[Fishlink] ~~>SUBLEGALS 31Jan03<~~
bit-bucket@straylight.primelogic.com
bit-bucket@straylight.primelogic.com
Wed, 5 Feb 2003 20:41:03 EST
--part1_144.9b531ea.2b73172f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
##########################################################
~~>SUBLEGALS 31Jan03<~~
##########################################################
A WEEKLY QUOTA OF FISHERY SHORTS CAUGHT AND
LANDED BY THE INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES
AND THE PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S
ASSOCIATIONS
VOL. 07, NO. 05 31 JANUARY 2003
##########################################################
"Technologies which are environmentally more sustainable are less
prone to being hijacked by those intent on harm. No terrorist is going to
make governments tremble by threatening to bomb a wind turbine or
release clouds of compost over our cities."...........Jonathan Porritt
##########################################################
IN THIS ISSUE.......
Oregon Forestry Board Abdicates Authority To Limit
Logging On High Risk Slopes. 7:05/01
ESA Impacts of Klamath Diversion To Rogue
River Questioned. 7:05/03
Coalition Urges Interior To Appeal Wanger Trinity
Decision, Hupa Tribe Files Appeal. 7:05/04
California Congressional Delegation Unanimously
Opposes Proposed Westlands Settlement. 7:05/05
Chemical Industry Executive To Head National
Fisheries Institute. 7:05/07
AND MORE......
##########################################################
7:05/01. OREGON FORESTRY BOARD ABDICATES
AUTHORITY TO LIMIT LOGGING ON HIGH-RISK SLOPES: On 27
January, the Oregon Board of Forestry made good on its threat to
terminate the authority of the Oregon State Forester to review and
disapprove logging on high-risk steep slopes (see Sublegals, 7:04/05)
and unanimously adopted an emergency rule eliminating this power. The
adoption of the rule came at a hastily called special meeting with no
public comment. Except for a minor statutory requirement to sign off on
logging above actual home sites, the State Forester's prior approval
authority over steep slope logging has now been eliminated. This means
the State Forester can no longer limit or disapprove of high-risk, steep
slope logging to protect public resources, water quality or endangered
species. Clearcutting and other intensive logging on high-risk, landslide
prone slopes can now proceed in Oregon without any administrative
review, even though such operations have been demonstrated to result in
landslides that damage watersheds, silt up rivers and jeopardize
Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed coho salmon "High risk sites" are
defined as slopes greater than 65 percent, headwalls steeper than 70
percent, and inner gorges steeper than 60 percent slope. Many coastal
rivers in which coho are still present are in high-risk, landslide prone
areas that remain subject to extensive industrial logging. For more
information on the Oregon Board of Forestry action see the report in the
28 January Oregonian at: www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/
index.ssf?/base/front_page/1043759015130500.xml.
The Board is thus abdicating any state responsibility to avoid "take"
of coho salmon which would be a violation of the federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA), and to work its way around a pending federal court
case (Pacific Rivers Council v. Brown (Oregon Federal Dist. Ct., No.
CV 02-243-BR)) asserting that routine approval of intensive logging on
high-risk slopes destroys spawning and rearing habitat of ESA-listed
coho. Plaintiffs in the case (including PCFFA), and have sought to
enjoin state approvals of these high-risk operations above fish-bearing
streams at least until more protective state rules could be adopted. State
agencies have been held liable before for approving actions that result in
a "take" of ESA-listed species in other federal circuits, but not in the
Ninth Circuit or before the U.S. Supreme Court (see Strahan v. Coxe,
939 F. Supp. 963 (D. Mass. Sep. 24, 1996), aff'd in part, vacated in part,
Strahan v. Coxe, 127 F. 3rd 155 (1st Cir. Oct. 9, 1997), cert. denied,
Strahan v. Coxe, 525 U.S. 830 (U.S.S.C. Oct 5, 1998)). A preliminary
ruling in the case has upheld ESA liability for the state (see Sublegals,
7:03/08) and the case could potentially establish a precedent affecting all
western U.S. states.
The process by which the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF)
proposed the rule was also challenged as being seriously flawed. A
number of groups noted in a 24 January letter to the Board that in
addition to there being little notice and no opportunity for the public to
comment, "the statement of need and justification is extremely
one-sided. In considering the 'public interest,' it focuses only on private
interests in logging high-risk sites and the Department's interest in
avoiding administrative proceedings.... Yet the statement completely
sidesteps the public's interest in preventing landslides that harm
watersheds and salmon. It ignores the state's stewardship duties over
streams and fish. It acts as if ODF and the Board have no obligations or
interests in such matters, despite the extensive investment the state has
made in restoring salmon watersheds." Plaintiffs in the federal case
appealed the adoption of the emergency rule to the State Court of
Appeals for that and other procedural flaws on 29 January.
Meanwhile, at a 30 January status conference, the Oregon Attorney
General's office moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that, with the
adoption of the emergency rule, the State Forester no longer has
supervisory authority over high-risk site logging operations and thus no
liability. U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown, presiding over the
case, refused, however, to dismiss on that basis and scheduled a hearing
on plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction for 11 February. For
more information on the federal court case contact Patti Goldman,
Earthjustice Legal Defense, 705 Second Avenue, Suite 203, Seattle, WA
98104-1711, (206) 343-7340. Also see:
www.earthjustice.org/urgent/display.html?ID=113.
7:05/02. SCIENTIFIC STUDY FINDS PALCO OPERATIONS
DAMAGING SALMON STREAMS: Heavy logging by the
MAXXAM-owned Pacific Lumber Company (PALCO) along the
rugged California north coast "has degraded water quality and
aggravated flooding in five rivers and streams" according to a new report
released by the California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board. The streams all once supported coho salmon populations and
some have chinook as well (see Sublegals, 7:03/09). According to a 14
January article by the Los Angeles Times, " the study..........recommends
that Pacific Lumber, based in Scotia, reduce timber cutting on the
220,000 acres of land it owns in Humboldt County. Otherwise, the report
says, conditions will probably not improve.................The analysis was
compiled by a team of scientists without ties to the logging company."
The Times article by Steve Hymon went on to say, the "new report
endorses a method that, in effect, would probably reduce the number of
acres of land that Pacific Lumber could log along the five rivers and
streams. It will be up to the water board to decide whether these
standards will be used to regulate the timber company. A report with
similar findings was released by the board's regional staff in September
2000 but never acted upon." To see the Los Angeles Times article, go to:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/index.html?ts=1044388265.
7:05/03. LOSS OF KLAMATH WATER THROUGH DIVERSION
TO ROGUE RIVER QUESTIONED FOR IMPACT ON ESA-LISTED
FISH: On 29 January, the Northcoast Environmental Center (NEC) and
the Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC) sent a 60-day notice to
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) asking for a formal consultation
over whether the annual out-of-basin transfer of 30,000 acre-feet of
water from the top of the Upper Klamath Basin into the Rogue River
Basin should continue, particularly given the urgent need for more water
to help protect endangered and threatened fish and wildlife in the
water-starved and over-appropriated Klamath Basin. If BOR does not
take steps to initiate such a consultation within 60 days, the groups could
sue to require it. Consultation was informally begun more than two
years ago but never completed and has since stalled.
30,000 acre-feet of water is removed annually from the northwestern
parts of the Upper Klamath Basin, where it is diverted by BOR from the
Hyatt and Howard Prairie Reservoirs through artificial canals into
Oregon's Rogue River Basin Irrigation Project instead of naturally
flowing into Upper Klamath Lake or the Klamath River. At least 24,200
acre-feet of this water ordinarily would have flowed down Jenny Creek
and directly into Iron Gate Reservoir, where it would have supplied cold
water to help reduce downstream water temperatures for salmon below
Iron Gate Dam. Jenny Creek also contains its own populations of
resident fish that are listed as sensitive species by the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service (USFWS). Lack of the 30,000 acre-feet transferred
out-of-basin clearly means lower lake levels and less water for lower
river salmon runs. During the September 2002 record fish die-off in the
lower river, an additional 30,000 acre-feet could have made a substantial
difference in how many fish died or whether they would have died at all.
For more information on the 60-day notice and the diversion, see the
31 January Oregonian article at: www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/
base/news/1044017954287320.xml. For a copy of the NEC/ ONRC
letter and statement, see: www.onrc.org/press/058.klamathrogue.html.
7:05/04. INTERIOR URGED TO APPEAL WANGER TRINITY
DECISION, HUPA TRIBE FILES APPEAL: On 27 January, a coalition
of fishing and conservation groups sent a letter to U.S. Interior Secretary
Gale Norton and Attorney General John Ashcroft urging a Department
of Interior appeal of the 10 December ruling by U.S. District Court,
Fresno Division Judge Oliver W. Wanger in Westlands Water District v.
United States (Civ. No. F-00-7124 OWW/DLB), a ruling that overturned
the 2000 Record of Decision (ROD) for the Trinity River that would
have restored flows in that major Northern California tributary of the
Klamath to 48 percent of their historic levels (see Sublegals, 6:24/01;
2:20/02; 2:18/09). Wanger's decision, brought at the behest of Central
Valley agribusiness and hydropower interests, could open the door again
for massive water diversions from the Trinity into the Sacramento River
and the federal Central Valley Project (CVP), which in the past have
taken as much as 86 percent of the river's flow annually. The Trinity is
the largest salmon producing tributary of the Klamath system. Its
chinook and coho salmon populations support the Hupa Tribal fishery,
as well as contributing to the ocean commercial harvest and an ocean
and in-river sport catch. The letter, signed by the Natural Resources
Defense Council, Save San Francisco Bay Association, Sierra Nevada
Alliance, Environmental Defense, The Bay Institute, Clean Water
Action, Mono Lake Committee, Natural Heritage Institute, California
Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Friends of the River and the Sierra
Club, as well as PCFFA, was sent out of concern that the defendant
Interior Department might not appeal Wanger's ruling to the U.S. Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals where the Judge is frequently overturned.
"Early in President Bush's administration, Secretary Norton made a
commitment to defend vigorously the Trinity River Mainstem
Restoration Plan ("Trinity Restoration Plan"). Our organizations urge
you to honor this commitment by filing an appeal with the Ninth Circuit
of the recent rulings of the District Court in this matter," said the groups
in their letter to the Secretary and Attorney General. "The Trinity
Restoration Plan is the culmination of twenty years of studies in an effort
to comply with a variety of federal statutes, including the legislation that
originally authorized the Trinity Dam. These statutes require protection
and restoration of the Trinity River and the Indian reserved fishing rights
that the United States holds in trust............This plan is the product of
an
extraordinary compromise that established a balanced allocation of water
from the river. The Trinity Restoration Plan will achieve fishery
restoration objectives in the Trinity River and still allow the diversion of
more than one half of the Trinity River's natural flow from its watershed
into the Central Valley for irrigation, power generation and municipal
and industrial uses. The allocation is based on the best available
scientific information and meets the expectations that Congress had for
the Trinity River when it authorized the Trinity River Division of the
Central Valley Project in 1955........The volume of water at stake
represents barely 1 percent of the inflow to the Central Valley Bay-Delta
system. To the Trinity River, however, these flows are essential to the
protection of vested tribal property rights and an ecologically healthy
river system with enormous economic value to the communities of
California's North Coast and the Nation at large."
On 29 January, the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council (Hupa Tribe) also
requested Interior to appeal Wanger's decision and announced the Tribe
would file an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. "We have no other option but
to continue to fight for the life of our river, the fish and our way of
life,"
Hoopa Valley Tribal Chairman Lyle Marshall told the Fresno Bee. "The
Trinity River runs through the middle of our reservation and cannot be
ignored as a source of our cultural, spiritual and environmental health."
The federal government promised in 2000 that there would be more
water left in the river, Marshall said, adding, "We will not stand by and
let this court allow economic greed to destroy the Trinity River."
Marshall went on to say the December District Court ruling was
"especially devastating for the fish of the Trinity River because Judge
Wanger's decision sets the stage for another massive fish kill next year
on the Trinity and Klamath Rivers" (see Sublegals, 7:02/01). For more
information, see the 30 January Fresno Bee article at:
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/6028248p-6984532c.html.
7:05/05. CALIFORNIA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION
UNANIMOUS IN BLASTING PROPOSED WESTLANDS
SETTLEMENT: The California Congressional Delegation for the first
time in years has acted unanimously and blasted the proposed funding
for the Interior/Sumner Peck/Westlands Proposed Settlement (US Dist.
Court, Civ. No. F-91-048 OWW) that would initially have the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) pay plaintiff growers $140 million to
retire 33,000 acres of irrigated crops on the arid west side of California's
San Joaquin Valley (see Sublegals, 6:26/04; 6:24/02; 6:22/09). The
settlement arose out of a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Oliver W.
Wanger that the federal government was obliged to provide drainage for
irrigation tail water to growers in the Westlands Water District who
receive taxpayer subsidized water from the federal Central Valley
Project (CVP). The tail water is laden with selenium and pesticides and
is highly toxic. The Bureau, which operates the CVP, was initially going
to build a drainage ditch (San Luis Drain) to the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta and dump the toxics there, but that plan was widely
opposed by fishing and conservation groups. BOR has subsequently
settled on an on-site disposal method that will mean reducing the amount
of waste drainage water - hence the plan to fallow some cropland. The
proposed settlement plan, however, would not have reduced Westlands'
water deliveries and called for using Central Valley Project Improvement
Act (CVPIA) restoration funds.
Before the California delegation weighed in on the proposed deal,
California Trout's Byron Leydecker wrote Wanger on 3 January, saying
the "CVPIA requires that its Restoration Fund not be used for a single
purpose not included in its objectives: habitat restoration, improvement
and land acquisition. The proposed Settlement violates CVPIA's
restriction that the Interior Secretary is not authorized to use all
Restoration Funds for a single purpose. The proposed settlement
essentially would wipe out Restoration Funds for any other purpose for
two years..........The proposed Settlement provides payment for acquired
land at a price exorbitantly higher than its market or true
value............this is a violation both of the law and of the pricing
standards and methods adopted by the Bureau of Reclamation for
purchase of lands for retirement.................This acreage, proposed to be
acquired for from $3.2 to $4.2 thousand an acre is worthless land.
Before it started receiving Trinity River water in 1964, it was wasteland
desert. Since it has been irrigated it has become widely acknowledged,
even among the landowners themselves that the land has developed into
selenium, boron and other toxic poisoned and waterlogged lands that
never should have been irrigated."
"We have a united California delegation that does not believe that the
money for this settlement should come from any California
water-restoration fund," U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was
quoted saying by the Sacramento Bee. Two members of the California
delegation even demanded a General Accounting Office (GAO)
investigation of the proposed settlement. "Frankly, the government's
track record on valuing everything from timber sales to land exchanges
should raise questions with everyone about whether this is just another
fleece job on state and federal taxpayers," said U.S. Representative
George Miller (D-CA). For more on the Congressional reaction, see the
11 January Michael Doyle article in the Sacramento Bee at:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/5857987p-6823550c.html.
7:05/06. EU TO LIMIT FOOD COLORING USED IN FISH: On 27
January, the European Union (EU) adopted a directive that levels of a
chemical used to give salmon, egg yolks and poultry products a reddish
color should be reduced because the additive can cause vision problems.
The chemical, canthaxanthin, can trigger an accumulation of pigments in
the retina. "The use of this feed additive is purely cosmetic, to color
food," said EU Commissioner David Byrne. "Reduced levels of the
additive will not adversely affect the taste or quality of our food." The
Directive will enter into force 20 days after its publication in the Official
Journal and will then have to be implemented in national legislation by 1
December. In nature, salmon gets its pink color from eating shrimp; the
additive is used to maintain that hue in farmed fish, which would
otherwise have a grayish color. In poultry, it is used to give the skin and
egg yolks a brighter yellow color. The World Health Organization
(WHO) set an acceptable daily intake of up to 0.03 milligrams per
kilogram (mg/kg) of human body weight, a level supported by the EU
Scientific Committee on Food. For more information visit the European
Union website at:
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=I
P/03/123|0|RAPID&lg=EN.
In December, the London Daily Mail ran a lengthy article just before
Christmas on what it called "pink poison" - smoked salmon made from
farmed fish. In that piece documenting the environmental and health
concerns surrounding farmed salmon, it listed "the use of a chemical
called canthaxanthin, which has been fed to farmed salmon to make their
flesh pink......In the wild, salmon get their familiar colouring from
natural food sources, such as algae and small crustaceans. Farmed
specimens rely instead on additives to replicate this pigment.......The
Swiss company which produces canthaxanthin even supply a colour
grading chart so that farmers can check they've got the shade right, rather
like a decorator using a paint card. But the chemical has been linked to
potential eye damage, particularly among the young......Sun-tanning pills
which featured the additive were withdrawn in the Eighties after fears
that it could damage the retina, causing temporary blind spots." To see
the 24 December Daily Mail article, go to:
http://www.yesnutritionworks.com/news.htm.
7:05/07. CHEMICAL INDUSTRY EXECUTIVE TO HEAD
NATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE, GROUP SEEKS TO
UNDERCUT MSC SUSTAINABLE FISH CERTIFICATION: The
National Fisheries Institute (NFI), which represents U.S. fish importers,
exporters, and many seafood distributors, processors and chain fish
restaurants among others in the shoreside sector of America's fishing
industry, has selected John Connelly as its new president. Connelly was
formerly Vice President, Member Relations and Corporate Secretary
with the American Chemistry Council, a trade association representing
the chemical industry. He succeeds Dick Gutting, who left NFI on 3
January. Connelly will begin working at NFI's Alexandria, Virginia
headquarters on 24 February, but will be attending regional meetings
beforehand. Connelly can be contacted at (703) 524-8880 or by e-mail
at: jconnelly@nfi.org.
Connelly's hiring comes on the heels of a request by NFI, made in a
letter to U.S. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans and Secretary of State
Colin Powell, asking support for United Nations Food & Agriculture
Organization (FAO) standards for eco-labeling of fish and seafood. The
request by NFI, which has vehemently opposed any labeling of seafood
in the past, including the language passed in the 2002 Farm Bill (see
Sublegals, 5:08/01; 5:08/03; 5:07/06; 5:05/05; 4:24/01; 4:17/01), is seen
as disingenuous and a desperate attempt to undercut the successful
certification program developed by the Marine Stewardship Council
(MSC) for sustainably-produced fish. The MSC program, which is only
a few years old, has already certified a half-dozen fisheries, including
Alaska's salmon fishery, and a number of others are or will be
undergoing the certification process, including California salmon and
North Pacific halibut and blackcod (sablefish). According to an article
by Lauren Miura on Greenwire, "NFI called for the creation of voluntary
technical standards for sustainable fisheries by the FAO to serve as the
basis for the certification and eco-labeling for all fish and seafood in the
marketplace." NFI is urging the U.S. to advocate for the creation of
eco-labeling standards at the FAO's committee on fisheries meeting
24-28 February in Rome.
"The term 'voluntary' says it all," said PCFFA Executive Director
Zeke Grader. "NFI has always fought labeling and any type of informed
consumer choice when it comes to fish. This request for the FAO to
develop standards is nothing more than a thinly disguised ploy to
undercut the solid certification program put together by the MSC -- one
that will greatly benefit fishing men and women who fish sustainably.
NFI's passion is solely for profits, not for this ancient and proud industry,
its resources, its culture, or those who toil in it. Many NFI members, I
fear, would as soon trade in chemical sludge as peddle fish if it made
them more money." To see the NFI press release on eco-labeling and
request to the FAO, go to: http://www.nfi.org/?a=news&b=News
Releases&year=&x=1663. For more information on the Marine
Stewardship Council, go to: http://www.msc.org.
7:05/08. WASHINGTON FISH & WILDLIFE COMMISSION TO
TAKE UP HERRING, SHARK AND SHRIMP FISHING
REGULATIONS AT LONGVIEW MEETING: The Washington Fish &
Wildlife Commission will meet Thursday-Friday, 7-8 February, at the
Cowlitz County PUD Auditorium, 961 12th Avenue, in Longview. The
sessions will commence at 0900 HRS each morning.
On the agenda will be proposed changes to the Puget Sound shrimp
fishery management policies. The new shrimp policy "proposes to
maintain a strong conservation foundation for management of shrimp
resources, as well as sharing between recreational and commercial
harvest groups, while maintaining exclusive recreational harvest areas in
Hood Canal and in portions of Port Angeles and Discovery bays." The
commission is expected to act on a number of other proposals, including:
* The policy for the 2003-04 "North of Falcon" salmon season-setting
process;
* New rules governing dogfish shark management, commercial herring
fishing in coastal areas and commercial pink shrimp fishing in coastal
areas;
* An amendment to rules governing commercial fishing in Puget Sound
that would reduce the minimum mesh size for Puget Sound salmon purse
seines from four inches to three and one-half inches; and
* The adoption of new rules that would prohibit possession, transporting
and landing of Pollock caught in the Pacific Ocean into Washington state
waters. Whiting and coastal groundfish fishermen would still be allowed
to land some Pollock in addition to their targeted catch under the
proposed rules.
The complete agenda is on the Commission's website at
http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/com/comintro.htm.
7:05/09. PCFFA AND IFR BOARDS TO MEET IN MOSS
LANDING: The Board of Trustees of the Institute for Fisheries
Resources will meet jointly with the Board of Directors of the Pacific
Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations on 13-14 February in
Moss Landing, California. Crab and salmon will be the main agenda
items for PCFFA, looking at the upcoming salmon season and market
conditions. For more information on the meetings, call (415) 561-5080
or e-mail: fish1ifr@aol.com.
Paying Attention?
The European Union recently issued a directive recommending a
reduction in the amount of the chemical canthaxanthin used to color
farmed salmon red. What prompted EU action?
A) The additive can cause vision problems from an accumulation of
pigments in the retina.
B) Ministers worried that canthaxanthin, manufactured by a rival of the
chemical company new NFI President John Connelly represented, and
used by EU salmon farmers could not get an eco-label from the FAO or
NFI.
C) Recent studies found farmed salmon, colored with the chemical,
when smoked had the texture of lutefisk.
D) Growing consumer preference for gray colored "natural" (no food
coloring) farmed salmon.
E-Mail your answer by Friday, 7 February, to: "Editor" at:
sublegals@ifrfish.org.
And the Winner is...... Ann Tweedy is the winner of last week's
"Paying Attention?" with the correct answer of "D", "Minnesota took
action when it heard of research on modifying the genes of catfish" for
the answer to a state that had banned transgenic fish. She receives an
"Order of the Fringehead" certificate and a handsome gray shirt with the
cuddly Sarcastic Fringehead Sublegals logo.
NEWS, COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS: Submit your news items,
comments or any corrections to Editor at: sublegals@ifrfish.org, or call
the IFR/PCFFA office with the news and a source at either: (415)
561-FISH (Southwest Office) or (541) 689-2000 (Northwest Office).
##########################################################
"Sublegals" are a weekly fisheries news bulletin service of Fishlink. To
find out more about Fishlink, list information can be viewed and you can
subscribe yourself automatically at:
http://straylight.primelogic.com/mailman/listinfo/fishlink
If you have any trouble subscribing or unsubscribing, contact
PCFFA/IFR directly at: <fish1ifr@aol.com>.
##########################################################
"Fishlink" and "Sublegals" are registered trademarks of the Institute for
Fisheries Resources. All rights to the use of these trademarks are
reserved to IFR. This publication, however, may be freely reproduced
and circulated without copyright restriction. If you are receiving this
as a subscriber, please feel free to pass this on to your colleagues.
Subscribers who wish to post or circulate hard copy of Sublegals or
have no access to the Internet may receive fax subscriptions by faxing
their request, with their fax number to: (415) 561-5464. Thanks!
##########################################################
MADE YOUR PLEDGE? GOT YOUR SARCASTIC FRINGEHEAD
SHIRT? GO TO: www.ifrfish.org
##########################################################
--part1_144.9b531ea.2b73172f_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">######################################################=
####<BR>
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; ~~>SUBLEGALS 31Jan03<~~<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
A WEEKLY QUOTA OF FISHERY SHORTS CAUGHT=
AND<BR>
LANDED BY THE INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES <BR=
>
AND THE PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S<BR>
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; =
ASSOCIATIONS<BR>
<BR>
VOL. 07, NO. 05 =
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; 31 JANUARY 2003<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
"Technologies which are environmentally more sustainable are less<BR>
prone to being hijacked by those intent on harm. No terrorist is going=
to<BR>
make governments tremble by threatening to bomb a wind turbine or<BR>
release clouds of compost over our cities."...........Jonathan Porritt<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
IN THIS ISSUE.......<BR>
<BR>
Oregon Forestry Board Abdicates Authority To Limit <BR>
Logging On High Risk Slopes. 7:05/01<BR>
<BR>
ESA Impacts of Klamath Diversion To Rogue <BR>
River Questioned. 7:05/03<BR>
<BR>
Coalition Urges Interior To Appeal Wanger Trinity <BR>
Decision, Hupa Tribe Files Appeal. 7:05/04<BR>
<BR>
California Congressional Delegation Unanimously <BR>
Opposes Proposed Westlands Settlement. 7:05/05<BR>
<BR>
Chemical Industry Executive To Head National <BR>
Fisheries Institute. 7:05/07<BR>
<BR>
AND MORE......<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
7:05/01. OREGON FORESTRY BOARD ABDICATES<BR>
AUTHORITY TO LIMIT LOGGING ON HIGH-RISK SLOPES: On 27<BR>
January, the Oregon Board of Forestry made good on its threat to<BR>
terminate the authority of the Oregon State Forester to review and<BR>
disapprove logging on high-risk steep slopes (see Sublegals, 7:04/05)<BR>
and unanimously adopted an emergency rule eliminating this power. The<BR>
adoption of the rule came at a hastily called special meeting with no<BR>
public comment. Except for a minor statutory requirement to sign off on<BR>
logging above actual home sites, the State Forester's prior approval<BR>
authority over steep slope logging has now been eliminated. This means=
<BR>
the State Forester can no longer limit or disapprove of high-risk, steep<BR>
slope logging to protect public resources, water quality or endangered<BR>
species. Clearcutting and other intensive logging on high-risk, landslide<BR=
>
prone slopes can now proceed in Oregon without any administrative<BR>
review, even though such operations have been demonstrated to result in<BR>
landslides that damage watersheds, silt up rivers and jeopardize<BR>
Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed coho salmon "High risk sites" are<=
BR>
defined as slopes greater than 65 percent, headwalls steeper than 70<BR>
percent, and inner gorges steeper than 60 percent slope. Many coastal<=
BR>
rivers in which coho are still present are in high-risk, landslide prone<BR>
areas that remain subject to extensive industrial logging. For more<BR=
>
information on the Oregon Board of Forestry action see the report in the<BR>
28 January Oregonian at: www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/<BR>
index.ssf?/base/front_page/1043759015130500.xml.<BR>
<BR>
The Board is thus abdicating any state responsibili=
ty to avoid "take"<BR>
of coho salmon which would be a violation of the federal Endangered<BR>
Species Act (ESA), and to work its way around a pending federal court<BR>
case (Pacific Rivers Council v. Brown (Oregon Federal Dist. Ct., No.<BR>
CV 02-243-BR)) asserting that routine approval of intensive logging on<BR>
high-risk slopes destroys spawning and rearing habitat of ESA-listed<BR>
coho. Plaintiffs in the case (including PCFFA), and have sought to<BR>
enjoin state approvals of these high-risk operations above fish-bearing<BR>
streams at least until more protective state rules could be adopted. S=
tate<BR>
agencies have been held liable before for approving actions that result in<B=
R>
a "take" of ESA-listed species in other federal circuits, but not in the<BR>
Ninth Circuit or before the U.S. Supreme Court (see Strahan v. Coxe,<BR>
939 F. Supp. 963 (D. Mass. Sep. 24, 1996), aff'd in part, vacated in part,<B=
R>
Strahan v. Coxe, 127 F. 3rd 155 (1st Cir. Oct. 9, 1997), cert. denied,<BR>
Strahan v. Coxe, 525 U.S. 830 (U.S.S.C. Oct 5, 1998)). A preliminary<BR>
ruling in the case has upheld ESA liability for the state (see Sublegals,<BR=
>
7:03/08) and the case could potentially establish a precedent affecting all<=
BR>
western U.S. states.<BR>
<BR>
The process by which the Oregon Department of Fores=
try (ODF)<BR>
proposed the rule was also challenged as being seriously flawed. A<BR>
number of groups noted in a 24 January letter to the Board that in<BR>
addition to there being little notice and no opportunity for the public to<B=
R>
comment, "the statement of need and justification is extremely<BR>
one-sided. In considering the 'public interest,' it focuses only on pr=
ivate<BR>
interests in logging high-risk sites and the Department's interest in<BR>
avoiding administrative proceedings.... Yet the statement completely<BR>
sidesteps the public's interest in preventing landslides that harm<BR>
watersheds and salmon. It ignores the state's stewardship duties over<BR>
streams and fish. It acts as if ODF and the Board have no obligations=20=
or<BR>
interests in such matters, despite the extensive investment the state has<BR=
>
made in restoring salmon watersheds." Plaintiffs in the federal case<B=
R>
appealed the adoption of the emergency rule to the State Court of<BR>
Appeals for that and other procedural flaws on 29 January.<BR>
<BR>
Meanwhile, at a 30 January status conference, the O=
regon Attorney<BR>
General's office moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that, with the<BR>
adoption of the emergency rule, the State Forester no longer has<BR>
supervisory authority over high-risk site logging operations and thus no<BR>
liability. U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown, presiding over the<BR=
>
case, refused, however, to dismiss on that basis and scheduled a hearing<BR>
on plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction for 11 February. F=
or<BR>
more information on the federal court case contact Patti Goldman,<BR>
Earthjustice Legal Defense, 705 Second Avenue, Suite 203, Seattle, WA <BR>
98104-1711, (206) 343-7340. Also see:<BR>
www.earthjustice.org/urgent/display.html?ID=3D113.<BR>
<BR>
7:05/02. SCIENTIFIC STUDY FINDS PALCO OPERATIONS<BR=
>
DAMAGING SALMON STREAMS: Heavy logging by the<BR>
MAXXAM-owned Pacific Lumber Company (PALCO) along the<BR>
rugged California north coast "has degraded water quality and<BR>
aggravated flooding in five rivers and streams" according to a new report<BR=
>
released by the California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control<BR>
Board. The streams all once supported coho salmon populations and<BR>
some have chinook as well (see Sublegals, 7:03/09). According to a 14<BR>
January article by the Los Angeles Times, " the study..........recommends<BR=
>
that Pacific Lumber, based in Scotia, reduce timber cutting on the<BR>
220,000 acres of land it owns in Humboldt County. Otherwise, the report<BR>
says, conditions will probably not improve.................The analysis was<=
BR>
compiled by a team of scientists without ties to the logging company." <BR>
The Times article by Steve Hymon went on to say, the "new report<BR>
endorses a method that, in effect, would probably reduce the number of<BR>
acres of land that Pacific Lumber could log along the five rivers and<BR>
streams. It will be up to the water board to decide whether these<BR>
standards will be used to regulate the timber company. A report with<BR>
similar findings was released by the board's regional staff in September<BR>
2000 but never acted upon." To see the Los Angeles Times article, go to:<BR>
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/index.html?ts=3D1044388265.<BR>
<BR>
7:05/03. LOSS OF KLAMATH WATER THROUGH DIVERSION<BR=
>
TO ROGUE RIVER QUESTIONED FOR IMPACT ON ESA-LISTED<BR>
FISH: On 29 January, the Northcoast Environmental Center (NEC) and<BR>
the Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC) sent a 60-day notice to<BR>
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) asking for a formal consultation<BR>
over whether the annual out-of-basin transfer of 30,000 acre-feet of<BR>
water from the top of the Upper Klamath Basin into the Rogue River<BR>
Basin should continue, particularly given the urgent need for more water<BR>
to help protect endangered and threatened fish and wildlife in the<BR>
water-starved and over-appropriated Klamath Basin. If BOR does not<BR>
take steps to initiate such a consultation within 60 days, the groups could<=
BR>
sue to require it. Consultation was informally begun more than two<BR>
years ago but never completed and has since stalled. <BR>
<BR>
30,000 acre-feet of water is removed annually from=20=
the northwestern<BR>
parts of the Upper Klamath Basin, where it is diverted by BOR from the<BR>
Hyatt and Howard Prairie Reservoirs through artificial canals into<BR>
Oregon's Rogue River Basin Irrigation Project instead of naturally<BR>
flowing into Upper Klamath Lake or the Klamath River. At least 24,200<=
BR>
acre-feet of this water ordinarily would have flowed down Jenny Creek<BR>
and directly into Iron Gate Reservoir, where it would have supplied cold<BR>
water to help reduce downstream water temperatures for salmon below<BR>
Iron Gate Dam. Jenny Creek also contains its own populations of<BR>
resident fish that are listed as sensitive species by the U.S. Fish &<BR=
>
Wildlife Service (USFWS). Lack of the 30,000 acre-feet transferred<BR>
out-of-basin clearly means lower lake levels and less water for lower<BR>
river salmon runs. During the September 2002 record fish die-off in th=
e<BR>
lower river, an additional 30,000 acre-feet could have made a substantial<BR=
>
difference in how many fish died or whether they would have died at all.<BR>
<BR>
For more information on the 60-day notice and the d=
iversion, see the<BR>
31 January Oregonian article at: www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/<BR>
base/news/1044017954287320.xml. For a copy of the NEC/ ONRC<BR>
letter and statement, see: www.onrc.org/press/058.klamathrogue.html. <BR>
<BR>
7:05/04. INTERIOR URGED TO APPEAL WANGER TRINITY<BR=
>
DECISION, HUPA TRIBE FILES APPEAL: On 27 January, a coalition<BR>
of fishing and conservation groups sent a letter to U.S. Interior Secretary<=
BR>
Gale Norton and Attorney General John Ashcroft urging a Department<BR>
of Interior appeal of the 10 December ruling by U.S. District Court,<BR>
Fresno Division Judge Oliver W. Wanger in Westlands Water District v.<BR>
United States (Civ. No. F-00-7124 OWW/DLB), a ruling that overturned<BR>
the 2000 Record of Decision (ROD) for the Trinity River that would<BR>
have restored flows in that major Northern California tributary of the<BR>
Klamath to 48 percent of their historic levels (see Sublegals, 6:24/01;<BR>
2:20/02; 2:18/09). Wanger's decision, brought at the behest of Central=
<BR>
Valley agribusiness and hydropower interests, could open the door again<BR>
for massive water diversions from the Trinity into the Sacramento River<BR>
and the federal Central Valley Project (CVP), which in the past have<BR>
taken as much as 86 percent of the river's flow annually. The Trinity is<BR>
the largest salmon producing tributary of the Klamath system. Its<BR>
chinook and coho salmon populations support the Hupa Tribal fishery,<BR>
as well as contributing to the ocean commercial harvest and an ocean<BR>
and in-river sport catch. The letter, signed by the Natural Resources<BR>
Defense Council, Save San Francisco Bay Association, Sierra Nevada<BR>
Alliance, Environmental Defense, The Bay Institute, Clean Water<BR>
Action, Mono Lake Committee, Natural Heritage Institute, California<BR>
Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Friends of the River and the Sierra<BR>
Club, as well as PCFFA, was sent out of concern that the defendant<BR>
Interior Department might not appeal Wanger's ruling to the U.S. Ninth<BR>
Circuit Court of Appeals where the Judge is frequently overturned. <BR>
<BR>
"Early in President Bush's administration, Secretar=
y Norton made a<BR>
commitment to defend vigorously the Trinity River Mainstem<BR>
Restoration Plan ("Trinity Restoration Plan"). Our organizations urge<BR>
you to honor this commitment by filing an appeal with the Ninth Circuit<BR>
of the recent rulings of the District Court in this matter," said the groups=
<BR>
in their letter to the Secretary and Attorney General. "The Trinity<BR=
>
Restoration Plan is the culmination of twenty years of studies in an effort<=
BR>
to comply with a variety of federal statutes, including the legislation that=
<BR>
originally authorized the Trinity Dam. These statutes require protection<BR>
and restoration of the Trinity River and the Indian reserved fishing rights<=
BR>
that the United States holds in trust............This plan is the product of=
an<BR>
extraordinary compromise that established a balanced allocation of water<BR>
from the river. The Trinity Restoration Plan will achieve fishery<BR>
restoration objectives in the Trinity River and still allow the diversion of=
<BR>
more than one half of the Trinity River's natural flow from its watershed<BR=
>
into the Central Valley for irrigation, power generation and municipal<BR>
and industrial uses. The allocation is based on the best available<BR>
scientific information and meets the expectations that Congress had for<BR>
the Trinity River when it authorized the Trinity River Division of the<BR>
Central Valley Project in 1955........The volume of water at stake<BR>
represents barely 1 percent of the inflow to the Central Valley Bay-Delta<BR=
>
system. To the Trinity River, however, these flows are essential to the<BR>
protection of vested tribal property rights and an ecologically healthy<BR>
river system with enormous economic value to the communities of<BR>
California's North Coast and the Nation at large."<BR>
<BR>
On 29 January, the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council (Hup=
a Tribe) also<BR>
requested Interior to appeal Wanger's decision and announced the Tribe<BR>
would file an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. "We have no other option bu=
t<BR>
to continue to fight for the life of our river, the fish and our way of life=
,"<BR>
Hoopa Valley Tribal Chairman Lyle Marshall told the Fresno Bee. "The<BR>
Trinity River runs through the middle of our reservation and cannot be<BR>
ignored as a source of our cultural, spiritual and environmental health."<BR=
>
The federal government promised in 2000 that there would be more<BR>
water left in the river, Marshall said, adding, "We will not stand by and<BR=
>
let this court allow economic greed to destroy the Trinity River."<BR>
Marshall went on to say the December District Court ruling was<BR>
"especially devastating for the fish of the Trinity River because Judge<BR>
Wanger's decision sets the stage for another massive fish kill next year<BR>
on the Trinity and Klamath Rivers" (see Sublegals, 7:02/01). For more<BR>
information, see the 30 January Fresno Bee article at:<BR>
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/6028248p-6984532c.html. &nbs=
p; <BR>
<BR>
7:05/05. CALIFORNIA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION<BR>
UNANIMOUS IN BLASTING PROPOSED WESTLANDS<BR>
SETTLEMENT: The California Congressional Delegation for the first<BR>
time in years has acted unanimously and blasted the proposed funding<BR>
for the Interior/Sumner Peck/Westlands Proposed Settlement (US Dist.<BR>
Court, Civ. No. F-91-048 OWW) that would initially have the U.S.<BR>
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) pay plaintiff growers $140 million to<BR>
retire 33,000 acres of irrigated crops on the arid west side of California's=
<BR>
San Joaquin Valley (see Sublegals, 6:26/04; 6:24/02; 6:22/09). The<BR>
settlement arose out of a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Oliver W.<BR>
Wanger that the federal government was obliged to provide drainage for<BR>
irrigation tail water to growers in the Westlands Water District who<BR>
receive taxpayer subsidized water from the federal Central Valley<BR>
Project (CVP). The tail water is laden with selenium and pesticides and<BR>
is highly toxic. The Bureau, which operates the CVP, was initially goi=
ng<BR>
to build a drainage ditch (San Luis Drain) to the Sacramento-San<BR>
Joaquin Delta and dump the toxics there, but that plan was widely<BR>
opposed by fishing and conservation groups. BOR has subsequently<BR>
settled on an on-site disposal method that will mean reducing the amount<BR>
of waste drainage water - hence the plan to fallow some cropland. The<=
BR>
proposed settlement plan, however, would not have reduced Westlands'<BR>
water deliveries and called for using Central Valley Project Improvement<BR>
Act (CVPIA) restoration funds.<BR>
<BR>
Before the California delegation weighed in on the=20=
proposed deal,<BR>
California Trout's Byron Leydecker wrote Wanger on 3 January, saying<BR>
the "CVPIA requires that its Restoration Fund not be used for a single<BR>
purpose not included in its objectives: habitat restoration, improvement<BR>
and land acquisition. The proposed Settlement violates CVPIA's<BR>
restriction that the Interior Secretary is not authorized to use all<BR>
Restoration Funds for a single purpose. The proposed settlement<BR>
essentially would wipe out Restoration Funds for any other purpose for<BR>
two years..........The proposed Settlement provides payment for acquired<BR>
land at a price exorbitantly higher than its market or true<BR>
value............this is a violation both of the law and of the pricing<BR>
standards and methods adopted by the Bureau of Reclamation for<BR>
purchase of lands for retirement.................This acreage, proposed to b=
e<BR>
acquired for from $3.2 to $4.2 thousand an acre is worthless land. <BR>
Before it started receiving Trinity River water in 1964, it was wasteland<BR=
>
desert. Since it has been irrigated it has become widely acknowledged,=
<BR>
even among the landowners themselves that the land has developed into<BR>
selenium, boron and other toxic poisoned and waterlogged lands that<BR>
never should have been irrigated." <BR>
<BR>
"We have a united California delegation that does n=
ot believe that the<BR>
money for this settlement should come from any California<BR>
water-restoration fund," U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was<BR>
quoted saying by the Sacramento Bee. Two members of the California<BR>
delegation even demanded a General Accounting Office (GAO)<BR>
investigation of the proposed settlement. "Frankly, the government's<BR>
track record on valuing everything from timber sales to land exchanges<BR>
should raise questions with everyone about whether this is just another<BR>
fleece job on state and federal taxpayers," said U.S. Representative<BR>
George Miller (D-CA). For more on the Congressional reaction, see the<BR>
11 January Michael Doyle article in the Sacramento Bee at:<BR>
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/5857987p-6823550c.html.<BR>
<BR>
7:05/06. EU TO LIMIT FOOD COLORING USED IN FISH:&nb=
sp; On 27<BR>
January, the European Union (EU) adopted a directive that levels of a<BR>
chemical used to give salmon, egg yolks and poultry products a reddish<BR>
color should be reduced because the additive can cause vision problems.<BR>
The chemical, canthaxanthin, can trigger an accumulation of pigments in<BR>
the retina. "The use of this feed additive is purely cosmetic, to color<BR>
food," said EU Commissioner David Byrne. "Reduced levels of the<BR>
additive will not adversely affect the taste or quality of our food." The<BR=
>
Directive will enter into force 20 days after its publication in the Officia=
l<BR>
Journal and will then have to be implemented in national legislation by 1<BR=
>
December. In nature, salmon gets its pink color from eating shrimp; the<BR>
additive is used to maintain that hue in farmed fish, which would<BR>
otherwise have a grayish color. In poultry, it is used to give the skin and<=
BR>
egg yolks a brighter yellow color. The World Health Organization<BR>
(WHO) set an acceptable daily intake of up to 0.03 milligrams per<BR>
kilogram (mg/kg) of human body weight, a level supported by the EU<BR>
Scientific Committee on Food. For more information visit the European<BR>
Union website at:<BR>
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=3Dgt&do=
c=3DI<BR>
P/03/123|0|RAPID&lg=3DEN. <BR>
<BR>
In December, the London Daily Mail ran a lengthy ar=
ticle just before<BR>
Christmas on what it called "pink poison" - smoked salmon made from<BR>
farmed fish. In that piece documenting the environmental and health<BR=
>
concerns surrounding farmed salmon, it listed "the use of a chemical<BR>
called canthaxanthin, which has been fed to farmed salmon to make their<BR>
flesh pink......In the wild, salmon get their familiar colouring from<BR>
natural food sources, such as algae and small crustaceans. Farmed<BR>
specimens rely instead on additives to replicate this pigment.......The<BR>
Swiss company which produces canthaxanthin even supply a colour<BR>
grading chart so that farmers can check they've got the shade right, rather<=
BR>
like a decorator using a paint card. But the chemical has been linked to<BR>
potential eye damage, particularly among the young......Sun-tanning pills<BR=
>
which featured the additive were withdrawn in the Eighties after fears<BR>
that it could damage the retina, causing temporary blind spots." To see<BR>
the 24 December Daily Mail article, go to:<BR>
http://www.yesnutritionworks.com/news.htm.<BR>
<BR>
7:05/07. CHEMICAL INDUSTRY EXECUTIVE TO HEAD<BR>
NATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE, GROUP SEEKS TO<BR>
UNDERCUT MSC SUSTAINABLE FISH CERTIFICATION: The<BR>
National Fisheries Institute (NFI), which represents U.S. fish importers,<BR=
>
exporters, and many seafood distributors, processors and chain fish<BR>
restaurants among others in the shoreside sector of America's fishing<BR>
industry, has selected John Connelly as its new president. Connelly wa=
s<BR>
formerly Vice President, Member Relations and Corporate Secretary<BR>
with the American Chemistry Council, a trade association representing<BR>
the chemical industry. He succeeds Dick Gutting, who left NFI on 3<BR>
January. Connelly will begin working at NFI's Alexandria, Virginia<BR>
headquarters on 24 February, but will be attending regional meetings<BR>
beforehand. Connelly can be contacted at (703) 524-8880 or by e-mail<B=
R>
at: jconnelly@nfi.org. <BR>
<BR>
Connelly's hiring comes on the heels of a request b=
y NFI, made in a<BR>
letter to U.S. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans and Secretary of State<BR>
Colin Powell, asking support for United Nations Food & Agriculture<BR>
Organization (FAO) standards for eco-labeling of fish and seafood. The=
<BR>
request by NFI, which has vehemently opposed any labeling of seafood<BR>
in the past, including the language passed in the 2002 Farm Bill (see<BR>
Sublegals, 5:08/01; 5:08/03; 5:07/06; 5:05/05; 4:24/01; 4:17/01), is seen<BR=
>
as disingenuous and a desperate attempt to undercut the successful<BR>
certification program developed by the Marine Stewardship Council<BR>
(MSC) for sustainably-produced fish. The MSC program, which is only<BR>
a few years old, has already certified a half-dozen fisheries, including<BR>
Alaska's salmon fishery, and a number of others are or will be<BR>
undergoing the certification process, including California salmon and<BR>
North Pacific halibut and blackcod (sablefish). According to an articl=
e<BR>
by Lauren Miura on Greenwire, "NFI called for the creation of voluntary<BR>
technical standards for sustainable fisheries by the FAO to serve as the<BR>
basis for the certification and eco-labeling for all fish and seafood in the=
<BR>
marketplace." NFI is urging the U.S. to advocate for the creation of<BR>
eco-labeling standards at the FAO's committee on fisheries meeting<BR>
24-28 February in Rome.<BR>
<BR>
"The term 'voluntary' says it all," said PCFFA Exec=
utive Director<BR>
Zeke Grader. "NFI has always fought labeling and any type of informed<=
BR>
consumer choice when it comes to fish. This request for the FAO to<BR>
develop standards is nothing more than a thinly disguised ploy to<BR>
undercut the solid certification program put together by the MSC -- one<BR>
that will greatly benefit fishing men and women who fish sustainably. <BR>
NFI's passion is solely for profits, not for this ancient and proud industry=
,<BR>
its resources, its culture, or those who toil in it. Many NFI members, I<BR>
fear, would as soon trade in chemical sludge as peddle fish if it made<BR>
them more money." To see the NFI press release on eco-labeling and<BR>
request to the FAO, go to: http://www.nfi.org/?a=3Dnews&b=3DNews<BR>
Releases&year=3D&x=3D1663. For more information on the Marine<BR>
Stewardship Council, go to: http://www.msc.org. <BR>
<BR>
7:05/08. WASHINGTON FISH & WILDLIFE COMMISSION=20=
TO<BR>
TAKE UP HERRING, SHARK AND SHRIMP FISHING<BR>
REGULATIONS AT LONGVIEW MEETING: The Washington Fish &<BR>
Wildlife Commission will meet Thursday-Friday, 7-8 February, at the<BR>
Cowlitz County PUD Auditorium, 961 12th Avenue, in Longview. The<BR>
sessions will commence at 0900 HRS each morning.<BR>
<BR>
On the agenda will be proposed changes to the Puget=
Sound shrimp<BR>
fishery management policies. The new shrimp policy "proposes to<BR>
maintain a strong conservation foundation for management of shrimp<BR>
resources, as well as sharing between recreational and commercial<BR>
harvest groups, while maintaining exclusive recreational harvest areas in<BR=
>
Hood Canal and in portions of Port Angeles and Discovery bays." The<BR>
commission is expected to act on a number of other proposals, including:<BR>
<BR>
* The policy for the 2003-04 "North of Falcon" salmon season-setting<BR>
process;<BR>
<BR>
* New rules governing dogfish shark management, commercial herring<BR>
fishing in coastal areas and commercial pink shrimp fishing in coastal<BR>
areas; <BR>
<BR>
* An amendment to rules governing commercial fishing in Puget Sound<BR>
that would reduce the minimum mesh size for Puget Sound salmon purse<BR>
seines from four inches to three and one-half inches; and <BR>
<BR>
* The adoption of new rules that would prohibit possession, transporting<BR>
and landing of Pollock caught in the Pacific Ocean into Washington state<BR>
waters. Whiting and coastal groundfish fishermen would still be allowed<BR>
to land some Pollock in addition to their targeted catch under the<BR>
proposed rules.<BR>
<BR>
The complete agenda is on the Commission's website at<BR>
http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/com/comintro.htm. <BR>
<BR>
7:05/09. PCFFA AND IFR BOARDS TO MEET IN MOSS<BR>
LANDING: The Board of Trustees of the Institute for Fisheries<BR>
Resources will meet jointly with the Board of Directors of the Pacific<BR>
Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations on 13-14 February in<BR>
Moss Landing, California. Crab and salmon will be the main agenda<BR>
items for PCFFA, looking at the upcoming salmon season and market<BR>
conditions. For more information on the meetings, call (415) 561-5080<=
BR>
or e-mail: fish1ifr@aol.com.<BR>
<BR>
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; =
Paying Attention? <BR>
<BR>
The European Union recently issued a directive recommending a<BR>
reduction in the amount of the chemical canthaxanthin used to color<BR>
farmed salmon red. What prompted EU action? <BR>
<BR>
A) The additive can cause vision problems from an accumulation of<BR>
pigments in the retina.<BR>
<BR>
B) Ministers worried that canthaxanthin, manufactured by a rival of the<BR>
chemical company new NFI President John Connelly represented, and<BR>
used by EU salmon farmers could not get an eco-label from the FAO or<BR>
NFI.<BR>
<BR>
C) Recent studies found farmed salmon, colored with the chemical,<BR>
when smoked had the texture of lutefisk.<BR>
<BR>
D) Growing consumer preference for gray colored "natural" (no food<BR>
coloring) farmed salmon.<BR>
<BR>
E-Mail your answer by Friday, 7 February, to: "Editor" at:<BR>
sublegals@ifrfish.org. <BR>
<BR>
And the Winner is...... Ann Tweedy is the winner of=
last week's<BR>
"Paying Attention?" with the correct answer of "D", "Minnesota took<BR>
action when it heard of research on modifying the genes of catfish" for<BR>
the answer to a state that had banned transgenic fish. She receives an<BR>
"Order of the Fringehead" certificate and a handsome gray shirt with the<BR>
cuddly Sarcastic Fringehead Sublegals logo.<BR>
<BR>
NEWS, COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS: Submit your news items,<BR>
comments or any corrections to Editor at: sublegals@ifrfish.org, or call<BR>
the IFR/PCFFA office with the news and a source at either: (415)<BR>
561-FISH (Southwest Office) or (541) 689-2000 (Northwest Office). <BR>
##########################################################<BR>
"Sublegals" are a weekly fisheries news bulletin service of Fishlink. To<BR>
find out more about Fishlink, list information can be viewed and you can<BR>
subscribe yourself automatically at: <BR>
<BR>
http://straylight.primelogic.com/mailman/listinfo/fishlink <BR>
<BR>
If you have any trouble subscribing or unsubscribing, contact<BR>
PCFFA/IFR directly at: <fish1ifr@aol.com>.<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
"Fishlink" and "Sublegals" are registered trademarks of the Institute for <B=
R>
Fisheries Resources. All rights to the use of these trademarks are <BR>
reserved to IFR. This publication, however, may be freely reproduced <BR>
and circulated without copyright restriction. If you are receiving thi=
s <BR>
as a subscriber, please feel free to pass this on to your colleagues. =20=
<BR>
Subscribers who wish to post or circulate hard copy of Sublegals or <BR>
have no access to the Internet may receive fax subscriptions by faxing <BR>
their request, with their fax number to: (415) 561-5464. Thanks!=
<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
MADE YOUR PLEDGE? GOT YOUR SARCASTIC FRINGEHEAD <BR>
SHIRT? GO TO: www.ifrfish.org <BR>
##########################################################<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_144.9b531ea.2b73172f_boundary--