The decision DID NOT say that hatchery fish and wild fish are the same, or that NMFS cannot make a distinction between the two. Neither did the original decision. The original decision said that THE WAY NMFS made the distinction in the case of Oregon-coho was inconsistent with the rules of the ESA, and therefore the current listing was illegal.

NMFS has plenty of sound scientific evidence for making a distinction between hatchery and wild fish, they just have to do it consistently, and in a way that makes sense relative to the leagal requirements of the ESA.

The Ninth Circuit decision seems to uphold the original decision, but only sort of; what it really said was that the Environmentalists don't have a case yet until NMFS takes some action in response to the original ruling (list both; list neither; make the distinction some new way; whatever).

As was mentioned, NMFS is working on that new policy as we speak, and this new ruling will probably not effect the outcome of that process very much. Peersonally, I doubt it would have had much effect even if the environmentalists (the group includes WT) had won.

What this does mean is that now, for the time being, Oregon Coast coho no longer have any federal protection. Yeah, that sounds like good news. NMFS is already reviewing a re-listing petition filed by the same environmetalists (submitted some time ago in case this happened), and they continue to work on their own policy and listing decisions based on the original ruling.

It will all begin to wash out this spring and summer. WT, Wild Steelhead Coalition, Trout Unlimited, American Rivers, and many other oraganizations and individuals will continue to stay engaged. The environmental and fish-conservation communities are committed to not letting hatchery fish be used as some kind of loophole for allowing the continued destruction of wild fish populations and the habitats they depend on.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout