This thread and the several others I've read and participated in are interesting, to put it mildly. It's too bad that so many people are relying on biased and incorrect reports on what the Hogan ruling is and what it does. It also amazes me how people can get their "news" from sources that have an axe to grind without doing any research to speak of.

A case in point : on a thread on another board, I repeated something someone had told me about the Hogan decision and had a respondent take me to task because what I had repeated was in error. So I did some checking on the Hogan decision through a google search and ended up with an Oregon seagrant document that provided me with some balanced information.

The Hogan ruling didn't rule that wild fish were the equivalent of hatchery fish. What it did say was that on the river in question, NMFS (now NOAA Fisheries) could no longer count wild fish and hatchery fish as different stock SINCE originally it had lumped them together in the same Evolutionary Significant Unit. The "hatchery fish are the same genetically as wild fish" thing that everyone seems to be reacting to was a dicta, legalese for comments that were NOT part of the ruling or law.

This ruling applies to one ESU. It doesn't apply elsewhere. However there are challenges to other listings that will use, in all likelihood, the Hogan decision.

A lot of Bush bashing has gone on with people saying in print that this decision by the Bush administration will gut the Endangered Species Act. This ruling wasn't a Bush administration effort. It was a judicial ruling handed down by a different branch of government.

The same approach is being used, I think, to gorilla market the Bush administration as an enemy of the environment. That isn't necessarily the case. His administration is making changes that offend folks who would like to see wilderness locked up and rivers closed down. These people aren't conservationists by definition, but protectionists. There's a big difference there. Speaking as someone with a background in the natural sciences, I will stand up and say that not all logging or mining is bad. Some here apparently think it is. Not all roads into roadless areas are bad. Not all petroleum extraction is bad. Anyone who tells you otherwise is uninformed.

So, my point is to evaluate all information you get wtih respect to its source and look for balance (response from both sides of the issue) as well as the attempts of the source to sway you with absolutes and emotionalism. And certainly don't believe everything you read or hear in the media.

My $.02,

Keith