Oregon Senate Bill says hatchery fish = wild fish

[John Russell aka JR]

Oregon Senate Bill 473 requires that Oregon consider hatchery-bred anadromous fish to be the same as wild fish for management purposes.

This is simply very bad science, and would lead inevitably to the demise of truly wild populations of native salmon and steelhead in Oregon.

Oregonians should consider letting their legislators know they are opposed to this sort of voodoo science finding its way into Oregon's wild fish management policies.

Text of SB 473:
[url=http://www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measpdf/sb0400.dir/sb0473.intro.pdf:f7116]http://www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measpdf/sb0400.dir/sb0473.intro.pdf[/url:f7116]

How to find your legislators:
[url=http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/:f7116]http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/[/url:f7116]

- JR

[This message has been edited by John Russell aka JR (edited 24 March 2005).]

[Bill Blake]

I don't have a whole lot of experience with Oregon politics as I live on the opposite side of the country so what do you make of this? Is the chance of this passing as much of a long-shot as it would seem to me?

State Legislatures are comprised of many people, who form many Committees.

Committees are groups of people, who get together to design a horse.

Resulting in a Camel!

~Parnelli

[LadyFisher]

This is a result of junk science and a lot of money (which didn't come from the sportfishermen.) Sorry to see it.

------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL

[Pete Hiatt]

Most Summer runs in Oregon come from just two sources so it is a mute point with them. Hatchery fish which were killed on camera outraged sportsmen a few years ago causing hatcheries to re-release them downstream for sportsmen to have a try at them again. In one river, they are stocked in a local lake with no outlet. However, most hatcheries simply let them go upstream above the traps after the money for returning them downstream runs out. They breed with and along side "native" fish. Now that more areas are using fish boxes to raise eggs in the steam, the size differences between "native" and hatchery fish will no longer be different. Same, same.

[Jed]

Dear Oregon Senate,
I am fearful of falling off the face of the earth, could you please pass a bill making the earth flat again.

Sincerely,
jed

It is comical that they can say that and serious that they will act on that false belief.

[Benjo]

Dear Oregon Senate, I'll never sportfish in your state again. Wait a minute, I said that a few months ago after I discovered that there aren't any fish there. Well anyway, you guys suck. Thanks for nothing.
Benjo

[Rawthumb]

What is a "mute' point? Moot, I've heard.

The problem is deeper than the Oregon legislature, and they are doing something the federal Alsea Valley litigation under the ESA allows and it is not altogether illogical based on what has happened at the federal level.

The problem goes back to the language in the ESA that speaks of species and "distint population segments." Not an easy thing to determine when dealing with anadromous fish that split time in fresh and salt water and have a natural stray rate upon return to breeeding grounds of 10-15% to ensure genetic diversity. NMFS has program responsibility for anad. fish, and has the authority to determine what constitutes a "distinct population segment." NMFS created a concept of a evolutionarily significant unit (ESU), which a lot of people contested in journals, etc. They have not drawn a genetic distinction between hatchery fish and wild.

In a case of plaintiff dredging by property rights goups, a fishing guide filed suit in OR on 2000 or 2001 challenging NMFS' regs, allowing the harvest of hatchery fish but protecting wild fish under ESA "take" prohibitions. The plaintiff was represented by a group pro bono, and they have been trained to file suite before Judge Hogan in Eugene. That is where Hodel v. Spotted Owl and some other significant cases originated, and he has never ruled on the side of an environ group. Frankly, his decison in the Alsea Valley case makes sense in light of NMFS' shortcomings. NMFS and consequnetly the state allowed fishing for and harvest of hatchery fish but not wild fish. The question was: NMFS said that genetically the fish were the same, so how do you justify different treatment under the law if the only difference is in their conditioning (wild vs. hatchery)? The court ruled in the plaintiffs favor in Sept 2001. Unfortuantely, a lot was going on in the world, and the changes that many would like to see on "distinct population segements" and ESU's have not been forthcoming uder this administration.

The big picture is to either change the regs (and definitions therein) on a rational and scientifically defensible basis or eliminate the hatcheries and let all of the fish start reproducing in the wild. Another is to protect hatchery and wild fish equally with take prohibitions, which under current regs would prevent intentional catch and release.

I, like most of you, so not want all fish to be hatchery fish or to lose what we have in wild stocks, but there is some logic in what has happened at the federal level due to some decisions made by NMFS to walk the line. NMFS holds the key, and can straighten in out by ending its tradition of playing King Solomon and splitting the baby all of the time. But that takes political will power in the executive branch.

[This message has been edited by Rawthumb (edited 25 March 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Rawthumb (edited 25 March 2005).]