Another attack on Fish - Fly Fishing Forum
Pacific Northwest Sea Run Forum No such thing as rainbow trout, only landlocked steelhead

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 6 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-01-2004, 11:25 AM
jjohnson's Avatar
jjohnson jjohnson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sky, North Umpqua
Posts: 138
Another attack on Fish

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/n...-4053172c.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...salmon01m.html

Here we go.

You have to wonder if Bob Lohn actually believes some of the stuff that comes out of his agency.

JJ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2  
Old 12-01-2004, 01:19 PM
sinktip's Avatar
sinktip sinktip is offline
Chief of E.P.
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: All S-Rivers Above the Equator
Posts: 1,456
Is George W. Bush the Anti-Salmon?????

Fish for 'em now boys as they will be gone soon.
__________________
There is no substitute for time on the water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3  
Old 12-01-2004, 01:35 PM
Gillie Gillie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Great lakes and West Coast Steelhead
Posts: 165
If anyone out there who fly fishes or enjoys the outdoors voted to put this administration back into office should be ashamed of themself .

Gillie
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4  
Old 12-01-2004, 02:08 PM
flytyer flytyer is offline
Pullin' Thread
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NW Washington
Posts: 3,346
Did you guys happen to notice each article mentioned the federal courts ordered NOAA-Fisheries to include and consider the economic costs of protection and reach a ballance between protection and economic costs? Also, a federal judge in Spokane took the Columbia system dams (including all Snake River dams) off the table for consideration in protecting or re-establishing salmonids in the Columbia Basin in the order he issued last year, which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in late September of early October of this year.

Since the federal courts took the dams and how they are operated out of consideration for recovery or extirpation of salmon, and the federal courts have ordered NOAA-Fisheries to include economic costs in the recovery plan, it would appear NOAA-Fisheries is complying with what the courts have ordered. Would you prefer NOAA-Fisheries ignore the federal cout orders and have the courts appoint whom they wish to develop recovery plans and oversee them? Based on the federal court decisions the last few years regarding fish, I don't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5  
Old 12-01-2004, 02:48 PM
sinktip's Avatar
sinktip sinktip is offline
Chief of E.P.
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: All S-Rivers Above the Equator
Posts: 1,456
Russ,

I have no problem with a court ordered cost/benefit analysis on listings but I have a huge problem with removing from the equation 80% of habitat. It sounds great for the property rights side to claim that this only removes that habitat where there are no longer fish but if you step back and look at it, adopting their logic just cements the downward spiral. It is called "recovery" for a reason. If the stocks didn't need recovery, then current habitat might make some sense but they do need recovery and this, almost by definition, requires reclaiming of historical habitat. To my way of thinking, this decision is the same as ruling runs never will recover so current habitat is all they need.

Can the ever popular "carrying capacity" argument be far behind? And what happens when the runs continue to decline. Will this then mean there will even less habitat to protect?

I fear that coupled with the administrations belief in hatchery augmentation, the future of our wild stocks in indeed dire.

'tip
__________________
There is no substitute for time on the water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6  
Old 12-01-2004, 03:46 PM
Doublespey's Avatar
Doublespey Doublespey is offline
Steelhead-a-holic
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: PNW Waterways
Posts: 711
Thumbs down You might not believe this . . . .

but someone told me Dick Cheney is an avid flyfisherman!

Then again, he's also a hunter. He likes to shoot pheasant recently released from their pens on "private" hunting preserves. In fact, he recently bragged that he and his buddies had bagged almost 100 of these semi-domestic birds in a days shoot.

I can only imagine what he considers "good" flyfishing?

Yeah Gillie - I hear ya! It's pretty much what I expected too.

DS
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7  
Old 12-01-2004, 03:46 PM
flytyer flytyer is offline
Pullin' Thread
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NW Washington
Posts: 3,346
Duggan,

I agree we need to have as much habitat as possible. However, I also know that the federal courts struck a blow to Montana's efforts to preserve or restore upstream habitat for bull trout and westslope cutthroat. And I'm afraid what we are seeing is NOAA-Fisheries reacting to these court rulings.

There is also the problem of above dam habitat, such as that on the Columbia above Grand Coulee Dam, the Clearwater above Windchester Dam, or the Snake above the Salmon. Salmon and steelhead have not been able to make it up there for years. Or the upper Deschutes or Rogue, where steelhead have also not been able to access the upper river and tributaries for years. The Skokomish is another one where dams have blocked access to the upper watershed for years. Are we to include the upriver areas of these rivers for restoration of anadromous fish?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8  
Old 12-01-2004, 04:07 PM
Gillie Gillie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Great lakes and West Coast Steelhead
Posts: 165
Flytyer,
There does need to be moderation in managing fisheries vs. economy and other interests. However. the court ruling only said that these issues needed to be weighed against each other. The Bush adminstration has appointed people to the posts that make the decisions who have no interest in conservation. They are former members of the lumber industry and lawyers who have made their careers helping companies evade EPA regulations and hide their pollution. The courts may have limited efforts but the current administration has gladly taken advantage of the oppurtunity to repay big business and pilage the environment.

Gillie
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9  
Old 12-01-2004, 04:17 PM
loophitech's Avatar
loophitech loophitech is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 281
Quote:
If anyone out there who fly fishes or enjoys the outdoors voted to put this administration back into office should be ashamed of themself . Gillie
Why should anyone be ashamed for their participation in re-electing this administration? HILARIOUS!
__________________
LoopHiTech
Will the what do the what to the what
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10  
Old 12-01-2004, 04:50 PM
sinktip's Avatar
sinktip sinktip is offline
Chief of E.P.
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: All S-Rivers Above the Equator
Posts: 1,456
Russ,

I suppose we could all sit here and bring up cases in the extreme. The bottom line for me is the question if the present administration is friendly to fish and the environment. Regardless of interaction by other variables such as congress or the courts, is the Bush admin fish friendly?

For me the answer is a resounding no! The overall pattern shows an administration that rates the worst on the environment in at least the last 50 years if not since before Teddy R.

Duggan
__________________
There is no substitute for time on the water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11  
Old 12-01-2004, 05:14 PM
Brian Simonseth's Avatar
Brian Simonseth Brian Simonseth is offline
Jolly Buddha
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: CHROME TRIANGLE !
Posts: 589
This is a SAD day in the PNW!

I'm meeting with two different Watershed Groups tommorow about this.
__________________
Brian

THE NEWER CHIEF of E.P.

Real Steelhead Don't Eat Pellets!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12  
Old 12-01-2004, 05:28 PM
jjohnson's Avatar
jjohnson jjohnson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sky, North Umpqua
Posts: 138
Russ,

I don't have a problem with weighing economic impact in the situation. But NOAA only takes that to include cost and refuses to include the benifits from fish recovery. Case in point the Bull trout paper from montana. They only added up the negatives not any of the positives from having a healthy fishery by getting more tourist dollars. Come on please at least give some semblance of fairness.

They were told to weigh it not how much to weigh it. They are making that call themselves. Just like the Hogan decision left it up to them to either change policy and count rainbows and hatchery fish or to just change their definitions within the ESU and they choose the first option not the sensible second open.

Courts are asking them to reconsider and show they looked at issues and considered them they aren't telling them how to implement them. And you now that.

JJ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13  
Old 12-01-2004, 05:41 PM
kjackson kjackson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Port Townsend
Posts: 142
NOAA proposal exposed...

For those who would like to see what is proposed, check this out: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salm...hab/CHsite.htm It's a page that covers the recent proposal.

Note the word: proposal. From reading the knee-jerk reactions here, you'd think that the process of excluding or adding watersheds was an accomplished fact. Nothing has been finished except a response to a court decision.

If you disagree with the proposal as put forth by NOAA, then you have about six months in which to reply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14  
Old 12-01-2004, 06:07 PM
sinktip's Avatar
sinktip sinktip is offline
Chief of E.P.
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: All S-Rivers Above the Equator
Posts: 1,456
Some of us "knee-jerkers" have already started working on the testimony phase.

To paraphrase Winston Churhill, it is far better to fight and die with little chance of victory than to live in servitude.
__________________
There is no substitute for time on the water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #15  
Old 12-01-2004, 07:33 PM
flytyer flytyer is offline
Pullin' Thread
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NW Washington
Posts: 3,346
Gillie, Duggan, JJ,


I've just got done reading the first 50 pages of the 400 page recovery plan written for the federal registry. Interesting ready to say the least. In these pages, it is clear that NOAA-Fisheries was required by a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to change how economic impact analysis was being done by FWS because the 10th circuit rejected how Fisheries was doing the analysis. Therefore, the courts are most certainly telling NOAA-Fisheries how to do some things in the plan and not letting it up to NOAA-F to decide how. NOAA-F cannot include things like possilbe tourist dollars in its economic analysis as a result of this ruling. Also, the 10th circuit ruling requires NOAA-F to include the economic benefits of development over biological benefits of habitat. To say the 10th circuit's ruling on how and what NOAA-F includes or can include in its economic analysis has no impact on how NOAA-F can do so, is disengenuous.

It is also clear, that NOAA-Fisheries isusing info gathered by tribal and state fisheries biologist and 400 salmon recovery groups to find where in a specific subbasin and basin salmon and steelhead actually exist or existed in the past. This is different from relying on USGS maps and not actual evidence of fish existence in the court rejeted 2000 plan.

The new plan also designates new critical esturarine and near shore ares, which were not in the 2000 plan.

I for one will be reading the whole 400+ pages of the proposal and not relying on short (in comparison to the 400+ page original document), several paragraph "newsbites" our newspapers are carrying on this very important issue. Even the headline in my local newspaper, Skagit Valley Herald, makes it appear the Bush administration is going to abandon habitat protection. The headline is: Bush plan would cut habitat for NW salmon. The article has 10 short paragraphs on the proposal, 1 paragraph on the National Homebuilder's Association reaction to the proposal (of course they like it, they were the ones who sued to have the original habitat plan changed), and 2 paragraphs on the reaction to the proposal from 2 environmental groups. One can hardly synopse a 400+ page proposal in 10 paragraphs.

The same article then goes on talking about NOAA-F's response to the Spokane and 9th circuit rulings on the Snake and Columbia River dams for an additional 7 paragraphs, none of which say a thing about NOAA-F's proposal, instead focusing on what the Columbia Basin tribes and some environmentalists think of it and one paragraph on how the grain growers who use the rivers for transporting grain feel about it. But not a word on what NOAA-F has proposed in response to the court rulings.

I learned far more from reading the 1st 50 pages of NOAA-F's 400+ page proposal than I did from what has been in the newspapers. The newspapers are reporting it as the sky is falling, when the actual proposal is far different than what is being protrayed by the news outlets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Fly Fishing Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
south beach:1 fish 2 fish a #!#% load of blue fish striperstripper Stripers and Coastal Gamefish 2 07-27-2004 02:44 PM
Icelandic-Attack FrenchCreek >> Archive: Warmwater Gamefish Flies 6 10-10-2003 02:43 PM
An Attack on Eastern Anadromous Fish! Leland Miyawaki Stripers and Coastal Gamefish 0 05-18-2003 07:16 PM
Worm Attack! FrenchCreek >> Archive: Favorite Trout Flies 8 04-05-2003 05:48 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:19 PM.



Copyright Flyfishingforum.com (All Rights Reserved)