|
The
Endangered Species Act Out of Control
by
John R. Lott, Jr. and Sonya D.
Jones
by John R. Lott, Jr. and Sonya D.
Jones
DIGG THIS
Is a salmon born in a hatchery a different species from the same
salmon born in the wild?
It is hard
to believe, but recent Federal court rulings are claiming that otherwise
genetically identical fish are separate species, forcing an appeal
being announced recently to the 9th Circuit Court.
Two court decisions
in the last two months show how much is at stake in these questions.
In mid-June, Judge John C. Coughenour, of the Western District of
Washington, ruled that "human interference" and the "unnatural"
way that hatcheries maintain salmon populations was unlawful. The
judge then ordered that the Upper Columbia River steelhead remain
on the endangered species list.
Just this month,
Judge Michael Hogan in Eugene reached a similar conclusion. After
Hogan's decision, an attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice
said "The
debate over hatchery fish should be considered [in counting the
number of salmon is] conclusively over."
These decisions
will dramatically affect a lot of people living in the Pacific Northwest.
Protecting the salmon will make water much more difficult to obtain,
and, without irrigation permits, many farmers and ranchers will
have to stop watering their crops and livestock. Large areas of
private property will have to be set aside for any species listed
as threatened or endangered. The commercial and recreational fishing
industries in the Northwest, which generate more than $2 billion
annually, will also be affected.
Promoting the
survival of salmon is a worthy goal, but does it really matter if
a fishs ancestors are from a hatchery or are naturally spawned?
As it is, many so-called "wild" or naturally spawned salmon
were all but gone and brought back through the use of hatcheries.
Given that hatcheries have been around for over a hundred years,
it's likely that all naturally spawned salmon have at least some
hatchery-spawned ancestors.
But whatever
one's objections to the Endangered Species Act, its purpose is pretty
clear: "to provide a program for the conservation of . . .
endangered and threatened species." But how do you define hatchery
and naturally spawned fish as different species? There are no biological
or genetic differences. The only way you can tell the fish apart
is the clipped fin on hatchery fish.
Environmental
groups claim that some hatchery fish behave differently, but that
is hard to take seriously. Why ignore all hatchery fish just because
some behave differently?
Think
where that logic ultimately leads. By defining different species
based on behavior and not genetics, how many different species of
humans do you think that there would be? It's kind of like differentiating
species of humans based on whether you were born in a hospital or
at home.
The claimed
distinction largely stems from hatchery and natural fish survival
rates. Hatchery fish have a higher survival rate from egg to smolt,
but a lower survival rate from smolt to adult. Yet, that is hardly
surprising. Many of the weaker naturally spawned fish have died
off as hatchlings, leaving fewer of them to die off in the next
stage.
Over
the years, the governments policies have lurched from one
extreme to another. Ironically, while the courts are today asking
if the salmon are endangered, just nine years ago the state of Oregon
ordered mass killings of salmon to dry up the food supply for predatory
sea lions in an attempt to drive them away from dams. The eggs from
those salmon were shipped to hatcheries in South America and the
dead fish sent to canneries. Private land owners are now facing
the brunt of these costly government mistakes from the past.
These
two court cases highlight the importance of balanced environmental
policies. But if you are going to adopt policies that so severely
impact farming and ranching, then those policies should actually
accomplish something.
September
1, 2007
John
Lott [send him mail] is the
author of Freedomnomics:
Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don’t
and The
Bias Against Guns (Regnery 2003). Sonya D. Jones, an attorney
for the Pacific Legal Foundation, is representing the appellants
in Judge Coughenour’s decision.
Copyright
© 2007 John Lott
John
Lott Archives
|