- Late last month the Bush Administration announced that
it would begin counting hatchery fish as well as wild when considering
Pacific salmon for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
-
- With only an estimated one in five west coast salmon
now spawned in the wild, this threatened to end to federal protections
for wild salmon-as well as safeguards for critical inland habitat from
logging, mining, development and agriculture. Early reports suggested that
15 salmon stocks would lose federal protection. [1]
-
- The administration claimed the revision was inevitable,
thanks to a 2001 federal court ruling that the government had erred in
listing coastal coho salmon as endangered based solely on the number of
wild fish, without counting hatchery fish. This ruling contradicted 15
years of Pacific Northwest salmon recovery efforts. It was not appealed
by the administration. The final policy is expected early next month, when
it will be published in the Federal Register and opened for public comment.
[2]
-
- Public and scientific outcry greeted the new policy.
"Hatchery fish and wild fish are very different in behavior and genetic
variability," says Jeff Miller, Bay Area Wildlands Coordinator of
the Center for Biological Diversity. "No credible scientist would
support the idea of counting large numbers of hatchery fish -- which are
produced artificially in concrete rearing tanks, and then dumped in the
estuaries, bays and lower rivers -- when assessing the status of wild fish
stocks."
-
- "In crowded hatchery conditions hatchery fish spread
diseases to wild fish, and also compete with wild fish for scarce resources
and spawning habitat," Miller told BushGreenwatch. "Hatchery
fish, which are mass-produced and have low genetic variability, lower the
ability of wild fish runs to adapt to environmental change."
-
- The administration backpedaled in mid-May, declaring
strong support for preserving wild salmon stocks. "After re-evaluating
the listing of 26 species of salmon and steelhead, and considering the
science on hatcheries, we have preliminarily determined to propose relisting
at least 25 of the 26 species, with evaluation of the remaining species
still underway," a NOAA administrator wrote to Northwest representatives
and senators on May 14. [3]
-
- Relieved but wary, conservationists, foresee continued
struggle. "The general trend of the Bush Administration--inviting
challenges to endangered species listings, and then putting up no defense,
or not vigorously defending them so that they're struck down--is ongoing,"
said Miller, noting that conservationists are having to go to court instead
of working on restoration. "We're fighting to keep species listed
that desperately need these protections. And there's a huge backlog of
other species that need to get on the list."
-
- Brian Barr, Wildlands Restoration Program Officer for
the World Wildlife Fund's Klamath-Siskiyou Program, says the proposed policy
could undercut critical habitat protections. "Hatcheries are operated
as domestication processes. We could have captive breeding programs relied
on very heavily to improve our odds of 'recovering' a vast array of other
species that are currently listed under the Endangered Species Act,"
says Barr.
-
- The Bush Administration ignored its own panel of outside
experts when it crafted the new hatcheries policy. "Six of the world's
leading experts on salmon ecology complained [in March] in the journal
Science that fish produced in hatcheries cannot be counted on to save wild
salmon," reported the Washington Post. "The scientists had been
asked by the federal government to comment on its salmon-recovery program,
but said they were later told that some of their conclusions about hatchery
fish were inappropriate for official government reports." [4]
-
- Bush appointee Mark C. Rutzick, a former timber industry
lawyer, is considered a primary architect of the policy. [5]
-
- "We're fighting a rear-guard action to keep [endangered
species] from being taken off the list," says Jeff Miller. "It's
like the Bush Administration is running through a hospital's critical trauma
unit, pulling everyone's I.V. drips. These species are really in the emergency
unit, and they're trying to pull them off life support."
-
- SOURCES:
-
- [1] "Hatchery Salmon Bombshell," Tidepool,
Apr. 30, 2004.
- http://www.tidepool.org/original_content.cfm?articleid=115462
-
- [2] "Hatchery Salmon to Count As Wildlife,"
The Washington Post, Apr. 29, 2004.
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51480-2004Apr28?language=print
er
-
- [3] "Letter from NOAA Administrator Conrad C. Lautenbacher
Concerning Proposals to Renew Listings of Northwest Salmon and Proposed
Hatchery Policy," May 13, 2004.
- http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2004/may04/noaa04-r910.html
-
- [4] The Washington Post, op. cit.
-
- [5] "Shift on Salmon Reignites Fight on Species
Law," The New York Times, May 9, 2004.
- http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?
res=F10F17FA3E580C7A8CDDAC0894DC404482
-
- Copyright © 2003 Environmental Media Services
- http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000127.php
|
