From Trash To Treasured Battle Lines Are Being Drawn Over Saving The Bull Trout, A Predator Fish Once Rejected As Worthless But Now Considered An Indicator Of Forest Health

It’s the wolf of fresh water, a fighter at the end of a fishing line and a bone stuck in Idaho’s craw.

No longer king of the mountain currents, the bull trout quietly is disappearing from its historic range while politicians and environmentalists, businessmen and biologists negotiate the terms of the trout’s fate.

Reeling in the fish from the brink of extinction may require limits on logging, pricey improvements to roads and dams and more rules to make individualistic Westerners balk.

The bull trout isn’t officially a threatened species, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed listing it under the Endangered Species Act.

“It seems they pick a fish that’s endangered and list it just to keep their jobs,” said Doug Higgins, a Bonners Ferry, Idaho, angler.

For Higgins, the proposed listing foreshadows more restrictions on public lands already home to high-profile endangered animals.

“Locally, everybody ties it all together - bull trout, grizzly bears, caribou and road closures,” he said.

Higgins has plenty of sympathizers among Idaho politicians, who see listing as federal meddling in a state matter.

“They’re pulling the rug out from under us,” Gov. Phil Batt complained in April when he heard of the agency’s plans.

But conservationists say nothing short of listing will rescue the bull trout. The states are too beholden to industrial interests to make any serious effort at recovery, they say.

“I don’t think these fish stand a chance without federal protection,” said Charles Ray of Idaho Rivers United.

Like the wolf, the bull trout is a top predator once scorned by humans for its voracious appetite.

Anglers called it a trash fish because it ate tastier fish. The government used to pay a bounty for every pound of dead bull trout.

But public opinion changes, and now the bull trout is respected as an indicator of forest health.

Bull trout like clear, cold streams. They coexist with cutthroat trout, which also have experienced dramatic population declines in recent years.

Bull trout strongholds include the mountains of central Idaho, the Swan Lake basin and upper Flathead basin in Montana and Lake Pend Oreille.

The Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Friends of the Wild Swan petitioned the federal government to list the bull trout as endangered in 1992.

In 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ruled such a listing was warranted but other species had higher priority.

Conservation groups sued, and last year, a judge ordered the agency to reconsider. This month, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing the fish as threatened in the upper Columbia basin and endangered in the Klamath River basin.

Meanwhile, Idaho and Montana launched bull trout recovery plans that rely on local groups to develop strategies for each watershed. So far, most of the activity has been in planning and research.

“There’s always more research that could be done,” said biologist Chris Frissell, a member of Montana’s scientific team. “But there are some clear needs of the species that we are neglecting.”

Meeting those needs won’t be cheap. The voracious appetite of the bull trout now threatens to consume volumes of timber and tax dollars.

Listing bull trout likely would bring greater scrutiny, if not more restrictions, to timber practices.

While dams, culverts and competition from non-native fish are big threats, logging practices tend to overshadow other concerns.

Poorly built roads are the primary source of deadly sediment to bull trout streams. Even good roads can cause problems.

“In my view in the Panhandle, if you were to pick one thing that’s affected fish habitat, it’s unmaintained roads,” said Chip Corsi, fisheries biologist for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

Frissell, of the University of Montana’s Flathead Lake biological station, has found a direct correlation between bull trout and roads.

“If you look at the abundance of spawning tributaries, it’s related to road densities,” he said. “The higher the road densities, the lower the numbers.”

Idaho, Montana, Washington and Oregon have rules for logging near fish-bearing streams. So do federal land managers. Montana, however, does not have enforceable standards for logging road construction.

Plum Creek Timber Co., the largest private owner of bull trout habitat, likes those voluntary standards just fine.

“You take a place like Montana, we’ve had such good experience with voluntary efforts,” said Kris Backes, Plum Creek’s director of corporate affairs. “Even in Idaho, we always try to go above and beyond the law whenever we think it’s necessary.”

While Backes boasts about the company’s on-the-ground managers, their oversight isn’t flawless.

This spring, the company was caught violating the Idaho Forest Practices Act when a sawyer took out most of the trees along Moose Creek in the St. Joe River drainage.

Backes and Idaho Department of Lands inspectors called the violation a mistake and an unusual departure from Plum Creek’s normal business practices.

Resistance to federal interference with bull trout doesn’t come only from big timber companies. Some small business owners are worried, too.

“Not only would I lose my business and livelihood, but I’d also have no business to sell in the future,” said Gary Brookshire, who owns Priest Lake Guide Service.

While mackinaw trout are Brookshire’s bread and butter, they’re deadly to bull trout.

The non-native mackinaw have claimed Priest Lake and are starting to squeeze out bull trout in Upper Priest Lake. Brookshire fears fisheries managers might kill off the mackinaw in Priest Lake in an attempt to restore the bull trout.

“I’m not against the recovery of endangered species,” he said. “However, I do have strong feelings about placing a species on the list when the chances of ever recovering that species in a reasonable amount of time are slim to none.”

Other opponents of federal listing say the fish don’t need federal protection.

Existing laws are adequate for keeping streams cold and clear, said Joe Hinson, executive vice president of the Intermountain Forest Industries Association.

Hinson fears listing will give environmentalists the ability to shut down logging in bull trout watersheds.

“If you’re against logging, the Endangered Species Act is a way to get you there,” he said. “It becomes a huge lever, legally and technically, for those who oppose a timber sale to keep it from ever happening.”

On state and private lands, the teeth are in the act’s provision that prohibits “taking” an endangered or threatened species. Destruction of habitat would be a criminal act if the trout were listed.

Just the talk of listing the trout has motivated industry and state officials to make changes that favor the fish.

“There’s a will to do something for bull trout,” Hinson said.

But, he added, “I can’t tell you the will would be there in equal amount if the threat of listing weren’t there.”

, DataTimes ILLUSTRATION: Photo Graphic: Bull trout status

MEMO: Two sidebars appeared with the story: 1. Public hearings Inland Northwest public hearings on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to list bull trout under the Endangered Species Act are scheduled for July 8 at the Shilo Inn in Spokane and July 10 at the Doubletree Hotel Edgewater in Missoula. Both hearings will be held from 2 to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m.

2. What the terms mean Endangered species are in danger of becoming extinct throughout their range. Threatened species are at risk of becoming endangered within the foreseeable future. Once a species is listed officially as threatened or endangered, it is given full protection under the Endangered Species Act. It is illegal to kill, harm, harass, possess or remove any protected species from the wild - or destroy its habitat. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can issue rules for threatened species that allow incidental takes. Under a proposed special rule for upper Columbia basin bull trout, anyone who accidentally catches a bull trout while fishing in compliance with state fishing regulations would not be in violation of the act. Individuals can be fined up to $100,000 for violating the act, while organizations can be fined up to $200,000. Federal agencies have to ensure that any activity they fund or authorize on their property does not jeopardize the survival of listed species, whether threatened or endangered.