Joined
·
3,904 Posts
News-Times Editorial:
Survival of the fittest
It's going to take hip waders to struggle past all the white water of the Oregon Legislature's House Bill 2459. The all salmon (hatchery and wild) are created equal "Salmon Bill" is destined for a wild ride.
The broad-brush approach to salmon is fraught with danger. Recent swirls of controversy over the coloring of farm-raised salmon point to a simple fact. It's easy to confuse the public. Getting any deeper into the equal evolution of salmon brings in the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the National Marine Fisheries Services, now the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, the U.S. District Court in Seattle, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals weighing the protective merits of the Federal Endangered Species Act. Now we can confuse everyone.
Our coastal representative in the House, Alan Brown, R-Newport, has thought through the reasons and benefits of the bill. The basic idea is to proliferate salmon runs. Much of the controversy sprang from ODFW's 2000 clubbing of thousands of hatchery coho in the view that they are a threat to wild runs. The lawsuits and litigation are still running their course through the Ninth U.S. District Court, but the Oregon bill would, as Brown put it, "use these fish (hatchery) as a tool for recovery of the species." This would be a good thing for Oregon and would capitalize on an existing successful salmon recovery.
The bill itself is very clear in its intention: "A wild fish management policy shall treat hatchery fish that are bred from wild stock as wild fish...they will be allowed to reproduce if they return to spawn."
The denominator in this drama is the arena where these fish play out most of their adult life, the ocean. Hatchery fish come back sooner, but the "wild" ones survive better. And that's the point. When it comes to the ocean, survival of the fittest is the mantra. If after traveling thousands of miles throughout the ocean, hatchery fish are met with only a club when they return to spawn, how can a fishery be developed with the traits they were bred for?
We're sure the Senate's Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee will place this bill on its back burner like a hot potato soup. Too bad; it would take some guts to place a made for Oregon industry ahead of a federal decision. But then, we're from the coast and believe in ocean fishing industries, where survival of the fittest has become a way of life. (wcg)
http://www.newportnewstimes.com/nt_news/opinion/nt_opinion.html#TopOfPage
After delivering in Newport I picked up Wednesdays paper and went to the Sizzler for dinner. This about ruined it for me. Never ends does it?
Anyway I think this is a misinformed editorial and based on the coastal mentality down here it doesn't surprise me.
I think Allan Brown should stick to selling tires and biologist stick to managing wild and hatchery fish. Not politicians!
I know a lot of you have seen this lame bill on a thread originally started by lost sailor and maybe have burned out on it, but I want to send a comment on this editorial to the News-Times and would like your opinion.
If anyone would like to send a comment to the News-Times and let them know that not all folks believe a fish is a fish like they do at the coast, here is the email: [email protected]
It says letters sent via email should clearly state that they are for publication.
Dan
[ 05-29-2003, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]
Survival of the fittest
It's going to take hip waders to struggle past all the white water of the Oregon Legislature's House Bill 2459. The all salmon (hatchery and wild) are created equal "Salmon Bill" is destined for a wild ride.
The broad-brush approach to salmon is fraught with danger. Recent swirls of controversy over the coloring of farm-raised salmon point to a simple fact. It's easy to confuse the public. Getting any deeper into the equal evolution of salmon brings in the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the National Marine Fisheries Services, now the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, the U.S. District Court in Seattle, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals weighing the protective merits of the Federal Endangered Species Act. Now we can confuse everyone.
Our coastal representative in the House, Alan Brown, R-Newport, has thought through the reasons and benefits of the bill. The basic idea is to proliferate salmon runs. Much of the controversy sprang from ODFW's 2000 clubbing of thousands of hatchery coho in the view that they are a threat to wild runs. The lawsuits and litigation are still running their course through the Ninth U.S. District Court, but the Oregon bill would, as Brown put it, "use these fish (hatchery) as a tool for recovery of the species." This would be a good thing for Oregon and would capitalize on an existing successful salmon recovery.
The bill itself is very clear in its intention: "A wild fish management policy shall treat hatchery fish that are bred from wild stock as wild fish...they will be allowed to reproduce if they return to spawn."
The denominator in this drama is the arena where these fish play out most of their adult life, the ocean. Hatchery fish come back sooner, but the "wild" ones survive better. And that's the point. When it comes to the ocean, survival of the fittest is the mantra. If after traveling thousands of miles throughout the ocean, hatchery fish are met with only a club when they return to spawn, how can a fishery be developed with the traits they were bred for?
We're sure the Senate's Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee will place this bill on its back burner like a hot potato soup. Too bad; it would take some guts to place a made for Oregon industry ahead of a federal decision. But then, we're from the coast and believe in ocean fishing industries, where survival of the fittest has become a way of life. (wcg)
http://www.newportnewstimes.com/nt_news/opinion/nt_opinion.html#TopOfPage
After delivering in Newport I picked up Wednesdays paper and went to the Sizzler for dinner. This about ruined it for me. Never ends does it?
Anyway I think this is a misinformed editorial and based on the coastal mentality down here it doesn't surprise me.
I think Allan Brown should stick to selling tires and biologist stick to managing wild and hatchery fish. Not politicians!
I know a lot of you have seen this lame bill on a thread originally started by lost sailor and maybe have burned out on it, but I want to send a comment on this editorial to the News-Times and would like your opinion.
If anyone would like to send a comment to the News-Times and let them know that not all folks believe a fish is a fish like they do at the coast, here is the email: [email protected]
It says letters sent via email should clearly state that they are for publication.
Dan
[ 05-29-2003, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]