NOAA issues new hatchery policy
The Associated Press
The Times-Standard (Eureka)
June 18, 2005

GRANTS PASS, Ore.—A new federal policy issued Thursday puts 131 strains of hatchery salmon under Endangered Species Act protection along with their wild cousins, but allows those raised artificially to still be harvested by fishermen. 

While counting hatchery fish along with wild fish under the new policy, NOAA Fisheries decided against taking 15 populations of salmon and steelhead off the threatened and endangered species lists, added lower Columbia River coho to the threatened list, and decided to wait six months before deciding what to do with 10 listed populations of steelhead and Oregon coastal coho.  California coastal coho were changed from threatened to endangered.

Both the review of Endangered Species Act status for all West coast salmon and steelhead and the new hatchery policy were prompted by a 2001 federal court ruling that NOAA Fisheries could no longer consider the same strains of salmon and steelhead different just because one spawned naturally in the wild and one was spawned artificially in a hatchery.

NOAA Fisheries considered more than 300 strains of hatchery fish before deciding that 131 of them were genetically close enough to their wild cousins to be useful to recovery, said Bob Lohn, northwest regional administrator of the agency. 

At the same time, the agency adopted a rule saying that fish marked to show they came from a hatchery—generally by clipping the tiny adipose fin near the tail—would not be subject to Endangered Species Act protections against being killed, and could still be harvested by fishermen.

“The reason we’re doing that is to encourage more hatcheries to move toward local brood stock, even if they are primarily producing fish that would be harvested,” Lohn said.

Salmon have been declining for more than a century due to over-harvest, habitat destruction, and misguided hatchery practices that diluted the gene pool and flooded rivers with fish ill-suited to survive in the wild.  Since the 1990s, many hatcheries have adopted new practices that preserve genetic diversity, and maintain local brood stock that evolved in a given drainage.

Russell Brooks, the lawyer whose lawsuit on behalf of property rights advocates prompted the status review and the new hatchery policy, said he would go ahead with a new lawsuit.

“What amazes me most is that after the agency lists hatchery salmon as threatened with extinction, which is crazy in itself, it then exempts hatchery salmon from ESA protection,” Brooks said.  “And the reason it gives for doing that is saying they are surplus to recovery needs.

“What I think the agency is saying is there are so many damn salmon out there they just can’t protect them all.”

Conservationists complained that NOAA Fisheries ignored the advice of scientific advisory panels, who suggested that hatchery fish and wild fish could be managed in separate populations, known a evolutionarily significant units.

Lohn responded that NOAA Fisheries’ own scientists felt that there was abundant evidence that hatcheries were valuable in restoring dwindling wild runs in the short term, if not in the long term.

Don't let feds toss years of restoration work!
CLOSE TO HOME (guest column)
by David Katz
The Press Democrat (Santa Rosa)
January 17, 2005

Thanks to the efforts of conservationists and the expenditure of millions of dollars to restore Northern California's once massive salmon and steelhead runs, many of these fisheries have been pulled back from the edge of a threatened extinction triggered by dams, water diversions and habitat destruction.

Unfortunately, just when the scales may have a chance to tip in the favor of these magnificent fish, the Bush administration has not only recently relaxed forestry regulations in our national forests but is also proposing to dramatically reduce critical habitat protections from Southern California to the Canadian border by an estimated 80 to 90 percent. The action involves thousands of miles of streams and their watersheds, including national forests and military bases.

The proposal, which began a 60-day public comment period Nov. 30, also drops protections on private lands where developers make conservation deals with government officials. A decision is expected by June of next year.

The federal move follows a lawsuit and settlement with the National Association of Home Builders. This industry group was upset over a 2000 decision by the National Marine Fisheries Service that identified the Pacific Coast as critical habitat necessary to keep Pacific Coast salmon and steelhead from going extinct and to allow devastated fish populations to recover.

It also follows hard on the heels of an earlier administration proposal to count hatchery fish as wild fish as part of the recovery of endangered salmon runs, a proposition that Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations Executive Director Zeke Grader calls "a killer for the West Coast salmon fishery and a full retreat from salmon recovery."

We at Trout Unlimited agree.

The new habitat rule, if adopted, could lead to relaxed regulations for logging operations that silt rivers and destroy spawning areas, fewer requirements for watershed improvement by hydroelectric dam operators and less stringent oversight of private development that threatens habitat. The proposal might also preclude restoration of fish stocks in streams where they have gone extinct.

In our experience, most private landowners have accepted and adapted well to the protections that are now in place and are working cooperatively to avoid damage to watersheds. We have spent over 20 years getting to this stage - it is shortsighted and wasteful to throw it all away now.

A widespread coalition led by the University of California and the state Department of Fish and Game has spent millions of dollars and many years working to restore coho salmon in the Russian River. As a result, the first new coho are now swimming in the river, with many more to come. This investment will pay major dividends to the Sonoma County economy in the years to come. Now is not the time to back down on this commitment to our future.

So, as the winter rains continue to fall and dramatically swell our streams and rivers, I urge you to write or call your political representatives and the National Marine Fisheries Service to let them know you would also like to see fish in those waters.

See also: Calendar | Make Comments

Preserving California’s Wild Things
Demise of California wildlife a legacy of this generation
Commentary by David Bunn
San Francisco Chronicle
May 24, 2004

While the state is into its third year of a budget crisis, California's wildlife is suffering its third decade running of budget crises and neglect.

The opportunity may be lost to save dozens of species from extinction. We lost the state mammal, the grizzly bear, and we are on the verge of losing the state fish, the golden trout. The great gray owl, the willow flycatcher, the blunt nose leopard lizard, the desert tortoise, the white abalone, the coho salmon, the giant garter snake and numerous other species are likely to follow in extinction if we do not make wildlife a priority in this generation.

In addition to the numerous species that teeter near extinction, many other once abundant species, such as mule deer, are in sharp decline. Wildlife is in trouble because we have failed to manage and restore native wildlife and habitats throughout the state. We have talked about wildlife recovery for 30 years, but have funded very few species-recovery programs. The coho salmon recovery plan was completed just last year, but there is no sign that the state will provide funding to restore this spectacular native fish of Northern and Central California.

We have established state and federal wildlife preserves, but we have grossly underfunded the management of these lands. State wildlife managers in Southern California are allocated $1.40 an acre annually to manage wildlife preserves. Some preserves have locked gates because there is no funding or staff to manage the land. These neglected lands are left to suffer invasions of exotic plants, poaching, garbage dumping and illegal off-road vehicles.

The plight of California's wildlife will get much worse if we do not invest in biologists and conservation planners to help counties plan development in ways that minimize harm to key habitats and ecosystems.

Wildlife experts and planners agree that we would do the most good for wildlife if we prepare and implement regional multi-species conservation plans. Our state wildlife department has only eight conservation planners and far too few wildlife biologists -- enough to address the needs of only four or five counties. Conservation planners help counties identify key areas to protect, such as critical habitat corridors linking mountain ranges for mountain lions, bears, bobcats and bighorn sheep. Development without conservation planning will lead to far more habitat fragmentation and the extinction of sensitive species such as the bighorn sheep.

With so few state wildlife and environmental enforcement wardens, wildlife is routinely poached, critical habitat is bulldozed and streams are polluted. Violators of wildlife and environmental protection laws should feel particularly unlucky if they encounter a wildlife warden. Only 210 wildlife officers patrol our state lands and coastal waters. If you divide that number by three 8-hour shifts, there are 70 patrolling on a shift. Fifteen of the 70 are on ocean patrol, leaving fewer than one individual to protect the state's wildlife resources per million and a half acres of landscape. Polluters and poachers know they are not likely to get caught.

California's taxpayers should be shocked to learn how little of their state taxes are spent to manage and protect the state's magnificent wildlife. Of this year's general fund, only $35 million -- about $1 per capita -- is budgeted for wildlife conservation statewide. The state wildlife budget has been so bleak for so long that at least three times in the last 30 years the Legislature declared that wildlife conservation is underfunded. But beyond saying there is a problem, little action was taken to allocate new money for wildlife stewardship.

How do we turn this around? Even in tough budget times, California can afford to protect and restore wildlife populations. If we just devoted $6 per capita rather than $1, California could have a premier wildlife department protecting our natural heritage for future generations. This is not an investment we can put off to consider in better times -- unless we are satisfied with our state fish, the brilliant golden trout, as only a museum specimen.

David Bunn is project manager of the Wildlife Health Center at UC Davis and a former deputy director of the California Department of Fish and Game.

Finding real solutions - Editorial
The Press Democrat (Santa Rosa)
August 25, 2000

The recently announced Garcia River partnership between Trout Unlimited and Mendocino Redwood Co is a positive reminder of what can happen when people are willing to move beyond rhetoric and into reality.

The rhetoric has been hot lately on the North Coast. Logging opponents have organized a series of protests against Mendocino Redwood, including a "Gap Sucks" campaign aimed specifically at the Fisher family that owns The Gap Corp and are also major investors in the timber company.

Instead of joining the protesters, Trout Unlimited, a national organization with a strong record in fisheries restoration, decided to focus on reality.

Reality One: Protests may not be the most effective method of getting what you want, as evidenced by the fact that. there's always a willing buyer when a timber company decides to sell!

Reality Two: Each timber company has its own corporate culture and goals. According to fisheries consultant Craig Bell, "They've (Mendocino Redwood) done more in the past six months than 10 years of talks with L-P."

Reality Three: Ending logging won't restore the watershed. Old logging roads need to be eliminated and degraded slopes repaired. This work takes money, equipment and labor--of the type Mendocino Redwood promises in the agreement.

While there are many differences between the Garcia and Russian river watersheds, similar partnerships between large landowners and restoration groups locally could help in the recovery of our own threatened fish.

Copyright 2000 The Press Democrat