G'bye Salmon

[scott_harpell]

People do catch chum for sport and eat them.

 

People in Darrington also shoot and eat squirrels.

[shapp]

O.k. Mr. fish expert, name a list of sockeye stocks that do not use a lake for rearing? And lets see the literature citation that conclusivley documents the Lake Washington kokanee data. Kokanee do not have to be land locked. They merely stay in freshwater. There are kokanee in Lake washington, red fish lake, historically in Wallowa lake, none of these lakes are land locked. Kokanee can spawn in streams or on a lake shore with ground water upwelling. I am not a dumbshit, sockeye spawn in rivers but also can spawn along lake shores with upwelling. However, sockeye nearly 99% of the time rear in lakes before outmigration to the sea. I didn't think I would have to explain these things to you since you apparently know every thing about fish.

 

On chum, one mans shit is another mans tasty treat.

[scott_harpell]

O.k. Mr. fish expert, name a list of sockeye stocks that do not use a lake for rearing? And lets see the literature citation that conclusivley documents the Lake Washington kokanee data. Kokanee do not have to be land locked. They merely stay in freshwater. There are kokanee in Lake washington, red fish lake, historically in Wallowa lake, none of these lakes are land locked. Kokanee can spawn in streams or on a lake shore with ground water upwelling. I am not a dumbshit, sockeye spawn in rivers but also can spawn along lake shores with upwelling. However, sockeye nearly 99% of the time rear in lakes before outmigration to the sea. I didn't think I would have to explain these things to you since you apparently know every thing about fish.

 

On chum, one mans shit is another mans tasty treat.

 

Alaska.

[shapp]

Alaska is not a stock, if you refer to the famous Kenai, the vast majority of the sockeye rear in either of the two lakes. Lets see a real example, name the stock and the river with no lake that supports a native sockeye population known to be a distinct stock

[scott_harpell]

I am talking about the creek I fish in AK. Maybe it is an anomaly, but there is not lake at the end and I catch reds in there.

[scott_harpell]

I wonder though. There is a parallel stream that has a lake with reds. Would they go up one and wait for a while before going up the other? The one without the lake is bigger so they can go up it earlier. I dunno I suppose that is an explanation for it, but seems weird.

[shapp]

Name the creek and I will look it up. I don't want to be an ass, but fish are complex animals. A lot of times fish will stray into areas that are not ideal for their life cycle. It is a way that they have addapted to disturbance. A certain portion of fish are out there "looking for new habitats to occupy". Most likely if there is not lake or pond associated with that creek, the majority of sockeye that return to that creek every year are were probably spawned in a nearby watershed that has a strong sockeye population associated with a lake. The also do not need a big lake, a large pond might be all they need. You might be surprised to find a large pond at the headwaters of your creek.

[scott_harpell]

Eagle creek in POW is the one without the lake. Luck creek is the one with a lake called luck lake. East side of the island

[EWolfe]

..hello regulated homo sapien occupied waters!

 

None of that dangerous "sea-going creature" would be ideal.

 

An Advocate of Planetary Controls for the Safety of Humans In the Terra (AA PC SHIT)

[scott_harpell]

put down the bong.

[Uncle_Tricky]

Hey Kids, here's another bit o news I'm sure ya'll will be happy to hear. I wrote this article for this weeks edition of the Methow Valley News.

--

 

Feds propose 80 percent reduction in "critical habitat"

Methow Valley News

Dec. 8, 2004

 

In the year 2000, the National Marine Fisheries Service proposed that more than 120,000 river miles in Washington, Oregon and Idaho be designated as "critical habitat" for endangered salmon and steelhead species. But after losing a lawsuit filed by the National Homebuilders Association, the agency withdrew the designation in 2002.

 

On Nov. 30, the agency, now called NOAA Fisheries, introduced a new plan that would designate about 27,000 river miles in the Northwest as critical habitat. Compared with the original plan, the current proposal represents an 80 percent reduction in the number of river miles eligible as "critical habitat."

 

"Critical habitat" is defined as specific areas essential to the conservation of fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act. These areas may require special management considerations or protection.

 

The Methow Valley has two fish populations listed under the ESA that would be covered under the new, revised NOAA plan: wild steelhead and the Upper Columbia spring run Chinook salmon.

 

According to NOAA Fisheries documents, the 2004 proposal only includes areas of stream where listed salmon and steelhead have actually been observed, whereas the 2000 designations included all accessible river reaches within the range of the listed species.

 

Bob Lohn, the Northwest regional administrator for NOAA Fisheries, acknowledged the new proposal defined much less habitat as critical compared to the original proposal.

 

"When we initially designated critical habitat back in 2000, our biologists didn’t have information about where fish were actually located, so they just designated whole sub-basins," explained Lohn. "Now we know precisely where the fish are, so this, in my mind, is not a reduction in protection."

 

Over the past few years, biologists have conducted habitat and fish population surveys and assigned a biological value rating for different stretches of river to determine conservation priorities.

 

In the Methow sub-basin, there are 6,726 miles of streams including the Methow River and all its tributaries, according to biologists. Of that 6,726 miles, agency officials determined that there were 202 miles of critical Chinook habitat, and 216 miles of critical steelhead habitat which could be eligible for protection under the new plan.

 

Lost River, the Chewuch River, the Twisp River and the upper reaches of the Methow all were given the highest conservation value rating for spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead and Chinook, according to NOAA Fisheries documents.

 

Critical habitat designations must also consider economic impacts. Areas may be excluded from critical habitat if a determination is made that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as part of the critical habitat.

 

This was the basis of the 2002 National Homebuilders Association lawsuit, which claimed NOAA Fisheries had failed to accurately account for the economic costs of endangered fish conservation. The successful lawsuit forced the agency to redefine critical habitat for salmon and steelhead and led to the new proposal announced last week.

 

Lohn also noted that many stretches of river currently populated by endangered salmon or steelhead could also be excluded from the proposed critical habitat designation if pre-existing state or local laws afforded essentially the same protections. As an example, he cited state and county zoning laws requiring building setbacks from riparian areas. He said additional exclusions "could be anywhere from very small to up to 90 percent of what we consider critical habitat."

 

At this stage in the process, it is too early to know how many river miles in the Methow would be included or excluded from critical habitat designation.

 

"It’s a balancing act," said Lohn. "The test is simply whether the economic costs and benefits outweigh the conservation costs of excluding a particular area from critical designation."

 

NOAA Fisheries documents indicate that agriculture, grazing, irrigation, road building and forest fire activity/disturbance are activities that take place in areas that could be designated as critical habitat in the Methow Valley. Under ESA requirements, land management agencies are required to give "special consideration" to such activities in designated areas.

 

"This decision looks like a draconian action on behalf of NOAA," said Kurt Beardslee, the executive director for Washington Trout, a western Washington group devoted to the restoration of the state’s wild fish populations. "Because we’ve already lost so much historical habitat, we need to protect habitat broader than that which is currently populated."

 

Beardslee said because distribution of fish is related to their abundance, the current proposal for designating critical habitat only where endangered fish currently exist falls short. He said protecting areas including the historic habitat range of endangered fish species would be necessary as fish populations increase.

 

"If you only protect the habitat where they are now, their recovery will be limited as they try to push into unprotected areas where they were historically, but are not presently, present," said Beardslee.

 

NOAA Fisheries will hold public hearings in January to receive comments and feedback. Final rules are scheduled to be complete by June 2005.

 

More details are posted on NOAA Fisheries’ website: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/crithab/CHsite.htm.