Gillraker,
I'm not using "special interest group" in a pejorative sense, I suppose that we, as anglers, represent a special interest group as well. The obvious motive of the groups that I mentioned is to remove ESA protection from various populations of fish in order to get rid of the restrictions that the act places on their activities. In essence, Judge Hogan's ruling says that, since the 1978 revision to the act does not allow differences below the sub-specific level to be taken into consideration, that differences between wild and hatchery fish cannot be addressed. In effect: hatchery and wild salmon and steelhead must be considered the same, and if there are plenty of hatchery fish in the rivers then there is no problem and no reason to extend protection. I have no doubt that the decision is legally valid; a case of the narrow wording of the law invalidating the spirit of the law. James Buchal, the Portland attorney who was been instrumental in bringing about the Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans case as well as the recent petitions in Washington, makes no bones about wanting to take salmon protection out of the hands of the federal government entirely. Whether you think this is a good idea or not, do you think that local jursidictions could do a better job in the face of well organized and well funded groups whose interests would be better served by ignoring the problems salmon and steelhead currently face?