Letters to the Editor
North American Fisherman
P. O. Box 3403
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
Editor, North American Fisherman:
Jon Storm's recent article discussing the future of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fisheries program ("On the Wrong Track") was, unfortunately, on its own wrong track. We hope you will grant us space for a full response to set the record straight.
There were a number of points in the article that were just flat wrong. Let's dispose of a couple of these right away: the Fish and Wildlife Service has never used Federal Aid funds to make a grant to any anti-hunting or animal rights group, nor has it "diverted" Sport Fish Restoration funds to "pay for activities unrelated to sportfishing." These allegations are simply not true. Space does not permit us to respond in detail to these points, but we will be pleased to do so in any other forum you may offer.
Here are facts your readers should know: the National Fish Hatchery System is at a crossroads. The average age of our hatcheries is 55 years. A number are observing their 100th birthdays this year. There is an unmet operational need of $75 million and a maintenance backlog of $218 million. One in four approved staff positions is vacant. In addition, there is an immediate need to update technology and science and to be responsive to concerns raised by some scientists about the interactions of hatchery and wild fish. At the same time there is an increased urgency to use the hatchery system as a critical tool in the conservation of our fishery resources in this country. As a recent study reported in Conservation Biology clearly showed, North American aquatic species are disappearing five times faster than land species.
These are facts that should be of concern to everyone who cares about fish or fishing.. And given this situation, the Service is -- properly, we believe -- beginning an effort to strengthen the National Fish Hatchery System so that it can meet the challenges now before it -- challenges that will only accelerate in the next century. In another 50 years, our nation's population is expected to increase by the equivalent of 15 New York Cities -- placing even greater strain on our aquatic species, habitats and recreational opportunities.
Contrary to the statements in Mr. Storm's article, we have indeed contacted the States and constituent groups to inform them of this effort and to involve them in developing a blueprint for the future of the National Fish Hatchery System. The Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, which includes representatives from BASS, the American Sportfishing Association, and other organizations, has agreed to manage a stakeholder process and to bring its financial, staff and volunteer resources to this effort.
Our top priorities for national fish hatcheries are conservation of native species, mitigation and support for Tribal fisheries. We're not performing any of these functions as well as we should, or could, because of funding shortages. This comes at a time when demands on the hatchery system are increasing. It is our belief that conservation of native species offer the best opportunity for broad funding support by all groups with an interest in fish and aquatic habitats.
There has been criticism that this approach is just cover for some kind of new endangered species program. Nonsense. Let me be candid: by "conservation of native species," I mean striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay. I mean lake trout. I mean paddlefish and sturgeon, salmon and steelhead. When I say the word native, don't hear endangered. National fish hatcheries are working on recovery of endangered species, but they are also working on many fish that have recreational value, or that will have recreational value when they are restored.
Mr. Storm's conclusions, if not his sources, are in error: the Service does not plan to eliminate recreational fish stocking programs associated with mitigation programs. Mitigation is a shared Federal responsibility and we are looking at the issue of who pays for mitigation programs. At the moment, for example, the Bonneville Power Administration is providing the Service with $11.5 million for mitigation hatcheries on the Lower Snake River. We need to seek more such opportunities to help cover the costs of our mitigation hatcheries.
Additionally:
The Service does not plan to stock only native fish. There are many locations where native fish simply cannot survive in altered environments.
The Service does not plan to close or transfer hatcheries that do not focus on the conservation of native fish. The goal of this agency is to avoid closing or transferring hatcheries; without bigger budgets, however, it is questionable how much longer we can avoid such decisions. That's one reason we need a long-range blueprint for the hatchery system.
The Service does not plan to withdraw support from Tribal fisheries, but will seek opportunities to offset our production costs and over time, to work with Tribes to identify opportunities to substitute native fish for non-natives.
The Service does not plan to eliminate naturalized populations of sportfish even when those species do not negatively impact endangered or native fishes. The Service policy that directs the agency to balance conservation of endangered species with enhancement of recreational fisheries remains in force.
It is not true that the fisheries program is not a personal priority. Priorities do not mean including everything -- one doesn't see "endangered species" in a list of Service priorities, but that doesn't mean the agency doesn't have a keen interest in that program. In setting priorities a year or so ago, there was an honest attempt to be inclusive. Fisheries are included within the priorities of our national wildlife refuge system, which offers greater angling opportunities. Fisheries are included with my goal for eliminating invasive species. Fisheries are included within my goal for improved ecosystem conservation. Furthermore, I have been working to secure greater support and funding to begin retooling our National Fish Hatcheries.
Finally, it is not true that the core issue isn't about money, but about a change in management philosophy toward preservation and not conservation. This is hogwash. But I will say, without any hesitation or embarrassment, that fish hatcheries are only one part of a healthy fisheries program. Habitat restoration, fish passage and the health of ecosystems overall are critical to the future of fish and fishing. Wildlife habitat is essential to the future of hunting. Fish habitat is just as essential to the future of fishing.
Our issues may sometimes seem complicated, but our situation is simple: the Service today has more challenges than we have dollars. When that happens in my home, my husband I have two alternatives: look for new sources of income and set new priorities for spending. Every family faces that situation now and then. The Service is facing it today. For years, our hatchery system has struggled to be everything to everyone. As a result, we have a hatchery system today that is in desperate need of repair and modernization, and aquatic species and habitat in serious states of decline.
Recently, our National Wildlife Refuge System faced a similar situation. In that instance, groups with varying ideas of what the Refuge System should do put aside their differences, sat down together and formed the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) which ultimately resulted in actions that greatly strengthened the Refuge System.
Those who care about fish -- and fishing -- would do well to follow this example. We also hope your readers will follow the work of the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council as it helps to develop a long-range blueprint for the Hatchery System.
[Looking for more information? Please try our Search Engine and check out the answers to the FAQ's (Frequently Asked Questions), before you contact us at Web_Reply@fws.gov]