Please accept this op-ed submission on the
hatchery vs. wild salmon issue. The Alsea
Valley Alliance case is set to be heard before
the Ninth Circuit in Portland on Thursday, May
8th.
"Thwack! Thwack! Thwack!" That's what
small-town banker Ronald Yechout heard as he was
out hunting near Philomath, Oregon back in
November, 1998. He followed the noise to the
banks of Fall Creek, and saw a sight he couldn't
believe: State wildlife regulators were clubbing
to death thousands of migrating salmon.
Yechout's outrage launched him on a crusade to
expose the government "conservation" program
that targeted hatchery salmon for extermination
supposedly to somehow "help" stream-bred salmon.
Eventually, under the pressure brought by
Yechout and Pacific Legal Foundation, the
systematic government slaughter of salmon that
were born in hatcheries ended. But the larger
legal controversy continues -- and it has its
most important appointment to date before the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Portland this
coming Thursday.
A three-judge appeals panel will be considering
whether hatchery-born salmon can be counted
along with stream-bred salmon when it comes to
determining whether coho are "endangered" and in
need of special protection in the form of tough
land-use regulations. Although government
officials claimed that their clubbing
expeditions were intended to clear the way for
healthier development of wild salmon, skeptics
observed that by killing salmon, it was easier
for bureaucrats to grab headlines -- and expand
their power over private property -- by claiming
that salmon are in decline.
Two years ago the dispute went before U.S.
District Court Judge Michael Hogan in Eugene. He
found it fishy that the government insisted on
seeing metaphysical distinctions between coho
from hatcheries and coho from streams.
Hatchery-born coho are biologically identical to
stream-born coho, he declared, based on the
National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS)
records. His ruling's clear implication is if
there are plenty of coho in streams and rivers,
coho aren't "endangered" under the federal
Endangered Species Act, even if a lot of those
fish are from hatcheries.
In reviewing Judge Hogan's order, the Ninth
Circuit should not get reeled in by the
government's slippery pseudo-science. The fact
is, for over half a century, coho salmon have
thrived in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of
Oregon -- and they do so today in phenomenal
numbers. More than 240,000 stream-bred coho
returned to Oregon's rivers in 2002, a
staggering increase from the 14,000 that
returned just six years ago. More than 660,000
hatchery-born coho made the trip up river last
year.
Since 1952, the Fall Creek hatchery --
originally with the eggs of "wild" (meaning
partially spawned) salmon -- has produced
countless generations of salmon that have, in
all respects, become fully integrated with the
"wild" population.
Indeed, many biologists, including a chief of
the NMFS hatcheries and inland fisheries branch,
agree that there probably aren't any truly
"wild" salmon left in the lower 48 states and
that because of nearly 50 years of natural
cohabitation, the hatchery-spawned salmon and
the "wild" salmon are virtually
indistinguishable. The only way to identify
hatchery salmon is by the missing fin clipped by
the hatchery.
If even marine scientists cannot tell "wild"
salmon and hatchery salmon apart in a biological
sense, why should government bureaucrats be
allowed to insist on drawing arbitrary
distinctions? And why should it be in a court's
power to do so?
Even though the clubbing has stopped, regulators
can still lowball the salmon count if they're
allowed to exclude those born in hatcheries.
Such manufactured pessimism gives regulators
more excuses to take control of logging,
farming, grazing and home building on thousands
of acres of land, endangering the economy for a
species that isn't in danger.
Judge Hogan was right to deny regulators the use
of dishonest, politicized science to justify
their power trips.
*Russ Brooks is the Managing Attorney of
Pacific Legal Foundation's Northwest Center. He
brought the landmark Alsea Valley Alliance case
scheduled for hearing by the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals on May 8, 2003. For 30 years,
Pacific Legal Foundation has fought for balance
and common sense in application of the
Endangered Species Act.
Submitted by: Russell C. Brooks, Managing
Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Address: 10940 NE 33rd Place, Suite 109,
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Daytime Telephone: (425) 576-0484 or (916)
362-2833 (Denise Davis, Media Director)
If you know of any spending on the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) due to the salmon/trout
species in the NW and northern California on
public or private projects (even $1.00), please
submit your ESA Cost Data stories at
www.ESAinfo.org (or review other stories)
Please Pass On!!
Sincerely,
Gary Wiggins, PE
now in Chandler, AZ (previously
Snohomish, WA)
Pager (602) 664-3198
www.ESAinfo.org
