding does. That is not to say that we should be considering all members of a gentic species as the same, but in the case of animals such as the Orcas, that do travel and interbreed, trying to seperate them soley by area makes no sense. Here in Pierce County they are Planning to build the cross base freeway through a section on Fort Lewis. Located there is a small number of squirrels (I am not sure of the exact species but it maybe the western red squirrel) that a isolated completely from all other squirrels of that species. These squirrels are abundant in oregon, but only found in this one area in Washington. The plan I heard was to spend $10,000,000.00 for squirrel bridges (this is about 10% of the entire project if I remember correctly) to protect these squirrels. No one questions that they are the exact genetic species as in Oregon and I have not heard of any different characteristics other than the place they live. I we truely think that they are different, then perhaps we should simply preserve there DNA. We need to get real. While there are differences in some river fishes, there are also a large number of rivers where the fish stray. Compare the number of Whitetail deer in Washington today to 50 years ago. Nature has itself appears to understand the need for diversity. I am not saying I know much about this subject, but common sense does come into play somewhere.
Enviormentalism does not always make sense. We label our Bald Eagles as Threatened, but the maps show almost a 100% coverage of nesting sites, meaning there was little to no room for expansion. When I asked the biologists about this I was told they didn't have the funding to so the necessary studies to de-list them. (think the fact that they wouldn't have a job any more might have something to do with this?) Because many people spend thousands of dollars on eviromental studies that are not needed. Somewhere out there is a middle ground. I am not sure exactly where it is, but I do know from experience we will probably not find it from government biologists. It is my personal opinion, sorry if I offend anyone, that most government biologists take their job because they want to protect the enviroment. They could make much more money in private industry, but take less money so they can make a difference. Some it seems, lean towards a form of enviromentalism that borders on religion. It is these people that we must watch out for. While it may seem good to stop the Makah's from whaling, for example, we should take care not to allow faulty enviromental thinking to dictate the manner in which we accomplish what we want done.

Sound's orcas put on endangered list

BY JOHN DODGE

THE OLYMPIAN

The animals at the top of the Puget Sound food chain landed on the federal Endangered Species Act list Tuesday.

Three families of Puget Sound orcas, totaling 89 individuals and collectively known as the southern residents, were listed as endangered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service.

It means without further measures to protect them, the orcas of Puget Sound could become extinct.

"By giving it protection under the ESA, we have a better chance of keeping this population alive for future generations," said NOAA Fisheries regional administrator Bob Lohn.

The listing comes more than four years after conservation groups first petitioned the federal government.

"It's long overdue," said Kathy Fletcher of People for Puget Sound. "Listing orca whales is kind of like listing Puget Sound as endangered. We have no more time to lose."

Fletcher said the orcas' status as an endangered species should add a sense of urgency to efforts to protect Puget Sound habitat, clean toxic contamination, prevent oil spills and recover salmon, which are a big part of the orcas' diet.

In the 2006 state Legislature, a coalition of 18 environmental groups will push for money and a cleanup plan with the goal of a healthy Puget Sound by 2020.

"The orca listing should give the Puget Sound legislation a huge push," said Susan Berta, a Whidbey Island resident and co-founder of the Orca Network, which keeps tabs on the J, K and L pods' whereabouts.

Tuesday's listing could help the killer whales on several fronts, said former Secretary of State Ralph Munro, a lifelong champion of whale conservation.

"It should mean lots more research, lots more protection for salmon and a special emphasis on cleaning up marine toxins," Munro said.

Killer whales suffer from an accumulation of toxic chemicals in the marine food chain, depleted salmon runs and a paucity of breeding adults to keep the families growing. Many of the family members were captured and hauled off to aquariums in the 1960s, a practice halted in the 1970s.

Orca numbers are so low they're vulnerable to disease or a catastrophic event, such as a major oil spill, the federal agency said in its decision to list them.

From 1996 to 2001, the Puget Sound population fell from 97 to 79, but has rebounded of late to 89.

A year ago, NOAA Fisheries was poised to list them as threatened, which is a step short of endangered. Under better conditions, the Puget Sound orcas could number 200, federal scientists estimated last year.

"I think they started to realize how fragile this population is: small and such a small number of breeding males," Berta said.

The biggest benefit of an ESA listing will be the review of Puget Sound water-related projects to make sure they won't harm orcas, said John Calambokidis, a marine mammal researcher with Olympia- based Cascadia Research.

"I'm glad to see the population increasing," Calambokidis said. "It makes me much more hopeful about the future."

NOAA Fisheries officials said the federal agency will focus its orca recovery efforts on restoring salmon runs, cleaning up toxic chemicals and reducing the effect of vessel traffic on the meandering whales, which spend much of their time in the San Juans, but occasionally venture into South Sound.

Well as usual some things were taken a little off of what I meant, but that's ok. My concern is that bisecting nonendangered species into small geographic areas will enable groups everywhere to disect our outdoor activities. The squirrel thing is a perfect example of how far out of hand it can get. Imagine if they sectioned off a piece of land after the point that you can't walk anymore because it would intrude on thier livelyhood to reproduce? Sounds stupid, but underestimating the people who push these issues is a grave mistake on how far they'll take things.

As of cleaning up the sound, your state government is failing you drastically if it takes listing of an animal to start picking up the trash that it's throwing in the water. I'm glad my federal taxes can support it. :hoboy:

ESA's may be a useful tool in management as long as it's not taken too far. The problem I see is simple in regards to the orcas. They are a migratory species that spend some time in your backyard. What happens when an alleutian goose lands on your property and someone sees it? Your land could come under specific rules laid out by the federal F&G. All I'm saying is they're treading on a real gray area as far as I'm concerned.

tc