On Friday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals nullified Oregon Federal District Court Judge Hogan's ruling in the case of Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans. This is not a final ruling, which may not be rendered for months or even years, but it does return things to the status quo ante. Until a final decision is rendered, Oregon coastal coho will continue to be listed as endangered and will continue to have the protections mandated by the Endangered Species Act. Since the recent petitions to de-list nearly all of Washington's endangered salmon and steelhead runs used the Hogan decision as a precedent, I assume that this will have a strong bearing on whether or not they proceed.

This is an excellent news but at the same time the fight could be just begining!!

Thank you Oregon Natural Resources Council, Pacific Rivers Council, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Audubon Society of Portland, Coast Range Association, Siskiyou Regional Education Project, and the Sierra Club, represented in court by Earthjustice, sought an emergency order reinstating the ESA protections so that wild coho salmon continue to be protected while the legal case works its way through the court system.

Where are the sportsfishing groups?

This is good news, for now.

If they weren't involved, I too am curious why NSIA (Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association) and the RFA (Recreational Fishing Alliance), who both have funds set aside for legal and lobbying efforts on behalf of sportfishers, weren't among the group backing Earth Justice in obtaining this reversal. In the NSIA newsletter, president Liz Hamilton was outspoken against the Hogan ruling. ...

I also just found out that the RFA does not back the WDFW proposed C&R regs for wild steelhead, state wide in Washington. I was told by their reps this was a decision made by the RFA national headquarters, but I didn't have time to get the reasons behind it. If you happen to see this Mike, maybe you can fill us in on their position. Thanks.

RT

Not being part of the decision making process of the sport fishing groups mentioned, we can only speculate, but the absence of the sport contengency didn't change the fact that clearer heads have prevailed at least for now and the decision will likely be overturned (my opinion).

I would be curious to hear from the leadership of the sport groups to understand why they were not there, but I'm not ready to get out the shotgun and start shootin' em' down without an explanation first.

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: seacat ]

The RFA is aware of the Hogan ruling and we are not going to just sit back and do nothing. But that being said, going to court is always our last option. Political action is always a much better option than court. Its much more effective and cheaper than going to court. Only if we don't have any political options available do we go to court.

On this particular issue, after reading the court decision, it seems that judge Hogan was legally correct in his ruling regardless of how unpopular it is. Obviously those groups who brought about the appeal have information that makes them feel differently. We are not currently aware of their strategy.

If someone had came to us with information that the ruling would have short term affects on fisheries, (between now and next fall=short term) then it is very possible that we would have gotten involved in the lawsuit in hopes of keeping the fish listed until the review by NMFS is completed. I can not speak any further to that because I cover Washington State, not Oregon.
There is one other thing to consider. If we (we being sportfishers) are involved with NMFS in the ESA evaluation process we can have some impact, but even if things don't go our way, we still would have had the courts available to us as a last resort. With the appeal, things had better go right for us, because if they don't, NMFS is our last resort.


On catch and release, we have taken some criticism on that. RFA is always trying to build a consensus on issues, but there is clearly not any consensus available on this one.

I can explain our position and it is very well thought out. I don't expect consensus, even within our own organization, but it is based on a logical approach to the issue.

A point to keep in mind. RFA is NOT a conservation organization. We are a political organization. We have conservation in mind but we feel that true conservation can only be accomplished by obtaining equity in the fisheries management process.
---------------------------------

This was my written testimony to the commission:

It is the nation wide position of the Recreational Fishing Alliance that the release of recreationally caught fish should be, in most cases, the ethical and moral prerogative of the angler and that attempting to impose "catch and release" exclusivity is a fishery management tool of the last resort.

In this case, according to state conducted angler survey, a modest majority of steelhead anglers feel that "catch and release" is the preferred management method to meet conservation needs of Wild Steelhead. In deciding whether to impose this management, we ask that the council consider the following items.

1) Does the angler survey conclusively represent the will of the anglers? The RFA does not question the results of the survey as conducted. We do however recommend that commission request conference with the licensed fishing guides that work rivers where Wild Steelhead retention has been allowed. We feel that the commission should have some knowledge of the preference of the two-day license holders that were not included in the survey.
2) Will this management result in the desired conservation? Due to the current system of co-management, there could be legal ramifications that would create the opposite effect and a put a greater burden on some of the Steelhead stocks. We believe that there is a low risk of a "forgone opportunity" claim, but we believe that it still warrants some consideration.
3) The council should know that the majority of anglers we represent have no issue with catch and release of Wild Steelhead as a fishing practice. But the majority also has significant concerns about setting a precedent with a blanket regulation of mandatory release, regardless of species.
-------------------------------------

My statement was actually significantly less critical of the proposed regulation than it could have been. Our national position paper on the subject (temporarily located at http://home.attbi.com/~mikegilchrist/catchandrelease.htm ) contains the line "Prohibiting the retention of fish by individual anglers that may be caught and sold by commercial interests is simply unsupportable." Due to the nature of the commercial harvest, we felt it was best not to object on that point here.

We need to be consistent with our positions nation wide. We can not object to these kinds of regulations on the East coast for striped bass and then endorse them here.

The way the comments were worded, it allows the regulation to go into effect if the commission feels that the regulation is critically necessary for conservation of steelhead in every river and therefor a "last resort".

Thanks for your detailed reply Mike, on the position of the RFA.

Quote" Prohibiting the retention of fish by individual anglers that may be caught and sold by commercial interests is simply unsupportable"

This points out the biggest problem with the whole process of setting fishing regulations, and that is, they usually only apply to the largest user group namely, sports fishers who without a doubt return the greatest economic factor to the states from this resource.
If all wild/native steelhead are to be protected then they really should be given protected status from ALL resource user groups, including commercial and treaty harvest.

However, having said that, I'm reminded of something my mom always used to say to me, "If you know something is wrong, even if..everyone.. else is doing it, are you still going to do it too?" This was usually followed by the old "jumping off the bridge" question.

Speaking for myself only, I don't ever intend to keep a Steelhead with an adipose fin. My hope would be that as the largest user group, sports fishers, would set the desired example, and then from there, work on those who still consider a protected, never to be replaced resource as theirs for the taking.

But then that's just me.
PS; Thanks Mom!

The conservation arm of sport groups is usually a committee of a few people. Most sport groups have spoken out against the Hogan ruling. As non-profit organizations most sport groups cannot bring legal action but usually support the groups that can and do take legal action against such rulings. A couple of groups helped WSC financially and with personal support in the recent c&r for wild steelhead hearings.

Les Johnson

Thanks for responding Mike, it's good to hear from the people involved in the decision making group. As I suspected, it's a matter of picking the battles we can win in hopes of winning the war. Works for me...