Native Fish Society

Only certain state and federal agencies have authority over management of salmon, steelhead and trout. Other agencies have authority over management of salmonid habitats. We are involved in providing a grassroots watchdog presence with all agencies that have authority over the life cycle of native fish. However, we provide the specific advantage of having the expertise on those agencies that have management authority over native fish. These include the state fish and wildlife agencies, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and tribal fish management organizations. We also pay attention to the activities of the NW Power and Conservation Council and the Bonneville Power Administration because they are involved in planning for native fish recovery, hatchery construction and operations, monitoring and evaluation of fish projects, and supplying hundreds of millions of dollars into these projects.

The purpose for focusing on particular fish management authorities is to make sure that policies are adopted and implemented to protect native fish at the state and federal levels of government. It has been our experience that investments in habitat are vital but unless there is support from the fish mangers to protect the native fish that are adapted to those habitats, the investment is not likely to provide the expected benefits. So we worry about hatchery and harvest policies because it is through the application of these actions that it is possible to maintain the biological diversity and abundance of native fish in our watersheds. The fish management agencies are not structured to maintain biological diversity. Their bottom line is to secure the funding for hatchery production to feed the commercial and recreational harvesters. Native wild salmonids have always been ignored and it was not until we participated in getting salmon and steelhead protected under the ESA, that state and federal fish agencies began to shift programs in the favor of native fish. This agency restructuring is only beginning. They are reluctant to build a scientifically sound conservation program for native fish. If you doubt this just remember that in the winter of 2005 the states of Oregon and Washington, with the compliance of NMFS, tried to increase the kill of threatened winter steelhead in order to harvest more hatchery chinook in the commercial fishery on the lower Columbia. Who presented the information that convinced the commissions to reject that proposal? We did with the help of a lot of other outraged groups. NFS provided information that showed that no wild winter steelhead population was viable, yet the fish managers were so committed to increasing the kill that they suppressed this information. We not only beat them back in 2005 but we did so in 2003 and 2004. The fish managers are dedicated and persistent in their mission to ignore the impacts of their management actions on the health and abundance of native fish populations.

In order to increase our success, we have joined with other fish conservation groups such as Trout Unlimited, Washington Trout, Federation of Fly Fishers, Oregon Trout, Northwest Steelheaders and others to work on the issues. We meet once a month and coordinate our efforts. Each group has its issues that they lead on while others back them up. This group is called the Fish Cons. Through the Fish Cons each group increases its capacity to be successful in achieving its goals, and together we plan how we are going to provide the leadership to shape the future of conservation management for native wild fish in the region.

Below are the specific tasks that we are focused on to accomplish native fish protection. We are also involved in direct habitat work, protection, and purchase so that native fish have a home. Our job is two fold, we make sure the fish have a home and we make sure that native fish are abundant and biologically diverse.

Full Implementation of the Native Fish Conservation Policy
When the Wild Fish Policy was adopted by ODFW in 1978, it was not fully implemented by the agency. In fact there was a lot of resistance to it. When this policy morphed into the NFCP, adopted by the fish and wildlife commission in 2003, NFS made the commitment to make sure that it would be carried out on the ground. This means that all standards and criteria, would be followed. Since the policy is a legal document, it stands to reason that the agency should be held accountable to what it agreed to do, that is, develop conservation plans for each native fish species in the state and in each watershed. To achieve this, the NFS is developing a compliance program, we are developing a shadow agency with informed and dedicated people in the watersheds of Oregon to make sure the policy is applied and successful. We have a number of these in place now and the goal is to have Native Fish Stewards working around the state to make sure the policy works as stated.

Hatchery Issues
Hatcheries are the cash cow for the fish and wildlife agencies and tribes. The hatcheries are funded mainly with (public) federal dollars and by private utilities paying for mitigation related to hydro dam construction. Without this funding there would be very few hatchery programs. Scientific research has identified how hatcheries contribute to the decline of wild, native salmonids. The NFS has compiled many of these studies on its web page for use by the public. The combination of harvest, hatcheries and habitat degradation has brought healthy runs of salmon and steelhead to near extinction in 150 years since EuroAmericans have settled in the Northwest. That is an impressive record, but to change it, a mind set and institutional commitment has to be altered form an industrial model of salmonid management to one that is based on ecological understanding, genetic conservation, and respect for native, wild salmonids and the habitats that support them. All this is wrapped up in the hatchery issue. The hatchery has become the politically acceptable way to supply salmon for harvest while degrading watersheds as we log them, divert water, create electrical power, farm, and expand our urban areas. Hatcheries are politically safe and funding is ensured. The fact that hatcheries do not solve problems faced by ESA-listed wild salmonids is beginning to seep into the public consciousness and it is no longer an easy political default. When it costs thousands of dollars to produce an adult salmon for harvest, even politicians notice. The issues relating to hatcheries are the recent draft policy by the NMFS that would include hatchery fish in listing and delisting decisions for endangered species. This policy threatens the purpose of the ESA to recover native wild plants and animals in their natural habitats, because it would allow hatchery fish to be a replacement for wild salmonids. This policy is destructive and it is not consistent with the purpose and spirit of the ESA.

The states of Washington and Oregon have hatchery programs that have a negative effect on native fish populations, and each state has many salmon and steelhead populations that are not listed. For example, the Oregon coast steelhead are a candidate species. They are not listed and the state of Oregon has absolute authority over how steelhead in each watershed are managed. Oregon is seeking funding to develop a conservation plan for steelhead on the coast. Will that plan be scientifically sound? Will it be in compliance with the state's Native Fish Conservation Policy and Hatchery Policy? Who knows for sure? The only way to make sure is to be involved and to have people on the ground in each of those watersheds to make is so.

Harvest Issues
Salmon and steelhead are the only ESA-listed animals that are allowed to be taken for commercial and recreational purposes. In the spring of 2005 the states of Oregon and Washington sought permission form the federal government to increase the kill of threatened winter steelhead in the lower Columbia River in order to harvest more hatchery spring chinook in the commercial fishery. The NMFS is responsible for protection of listed salmon, but this agency gave its permission to up the kill rate. Even though both state and federal agencies had completed a review of wild winter steelhead in the lower river and found that no population was viable, they still sought a higher kill rate. When they were listed as a threatened species, the state of Oregon adopted a directed fishery on coho in Siltcoose and Tahakanish lakes on the Oregon coast. This is the first time an ESA-listed animal has been hunted down before it was fully recovered and removed from the protections of the ESA. So harvest is another of those institutional commitments made over one hundred years ago that, before massive alteration of the Columbia Basin, drove the wild salmon and steelhead toward extinction. In order to increase the supply of salmon for commercial harvesters, hatcheries were built to produce more fish. It was declared in the late 1800s that hatcheries were so successful in bringing salmon under the control of mankind, that no fishery regulations were required to protect the fish. The purpose of the fish and wildlife agencies is the same as any other government natural resource agency, that is, it uses its authority to serve its constituents and their consumptive desires. Society has rationalized salmon to be a commodity for exploitation, but in doing so, society has failed to organize its institutions to maintain the ecological conditions that supply the salmon. Consequently, the ecological services provided by Oregon watersheds are being depleted and this includes salmon. Based on a simple industrial model, the fish and wildlife agencies release hatchery salmon to be harvested. Even if the habitat were in good shape to support healthy wild salmonids, the fish agencies would undermine them with their hatchery and harvest programs. Reforming the fish agencies so that they include in their mission the protection of the ecological basis for wild salmon production is to reverse over 150 years of investment and commitment by government and people who have careers to protect. Harvest must support the reproductive capacity of wild salmon runs in each river. This means the abundance, distribution, nutrient requirements, genetic diversity, and life history attributes of each population has to be determined and maintained. Harvest management takes fish form many populations all at once and many wild populations are over-harvested. When wild populations are co-mingled with hatchery fish the wild fish are over-harvested. When a wild run recovers so that they are more abundant, the emphasis is to commit that increased abundance to harvest rather than to reproduction. These issues are all alive and well today, but to make room for wild salmon in your creek, they must be corrected so that wild salmon and steelhead have the institutional support they need to have a future among us. That is the job we all have and it is a specific task that NFS has adopted.