Dubya to Destroy All Salmon Recovery in Idaho

[JoseCuervo]

In yet another stupid move by Dubya, to show his Anti-Fishing/Hunting stance, he now decides swimming pools are adequate places to raise fish. At least Kerry has offered to take the issue to heart, and look out for all of America's Sportsmen.

Rule alters salmon protections

The administration will count hatchery fish in determining endangered status.

SEATTLE — The Bush administration has decided to count hatchery-bred fish, which are pumped into West Coast rivers by the hundreds of millions yearly, when it decides whether stream-bred wild salmon are entitled to protection under the Endangered Species Act.

That represents a major change in the federal government’s approach to protecting Pacific salmon — a $700 million-per-year effort that it has described as the most expensive and complicated of all attempts to enforce the Endangered Species Act.

The decision, contained in a draft document and confirmed Wednesday by federal officials, means that the health of spawning wild salmon no longer will be the sole gauge of whether a salmon species is judged by the federal government to be on the brink of extinction. Four of five salmon found in major West Coast rivers, including the Columbia, already are bred in hatcheries, and some will now be counted as the federal government tries to determine which salmon species are endangered.

“We need to look at both wild and hatchery fish before deciding whether to list a species for protection,” said Bob Lohn, Northwest regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Lohn added that the new policy probably will help guide decisions this summer by the Bush administration about whether to remove 15 species of salmon from protection as endangered or threatened.

From Washington to Southern California, the decision to count hatchery-bred fish in assessing the health of wild salmon runs could have profound economic consequences.

In the past 15 years, the federal government’s effort to protect stream-bred wild salmon has forced costly changes in how forests are cut, housing developments are built, farms are cultivated and rivers are operated for hydroelectricity production. Farm, timber and power interests have complained for years about these costs and have sued to remove protections for some fish.

They are enthusiastic advocates of counting hatchery fish when assessing the survival chances of wild salmon. Unlike their wild cousins, hatchery fish can be bred without ecosystemwide modifications to highways, farms and dams.

“Upon hearing this news, I am cautiously optimistic that the government may be complying with the law and ending its slippery salmon science,” said Russell Brooks, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, an industry-funded group that has challenged federal salmon-protection efforts in court.

Word of the new policy was greeted by outrage from several environmental groups.

“Rather than address the problems of habitat degraded by logging, dams and urban sprawl, this policy will purposefully mask the precarious condition of wild salmon behind fish raised by humans in concrete pools,” said Jan Hasselman, counsel for the National Wildlife Federation.

“This is the same sort of mechanistic, blind reliance on technology that got us into this problem in the first place,” said Chris Wood, vice president for conservation at Trout Unlimited. “We built dams that block the fish, and we are trucking many of these fish around the dams. Now the administration thinks we can just produce a bazillion of these hatchery fish and get out from underneath the yoke of the Endangered Species Act.”

Federal officials said Wednesday that the new policy on hatchery salmon — to be published in June in the Federal Register and then be opened to public comment — was in response to a 2001 federal court ruling in Oregon. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan found that the federal government made a mistake by counting only wild fish — and not genetically similar hatchery fish — when it listed coastal coho salmon for protection.

 

[Ithaca 37]

This is terrible!! It defies all common sense and any fishermen who vote for Bush must be really stupid!

 

[Nemont]

EG,
I from Missouri Show me this in black and white______

At least Kerry has offered to take the issue to heart, and look out for all of America's Sportsmen.

He also voted for it before he voted against it. Vowed to "drill like never before" all over the country.

Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

Its pretty sad that Dubya and his crappy administration have any influence over wildlife, fisheries, and natural resource management in general.

From Washington to Southern California, the decision to count hatchery-bred fish in assessing the health of wild salmon runs could have profound economic consequences.

Thats flat wrong, for all kinds of reasons.

I wonder if anyone in the administration even understands the difference between wild and hatchery fish? I wonder if they realize how badly some of the wild runs have been degraded, or that there are many, many, many different runs and strains of salmon and steelhead?

This is a classic example of an administration dictating policy that they dont have a clue about, and even more disappointing is the fact they are ignoring the experts and the facts.

Of course, this is becoming standard for Dubya and company, from waging war to dealing with natural resources to dealing with fish and wildlife.

Act unilaterally, while keeping your head up your ass, lie to the public, dont listen to anyone who knows the issues...all the while hoping the nascar crowd will re-elect you.

A hunter or fisherman would have to be out of his/her mind to vote again for this numb-skull.

 

[1_pointer]

What's next, counting animals in captivity towards the population targets needed to de-list or down-list species? This stinks IMO.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Just imagine----the Bush gummint could put about 600 wolves in cages in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming and say the population goal has been met! After seeing the crap Bush pulled this time with the salmon counts I hope nobody is dumb enough to believe Bush is on the side of sportsmen or the environment!

 

[Nemont]

Isn't the court kind of forcing them to change the way the fish are counted?

Federal officials said Wednesday that the new policy on hatchery salmon — to be published in June in the Federal Register and then be opened to public comment — was in response to a 2001 federal court ruling in Oregon. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan found that the federal government made a mistake by counting only wild fish — and not genetically similar hatchery fish — when it listed coastal coho salmon for protection

Salmon and dams

Kerry criticized the Bush Administration´s lack of funding for the region´s salmon recovery plan. But like President George Bush, he said he is not ready to consider removing four dams on the Snake River in Washington that salmon advocates and most fisheries´ biologists say is necessary to restore healthy populations in Idaho.

“Before we engage in a polarizing debate about dam removal , we should work to restore and improve the salmon´s habitat in the watersheds throughout the Columbia and Snake River Basins,” he said. “We should ensure the harvest of salmon and our hatcheries are properly managed.”

web page

The Bush administration has requested $707 million in FY 2004 for coastal and river salmon recovery efforts. This is an increase of $165 million more than the amount enacted in FY 2001. The funding is allocated to Federal agencies that annually contribute towards salmon recovery as well as to the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund which is used to assist states, tribes, and local governments that carry out additional salmon projects

web page

While counting hatchery raised fish is stupid. I asked you guys to show me where Kerry is any better. The funding for recovery increased $165 Million bucks under Bush. Kerry has no will to fight a political battle on your behalf to breach dams because it is, "divisive". From what I understand from past posts breaching dams to improve wild salmon runs is the litmus test to garner your votes. John Kerry wants to appoint a Salmon Czar. Suppose this Czar's recommendation would be to breach dams that are providing even one kilowatt of power to California, which again is experiencing power outages? Regardless of the virtues of breaching those dams no president will to that.

Nemont

 

[1_pointer]

The Bush administration has requested $707 million in FY 2004

Either that is an old article or the money should already be allocated. Was it? It was just a request. Budget request and actual appropriations are rarely the same in my limited experience.

U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan found that the federal government made a mistake by counting only wild fish — and not genetically similar hatchery fish — when it listed coastal coho salmon for protection

This is a BIG problem IMO. If we could remove resource management from the courtroom and political arena and led those trained to do so alot of these issues would be solved or in much better standing than they currently are. What the hell does a judge know about proper fishery management?

 

[Nemont]

1-Pointer,
I understand that budget requests and actual appropriations are different. My point is that it was funded at $700million which is up from $165 million the FY budget 00-01.

Also EG would have all of us believe that the president was sitting in his office and said to Dick Cheney, "Hey, I know how to fix the salmon problem in the northwest. Let's count hatchery raised fish". In reality a judge in Oregon made a ruling to that effect and the federal government which before counted only native run salmon, to comply with the court, must now count genetically similar fish. Please explain how George Bush brought all of this about.

This is a BIG problem IMO. If we could remove resource management from the courtroom and political arena and led those trained to do so alot of these issues would be solved or in much better standing than they currently are. What the hell does a judge know about proper fishery management

1 Pointer, who looks to judges to manage resources more often: Enviromental Groups or Industry groups? Envornmentalist love judges unless one rules against them then resource management needs to be removed from the courtroom. You can't have it both ways.

Nemont

[ 05-04-2004, 14:04: Message edited by: Nemont ]

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

No offense, but you dont understand anadromous fish, their management, or the history of whats happened.

First off, Bush throwing another 165 million at recovery efforts is a total waste of time, energy, and money. All this does is show Bush's complete and total commitment to fiscal irresponsibility. When you're throwing 700 million a year at anadromous fish, and they're still declining, is that being effective? Is funding really the issue? Or is it that your recovery efforts suck?

The problem is, you can throw money at this thing forever, and the bottom line is, the smolt need water to get to the ocean. The corp of engineers isnt releasing enough water for down-migration of smolt (which they are MANDATED by law to do). I dont give a shit how many turbine screens you install, how many pike minnows you pay people to kill, how many hatcheries you have, or how many smolt you release...without water, they dont make it. Thats what has been proven, over and over and over and over again in study upon study. Nearly 200 leading fisheries biologists from 5 states, tribal biologists, and federal biologists all agree. The main thing destroying anadromous fish is dams, in particular down-migration of smolt.

The few recent years of good adult returns is not from the 700 million they spent, but rather high water years that flushed smolt to the ocean. The runs are tapering off, big-time, in direct correlation with water retention by the corps. The big fish return year in Idaho was 2000...take a guess what happened four years prior in the winter of '96-'97???

So, while bush or kerry can promise more money to look like they know whats going on, they really dont. Like everything else, its about "doing something" to appease the voters, rather than doing the RIGHT thing.

Anadromous fish have taken it in the shorts, so have the sport anglers and commercial fishermen. They were lead down a rosey path, promised water, hatcheries, and all kinds of mitigation in this issue. They were suckered, lied to, and flat out deceived, the whole while watching wild and hatchery runs dry up to a pitance of what they were.

Look, this stuff isnt rocket science, all you have to do to see whats going on and whats causing the declines is look at the Fraser River in Canada, just across the Washington border.

The Columbia and Fraser are very similar and not that far apart. The entire Fraser system has one dam on a tributary (Stave River), anadromous fish numbers there are 20+ million a year, about what the historic numbers were on the Columbia. The Columbia River now has, on a good year, 1 million anadromous (mostly hatchery) fish a year, but also has 130ish dams on the system...Gee, I wonder why our runs are 1/30th of what they once were???? Should we throw some more money at it???

Its so ridiculous its sad.

Once again, integrity, honesty, and facts mean nothing to these political nitwits.

 

[1_pointer]

Please explain how George Bush brought all of this about.

I never said it was Bush's fault. I just pointed out that the article stated monies were requested and not necessarily appropriated.

1 Pointer, who looks to judges to manage resources more often: Enviromental Groups or Industry groups? Envornmentalist love judges unless one rules against them then resource management needs to be removed from the courtroom. You can't have it both ways.

I don't want it both ways. I want the people with the proper knowledge and onsite experience to be making the decisions. If the decisions were made on the best science currently available I'd be happy. That would mean that we are doing the best that we know how. This doesn't mean that goals from either of the two side you illustrated couldn't be met, though neither would ever be totally happy.

 

[Nemont]

Buzz,
No offense taken, you are completely correct I really have not been around sea run salmon. That is not what I am argueing. What I am arguing is the premise of EG's title of this post which is that President Bush is the one forcing the counting of hatchery raised fish.

Frankly, I could make a case for breaching the dams for the survival of native strains of salmon. But Idaho suffers from the same problem as the Montana. We simply don't register on the political landscape. I think I read somewhere that these four dams are produce electricity which can be transmitted to California's grid. What candidate or sitting president would breach dams that produce power that could go to the California population and all those electoral votes? In the electoral process preserving Salmon doesn't make the cut.

Also I wouldn't count on the Corps of Engineers to adhere to the operation manuals on rivers and dams. They ignore all the regulations and rules whenever they wish. Regardless of which party is in the Whitehouse the corps operates to the benefit of the more populous areas.


It is comments like this that oversimplify the situation.

Just imagine----the Bush gummint could put about 600 wolves in cages in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming and say the population goal has been met! After seeing the crap Bush pulled this time with the salmon counts I hope nobody is dumb enough to believe Bush is on the side of sportsmen or the environment!

Blaming the president for what was decided in a court by a single judge doesn't make much sense. For as smart as Ithaca, Elkgunner and you are it seems that you guys would be able to see that the courts have made ruling on what fish gets counted and what doesn't.

So, I agree with you on this I am just tired of EG et al's constant harping that President Bush is responsible for all this and inferring that John Kerry would be better for the Salmon. When in fact neither is going to ever breach an Idaho dam as long as they draw a breath.

Nemont

[ 05-05-2004, 08:59: Message edited by: Nemont ]

 

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, "U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan found that the federal government made a mistake by counting only wild fish — and not genetically similar hatchery fish — when it listed coastal coho salmon for protection..."

Hogan must be a fool. I think he'll be overturned.

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

I agree with you that neither will do a thing, other than continue to waste tax dollars.

It will take a very progressive thinking president and/or an administration to even begin to do whats right.It will take an administration with a ton of courage, greatness usually does take courage, something that Bush, Kerry, and a few others will never understand. At the least it will take a president that is willing to trust the professionals in the field, which is highly unlikely. They are ALL more inclined to listen to who's waving campaign funds in their face. For that, they deserve all the criticism they receive, and then some. They're no longer acting in a capacity to become part of the solution at that point, but rather a huge part of the problem.

This whole anadromous fish issue is really the pits and frankly, they dont have much chance, despite the 700 million.

What I really wish is that someday, we get a president that is really a sportsman, really understands wildlife issues, and isnt concerned with being re-elected.

Bush is not a sportsman, not by a long shot, and his record pretty much proves that. Sure, he'll pose for a snapshot with a shotgun in his hand, but he really doesnt give a single rats ass about our wildlife. Posing for a photo-op to get a few votes, does not a sportsman make.

 

[1_pointer]

What I really wish is that someday, we get a president that is really a sportsman, really understands wildlife issues, and isnt concerned with being re-elected.

Agreed. I'm hoping that genetic engineering advances to the point we can clone another Teddy Bear!

 

[Nemont]

Ithaca posted: Nemont, "U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan found that the federal government made a mistake by counting only wild fish — and not genetically similar hatchery fish — when it listed coastal coho salmon for protection..."

Hogan must be a fool. I think he'll be overturned.

Ithaca, I didn't make that quote up I copied from Elkgunner's orginial article. I was wondering if anyone read the entire thing before the Bash Bush Bandwagon left the station. Please explain how President Bush forced the counting of hatchery fish. It looks like that one judge forced the change but the orginal title of the post is, "Dubya to Destroy All Salmon Recovery in Idaho". Where in that title do you see Judge Hogan's name? Yet you gleefully jumped on board with EG to bash the President.

Buzz posted: What I really wish is that someday, we get a president that is really a sportsman, really understands wildlife issues, and isnt concerned with being re-elected.

Buzz, perhaps someday that will happen. I don't think I will ever live to see the day that a sitting president isn't concerned about public opinion polls.

Nemont