Ollin Magnetic Digiscoping System

Herring aren’t ‘endangered’

Washington Hunter

Well-known member
Joined
May 8, 2002
Messages
4,133
Location
Rochester, Washington
Tacoma, WA - Wednesday, June 8, 2005 < Back to Regular Story Page

Herring aren’t ‘endangered’

Population drops, but Cherry Point school doesn’t receive protection

SUSAN GORDON; The News Tribune
Last updated: June 8th, 2005 06:14 AM (PDT)

Federal officials say they don’t have the authority to extend Endangered Species Act protection to a dramatically shrinking stock of herring, a important food source for Puget Sound salmon, marine mammals and sea birds.
Monday’s announcement by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service means federal officials are not obligated to safeguard Cherry Point herring, figure out why they are dying out or decide what needs to be done to conserve the stock of fish near Bellingham.

The determination came more than a year after a coalition of environmental advocates petitioned the federal government to add Cherry Point herring to the endangered species list.

Proponents said they were disappointed, but not surprised. A court challenge is likely, said Brent Plater, a San Francisco-based attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity. Other petitioners included the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, People for Puget Sound and Sam Wright, an Olympia fish biologist.

“It’s what I would have expected them (NOAA Fisheries) to do,” said Wright, who blamed the decision on a Bush administration directive to limit application of the Endangered Species Act. Other advocates echoed his opinion.

Cherry Point herring make their home near the Canadian border. They once accounted for about a third of the state’s herring population, but biologists say the stock is now so small that it could disappear.

But according to the Endangered Species Act, Cherry Point herring don’t deserve federal protection, NOAA Fisheries officials said. Brian Gorman, the agency’s spokesman, explained the rationale this way: Even if Cherry Point herring vanish, their absence won’t harm the rest of the region’s herring population.

Critics of the proposal endorsed the decision. They include managers of BP Northwest, one of two oil refineries with docks in the heart of the Cherry Point spawning grounds. BP Northwest spokesman Mike Abendhoff said his company argued against listing because it would be counterproductive.

“We don’t dispute the declines of herring stocks in Puget Sound,” he said, but insisted that the refineries already do their part to conserve the fish.

Authorities have banned the commercial harvest of Cherry Point herring and their eggs for several years.

Mike Sato, director of education and involvement for People for Puget Sound, said the refusal to protect Cherry Point herring compounds the problems of species recovery for both Puget Sound salmon and killer whales, which are also suffering population decline, and feed on herring.

Cherry Point herring make up just one of 40 herring stocks in Puget Sound and Georgia Basin.

Dramatic decline

The Cherry Point herring population dropped nearly 92 percent between 1994 and 2000, from 100 million herring to 8.08 million, assuming the average herring weighs 0.2 pounds. In 2003, the total increased to 16.11 million, far below the 150 million in 1973.

Susan Gordon: 253-597-8756

[email protected]

Originally published: June 8th, 2005 12:01 AM (PDT)
 
Isnt Bush just a dandy?

"blamed the decision on a Bush administration directive to limit application of the Endangered Species Act."

What right does an administration have to limit the application of an Act?

We'll soon see in the appeal process...that shrub and his administration DONT have the right to limit the application of the ESA.

Looks like Science once again takes the back seat to politics.

I wonder why there are so many lawsuits filed?HMMMMM? Gee, I wonder?
 
Another intelligent reply from elkcheese.

Give us your thoughts cheese, do you think the Bush administration will win in court on this issue? Or will the ESA win?

I'll give you my prediction...the courts will once again find in favor of the ESA.
 
LOL Buzz...

I don't have any any thing to add to WH's post, but yours only looked like another rant with out any thing new to say.. ;)
 
Hey cheese,

If you have nothing intelligent to say, then maybe not posting is the correct thing to do.

Or are you again trying to become the new post leader on hunttalk?
 
Hey cheese,

If you have nothing intelligent to say, then maybe not posting is the correct thing to do.

Or are you again trying to become the new post leader on hunttalk?

Do you honestly thing your incesent badgering is going to make me go away???

:rolleyes:

I would say we both (Yes I will lump you into this catagory, you are just as guilty, if not more so than I) put an awful lot of posts up that amount to nothing...

Such as your last one, and this one of mine... ;)

Trying to catch me on the posting??? :)
 
First, I hope that someone gets that so called limit removed. In my opinion, if a particular species is becoming endangered, and is a vital part of another's existence, than do whatever is needed to protect it. And as for you two, Buzz and Elkchsr, you guys really crack me up.
 
Hey guys, when those herring all disappear from Puget Sound.. give them a year then send their mail c/o general delivery, San Marcos, Peru or Santa Ana, Chile. That's where they will show. THose fish migrate up and down the Pacific coast of North America just like the Anchovy do. They disappear from one spot only to appear in the other in a couple of years.

:cool:
 
Thanks Dan...

I would suppose that would be the same if you wanted a little different perspective as seeing a ton of elk in an area, hunting the hell out of it and wondering where they all went the next...

Are they on the brink of extinction because you don't find them in the same area this year as last... ;)

Makes sense to me... :)
 
Back
Top