Stephen Welsh wrote:
mmcgr wrote in news:JhU%b.11288$yZ1.3081
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:


Responses make it pretty clear that this was a
pretty hyperventilated posting


Thats doesn't make it a troll, Mike.

Quite honestly looking at the post again,
all the replies at the URL ... it didn't
seem all that hyperventialted to me:
YMM(and obviously does)V of course.


Steve

Well consider the following response from Dennis McEwan of the
California Department of Fish and Game

Not only does the message misstate the facts, it seems to completely
disregard that fact that the fish is already listed under the ESA as
threatened. In fact, threatened species can have the same
protections under the ESA as endangered species. So if the feds were
to impose the draconian protections for steelhead stated in the
message, they could have done so when the fish was listed as
threatened in 1997. All of the dire consequences that Walser
predicts had the potential to become reality in 1997, but we know
that they didn't.

With the downgrade to an endangered listing, we will lose some
flexibility that was afforded by the 4d Rule (but, as we've seen, the
4d Rule has not proven to be all that flexible and expedient as we
had hoped). There are mechanisms within the ESA that allow fisheries
to continue in waters inhabited by endangered species and there are
areas where we still have fisheries in such such areas (e.g. upper
Sac; some southern California coastal streams, the ocean).
Researchers and restorationists have had to obtain incidental take
permits since the fish was listed as threatened, so a downgraded
listing will have no additional effect on research, monitoring, or
restoration actions.

Contrary to what Walser states, both our agency and the feds have
investigated the status of Central Valley steelhead thoroughly.
Although there is not a plethora of data or infomation, the information
that is available indicates a very real decline. In fact, the NMFS'
Biological Review Team in their status review in the mid-nineties
found that Central Valley steelhead were indeed 'endangered' and
this was again their finding in their draft status review update.
The reason the fish was listed as 'threatened' was not because the
biological evidence was in dispute, but because there were ongoing
conservation measures in place (specifically, Calfed and the CVPIA),
and the ESA allows this information to be considered when a final
decision is rendered.

This message is reminiscent of the kind of rhetoric that you see coming
from the ESA-hating 'wise use' movement, in which none of the
'the-world-is-ending' predictions have ever come true. Whether you
support the downgraded listing or even the current listing is one of
personal choice, but I think we should all support responsible and
informative discouse on the subject. Walser's message is neither.

Feel free to forward this message.

Dennis


Mike