NATIVE FISH SOCIETY
P.O. Box 19570 Portland, Oregon 97280 (503) 977-0287 Email: bmbakke@teleport.comOctober 31, 2002
TO: ODFW Commissioners, staff FR: Bill Bakke, Director RE: Native Fish Conservation Policy CommentsI would like to thank the department for my appointment and that of my alternate Les Helgeson to the Native Fish Conservation Policy Task Force.
In 1978 the ODFW Commissioners agreed with my proposal to establish the Oregon Wild Fish Management Policy and in the early 1990s, this policy was updated and improved at my request. Having a policy for the protection of native fish is important in Oregon, especially now that so many wild populations are now listed as federal protected species under the Endangered Species Act. If the department had provided the leadership and commitment to the full application of the OWFMP, it is likely that the department would not have as many populations in protected status and lost its management authority over them. The new replacement policy will be another opportunity to provide a science based conservation program for Oregonâs native fish heritage.
However, the Native Fish Conservation Policy, in its final form for adoption by the Commission on November 8, 2002 has serious flaws that will make it ineffective. These problems cannot be corrected in the time remaining, and it is doubtful that the promised ãscrubä by staff of the Wild Fish Policy will be successful during the legislative session.
It is obvious that some Commissioners are supportive of the anti-native fish lobby and will work to change the policy so that it is weaker than it is in the present draft. Weakening the draft policy by changing Key Element (1) the principle obligation is conservation of indigenous species; Key Element (3) a priority order for objectives; and Key Element (5) elimination of language that is struck out will severely damage the direction in the policy. By amending these elements or their elimination the Commission and the department will have abandoned its stewardship role for native fish conservation.
In addition to these changes the commodity industries on the Task Force want, there are other major flaws that I wish to bring to your attention.
Problems with the NFCP:
1. There is no independent scientific oversight of the policy and subbasin planning that would apply this policy to individual populations of native fish.
2. There is no provision for compliance monitoring in the rules to provide accountability for its implementation.
3. There are no numerical standards for hatchery stray rates for natural spawning populations.
4. There are no numerical standards for minimum population size at the population level.
5. The biological attributes are complex and expensive to apply. There are more criteria in this policy than in the one it replaces; yet the compliance with the standards in the OWFMP was poor. Expecting compliance with the new policy is a leap of faith given its complexity and the chronic lack of data for native wild populations of fish in Oregon. However, basing management on these attributes is an improvement over earlier policies.
6. There is only one deliverable and that is five years out. This status review lacks specifics and does not constitute an adequate monitoring program for native fish populations.
7. There is no cost estimate for full implementation of this policy and given the funding problems of the agency and the emphasis on funding hatchery and harvest programs, it is reasonable to expect that there will be no funding priority for implementation of the NFCP.
8. There is no end point; that is, there is no specific deadline for full implementation of the NFCP, so its application is ambiguous. The same problem plagued the OWFMP causing the lack of application across the state.
9. The NFCP Task Force is a political discussion group, not a science based advisory group, so the policy application has no independent science advice. Establishing a political based advisory committee by rule, the Commission will be ensuring that full implementation of the policy will be slow and contentious.
10. The NFCP is not linked to policies on hatcheries and harvest, continuing the incompatibility between native fish conservation, harvest and hatchery programs. This situation does not solve the chronic problems within the fish division because a uniform policy linking conservation, harvest and artificial production has not been corrected. This problem has resulted in loss of funding and staff for native fish conservation. It is reasonable to expect this problem will continue because the institutional structure in the fish division remains the same. This also means that the Commission will not be provided with technical information from staff that relies upon all the expertise in the fish division.
11. Conservation units are organized around species management units which are a collection of native fish populations. This is a major flaw because it assumes that conservation at the species unit will be adequate to protect individual populations. This has not worked in the past and is unlikely to work in the future. The health of individual populations (at the subbasin level) should be the unit of conservation. If the individual populations are healthy, the species management unit is healthy. However, conservation at the species management unit does not necessarily ensure that individual populations will be healthy. This proposed organizational scheme continues the risk to populations.
At present there are many hatchery and harvest programs that are not supportive of native fish conservation and out of compliance with the existing OWFMP. To fix this problem of non-compliance, a new concept was devised to eliminate the compliance problem by reducing the deliverables and eliminating measurable standards. Consequently, the NFCP is actually a regressive policy because it provides less accountability than the OWFMP.
Because of these problems with the Native Fish Conservation Policy the Native Fish Society is unable to endorse it as an adequate conservation tool for Oregonâs native fish populations.