Well, in the case of the Nisqually, over 10 years and counting. And that's not intense pressure, that's any pressure.

Actually, I think I may have sounded a little overly sanguine.

I don't think the sky has actually fallen, and as I said, this decision probably won't have a large effect on processes that are already underway. But I should have made more clear that those processes could easily be and seem to be headed towards the kind of disasterous policies eddie is talking about. Very powerful forces beside the Pacific Legal Foundation would love to see an all-hatchery future. They're betting you'll accept the loss of the wild fish and over-farmed, over-logged, over-developed, over-polluted watersheds, if they can at least promise you harvestable numbers of hatchery salmon returning to those defeated rivers. This decision certainly does nothing to slow that idea down.

I just wanted to point out the PLF and its friends have not quite won the victory they're trying to crow about. Their golden future has not arrived just yet. They might have gotten a little closer, but there are plenty of groups wiling to keep fighting for those of us who would NOT be satisfied with that future.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout

Boy it didn't sound all that bad Ramon, until you told us who the "player" were!

Talk about some one sided special interests!

They are the same LOL... It all tastes like chicken to me!

Talk about some one sided special interests! [/QB][/QUOTE]

You bet they are one sided the fish's side.

Bottom line is if we say a hatchery fish is the same as a wild fish, the wild fish will disappear in a generation or two. This suit was NOT brought by friends of the fish. If you do not care about wild fish this suit is a victory. If you do care it is a loss.

CFM,
Yes sir thats a pretty scary list that Ramon vb provided isnt it.Thats one of the reasons I said this is good news.Any loss in court for those groups is good news to me.And probably most average non elitist sportsfisherman.And when Washington Trout looses in court thats GREAT news.

Duroboat15,

So are you saying that an average, non-elitist sportfisherman has no concerns about saving wild salmon and steelhead?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

First off, the WSC's involvement in anything to do with this case is limited to reading the papers to see what's happening...

The end-of-the-road situation if PLF continues on this path and is successful is either;

1. Neither hatchery or wild fish will be listed, wild fish will go extinct, development will continue unchecked on water and habitat issues, which will not be stopped by those pesky wild fish and the ESA. Believe it or not, hatchery fish need these things, too, it's just not against the law to take them away from hatchery fish.

2. Both will be listed, hatchery production, which is detrimental to true wild fish, will be halted to protect the wild fish, there will be no fishing.

Duroboat, you continue to show your ignorance when you both say things that are obviously untrue, or clearly not thought out at all. You'd do well to put a little bit of thought into what opinions you hold and what you write about them.

Do you want to see the hatcheries closed?
Do you want to see the habitat trashed even more?
Do you care if the wild fish go extinct?

Ask yourself those questions about this issue before you jump into your anti-environment dancin' shoes and hit the dance floor.

This decision, taken to PLF's desired end, is the worse thing that could ever happen to listed fish, and for sportfishermen. The only goals they have are focused on more trees being cut, lower water quality standards, and making more $$ because of those things.

How could that ever possibly good for anyone except themselves?

Fish on...

Todd

Dave,
I guess looking into those enviormental groups and read about some of there achievments and goals.I decieded to go with the lesser of two evils.

Salmo g,
Dont put words in my mouth! I said nothing of the kind about average sportsman not careing about the fish.I said those enviormental elitist groups are no freinds ofthe average sportsman.And I believe thats 100% true.

DB15: I understand that some environmental groups can get a bit carried away, but I have absolutely no doubt that without them we would still have a Willamette River so polluted it occasionally catches fire, a Lake Washington so polluted no fish life would be possible and clear cuts from Alaska to California.

When you compare their achievements to those of the timber companies, I can't imagine how you can come down on the side of the timber companies. Hatchery fish are NOT the same as wild fish any more than wild turkeys are the same as hatchery turkeys.

Sometimes the lone voice against the many can be right, but this time you are letting your hatred of some environmental groups cloud your vision - unless that is you truly do not care about the fate of wild fish.

Duroboat15

I will stand by you on that assertion! Not all are the fishermen friend!


Cowlitzfisherman

For Immediate Release
February 25, 2004
Contact Brian Kennedy at (202) 226-9019

Ninth Circuit Court Sets Precedent for Science in Landmark ESA Case

Washington, DC - A ruling yesterday by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed a lower court's decision that scientific contributions to species recovery must be incorporated in Endangered Species Act (ESA) decision making. At issue in this case was how the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) counted Oregon Coast coho salmon in determining the species' status.

Background: The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed suit in U.S. District Court charging that NMFS counted only naturally spawned salmon, disregarding hatchery spawned salmon, thereby keeping fish counts artificially low and invoking unnecessary protection under the ESA. District Court Judge Michael Hogan agreed, ruling that the agency acted illegally. As a result, NMFS instituted status reviews of salmon and steelhead listed under the ESA across Western States. Environmentalists then appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit, which also ruled in favor of PLF. In dismissing the appeal, the court ruled that environmentalists could participate in the public process on status reviews like other citizens and had no basis for suit.

"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."

"Hopefully, this case will serve as a catalyst for the use of 21st century science and American ingenuity in species recovery," Pombo continued. "That's exactly what we need to do to be successful, and Americans understand that. Endless, frivolous litigation does nothing to save species, but that is the unfortunate state of the ESA today."

"With the Ninth Circuit's dismissal of this appeal, the 'sky is falling' rhetoric of hard-core environmental activists has been debunked and their true agenda exposed," said PLF attorney, Russ Brooks. "This attempt to control private land use in the name of species protection has been successfully shut down. Families in the Pacific Northwest are sick of environmental hysterics that have resulted in rising home prices, choking traffic, higher taxes and a slowed economy," Brooks continued. "Chalk up a win for people with today's decision."

According to Brooks, the biggest impact of the decision is the fact that it reinstates the district court's order invalidating and setting aside the coho listing, which had been postponed during the appeal. Consequently, the Oregon Coast coho listing no longer exists and may not be enforced. This decision stands to have huge implications for land stewards and natural resource providers-such as farmers, ranchers, and timber harvesters -- as well as local governments and citizens struggling with infrastructure development of schools, hospitals, and highways.

Following news of the decision, PLF called on NMFS to promptly complete its review of the hatchery policy and salmon and steelhead listings, consistent with the district court and Ninth Circuit decisions. NMFS has missed several deadlines in releasing the new hatchery policy and the results of its status review.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Foods made from hemp, a less-known cousin of marijuana, can't be outlawed by the US government's narcotics agency, under a court ruling after a 2-1/2-year legal battle.

The ruling Friday by the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals was hailed by a coalition of companies that make hemp-based foods including waffles, vegetarian burgers and nutrition bars.


The court ruled that the Drug Enforcement Administration overstepped its authority by issuing a so-called zero-tolerance rule for the active ingrdient in marijuana, THC, or tetrahydrocannabinols.


The court ruled that the DEA officials "can regulate foodstuffs containing natural THC if it is contained within marijuana, and can regulate synthetic THC of any kind. But they cannot regulate naturally-occurring THC not contained within or derived from marijuana -- i.e., non-psychoactive hemp products."


The decision "is a huge boost to the hemp food market, and we expect to see many more hemp food products on store shelves," said David Bronner of the Hemp Industries Association, and maker of organic hemp nutrition bars.


"Based on today's decision, the court reasonably views trace insignificant amounts of THC in hemp seed in the same way as it sees trace amounts of opiates in poppy seeds."


A DEA spokesman said Monday no decision had been made on whether to appeal the ruling.


"It's being looked at by our chief counsel's office," said DEA spokesman Ed Childress.


DEA officials had argued that stopping marijuana growing could be rendered more difficult if hemp were legal, because it would require agents to take samples for analysis before determining whether a plant is marijuana or hemp.


"There is basically no difference beween a hemp plant and a marijuana plant. The main difference is the level of THC," said Childress.


Hemp oil has long been used for industrial purposes but more recently has been found to have an exceptional nutritional profile -- containing essential fatty acids found in fish that are considered important for good health.


US hemp food companies say they observe reasonable THC limits similar to those adopted by European nations, Canada and Australia, to ensure low levels of THC.

Here is a list of the board of directors of the outfit that brought the litigation claiming a wild coho and a hatchery coho are the same fish. Judge their intent for yourself.

http://www.pacificlegal.org/misc/plfboard.pdf

KK,

You're killin' me...but let me be the first to ask that you don't post any pictures of that!

Todd

Thanks CFM thats what I was thinking when I read his post.Nice Edit!