Bull Trout Data, Status Being Disputed

The federal government doesn’t have enough evidence to say that bull trout are becoming extinct in the Northwest.

That’s the conclusion of two scientists hired by the timber industry. They surveyed state records and released their report this week, one month before a possible endangered species listing.

Where long-term information is available, biologists Bill Platts and Mark Hill say, it shows bull trout populations are generally stable.

“The most startling revelation we uncovered is that on 96 percent of the bull-trout streams in Idaho, Montana, Washington and Oregon, there is not a sufficient record of data to determine bull-trout status or populations trend,” they wrote in the report.

But Mike Bader of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies disagreed, saying, “There’s a wealth of information about bull trout. Unfortunately, it’s all bad news.

“We did our own status review that took more than two years. We have a couple of file cabinets full of research projects that showed a lot of decline.”

The alliance was one of three Montana groups that asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1992 to list the bull trout as endangered throughout the Northwest.

They since have gone to court to challenge the agency’s June 1994 announcement that a listing is “warranted but precluded.” That means the bull trout are in danger of extinction, but other species are in even bigger trouble and will be given higher priority for the agency’s limited staff and money.

The Fish and Wildlife Service must re-evaluate that decision this June. It will do so despite a congressional moratorium on final endangered species listings, according to Dan Diggs of the agency’s Portland office.

Diggs said the industry-sponsored report is “similar to information the service has had at least since 1993.” He said he forwarded a copy of it to biologists in Boise, who are preparing a status report on the bull trout for agency managers.

Trish Klahr, the biologist coordinating that effort, said much of the information that Platts and Hill gathered is old. She also said she doubts the value of information that came not from actual counts of fish or their nests but from interviews with anglers.

Fish and Wildlife officials agree there’s a lot they don’t know about bull-trout populations.

“If we waited until we had all the data we needed, it could stymie decisions for decades,” said Klahr. “So we go with what the (Endangered Species) Act says, which is the best available scientific data on hand.”

The decision will be based not only on whether a species is declining but also on the threats it faces.

Sediment that washes into spawning streams is one hazard to the trout. Biologists also list dams, overfishing and the introduction of exotic fish as reasons for concern about bull trout.

Platts and Hill found long-term bull-trout records for just 45 streams in the four states. From that, they concluded that trout populations in more pristine streams aren’t much different from those in watersheds that have been heavily logged, mined and grazed.

xxxx