Many of you are well aware of the flap that was caused when the administration announced plans to count hatchery salmon when determining the need for continued endangered species act protection (ESA) for certain salmon runs.

Later, NOAA announced that they had no plans to delist any runs and that in fact they might add one run.

There has been a great deal of discussion over what the administration actually plans to do in this highly contested area.

Here is a statement by the Pacific Legal Foundation that shows what they think. IMHO the PLF statement makes it crystal clear that they want many runs delisted. The questions that remain now are how will this administration respond to this pressure, and how will the courts eventually decide the matter.

http://www.pacificlegal.org/view_PLFNews...+Law+and+People


The PLF is the group that brought suit to require that Oregon hatchery origin coho be counted the same as wild fish when making a determination as to the need for ESA listing.


To learn more about the Pacific legal Foundation and who they represent go to their web site.

Hopefully this will end up in court again and the most overturned court in the land will be overturned again. NOAA is doing what it said it would do so far to protect native fish..And so far the administration has not done differently dispite alot of conjecture. This is a battle that is not over and the forces of development are winning some skirmishes. We in the fishing community need to be diligent to get things moving in the right direction.

And by the way, scientists on both sides of this issue have wieghed in with opposing science.

thats because some of those scientists are paid to come up with specific results........

when will we as fishermen and as Americans stand up to all of these blatant attacks upon Americas sustainability(both economically and environmentally) by the conservative elites.....

When we stop calling our opponents names and get involved politically to make the changes we want. I am doing so howabout you Lupo?

The PLF diatribe is another case of argument with a lot of flaws. The Washington Trout diatribe that Grandpa posted is another.

Lupo almost brings up the salient point here (but then he loses it with his name calling) in that you can find a "scientist" to stand behind just about anything-- all you have to do is search long enough. Scientists are not gods, and some of them have don't have sense to come in out of the rain. Many, if not most, scientists have their own agendas, and that's when they are most suspect.

Dave is right, I think, that the PLF's agenda is pretty clear, although I think it's ultimately about ending land-use restrictions ut in place by the ESA. I just wish WT's agenda was as apparent. To me, it seems like there are several layers of agenda to wade through before we see what that group wants. Clarity of thought and purpose doesn't seem to be a strong point with Washington Trout-- at least that's the impression they've left.

As an aside, I think it's humorously ironic that Bush is being castigated by the same group that he's supposed to be in bed with...according to our earlier discussions. He doesn't seem to be able to win on this issue, does he?

My $.02

Keith

I'm not sure that the president would know a salmon from a dolphin if one "bitified" him on the backside...I'm guessing that other folks in the administration came up with the hatchery "same as wild" idea.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd I think the hatchery/wild sameness program came from the lawsuit by PLF and the backup for this suit was from their "scientists"

see: info@nwfishermen.org

I think that there were two contemporaneous paths being taken...

PLF sued NOAA-F, and the court told NOAA-F to go back to the drawing board...which they did.

Then the administration came out and said "hatchery and wild are [pretty much?] the same"...

Then NOAA-F came out with their "moderately divergent" test...which kept all of the runs except one on the ESA.

I think.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd- Since you seem to doubt Mr. Bush's connection to fishing, I thought that I'd pass along a little I do know. This is all second-hand information, though...

Mr. Bush does fish, and he appears to be interested in fishing. I base this statement on several things:

On a "fact-finding" tour through Missouri, he made an unscheduled stop at the Bass Pro Shops' first store to buy a few things. The receipt I saw a copy of showed that he bought line, a new reel and a few baits that were consistent with bass fishing.

Two years or so ago, he hunted down a friend of mine, a Texas bass pro named Alton Jones, to meet him and talk to him about fishing.

Mr. Bush has called at least one, and I'm thinking it was two, meetings of fishing tackle industry heads at the Whitehouse to discuss the tackle industry, problems with the fishing industry and other mutual concerns.

Does that make him pro fishing? I won't speculate. Does it mean that he can tell the difference between a salmon and a dolphin? Don't know that either.

However, I never heard of the previous administration doing anything similar. Nor have I seen anything from Mr. Kerry's campaign to make me believe he knows difference between Flipper and Onchorynchus.

My $.02,

Keith

KJ,

The point of my post wasn't that Bush doesn't fish...I have seen him on TV fishing before, and I know his dad was quite a bass fisherman himself.

The point was that bashing or lauding G-Dub for the hatchery/wild fish scenario may or may not be appropriate as he is the figurehead of the Administration, but I doubt that he personally woke up one day and decided that hatchery fish and wild fish should be counted the same. Someone else in an office other than the Oval one came up with the idea.

That's all I was saying.

In retrospect, I bet even he could tell the difference between a dolphin and a salmon, and it probably wouldn't even have to bitify him...

Probably.

Fish on...

Todd