Duro,

The trial itself is a few years old...but the implementation of its ruling was stayed during appeal...and the 9th Circuit just ruled on the appeal, affirming the trial court. So while the case is relatively old, the ruling will start to be implemented now.

CFM,

Nowhere in the case does it say that the intent is to do away with fish and fishing...that's not what the case was about. It was about removing ESA protection for endangered wild fish to make development and timber cutting more profitable.

If PLF gets their way, though, there are only a few possible outcomes.

First, any habitat issues we have now will assuredly get worse...habitat destruction is caused by all the members of the PLF...that's the point of the lawsuit, to be able to wreak havoc profitably.

Without habitat, there are no wild fish. With no wild fish, there are no long term succesful hatchery programs, or no hatchery programs at all. With no successful hatchery programs, there are no hatchery fish. With no hatchery fish, there is no fishing.

The fallacy of fish without healthy rivers has been proven over and over...it just doesn't work, for hatchery or wild fish.

So, to answer your questions, it is my opinion...but based on what I know about politics and biology, I don't really see another outcome that is more likely than the situation outlined above.

Fish on...

Todd