IFish Fishing Forum banner

1 - 20 of 58 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Wahoo! SB 2459 has made it out of committee with a “do pass” recommendation. This is the bill that says hatchery fish are the same as wild. Now when hatchery returns are weak for any reason the ESA can be used to close down the entire fishery. PETA and the Sierra Club are going to love this if it passes.

You know the old saying – be careful what you ask for because you might get it…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,569 Posts
Wow ... they amended it to remove the requirement that hatchery fish be propagated from wild fish.

The only part that made any sense :depressed:

Well it's got a long way to go. The Senate is split. & they'll be hearing from me, I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,604 Posts
They are not the same fish, ask anyone that fishes wild winters (broodstock not included). This has to be the single greatest reason that the legislature should have no say in wildlife issues. :mad: :mad: :mad: Leave this responsibility in capable hands, not worthless politicans. What a major mess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,964 Posts
Each person decides if a particular change in law or legal understanding is good or bad based upon their own view of the world and the issues they find important. With regard to this bill my first impression would be an overall negative one and is the apparent comeuppance for ODFW for all the years of making landowners bear the brunt of ESA restrictions. Yet as I have carefully considered the possible outcomes I see many opportunities. The wrangling and maneuvering that can be gained (from my prospective) by having state law contrary to federal ESA requirements is something to be taken advantage of.

Although it will probably be vetoed it is interesting to consider the possibilities.
:shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
Originally posted by *** Clerk:
the apparent comeuppance for ODFW for all the years of making landowners bear the brunt of ESA restrictions..........
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Huh?

A session or two ago, members of the Oregon legislature complained about ODFW's enforcement of the state ESA. The Oregon f&w commission responded "If you don't like the state ESA, why don't you change or repeal it?"

This may be their way around that pesky law.

As for state law over-ruling federal ESA...not likely, IMO. :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
MooseTurd:

Wahoo! SB 2459 has made it out of committee with a “do pass” recommendation. This is the bill that says hatchery fish are the same as wild. Now when hatchery returns are weak for any reason the ESA can be used to close down the entire fishery. PETA and the Sierra Club are going to love this if it passes.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Sierra Club opposes the bill.

You need to focus on the bills supporters, developers, agriculture industry, timber industry, oil and gas companies, etc.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,082 Posts
As someone with a front-row seat to the 'science' of fisheries I can give my honest opinion about one thing-it is far from exact.
Don't trust any one interest group over another based solely on the legitimization (did I spell that right?) that they are using science.

In other words, don't put all your salmon eggs in one basket, you'll be bummin' when it breaks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
I am sure the bios were there giving testimony to save their jobs but there is no difference except in the eye of the beholder.
without their phoney dna tests the greenies are stymied.
I for one am glad to see sanity return to our industry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
hustlerrjim,

I am sure the bios were there giving testimony to save their jobs but there is no difference except in the eye of the beholder.
without their phoney dna tests the greenies are stymied.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So NW Steelheaders, among other sport fishing groups are "greenies"...hmmm. If you are hunter or fishermen, you have to be a "greenie"...no healthy environment/habitat, no fish or game.

However, I think you miss the point. Raising fish in a hatchery is not the same as there being a self sustaining native population.

It's like claiming animals are not endangered because there are a couple breeding pairs in zoos.

Those who want to remove salmon from the protection of the Endangered Species Act want to make a few bucks destroying the remaining native salmon habitat (developers, ag. interests, energy companies). The only fish you'd have would be hatchery fish.

Using current conditions, that would mean 600,000 fewer salmon to fish for, a bigger commercial catch and fewer returning hatchery fish since no protection for salmon.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
Brion-------How can we end up with 600,000 fewer Salmon to fish for? The point is to have ZERO impact on wild fish during any harvest period. Are you targeting wild fish????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,569 Posts
Yo hustlerjim!

Extinction is forever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
344 Posts
The ESA was a product of politicians, it is time they had the guts to get involved and get it out of the hands of the biologists!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,604 Posts
BullDog,
How can you possibly think that putting the politicans in charge is a good idea?

DNA is a proven science, hatchery fish have very little genetic diversity, it has been proven, where as wild fish do. Letting the ranchers, loggers, and developers have there way will be a disaster. No matter which side of the hatchery fish argument your on, there is little doubt that hatchery fish and wild fish are not the same. Its like saying that farm turkeys and wild turkeys are the same
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
Wood N' Fish.

Are you targeting wild fish????
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">If you fish for salmon you are "targetting native fish". I've released about 4 natives so far this Springer season, that's about 40% of my catch in the last 30 days. Just as much fun to catch as hatchery fish.

It wouldn't be just the loss of the native fish, with no protection for the salmon, there's no reason for any limits on commercial or sport fishing, ocean habitat protections, etc. so we'd have a declining return on hatcheries.

There would also be no real justification for hatcheries since most of them are financed for mitigation of the loss of the native run.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
344 Posts
willamettee river outlaw. I will say it again, the ESA was created by politicians.That is how our country runs.. not by biologists. They must get this under control as it is now impacting many of our protected property rights and costing our economy significantly here in the northwest.It will take lots of little steps to correct these impacts..and it will take gutsy representatives to do this.Our basic natural resourse industries are no longer a significant impact on the fish resourse.Timber harvests have been reduced to a trickle here in the northwest at great cost to real jobs and believe me , future generations will suffer the consequences if something is not done. If we can supplement native fish with hatcheries we should.The more fish the better as long as it doesnt futher impact our basic indusries further.Thank you and moose **** for bringing this to my attention so I can give my representative some input. Bulldog(fisherman, farmer)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,604 Posts
hatchery and wild fish are the same only in appearance. By allowing this bill to pass it is encouraging irresponsible behavior by loggers, farmers, industrial plants, and other polluters. Yes farmers need protection, but by allowing them to let their toxic run off into any stream is unnaceptable. Yes, cow poo is toxic to fish because in encourages algae blooms that take the D.O.(disolved oxygen) out of the water which sufficates fish. Look at the Pfisteria out breaks on the east coast, there a direct offshoot of pig and chicken farms. Wild fish need our protection, and to sell them short for current economic gains is both short sighted and selfish. Logging is a valuable industry, and the ESA hasn't hurt it like the tree huggers and foreign farmed timber has.
Anyways this law, even if its passed will fail because it is in contradiction with federal law.

When these wild fish are gone, there gone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,002 Posts
Bulldog, obviously you have your mind made up, however in response to your statement - "If we can supplement native fish with hatcheries we should."

Please consider where that hatchery stock comes from - it comes from wild fish.

Q: And what happens if wild fish are no more?

A: A rapid decline in fitness of the hatchery population.

That's why there's been so much interest in 'hatchery wild broodstock programs'.

Lose the wild fish and you lose salmon fishing in the Northwest - talk about 'impacts'!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,964 Posts
GSA

State law cannot overrule Federal.

However the scenario I was alluding to would be if under SB 2459, ODFW was prohibited from considering wild fish and hatchery as different. If in a given river system a wild run of salmon was on the verge of being eliminated (less than 50 adults returning every year) but on this same system there is a hatchery operation that releases 100,000 smolts and gets a return of 1,500 adults. If the feds decide that the wild run needs protected and the state is now precluded from considering these wild fish different from hatchery the more restrictive Federal rule would apply. But because ODFW would be statutorily restricted from doing anything different for the wild fish as they do for the hatchery and are to consider then the same ODFW would not be in a position to protect these fish. That would now leave it up to the Federal people to decide and implement the policy on this system. ODFW would be out and the feds would use their rules and statutes to protect this run.
Now if you remember from a few years back when the feds levied large fines against cattle operations that were violating clean water requirements and the state did not enforce so the feds used their rules, the feds have no carrots and only a big stick. The landowners may now have to deal with federal people and I do not think that is what they want.

I can see lawsuit after lawsuit slowly removing ODFW’s authority to manage wild fish production until they have been completely pushed aside. The conservation groups can probably work with the feds just as well as with the state. We will just lose local input in how our fisheries are managed.

If our state legislature wants to act foolishly then we will simply remove them from the equation and ODFW will lose many top people. :hoboy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
Bulldog,

I will say it again, the ESA was created by politicians.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">And you'd be wrong again <grin>. ESA was created by scientists based on science in response to species extinction.

That's like saying the Apollo moon lander was "created by politicians" because they passed the law creating NASA.

Where's Teddy Roosevelt when we need him so he can take a big stick to the robber barons again.

Brion
 
1 - 20 of 58 Posts
Top