NMFS Introduces Salmon Recovery Plan

Larry Caldwell larryc at teleport.com
Sun Mar 22 19:50:55 EST 1998


In article <3512E680.15C0 at livingston.net>,
Don Staples <dstaples at livingston.net> wrote:

> U.S. salmon plan would be ruinous, forestry officials, companies say

At this point the feds are just being weird and ignorant.  They want
to initiate martial law in the PNW with no assurance that it's going
to do anything at all for the anadromous fish runs.  After the official
broadside, they "unofficially" let it leak that *all* of their demands
were negotiable.  

They seem to think that starting negotiations from an extreme and 
unreasonable position gives them an advantage.  That upsets people
in the PNW, where we have been dealing with the fisheries problem
for a long time.  ODFW has pretty much decided that there will be
NO sport or commercial fishing for salmon this year, including ocean
fishing and stream runs.  This is based on fish counts and biology.
 
[ ... ]

> According to an agreement reached between the fisheries service and
> Oregon, the federal
> government and the state must reach an agreement by June 1999 on how
> state logging is to be
> modified.

> If an agreement is not reached, or if coho numbers continue to decline
> despite the state's
> efforts, the fisheries service has the option of adding the fish to the
> endangered species list.

Coho salmon have a 3-year life cycle.  The fingerlings get flushed to the
sea with the spring freshet, and don't return to spawn for 3 years.  So
anything that anybody did in 1997 couldn't possibly have a visible effect
until the year 2000.  Since the Oregon legislature didn't establish
the Oregon Coastal Salmon Recovery Initiative until July of 1997, expecting
results before 2001 or 2002 is pretty unreasonable.   

It just adds to the local impression that NMFS is trying to solve a 
problem that they know absolutely nothing about.
 
> Department of Forestry staff members told board members that a close
> reading of the fisheries
> service proposal showed the agency did not understand how state logging
> rules protect
> streams.

Why am I not surprised?

> "It's absolutely astounding that you can publish a document without
> having the facts," said Dick
> Baldwin, a member of the forestry board.

One more example of federal policy being made by humanities majors, 
whose idea of research is going to the library and finding out-of-
context quotes that appear to support their position.  

> Rick Applegate, a consultant to the fisheries service, conceded that the
> fisheries service's
> draft proposal may contain errors. But he urged the forestry department
> to enter serious negotiations about state logging rules.

State logging rules change all the time, and negotiations about changing
them are always in progress.  Rick is invited to get with the program,
which he evidently doesn't know exists.

> "I believe we can slog our way through this," Applegate said. "Now is
> the time for the real work to begin."
 
Astonishing arrogance, particularly considering that it was the Federal
Government's dams on the Columbia that killed off most of the salmon.
Did you know that there are *no* salmon runs above Grand Coulee?

> "They have proposed what we would do if people weren't living here, if
> we didn't have farms and
> forests," said board member Howard F. Sohn, president of Sun Studs Inc.,
> a Roseburg timber
> company. "NMFS has not asked the question of what's achievable."

Or what's enforceable.  It's a plan some desk jockey cooked up with
not even a nod to reality.  At the moment, the biggest threat to 
continued salmon survival is the federal government and their 
disruptive, destructive tactics.

-- Larry

 



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list