DFG infiltrated by Water Grabbers

[wjorg]

Well I dont have any specifics so i thought Id reach out to the better informed(Darian et al).

My good friend was explaining to me that many/some top DFG personnell are former Water Agency or Watern District employees who have interests that may be other than maintaining healthy salmon populations. Does anyone have any info on this?

He has a DFG Report from 1930 explaining the paramount importance of maintaining the Klamath River Salmon fishery because of the predicted loss of Salmon from the Sacramento system in 100 years. Wow! Can you spell Apathy.

[Darian]

Since the director of DFG is an appointed, executive position, it's entirely possible that an ex water agency person could be appointed but let's not jump to any conclusions about this. Just because a person worked for a water agency or district doesn't mean that they would automatically be a bad appointment.... People leave jobs for many reasons; among which might be dissatisfaction/disagreement with their employer. Also, it's true that employees from those entities have educational/experience backgrounds that are related to those required at DFG. :nod:

It was said by someone a long time ago by someone whose name I can't recall, about the office of the president, that once elected, a person who may not have been the peoples choice would rise to the level of excellence required (I'm paraphrasing here). In other words, the office makes the person (being gender correct here :lol:).

At any rate, under the current funding/structure of DFG, I'm not sure anyone can run that department well. And, that brings me to a related point. Assemblyman Jared Huffman has several bills in the hopper that will require DFG and the F&G Commision to do some strategic planning and other "stuff". All very interesting if they pass.... :nod:

[wjorg]

No jumping to conclusions. Figured there is greater knowledge in you guys than what Ill find with a google search.

Whats the other "stuff" in the bill? Forgive me if there is another thread I missed.

How can we help the bill pass?

[Darian]

Walter,.... There're too many bills of interest in the hopper by Huffman and Wolk to list here. If you'd like to take a gander at 'em go to:

www.leginfo.ca.gov

When you get to the main search page, select the "author" button, enter the last name of the legislator and select "search". All of the bills that a legislator has authored will be listed by number and subject.

I gotta tell you in advance, in order to wade thru all of the BS bills to get to what we might be interested in following takes time. I guess I do it because I have time and have some masochistic tendencies.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[OceanSunfish]

Oversight includes, none other than DFG....... As Darian pointed out.... "Appointed" is the key word.

Taken from CA Resources Agency website:

Lester A. Snow was appointed California Secretary for Resources by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Feb. 1, 2010. As a member of the Governor's Cabinet, Snow serves as chief advisor on issues related to the state's natural, historic, and cultural resources and oversees 25 departments, commissions, boards and conservancies. He also serves as chairman of the California Ocean Protection Council, Sierra Nevada Conservancy and the Stewardship Council.

Prior to his appointment, Snow, was appointed Director of the California Department of Water Resources by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on February 24, 2004. Snow has extensive experience as a water agency manager at the regional, State and federal levels.

Snow was Executive Director of CALFED, now the California Bay-Delta Authority, from 1995 to 1999, leading the coalition of State and federal agencies working to "fix" the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. He left CALFED to become regional director for the Bureau of Reclamation, a post he held for almost two years. At Reclamation, he led operations of the federal Central Valley Project in California. Immediately prior to joining DWR, Snow was a water consultant in the private sector.

Before heading CALFED, Snow spent seven years as General Manager of the San Diego County Water Authority. His prior experience included six years with the Arizona Department of Water Resources, including four years as Tucson area director.

As DWR Director, Snow heads a Department that protects, conserves and manages the State's water supply, including operation of the California State Water Project. The SWP is the largest state-run, multi-purpose water and power system in the United States. It provides a supplemental water source for 23 million Californians and about 750,000 acres of irrigated farmland and directly sustains over $400 billion of the state's economy.

[Darian]

Ahhh yes!!! Political influence at the Agency level is always a consideration. However, even tho DFG is under the Resources Agency umbrella, it's headed by it's own appointed executive (....who may or may not be any good).

It's not difficult to see why Secretary Snow is seen as a negative by our fishing community, given his past actions/decisions on water. The problem is that all of this is a matter of perspective. Playing devils advocate, if you're an ag water user or downstream user of project water, his experience is a positive for them and he's the best guy for the job. Nearly everything is a two edged sword. Education/experience wise, he's certainly qualified to fill the appointment....

I imagine that when the current Guv is gone and whoever it is that replaces him will make his/her own appointments and Snow will fit into whatever political scheme is the flavor of the day (like a chameleon). That's how he's survived in government at his level for so long and through so many agencies/administrations....

IMHO, one of the real issues in all of this is that governors/legislators change often and every time that occurs, all of what was accomplished during the prior administration comes to a halt until a new direction/policy is established. In other words, if you don't like the current direction, just wait, it'll change (sorta like the weather).

Oh well,.... too much to worry about here.... ;-)

[oregonsteel]

Ahhh yes!!! Political influence at the Agency level is always a consideration. However, even tho DFG is under the Resources Agency umbrella, it's headed by it's own appointed executive (....who may or may not be any good).

It's not difficult to see why Secretary Snow is seen as a negative by our fishing community, given his past actions/decisions on water. The problem is that all of this is a matter of perspective. Playing devils advocate, if you're an ag water user or downstream user of project water, his experience is a positive for them and he's the best guy for the job. Nearly everything is a two edged sword. Education/experience wise, he's certainly qualified to fill the appointment....

I imagine that when the current Guv is gone and whoever it is that replaces him will make his/her own appointments and Snow will fit into whatever political scheme is the flavor of the day (like a chameleon). That's how he's survived in government at his level for so long and through so many agencies/administrations....

IMHO, one of the real issues in all of this is that governors/legislators change often and every time that occurs, all of what was accomplished during the prior administration comes to a halt until a new direction/policy is established. In other words, if you don't like the current direction, just wait, it'll change (sorta like the weather).

Oh well,.... too much to worry about here.... ;-)

That is like when Bush appointed a timber industry lawyer, who came up with "hatchery salmon and steelhead should be counted for fish's health (extincion wise)", to NOAA. Yeah, he was notable anti wildlife and appointed to a agency who had to protect the wildlife, but it does benefit someone (big business who are anti wildlife).

Just like appointing the head of a mob family to be head of the deparment of justic would benefit people: criminals.

[shawn kempkes]

That is like when Bush appointed a timber industry lawyer, who came up with "hatchery salmon and steelhead should be counted for fish's health (extincion wise)", to NOAA. Yeah, he was notable anti wildlife and appointed to a agency who had to protect the wildlife, but it does benefit someone (big business who are anti wildlife).

Just like appointing the head of a mob family to be head of the deparment of justic would benefit people: criminals.

Not to start a political pissing match but Bush did no such thing. It was a the pacific legal foundation and some other group in tillamook that sued the federal government about how it classified oregon Coast Coho as endangered on the esl. The judge sided with them and said that they also need to count Hatchery coho that had the same genetics as wild ones.
In the end it made no differerce in how Noaa classified certain stocks of coho.

[Darian]

Hmmm,.... Lets not get too far out here.... Try to see both sides before making an "over the top", emotional response. A civil discussion without getting too hot on these issues can be enlightening. 8)

I believe Shawn is correct on this. The point of the mentioned lawsuit was that genetically there was little or no difference between hatchery raised or naturally spawned Salmon/Steelhead. Therefore, the population of remaining fish was understated by those seeking protected status for the fish. That's settled history.... 8)

Appointing a person from a special interest group to an executive position in government can't be likened to a criminal act unless he/she is caught in corruption after his/her appointment. After all, the public is a special interest group as are fly fisherman or any other group for that matter. Any group can try to influence an executive appointment. :neutral:

We, as a group, need to make our interests known thru lobbying efforts and supporting politicians that subscribe to our point of view whether democrat or republican. Kinda seems like we only appear at this states legislature to oppose a particular bill that we don't like or we initiate litigation to stop something from happening that we don't like. Gives us a negative appearance. IMHO, we've got to shift from the negative to the positive. I'm not a fan of the NRA but they're a perfect organization to emulate to obtain access to and influence in the halls of power. 8)

[wjorg]

I didnt go looking into the factsheet but I seem to remeber the "administration push" was to classify steelhead, hatchery or wild, equivalent to rainbow trout, O. Mykiss mykiss, as they are....in order to push to remove them from threatened or endangered species list? I remeber cursing that smart, but low blow.

Not interested in a political blame game, but I though that was the distiction the previous administration was trying to make at the EPA level...

[Darian]

Yep!!! The Environment Protection Act and the agency are seen as an obstructions to the activities of Agricultural/development interests at the federal/state/local levels. Removing listed species from protections is one of the tactics employed to allow unfettered development or to increase the pumping of water. Altho I'm not overly happy about rampant growth and increased water consumption, it's unrealistic to think that it will stop any time soon since both of these activities are economic engines in this state. :neutral:

Of course, In order to slow/stop development or increased water consumption, environmentalists would ID one or more protected species in an area proposed/scheduled for development to slow or stop that activity by invoking the EPA. This tactic is the other side of the two edged sword and an effective tool. In the case of delta the loss of water through increased pumping has a visible, negative impact on fish/wildlife and agricultural/development interests. 8)

[oregonsteel]

Not to start a political pissing match but Bush did no such thing. It was a the pacific legal foundation and some other group in tillamook that sued the federal government about how it classified oregon Coast Coho as endangered on the esl. The judge sided with them and said that they also need to count Hatchery coho that had the same genetics as wild ones.
In the end it made no differerce in how Noaa classified certain stocks of coho.
Dang, I need the little cartoon "But honey, someone is WRONG ON THE INTERNET"!
Oh, here it is:
http://xkcd.com/386/
Google Mark Rutzick ( you don't have to embarrass yourself in public with a apology, you can just pm it to me :) ) You can also google hatchery salmon same as wildlife and get hits. This was a fish and wildlife decission imagined by a LAWYER for anti environment timber industry!
"The development of a new Bush administration policy on hatchery fish was overseen by Mark Rutzick, who early in 2003 was appointed by President Bush as special adviser to the NOAA General Counsel. Previously, Rutzick served as a lawyer for the timber industry and was a strong opponent of fish and wildlife protections that logging companies viewed as overly restrictive. Rutzick first proposed the strategy of including hatchery fish in population counts for endangered salmon while he worked on behalf of timber interests.8"

Shift on Salmon Reignites Fight on Species Law
By TIMOTHY EGAN

SEATTLE, May 8 — Three years ago, Mark C. Rutzick was the timber industry's top lawyer trying to overturn fish and wildlife protections that loggers viewed as overly restrictive. Back then, he outlined to his clients a new strategy for dealing with diminishing salmon runs. By counting hatchery fish along with wild salmon, the government would help the timber industry by getting salmon off the endangered species list, Mr. Rutzick wrote.

Now, as a high-ranking political appointee in the Bush administration who is a legal adviser to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Mr. Rutzick is helping to shape government policy on endangered Pacific salmon. And in an abrupt change, the Bush administration has decided for the first time to consider counting fish raised in hatcheries when determining if some species are going extinct.

The new plan, which officials have said is expected to be formally announced at the end of the month, closely follows the position that Mr. Rutzick advocated when he represented the timber industry.

Mr. Rutzick, a Portland lawyer who was suggested for the fisheries job by Senator Gordon H. Smith, Republican of Oregon, would not comment on his role in shaping government salmon policy. Officials at the fisheries service say Mr. Rutzick was part of a working group that shaped the new plan, but would not give further details.

The policy shift has caused a furor among some members of the scientific community and has touched off a fresh battle over what may be the nation's most powerful environmental law.

To most biologists, salmon that are born and raised in a cement tank are no replacement for wild fish, even if they share a common genetic makeup. The new approach, which was contained in a single-page draft, dated March 25 and leaked to reporters last month, ignores the findings of the Bush administration's own panel of outside scientific experts, as well as long-held views within the fisheries service.

These biologists say that including hatchery salmon in the calculation for when a fish can be listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act is akin to counting animals in a zoo. By this reasoning, river or forest habitats of a rare species will never be protected, so long as the animal can be reproduced by artificial means.

"This is a direct political decision, made by political people to go against the science," said Dr. Ransom A. Myers, a fisheries biologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, who was on the six-member panel named by the fisheries service to guide salmon policy. The panel's recommendations were rejected for a policy more favorable to industry groups fighting land restrictions, Dr. Myers and other panel members have said.

Bush administration officials say they are boxed in by a court decision that forces them to include hatchery fish in deciding the fate of a particular run of salmon. They say the scientists inside and outside the agency have overstepped their expertise, and are trying to write policy.

"You have an interaction between science and the law here," said Jim Lecky, a government adviser who speaks for the fisheries service, which is a branch of the Commerce Department. "We don't treat hatchery fish the same as wild salmon. But we do have to consider them."

"I think you have a tremendous internal debate" within the fisheries agency, said Russ Brooks, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which successfully sued the government to force a reconsideration of how it uses hatchery fish. The foundation is financed by developers, timber and agricultural interests angered by what they see as regulatory zealotry.

"Initially, the environmental side was winning out," Mr. Brooks said. "And now you have the other side coming to the fore."

Mr. Brooks said he met with Mr. Rutzick in Washington in late March, about the same time the new policy memorandum was drafted.

Asked about Mr. Rutzick's role in shaping the plan, Mr. Brooks said, "Well, he's very familiar with the issues and from what I understand he has a lot of influence."

As a lawyer for the timber industry, Mr. Rutzick wrote a memorandum in November 2001 praising the use of hatchery fish to restore overall salmon runs, after the court decision forced a rethinking of policy. The old approach, of trying to protect the habitat of wild species, was not working, he wrote. He favored a new approach, directing the fisheries service "to use hatchery fish more aggressively to restore salmon runs." This would "benefit timber-dependent communities and industries," he wrote, and it would help salmon.

"Experts think this will bring the runs back sooner and in greater numbers," he wrote. Asked to comment on Mr. Rutzick's statement about the use of artificially created fish as a way to quickly restore salmon runs, Dr. Myers said, "No credible scientist believes this."

With more than a hundred hatcheries in the Northwest, fish managers have been able to turn out millions of salmon in concrete pools and to release them into rivers. The fish return to their hatchery birthing grounds to spawn and are stripped of their eggs, which are used to replenish the fish population. But after more than a century of human-induced production, wild salmon runs have diminished, with 26 species listed as threatened or endangered with becoming extinct.

To protect the habitat of these wild fish — which many biologists say are superior to hatchery fish, with more genetic diversity — the government has put restrictions on logging and development along streams from Southern California to Washington. Private property groups have sued to overturn these protections, saying it costs them millions of dollars.

In the 2000 election, property rights, agriculture and timber interest groups gave nearly $1 million to the Bush campaign. And although the laws that protect fish and forests have not been changed, the way they are enforced has been. Critics say the administration conducts its land policy by settling lawsuits with groups that oppose environmental laws.

Federal officials agree that the change in course is a response to a successful lawsuit filed by property rights groups. In that suit, decided in September 2001, a federal judge in Oregon, Michael R. Hogan, said the government method of treating hatchery and wild fish differently was unlawful.

But the judge did not tell fisheries officials how to determine if a species was endangered. He ordered the fisheries agency to "consider the best available scientific evidence" in coming up with a new policy.

The fisheries service hired an outside panel to guide it. Among the responsibilities of the scientists, according to the fisheries service guidelines, was to "ensure that well accepted and consistent ecological evolutionary principles form the basis for all recovery efforts."

Inside the fisheries service, the same approach was taken. In a policy draft issued 10 months after the court decision, the fisheries service still indicated that counting hatchery fish was no way to judge the health of wild salmon.

The law, they wrote in July 2002, requires the service to list a species as endangered or threatened "based on whether they are likely to be self-sustaining in their native ecosystem."

Mr. Rutzick was appointed early last year, and his duties included shaping policy on the fate of the 26 threatened or endangered salmon runs. It is the biggest legal issue facing the fisheries service and affects millions of acres of land and rivers along the coast.

When the outside experts reported their findings, they were censored, they said. They went public and had their conclusions published in the journal Science.

"We should not open the legal door to maintaining salmon only in hatcheries," the panel's chairman, Dr. Robert Paine, an ecologist at the University of Washington, said in a statement in late March. "The science is clear and unambiguous — as they are currently operated, hatcheries and hatchery fish cannot protect wild stocks."

Some conservation groups, which have long looked on the fisheries service as an ally, say they feel betrayed by the proposed change.

"The Endangered Species Act doesn't say: protect museum pieces in a zoo," said Chris Wood, vice president for conservation at Trout Unlimited. "Hatchery fish are genetically inferior to wild fish. Find me the peer review paper that says otherwise."

[oregonsteel]

(continued)

Mr. Brooks, the lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said environmentalists were overreacting.

"The sky is not falling," he said. "The devil is still in the details. And this is not to say that they will do away with everything, because there will still be very stringent restrictions by the state."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company


Now Shawn, why dont you google the Pacific legal Funation and Mark Rutzick, here, I will save you the time, here is the case you speak of:
http://openjurist.org/265/f3d/1028/pacific-coast-federation-of-fishermens-associations-inc-v-national-marine-fisheries-service-de
Notice the last line of my paste from this url:
No. 99-36027, No. 99-36195

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Argued and Submitted June 8, 2000--Seattle, Washington
Submission Vacated September 15, 2000
Resubmitted May 8, 2001
Filed May 31, 2001
Corrected September 5, 2001

Katherine Barton, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the defendant-appellant.

Mark Rutzick, Portland, Oregon, for the defendants- intervenors-appellants.

Hatchery Salmon to Count as Wildlife

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 29, 2004; Page A01

SEATTLE, April 28 -- The Bush administration has decided to count hatchery-bred fish, which are pumped into West Coast rivers by the hundreds of millions yearly, when it decides whether stream-bred wild salmon are entitled to protection under the Endangered Species Act.

This represents a major change in the federal government's approach to protecting Pacific salmon -- a $700 million-a-year effort that it has described as the most expensive and complicated of all attempts to enforce the Endangered Species Act.

The decision, contained in a draft document and confirmed Wednesday by federal officials, means that the health of spawning wild salmon will no longer be the sole gauge of whether a salmon species is judged by the federal government to be on the brink of extinction. Four of five salmon found in major West Coast rivers, including the Columbia, are already bred in hatcheries, and some will now be counted as the federal government tries to determine what salmon species are endangered.

"We need to look at both wild and hatchery fish before deciding whether to list a species for protection," said Bob Lohn, Northwest regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Lohn added that the new policy will probably help guide decisions this summer by the Bush administration about whether to remove 15 species of salmon from protection as endangered or threatened.

From Washington state to Southern California, the decision to count hatchery-bred fish in assessing the health of wild salmon runs could have profound economic consequences.

In the past 15 years, the federal government's effort to protect stream-bred wild salmon has forced costly changes in how forests are cut, housing developments are built, farms are cultivated and rivers are operated for hydroelectricity production. Farm, timber and power interests have complained for years about these costs and have sued to remove protections for some fish.

They are enthusiastic advocates of counting hatchery fish when assessing the survival chances of wild salmon. Unlike their wild cousins, hatchery fish can be bred without ecosystem-wide modifications to highways, farms and dams.

"Upon hearing this news, I am cautiously optimistic that the government may be complying with the law and ending its slippery salmon science," said Russell C. Brooks, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, an industry-funded group that has challenged federal salmon-protection efforts in court.

Word of the new policy was greeted by outrage from several environmental groups.

"Rather than address the problems of habitat degraded by logging, dams and urban sprawl, this policy will purposefully mask the precarious condition of wild salmon behind fish raised by humans in concrete pools," said Jan Hasselman, counsel for the National Wildlife Federation.

"This is the same sort of mechanistic, blind reliance on technology that got us into this problem in the first place," said Chris Wood, vice president for conservation at Trout Unlimited. "We built dams that block the fish, and we are trucking many of these fish around the dams. Now the administration thinks we can just produce a bazillion of these hatchery fish and get out from underneath the yoke of the Endangered Species Act."

Six of the world's leading experts on salmon ecology complained last month in the journal Science that fish produced in hatcheries cannot be counted on to save wild salmon. The scientists had been asked by the federal government to comment on its salmon-recovery program but said they were later told that some of their conclusions about hatchery fish were inappropriate for official government reports.

"The current political and legal wrangling is a sideshow to the real issues. We know biologically that hatchery supplements are no substitute for wild fish," Robert Paine, one of the scientists and an ecologist at the University of Washington, said when the Science article was published in late March.

Federal officials said Wednesday that the new policy on hatchery salmon -- to be published in June in the Federal Register and then be opened to public comment -- was in response to a 2001 federal court ruling in Oregon. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan found that the federal government made a mistake by counting only wild fish -- and not genetically similar hatchery fish -- when it listed coastal coho salmon for protection.

To the dismay of many environmental groups, the federal government chose not to appeal that ruling, though it seemed counter to the reasoning behind the spending of more than $2 billion in the past 15 years to protect stream-bred wild salmon.

"There was an inescapable reasoning to Judge Hogan's ruling," said Lohn, chief of federal salmon recovery in the Northwest. "We thought his reasoning was accurate."

He said the Bush administration will continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on habitat improvement for salmon.

"We have major problems to overcome, both with habitat and with improving the way hatcheries are operated," Lohn said. "Run right, hatcheries can be of considerable value to rebuilding wild fish runs."

[oregonsteel]

Shawn, are you a republican that voted for Bush? Did you have a "Sportsmen for Bush" bumper sticker on your car?
Mark Rutzick, was markedly anti environment. Had zero knowledge of fisheries or wildlife, yet was appointed to advise on fish and wildlife. I stand by my claim that appointing him to oversea fisheries is like appointing the head of the mafia or a mass murderer to oversea the justice department!

From washington trout:
Mark Rutzick Appointed Senior Legal Advisor to NOAA Fisheries:
An April 7th article by Les Blumenthal in the Tacoma News Tribune, “Salmon at risk with advisor, critics say”, appears to be the first news of a February 3rd appointment by the Bush Administration of one of the timber industry’s lead attorneys to serve as senior legal advisor to NOAA Fisheries (formerly National Mariner Fisheries Service). Mark Rutzick, a Portland-based attorney, has fought for over a decade to open Northwest old-growth forests to logging. Now he will be advising NOAA Fisheries on legal issues and tactics involving endangered salmon and steelhead.

Environmentalists are criticizing the appointment, describing Rutzick as “anti-endangered species.” WT’s Executive Director Kurt Beardslee says, “For those that care deeply about salmon recovery in the northwest, or any species that's protected under the ESA, this administration's appointment should scare you to your core. In thirteen years of working in the environmental field, I've never seen an appointment that's more concerning.”

Rutzick has often represented the Portland-based timber industry group, the American Forest Resource Council, and has been involved in many anti-environmental battles, including a 1992 lawsuit challenging the protection of the spotted owl, a 1993 lawsuit opposing listing the marbled murrelet under the Endangered Species Act, and a 1994 lawsuit against the implementation of the Clinton administration’s Northwest Forest Plan. More recently, Rutzick has brought cases opposing ESA protections of critical habitat for the spotted owl and marbled murrelet. Rutzick said of his appointment in the article, “I’m a legal adviser. And my job is to provide legal advice to policy-makers charged with implementing the Endangered Species Act.”

Lawyers at Earthjustice, a nonprofit public interest law firm for the environment, have gone up against Rutzick several times. Earthjustice recently filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in regards to negotiations Rutzick was involved with over changes to the Aquatice Conservation Standards of the Northwest Forest Plan.

Washington Trout’s lawyer, Richard Smith of Smith & Lowney LLP comments, “At this point, it's not too astounding that the Bush Administration has appointed another long time representative of resource extraction industries to a high position from which he can more effectively serve his clients. It's an outrage that the legal strategies of the federal agency charged with saving listed salmon will now be directed by a lawyer whose career has been dedicated to frustrating environmental protections for the benefit of corporate profits. We can expect serious dark side legal tactics and yet more backroom dealing from NMFS now."

Given Mr. Rutzick’s credentials and record, many in the environmental community have significant concerns over the likely direction his advice will lead NOAA Fisheries. Many see this as one more indication of the Bush Administration’s commitment to weakening protections and recovery efforts for listed salmon and steelhead populations.

So Rutzick represented the timber industry, then bush appointed him to oversee NOAA, I wonder what he is doing now? Probably fiercely fighting for fish and wildlife, huh?

Timber Industry Uses Draft Bush Endangered Species Act Regulations

Lawsuit seeks removal of marbled murrelet from threatened species list, elimination of old growth forests protections
April 30, 2007

On March 27, 2007, the media published draft Bush administration regulations that radically undermine the Endangered Species Act, causing a public uproar. In response, the administration asserted that it did not intend to implement the draft as written.
In legal papers filed today, however, environmental groups show that Mark Rutzick, a former Bush official now representing the timber industry, has filed a lawsuit based on the draft regulations, not the actual law.

"The Bush administration's draft regulations gutting the Endangered Species Act haven't even been publicly proposed yet, but the timber industry is already trying to strip the nation's wildlife of protection." said Kristen Boyles, an attorney with Earthjustice. "The Bush administration is undermining protection of our nation's endangered species to benefit their friends and campaign contributors in the timber industry."

The timber lawsuit was filed on March 7, 2007, nearly one month before the draft regulations surfaced. Industry lawyers are trying to force the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the marbled murrelet from the federal threatened list under a provision of the draft regulations. Current regulations contain no such requirement.

"The murrelet is just the tip of the iceberg," said Noah Greenwald, conservation biologist for the Center for Biological Diversity. "These draft regulations are really a rewrite of the Endangered Species Act itself, a litigation magnet designed to help industry strip protection from hundreds of endangered species."

Represented by Earthjustice, the Audubon Society of Portland, Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Northwest, Environmental Protection Information Center, Gifford Pinchot Task Force, Oregon Wild, Seattle Audubon Society, Sierra Club, and The Wilderness Society filed papers with the court today requesting that they be granted "intervenor" status in the lawsuit. They intend to keep the administration and timber industry from colluding to remove protection for old growth forests and murrelets. They also asked the court to dismiss portions of the lawsuit that rely on the draft regulations.

Background
The marbled murrelet was listed as a threatened species in 1992 in California, Oregon and Washington due to logging of old growth forests. In 1995, 3.9 million acres of critical habitat were designated to protect the murrelet. In 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that the three state population was declining 4 to 7 percent a year. In 2004, demographic models indicated that the population could be extinct within 50 years. A 2007 U.S. Geological Survey report estimated that murrelets in British Columbia and Alaska declined by 70 percent over the last 25 years.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, Mark Rutzick was the primary timber industry lawyer on issues surrounding murrelets, salmon, owls, and old-growth forests. He represented the timber industry in a 2002 lawsuit challenging the murrelet critical habitat designation and seeking a "five-year review" of the species' status.

The Bush administration settled the industry lawsuit by agreeing to the 5-year review and to reconsidering the critical habitat designation. Over the objection of agency and independent scientists, the five-year review was altered by Department of Interior officials to recommend delisting. In 2006, the administration published a proposal to slash the murrelet's critical habitat by 94 percent to just 221,692 acres. In the meantime, Mr. Rutzick was appointed "special counsel" to NOAA Fisheries, where he helped shape the administration's endangered species policy with respect to controversial salmon protections.

On March 27, 2007, the online journal salon.com published the draft regulations, causing a public outcry.

On April 25, 2007, Senators Lieberman, Boxer, Lautenberg, Sanders, and Cardin sent a letter to Interior Secretary Kempthorne expressing grave concern about the leaked draft regulations. "We are concerned about any attempt to overhaul the Endangered Species Act program administratively, without the involvement of Congress.… [T]he draft revisions create the impression that the Department's leadership is focusing on reducing the scope and weakening the substance of the federal government's wildlife protection laws."

The draft regulations state: "§424.11 Factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying species....(d) The Secretary shall delist a species if one of the following is found based on the best scientific and commercial data available:...(2) No longer meets definition. A status review determines that a species no longer meets the definition of endangered or threatened based on an evaluation of the species' status relative to the factors in section 4(a)(1)."

The actual regulations contain no such requirement. They state: "§424.11 …(d) The factors considered in delisting a species are those in paragraph (c) of this section…A species may be delisted only if such data substantiate that it is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons...(2) Recovery. The principal goal of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service is to return listed species to a point at which protection under the Act is no longer required. A species may be delisted on the basis of recovery only if the best scientific and commercial data available indicate that it is no longer endangered or threatened."

[Darian]

Yawnnnnnnn..... Talk about overkill!!! And I thought I was wordy....:rolleyes:

At any rate, from what I chose to read of all of that, it sounds like you and Shawn are both correct. One action lead to many others with a similar outcome.... :-|

Not sure how we got this far off the track but let's get back to the original question of whether water grabbers are infiltrating California DFG.... IMHO, whoever the new governor is will undoubtedly make their own executive appointments and create/implement their own policy decisions that will affect DFG operations for however long the new administration stays in office. Since the elections are in November, we'll have some answers by then end of this year.... :D

[oregonsteel]

Yawnnnnnnn..... Talk about overkill!!! And I thought I was wordy....:rolleyes:

At any rate, from what I chose to read of all of that, it sounds like you and Shawn are both correct. One action lead to many others with a similar outcome.... :-|



Shawn was not correct. He said Bush had nothing to do with hatchery fish being considered wildlife. I posted a article showing this was wrong. I posted a article showing that Mark Rutzick was attributed with "coming up" with treating hatchery fish as wild fish for purposes of the ESA .
I also showed that Mark Rutzick was the Lawyer in the case for the people that Shawn said were responsible for "coming up" with this.

[shawn kempkes]

Shawn was not correct. He said Bush had nothing to do with hatchery fish being considered wildlife. I posted a article showing this was wrong. I posted a article showing that Mark Rutzick was attributed with "coming up" with treating hatchery fish as wild fish for purposes of the ESA .
I also showed that Mark Rutzick was the Lawyer in the case for the people that Shawn said were responsible for "coming up" with this.

Actually you are wrong. The case that I refferenced was Alsea Valley allliance vs evans which was filed in 1999. Rutsick had nothing to do with that case because he was to busy fighting the clinton administration on issues pertaining to the spotted owl and the marbled murlett.

The judge in the case Michael Hogan ruled in a summary judgement in 2001 at about the same time Bush took office. The Bush admin chose not to appeal this ruling. But several other groups did as interveners. The case that you cited was where the plf got involved was in 2004 after Rutzick was appointed to the Noaa position.

No I didnt vote for Bush or Cheney and for the most part I agree that the Bush Admin had a terrible record of protecting the enviorment. So far the Obama admin has done nothing of substance either just look at the revision that it did on its Biop for the Columbia river salmon.

[Darian]

OK, You win!!!.... I suppose it would mean nothing to mention that Bush probably wasn't even aware of this situation. Granted it occurred during his administration.... Seems like there were other worries on his and Chaney's minds at the time....