Pos, you asked the question with reference to putting Oregon Coast coho on the endangered species list. Spawner abundance for these fish is at 50 year highs the last two years. This fall and winter, it looks like another year in the fifty year high range based on the predominance of non clipped coho in the ocean and the obvious high numbers of coho in most Oregon coastal bays. It will be known soon. If this year comes in as expected, the last three coho returns will all be higher than any other year in the last fifty. The three strong years will constitute the entire resource given coho are a three year fish. There will be over 200,000 each year and they will be strong in rivers from the Nehalem to the Coquille.

There is a good chance that NOAA will choose not to put this group on the ESA list. Biologically, these fish are healthy enough that they do not qualify.

Second, hatchery coho smolt releases on the Oregon Coast have been reduced from over 5 million to less than one million. This seems like a very aggressive approach to reduce any possible negative impacts on wild fish. Its not a gimic, but a straight forward action that is almost certain to sharply reduce hatchery impacts if there are any. Given the big reduction in hatchery coho, this does not seem like the place to start suing people. There are better places to sue over hatchery fish, and if you want to sue somebody over Oregon Coast coho, did you ever think timber or ag might be a better target? It seems like with your question on HGMP's your searching for a technicality to be obstructionist rather than using the ESA and legal system to fix an actual problem.