[cphatts]

I'm not an ifish regular but I wanted to pass along this important info to the ifish community. A new bill 2459 has just been voted through committee that if made law, would allow the state to classify any hatchery fish bred by wild parents (broodstock) to be classified as a wild fish. This basically means the state could then count all the returning adult hatchery fish as "wild". This violates the Endangered Species Act could spell big trouble for our river habitats as wild spawning habitat would be replaced by hatcheries. More info can be found at http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_pdf.htm

Please e-mail your representatives and let them know you want to protect wild fish!

[email protected], [email protected]
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

 

[Sore Back]

Hey thanks for the info. By the way, see you are new, welcome to the family.

 

[bulldog]

its about time!!

 

[lost_sailor]

I have been posting info about this since the session started. FYI it's HB not SB. Waiting for it to come up for a vote in the House, then it goes to the Senate, where hopefully smarter brains will prevail.

 

[hustlerrjim]

that is welcome news I for one would love to see the wild fish zealots prove the diff.between a wild fish and a hatchery fish;
remember who took away their dna test??????
with out that they are dead in the water.
now then for the bar stool biologists, there will be a hearing may 8 at the federal court in potland to decide this issue once and for all.
this will be by the scientific community only.
no public testimony will be permitted.

 

[lost_sailor]

maybe you think it's a good idea to have legislators making fish management policy on a statewide basis every 2 years.

I prefer to have fish & wildlife managers making policy based on facts about fish populations in specific areas. Policy that can change as needed.

There IS a difference between wild fish and hatchery fish. We don't have to pay to raise wild fish.

If this passes, it will un-do all the progress we have made with selective fisheries. The intent is that fish are no longer "endangered" if we raise them in hatcheries. I say any species dependent on hatchery funding is endangered! HB2459 is not intended to benefit fish or anglers. Farmers, loggers, and others who profit from habitat destruction, yes.

[ 04-29-2003, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: lost_sailor ]

 

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by lost_sailor:
There IS a difference between wild fish and hatchery fish. We don't have to pay to raise wild fish.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well, actually we do pay for wild fish in the form of opportunity cost of forgone use land made off-limits for other purposes, such as timber harvesting. Logging is banned on millions of acres of highly productive timberland in order to provide optimal fish habitat. Some of the restrictions provide real fish habitat benefits, some only provide theoretical or perceived benefits...but all cost the landowners forgone income...whether it is public or private land and public and private owners.

 

[garyk]

You only have to see where this bill is coming from - (anti-wildlife, anti-conservation interests) - to determine whether it intends to benefit fish & fishing in the long term.

Given the proponents, it certainly does not.

The bill's intent is twofold: 1. to muddy the waters, in increase uncertainty about need for habitat conservation and efforts to preserve wild stocks -("why bother, we can just build more hatcheries").

2. If successful, to roll back protections for water and critical habitat - -("again, why bother, we can just build more hatcheries").

IF you care about fish and their survival here in the Northwest, there's no way this direct attack can be considered a welcomed event.

I don't want to go off-topic here, but regarding the cost to landowners to conserve habitat. The flip side is that by permitting habitat destruction, degrading water and all the other things that reduce fish populations, industry is allowed to maximize profits by _externalizing the costs_ of their actions. That is, the costs and damages are transferred to and borne by the public, i.e. reduced fishing opportunity, landslides, etc.

 

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by MooseTurd:
A couple of questions Gutshot: About how many acres of productive forestland are there in Oregon? Can you provide us with a high level accounting of the millions of those acres that are specifically set aside for salmon protection? Thanks.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">According to The Atlas of Oregon (U of O Press 2001) page 92 "Forests cover almost half of Oregon's total land area." Oregon's land area = 96,030 sq mi (Arbuckle 1889) = 61.5 million acres total land area, "almost half" = about 30 million acres, or roughly 47,000 square miles, of forest in Oregon. How much of that is productive depends on how you define the word...some say 20 cu ft/acre annual growth is the cutoff....what do you say? And no, I can't give you precise figures on # of acres setaside and neither can anyone else...but we can make some estimates.


If you assume each section (640 acres) has 4 miles of streams needing protection (many coast and cascade range sections will have many more streams, eastern Oregon sections fewer) that works out to 188,000 miles of forested stream. Using an average width for riparian buffer strips of 50' each side, that works out to 12.1 acres/mile = a total of 2,278,788 acres of streamside reserves. Then there are the larger reserves for larger streams and on steep slopes on private & state land...more acres added to the total. On federal lands no-touch buffer strips extend 200' on each side of the stream...or 4 times as much land as assumed in the calc.above. Then you need to add in other federal fish & wildlife reserved areas like wilderness areas (2.1 million acres) and late successional reserves (5.7 million acres) where all the land is set aside...perhaps not expressly for fish but providing 100% protection of fish habitat.

I'm not saying this is too much or too little...just making the point that it costs someone when all other land uses are subordinated to the holy grail of fish habitat protection.

My personal opinion is that we can have both...abundant fish runs and abundant timber harvests...all produced from the same land base. But in many areas, until conifer forests grow, mature, die, then fall in the creek we may have to artifically place LWD in order to maximize fish production. If you travel around western Oregon you can see many, many examples of state, federal and private timber owners doing just that.

 

[Born to be Wild]

hustlerrjim,

Jim, you’ve been fishing for how many years and don’t know the difference between a hatchery and wild fish? :shrug:

Approximately 70% of ifisher’s know or believe in the difference. Probably at least 90% or better of fish biologist throughout the world know the difference. What’s your excuse?

Do I need to send you numerous documents showing the difference? Or are you closed minded and I would be wasting my time?

And I suppose there is no difference between Keiko who was born wild and a normal wild Orca? Good Lord Jim, get a grip!

You ever ponder why we have to raise hatchery smolts considerably larger than wild smolts just for them to survive at a dismal 1-2% as compared to wild smolt at 6-8%?

Originally posted by lost sailor:
There IS a difference between wild fish and hatchery fish. We don't have to pay to raise wild fish.

Well actually we do pay a small fee for our wild fish in surveys and management, etc. But that is cheap as compared to the dumb and highly domesticated hatchery fish we raise!

You’re right Sailor, you have posted on this matter since you first testified in Salem and I for one appreciate it!

:bowdown:

[ 04-29-2003, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

 

[Born to be Wild]

Here you go Tommy Boy. When Sailor first caught it and his testomony and a few good post and a couple of mine when I had a few too many! :grin:

http://www.ifish.net/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=021795

 

[Born to be Wild]

And yet another one!

http://www.ifish.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=023558#000000

 

[cphatts]

Thanks for those previous posts DepoeBay Dan. I didnt realize this issue was posted previously, but I guess it didnt hurt that I posted it again.

It looks like this bill is just a way for Kruse and his kronies to tap dance around the ESA act and allow for more wild salmonid habitat destruction. Does he really believe Oregonians are that stupid to not realize the differences in survival traits between wild and hatchery stocks? I believe we need to maintain some of our hatcheries, but to rely on them for 100% of our fish returns while we strip the hillsides and pollute the water is insane. This was the thought process in the 1800s and look where it got us.

As fisherman, we all need to collectively lobby our state legislators to put a stop to this bill. It would be a disastrous step backwards.

 

[wambam]

hey i have been in the wood industry all my life and i feel we get a bad rap, were doing what is legal. the real problem that nobody seems to address is the one dam after onther on the columbia and the snake.

 

[rebell]

The thought that hatchery fish and wild fish are the same is ridiculous. This bill is a huge step backwards, I doubt that it will go far.

Jim, please wake up. You are insulting everyones intelligence. There is a huge difference between hatchery and wild stocks, and you know that.

 

[Born to be Wild]

Ah hell, where's that *** Clerk at when you need him?

 

[Born to be Wild]

wambam,

Oh, I suspect that has been addressed here a time or two!

 

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

DepoeBayDan

*** is busy dodging funnel clouds today :shocked:

 

[lost_sailor]

Originally posted by tommy boy:
Does he really believe Oregonians are that stupid to not realize the differences in survival traits between wild and hatchery stocks?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">He thinks he knows better than you. And he knows he's in a position of some power. He's catering to his supporters like a good little politician.

And yes, it's good for this topic to come up again. The committee is sending it to the full House with a "do pass" recommendation. Call your reps if you care, especially if they're in the Good Ol' Party.

[ 04-29-2003, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: lost_sailor ]

 

[Born to be Wild]

hustlerrjim,

Now Jim, I have a test for you!

The Elocoman and NF Lewis river has two (2) different strains of hatchery coho. They both come from and are released from the same river and yet migrate to two different places. The early strain migrates to the south (Oregon) and the late strain migrates to the north (Washington).

Can you please show me the DNA difference in the two (2) strains why the one migrates north and the other chooses to migrate south?

Answer my question about the coho and I will be satisified!