Good News!
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/161970_salmon25.html

I'm not sure this is really good news. Does this mean that there is now legal precedence that would require wild and hatchery steelhead to be treated equally? Yikes!

SA

Duro- How does that add up to good news?

My own opinion - this is not good news for the wild fish. If this stands, and I as I understand the case (not a lawyer, help me out here Todd), the 9th Circuit ruled that the Environmental groups that brought this appeal were found to not have standing because NMFS is still formulating their recovery plan mandated by the first Judge's ruling, then the Judiciary may have just sealed the doom of the wild fish. There is more to be said here, I'm just not sure where we go.

This is exceedingly BAD news for the patient... the HMO has just denied him coverage for life-saving diagnosis/treatment.

its good news only if you want to decimate all wild stocks and turn all salmon fishing into hatchery fish. Not to mention that these rulings were protecting the streams through developement restrictions.
There will for sure be more appeals to this ruling and a lot of work is yet to be done.

This politician believes that all fish (hatchery and wild) were created equally:

"This could be the best precedent ever set in Endangered Species Act case law," Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA) said. "By arguing that some fish are somehow superior to other fish, environmentalists have once again revealed their radical beliefs that humans can do no good for species. Given modern science and common sense, this court just reaffirmed that such extreme positions are absurd and can be detrimental to species recovery. To be successful in our stewardship role we have to use all the tools at our disposal, especially advanced science."

I guess that we're all just a buch of radical environmentalists if we believe that wild fish are superior to hatchery fish.

Richard W. Pombo sounds like the politician in Idaho who said something like, "how can salmon almost be extinct when I can buy them in Albertsons any time?"

Just goes to show the knowledge of some of the people forming our fishing policies.

Come on Eddie...the 9th Circuit has got to be an icon in your book . How can you disagree with that impartial court?

Grandpa, I don't know about that, I do know that the 9th Circuit has made some wacky decisions in the past - this may be another one.

The 9th Circuit reaffirmed what the District Court found (sort of). Namely that NMFS can either list all Oregon Coastal coho (wild + hatchery) or they can list neither wild nor hatchery. They cannot list one but not the other. It's either both or none. As a result of that decision, Oregon coastal coho are no longer listed under the ESA.

That being the case, the amount of legal protection for these fish just went down considerably. In fact, that's why this suit was filed. So the timber companies and the resource extraction industries can continue to destroy salmon habitat without being held accountable. By anyone's standard, that can't be good news.

NMFS is currently undertaking a status review of all their ESA listings in light of the original District court ruling. Expect something later this spring. In my view, just because a salmon is raised in a hatchery does NOT mean that it's not threatened or otherwise at risk. If 95% of the salmon production in a river is located in one spot (a hatchery), that population is considerably more at risk, not less. Therefore, I would argue that if the wild population is not strong enough to stand on it's own, NMFS should list both hatchery and wild. In other words, protect them all.

In the judges findings he said that hatchery fish and wild fish were identical spieces genetically. And you cant protect one with out protecting the other.
Wonder if this will have an impact of the new WSR rule
Maybe this ruling is something the city of Forks can use if they decide to bring a suit against WSR.

This is good news if you are a simple minded, ignorant jackass.

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

Maybe each of us should read why Judge Hogan did what he did, and why the court didn't overturn his decision! It may or may not change some of your views!
http://www.pacificlegal.org/misc/alsea.pdf

Cowlitzfisherman

This is clearly a case of the gay marriage, equal but separate, issue spilling over into our fisheries.

WSC = Radical Environmentalists

Maybe the state should be more politicly correct and change the name from fish hatcherys to something like "Salmon/steelhead Captive Breeding Program for the protection of native fish runs"

I would not be suprised to see hatchery fish production eliminated on streams where wild fish were ESA listed in order to regain the ESA listing to protect the few wild fish remaining....

If the govement doesn't eliminate them on there own I can almost guarentee you will see Lawsuits filed to close down the hatcheries...

Doesn't sound like a win to me, but then again... I thought releasing wild steelhead was a good idea...

Ok, I'm not the smartest guy...If the hatcheries are shut down on rivers where the wild runs are endangered, is that a good thing? Do they have that great an impact on the survival of "wild" fish? Seems like it's just nice to have a hatchery fish to keep..And how many years would it be until wild fish populations would be strong enough to handle intense fishing pressure? Seems like habitat loss and netting play a very large role in returns. Please forgive my ignorance, I'm still learning.

The worst possible scenario would be a delisting of the wild salmonid stocks, an increase in hatchery production, and the inevitable extinction of the wild stocks. Thanks Ramon for your analysis. It helps put my mind somewhat at ease that the worst case scenario will not happen. BTW - Where you been? We've missed you.

The Pacific Legal Foundation is yet another of those shadowy, conspiratorial, GOP groups. They were instrumental in what happened down at the Klamath River with water rights allocations. Clearly, they do not have the fishs' best interest as their core operating belief. And before I get flamed, yes my tongue is somewhat in cheek with the GOP group thing. However, there is enough truth in what I say to make me very concerned about supporting the GOP in this election cycle.