Just a couple of points. The decision was not based on whether or not there is a difference between wild and hatchery fish. The decision was based on the wording of the ESA, which forbade NMFS to differentiate below the sub-specific level. In other words, if hatchery fish cannot be identified as a subspecies of the existing wild fish they cannot be treated differently. As I said above it's a case of the letter of the law countering the spirit of the law. The latest word I have (Fish Net's NW FISHLETTER.134 11/21/01) says that the environmental and fisheries groups mentioned above were granted intervenor status on November 16th by Judge Hogan. They immediately filed a brief asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stay Hogan's decision. According to the above source, NMFS had argued against allowing these groups to intervene. So, now, NMFS is developing "a new hatchery policy" and "..will begin reviewing the status of affected stocks and promises the review will be finished by next fall.", meanwhile the intervenors' brief will eventually go before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. ...And so it goes.