From: The Pacific Legal Foundation

PLF Sues to Remove Illegal Steelhead Listings from Endangered Species List: Lawsuit Filed One Week After PLF’s Landmark Alsea Victory Striking Down Government Undercounts of Salmon

Contact: Dawn Collier
Phone: (916) 362-2833

Seattle,WA; March 04, 2004: Pacific Legal Foundation today asked a federal court to invalidate three illegal listings of West Coast steelhead as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). PLF is charging the federal government with unlawfully manipulating fish counts in an attempt to bolster justification for otherwise unneeded listings by refusing to count hatchery and resident steelhead in the Columbia and Willamette Rivers. Stringent ESA regulations resulting from these unnecessary and illegal listings have for years crippled critical parts of Washington’s and Oregon’s economies.

The lawsuit comes one week after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed environmentalists’ appeal of PLF’s landmark victory in Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, invalidating the ESA listing of Oregon Coast coho salmon. The Ninth Circuit let stand the high-profile federal District Court decision holding that the government violated the ESA when it illegally distinguished between naturally spawned and hatchery coho. In a statement released last week, House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA) said PLF’s Ninth Circuit victory "could be the best precedent ever set in Endangered Species Act case law."

"By affirming Alsea, the Ninth Circuit confirmed what PLF has argued for years. Government can’t cherry-pick which member of a species it includes or excludes in a listing. It has to follow the law and sound science," said Russ Brooks, the managing attorney for Pacific Legal Foundation’s Pacific Northwest Center who successfully litigated the Alsea case.

"These illegal steelhead listings have wreaked havoc in Washington and Oregon communities, seriously impeding private land use," said Brooks. "For too long, Washington and Oregon residents have paid a high price to protect fish that don’t need protection."

PLF argues that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) did not consider all steelhead when listing the species as threatened, using the same practice ruled illegal in Alsea. Members of the steelhead species, O.mykiss, include steelhead that are born in the wild and migrate to the ocean from freshwater, hatchery steelhead that also migrate to the ocean, as well as resident steelhead, also known as rainbow trout, that spend their entire lives in freshwater. NMFS listed only the migratory steelhead born in the wild as threatened, despite the fact that the agency admits that all of these fish are the same species and interbreed. As PLF explains in its lawsuit, one individual fish may become a steelhead, while its sibling from the same stream may remain a rainbow trout. Two steelhead may spawn and produce offspring that remain in freshwater to become rainbow trout and vice versa.

The illegal listings restrict water and land use throughout Washington and Oregon, hitting agricultural communities particularly hard, and impeding the construction of affordable housing. As a result, PLF is representing a large group of plaintiffs in the case, including the Washington State Grange, Oregon State Grange, Washington Farm Bureau, Alsea Valley Alliance, Okanogan County, Kittitas County, and the Building Industry Association of Washington.

"The plaintiffs in this case are over 100,000 farmers, ranchers, community leaders, and citizens, most of whom provide food and agricultural products for the entire nation," said Brooks. "When the livelihoods of so many people and a critical sector of the American economy hang in the balance, the government should be working overtime to follow the law, not finding ways to subvert it."

Conservatives without a Cause.

...and I am pretty god damn conservative myself!

No cause? I don't think so. Their cause is money and wild fish are getting in the way. Lets see,,, money or wild fish,,, I'd say the odds are on the money side.

Sorta surprised PLF waited this long before filing this.After Judge Hogans and the Ninth curcuit courts rulings in the first case.Looks like PLF is just taking it one step at a time.

Pretty much says it all......."best available science"?

F5A, very good post. I feel about how you do. Another point was made in the 20 page thread. This divides the fisherman. It fragments an already insufficient voice. But, there's a possibility the Hogan ruling will unite us once again with a common adversary.

IMO, whatever actions taken by fisherman in the future, it needs to include a plan with more vision than the current attempts to help the fish. A plan that ask for concessions from all involved, or that affects fishermen, developers, tribes and others collectively, and supported by unbiased science, is far more likely to get support.

As has been said before, WSR is a tool, not a plan. It seems very little thought went into how this would affet the larger picture, and what the reaction would be.

Lets do a little bit of science and math here:

Let z = total number of o. mykiss
y = total number of resident rainbow trout
x = total number of wild steelhead
v = total number of hatchery steelhead

z = y + x + v

When they count fish going over the Columbia river they count z but not y, x, or v. Besides y is close to zero since they don't migrate. So the equation is z = x + v. They can distinguish between x and v by a fin clip and take a statistical sample of the whole population by taking a a smaller sample of these fish. You can get it within a certain level of confience and then you can figure out x and v and z. You can also figure out v by subtracting out the number of hatchery fish returning to hatcheries along the Columbia tribs and from catch statistics. You can also do spawning surveys to figure out out v and x. It is science based. Are fisheries biologists trained in statistics?

Its all a bunch of BS. Judge Hogan appears to be uneducated on fish. The groups presenting the law suit are all a bunch of neo-conservative self-serving idiots that are going to drive the steelhead to extinction. A very conservative coworker, from the South, told me that the fish runs were healthy based on the total number fish. I told him that you have to differentiate between wild and hatchery fish. Obviously he doesn't fish but he liked the hatchery steelhead that I gave him to eat.

Even IF PLF is succesfull in getting the steelhead delisted on the Columbia basin I think the Bull Trout are still listed in those same watersheds and I dont think they are supplemented by hatchery production, so I wonder if delisting the Steelhead would really change anything as far as land use and water rights etc.

Steelheadman,

As a frustrated Upper Columbia Steelheader I've got to share a dirty secret with you. The WDFW did not clip any of the hatchery fish for several years. Now they are clipping some...but not all of the hatchery fish. So the fish that are coming over the dams back to the Methow and Wenatchee Rivers may well be hatchery fish....but they were never clipped.

Here's an idea, lets delete the decision.


That's the ticket!

The PLF does not care about fish, they just represent people who wanna destroy fish habitat that happens o occur on their property.. in other words they are anti stewardship which by deffinition means that they are irresponsible people who don't deserve to own land. PERIOD!!!!!

if there is wild fish habitat on your property take care of it or MOVE... the exsistence of these fish is more important than your self given right to do whatever the hell you want with the property you "own"..

not unlike the idiots in darrington destrpying portions of the Sauk river with heavy equipment..

if they refuse to be responsible then take their rights away!!!

you drink and drive you lose your drivers license.. property issues should be no different where species that are in danger are concerned..

I think what they are looking for is a scientific underpinning to any law that effects individual rights...We still have some left I think. The law is there so guys like you can't confiscate private property just because you feel like it.

grandpa Thats absolute BS..

The PLF has a vendetta against the pro wild fish people.. Just like the pro wild fish kill people.. Plain and simple this is done out of anger malice and spite. PLF is evil..

People who destroy salmon habitat that occurs on their property should have theit property taken away from them PERIOD.
When will people learn that they are personally responsible for their actions???? And we as a society are responsible for the actions of our citizens.. I don't wanna be responsible anymore for greedy jerks who clearcut their riverfront property and kill off wild fish. people who do so are scumbags IMHO.

Ok so I am angry about this issue everyone who loves there being wild fish should be angry too. PLF= permanent loss of fish

Rob..some advise:

Don't bother with a law degree....You will never make it as a lawyer.

Go to Costco and buy one of those commercial rolls of foil...There should be enough to wrap your whole body in atleast one layer..and you should designate a room at home and completely cover the walls , floor and ceiling with two layers of foil....make a big box out of lead and wrap that in foil....get inside the box and stay there. We'll send a messenger when the coast is clear.

Well, G, I gotta admit, that was pretty funny!

The U.S., and the states, of course, do have Constitutional guarantees against the government taking your property without due process of law, and while I find salmon and steelhead to be pretty darned important to all of us here in the PNW, I don't think that they rise to the level that "People who destroy salmon habitat that occurs on their property should have theit property taken away from them PERIOD."

Now if the law calls for specific fines for destroying fish habitat, and they can't pay, then by all means go after their property through the proper legal channels (i.e., due process) and get the fines paid.

PLF is not anti-fish, and they do not have a vendetta against anyone, even wild fish advocates.

They are, however, pro-money...pro-money to the point that it is more important than the environment or the animals that live in it, or the people who live off of or enjoy them.

Here's one way to look at them...

1. PLF hates wild fish, and the environmnent
2. PLF hates people who like wild fish and the environment
3. PLF sued the feds to have the fish de-listed so that they could destroy wild fish, the environment, and hurt the people who like wild fish and the environment.

I suppose you could see it that way, but I don't think that you'd be correct. I think it's more like this...

1. PLF's members make money damaging the environment
2. Environmental damage comes at a price, and the less allowed, the more expesive it gets.
3. The ESA is very restrictive, and any damage that comes under its umbrella is very expensive.
4. Making money in ways that damage the environment under the ESA umbrella is hard, and not as much money is being made.
5. Rather than violate the ESA and risk civil and criminal penalties to make money, use proper legal channels to remove the ESA restrictions.

I don't think that hate or love for the environment or environmentalists even comes into the picture...it's just money, and it's all money.

Anyone who doubts that we are very lucky to have groups like WT, NFS, etc., who are waging this battle on our behalf ought to sign up and send a few $$ to the PLF, not that they need it.

Here in the PNW, it's the age old saga of money versus fish. We (citizens and the government) always say how important the fish are, then try as hard as we can to make money without making them go extinct.

On the one extreme we have fish...the best thing for them is to all pack up and leave for a couple dozen years. I guess we all know that's not going to happen.

On the other extreme we have PLF and their ilk, to whom fish are just another obstacle to making money, like taxes and minimum wage hikes. The scary thing about this is that it could happen.

There is value in someone taking the opposite extreme as PLF so that the end result is somewhere in the middle where it probably ought to be.

Somewhere, though, there should be a line in the sand, with us on one side and PLF on the other, where there is no more negotiation, no concessions.

A line.

I think they've already crossed it, and we ought to be rallying to support anyone who is taking the fight to PLF.

Green, red, yellow, orange, blue...democrat, republican, independent...if you've never done anything I like...if I hate everything you've ever done...if I've never heard of you...if you want to help fight this battle, then welcome aboard, brother.

If you like wild fish, obviously you're screwed if PLF gets their way.

If you like hatchery fish, you're screwed, too. Either hatchery production will be stopped to accomodate the wild fish under the Alsea case, in which case there will be no fishing, or an environment for the wild fish to come back in, or hatchery production will carry on, the wild fish will go extinct, and we'll try to maintain fishable levels of fish with hatchery inbreeds who will, as they are doing all over with steelhead, continue to return less and less as we put more and more smolts in the rivers.

It's the "salmon without rivers" scenario that Lichatowich descrived in his book of the same name, which is biologically impossible.

If PLF gets their way, that's the end result.



Sorry for the rant, guess I got up on the wrong side of the bed today.

Fish on...

Todd

Well spoken Todd

You may very well be right about that, Aunty.

While the Boldt decision divided up the harvestable portion of the runs, and even included some verbiage there and in the subsequent cases to the case of protecting the runs and the habitat they depend on, this case attempts to do away with fish entirely.

Fish on...

Todd

I am not siding with PLF, so please don't start the attacks, or imply that I am….and you know who I am talking to

That funny Todd, I read that case completely through, and I didn't see where that was said, requested, or implied.

Can you post the part in the Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, (Hogan case) that says that? Maybe I misread it or something.

same here. I am pro-fish... just not pro-backroom deals.

Todd do you have any facts to back that statement? Or is that statement just your opinion?
Funny thing is the PLF case is afew years old and people are acting likes its something new.

Duro,

The trial itself is a few years old...but the implementation of its ruling was stayed during appeal...and the 9th Circuit just ruled on the appeal, affirming the trial court. So while the case is relatively old, the ruling will start to be implemented now.

CFM,

Nowhere in the case does it say that the intent is to do away with fish and fishing...that's not what the case was about. It was about removing ESA protection for endangered wild fish to make development and timber cutting more profitable.

If PLF gets their way, though, there are only a few possible outcomes.

First, any habitat issues we have now will assuredly get worse...habitat destruction is caused by all the members of the PLF...that's the point of the lawsuit, to be able to wreak havoc profitably.

Without habitat, there are no wild fish. With no wild fish, there are no long term succesful hatchery programs, or no hatchery programs at all. With no successful hatchery programs, there are no hatchery fish. With no hatchery fish, there is no fishing.

The fallacy of fish without healthy rivers has been proven over and over...it just doesn't work, for hatchery or wild fish.

So, to answer your questions, it is my opinion...but based on what I know about politics and biology, I don't really see another outcome that is more likely than the situation outlined above.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd

I think that you may want to refrase that statement
Oh really! If that was true, how do you explain the hatcheries on the Cowlitz? They been going at it for 40 years now, and they are one of the biggest hatchery in the state. The only thing that shows down production there is the lack of money from Tacoma. Those native were all gone many, many, years ago, and they still produce lots of hatchery fish for both the commercials and the sport fishermen. The Cowlitz hatchery can produce more fish then you can count, and all they need is the money to run those hatcheries.


Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,

The last few years, before any proposed reductions in hatchery plants, the winter run hatchery fish in the Cowlitz have been nosediving, haven't they?

Also, the Cowlitz, as noted before, is not very similar to any other situation in the State, so extrapolating stuff from the Cowlitz hatcheries to other watersheds doesn't really work.

Dont' forget the option to just not have hatcheries at all, if PLF gets their way. If the State of Oregon is serious about recovering wild coho, and can't use the ESA to help because of all the hatchery coho, might they stop planting coho to avoid the problem?

I don't know which way they would go, I just know that it would be bad for fish and fishing either way.

Fish on...

Todd

They been noise diving for two reasons only!

1) NMFS came in a couple of years ago and demanded a huge cut in hatchery production of winter run steelhead to protect a fish that doesn't even exist!
2) Because of NMFS listing, early winter steelhead mitigation has been shifted over the "late" timing run and added to the summer run production so that it wouldn't interfere with the fake late run that they are now trying to develop. If NMSF would have keeps its nose out, the Cowlitz winter runs would still be pretty damn good!

I can sure see why PLF took NMFS to court! Maybe we should be doing the same! The Cowlitz Hatcheries were doing just fine, until NMFS stepped in and screwed everything up with their so called "science".

It's nothing more then a joke, and the joke is on us!

CFM,

It is not NOAA Fisheries' (not NMFS anymore) job to protect hatchery programs...they're mandated with protecting wild fish through the ESA.

I don't mean to argue that the run of "wild" fish in the Cowlitz is bogus or not, I personally don't see how many wild fish could be left after the netting, incredibly intense sport fishing, dams, and all the other habitat destruction there.

You are, however, making my point about the two possible responses by ODFW...if there are wild fish to protect (like they say there are in the Cowlitz, whether there are or not), then one of the possibilities is to cut hatchery production to protect them, especially, as in Oregon, if the mere presence of the hatchery fish is why the wild fish are threatened with de-listing.

1. a. NOAA Fisheries says there are wild fish in the Cowlitz
b. There are wild coho on the Oregon Coast

2. a. NOAA Fisheries/Tacoma Power wants to protect the fish
b. ODFW wants to protect the wild fish

3. a. NOAA/TP cut hatchery production in the Cowlitz to protect the "wild" run.
b. ODFW cuts hatchery production of coho to protect the wild run.

ODFW has to cut the hatcheries to protect the wild fish, because if they don't, then the fish lose their ESA protection, and so does their habitat.

Or...they don't cut hatchery production, the habitat gets further destroyed by PLF's members, the wild fish go extinct, and the inbred hatchery fish have no river habitat to rear in or migrate back up in. They are facing both genetic inferiority, which implodes upon itself more and more with each generation of inbreeding, plus continually worsening habitat.

Again, the idea of "salmon without rivers" has proven to be an absolute disaster...it doesn't provide wild fish, hatchery fish for broodstock, or hatchery fish for harvest, in the long run.

The very thing you are battling on the Cowlitz will likely happen in Oregon with their coho. To protect wild fish, hatchery production may go down.

Fish on...

Todd

If you're trying to say that NMFS is now NOAA, I knew that! But somehow the word NMFS, pimps, and wimps all seem to fit the same shoe!

Hello!!!!

What in the devil to think they are doing now Todd???
I will use what you like to use, science…It is a fact! They are bogus! And when I say it's a fact, you know that I have already done my homework.



1. The courts say if wild fish and hatchery are the same stock, then there is no reason not to use both wild fish and hatchery fish in the Cowlitz for recovery! That means that "any winter stock" steelhead from the Cowlitz hatchery can be used in the upper Cowlitz for natural production and for fish passage "triggers" to put fish ladders over the dams! Now all wild fish people support that one!


2. Tacoma Power doesn't want to "protect the fish" they just want to create the restrictions, so they don't have to pay to produce the hatchery fish! You know that Todd!


("3. a. NOAA/TP cut hatchery production in the Cowlitz to protect the "wild" run.")

3 That's all Bull $hit and you know it! See answer # above 2

"ODFW has to cut the hatcheries to protect the wild fish, because if they don't, then the fish lose their ESA protection, and so does their habitat."

If those fish are all from the same stock that's all BS too! But a bunch of environmental people may not be needed, and be looking for a new job soon
You're dead wrong Todd!
There is no reason why wild fish and hatchery fish can not co-exist in this day and age! You know it, I know, and maybe someday PIMPS, I mean NMSF, no, I mean NOAA will know it too. It takes a balance between both man and fish, and that is what we are now seeing.

PS... Todd, I have never ever seen you post so much about nothing! It couldn't be some kind of distracter now ...could it

Could this be "damage control" ...?

Did I take the bait?

Not to worry, I have lots more!


Cowlitzfisherman

If your actions have consequences that cause the destruction of something else you by deffinition hate the thing you destroy..
Love money made from destropying habitat is the same as hating salmon..

From the PLF site, dated 1996.

A few board members should consider where the line is drawn between advocate, zealot and whaco over the edge extremist. .

A persons property rights end well before thoes rights destroy public resources including fish. No one should have the right to destroy salmon habitat on their private property.. The exsistence of wild fish is more important than individual property rights!

Also note that it is impossible for a single individual to own any surface water.. All streams are owned by the states.. The little creek in your back yard does not belong to you even if the ground under it does and you have no right to destroy it..

Hairlip,

I assume you also checked to see who their members are?

Timber Companies
Cattle Companies
Land Developers
Property Managers
Construction Companies
Management Consulting Firms
The attorneys for all of the above

Friend of fish and the environment all...I'm sure.

I'm also sure that they have the good of fishermen, fishing, and fish in mind, as all cattle, timber, and construction companies do.

And I'm sure that they are champions of the environment, clean air and water, too.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd

You just listed 2/3 of the employers in the Washington state.

So is every one that works for them also against wild fish recovery?

Cowlitzfisherman

There are so many excesses today in the name of the ESA and many environmental causes. So much extremism and one sided restrictions that really are not necessary I don't blame these people for lashing out. Notice how many lawyers are in that group?

Ever seen a mudhole with newly planted stumps and artificial "habitat" required of the developers? No fish ever lived there and never will but we MUST restore the habitat. Sometimes it is not only silly but unfairly punitive. Don't blame these people for wanting atleast some relief. They are not all evil. So many of the most extreme groups are chock full of hypocrits. Property has gotten so expensive as a result of some of these extreme "cause related" restrictions that only the rich can enjoy the natural environment everyone is so proud of protecting. Sorry to say it but blame the lawyers.

CFM,

As I said above...

Not being friends of the environment, or fish, or fishing, or fishermen, doesn make PLF against wild fish recovery, or the environment, or against fish or fishermen.

It means that for them, what they are doing has nothing to do with fish or the environment, it just has to do with money.

For us, it does involve the environment and fish, and fishing.

My entire first post on this thread is about exactly that...I specifically pointed out that they are not against the environment...they are for money, and the environment doesn't even come into their mind.

And just to make it clear, if I don't like PLF or what they do, that does not make me anti-jobs, or pro-unemployment, or pro-poverty.

It means that I don't like what PLF does, and that's it.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd, remarks like yours are your opinion. I simply went to the site to see for myself what they were about. I found out that there's more to the member list than laywers and developers. It's the last hope for actual people too. When the gov. takes your land, or places a burden on you that drives you out of business, or crippels an industry, this group will litigate for them.

I'm not siding with anyone, but the PLF, like WSC, has a right to exist. They have a right to equal representation when it comes to making policies that will affect them. Just like WSC.

As much as i'd like to join the wild steelhead effort, reading through that site put a real face on all the displaced people I so easily dismissed before. IMO, there's more both sides could do towards cooperation.

I dont fish for steelhead much, once a year at best. So most here have more of an impact on them than I do. I'm trying to not be one sided, but comments iv'e heard here like "catch n kill" vs "catch and release", or"pro-money", show me there is a lack of understanding on behalf of those who say them. How about "catch and consume", and "pro-individual rights". I have lots more questions than answers, but I can recognise a one-sided opinion when I read one.

I'm still in the infancy of my fisheries education, and I know this has been discussed here before, but why is a hatchery fish that comes back to spawn naturally, different from a wild fish that does the same? Ive heard the "stupid fish" theory, but if someone could explain or direct me to that thread I would be gratefull. Look at it this way, if i'm reading that I cant post anymore conspirascy comments......


Thanks, Hairlip

Hairlip,

Here on this BB, and on IFish.net, there have been recent posts entitled "Broodstock Programs", or something like that. They both have lots of information on studies about hatchery fish spawning in the wild. Some of the studies are on steelhead, some on silvers.

Post on PP

The post on IFish.net has more people and conversation, but I just went there and the site is closed and won't reopen until tomorrow morning. The post is called "Broodstock Programs".

Both are mainly about steelhead broodstock programs, but some of the studies and conversations are applicable to salmon, too, spawning in the wild.

Fish on...

Todd

nwmallard:
“I've got to share a dirty secret with you. The WDFW did not clip any of the hatchery fish for several years”

Here’s the deal. As judge Hogan said and the NMFS (NOAA) admitted in the federal register there is a very good chance that there are NO “wild” salmon or steelhead. That is because hatchery fish have been mingling with wild stocks for years and years. We need to get past this worship of a “wild” fish which allows the various parties to play us against each other. We should use the word “native” which describes the 5 salmon, the rainbow trout (including steelhead) and a couple of Cutthroats that were here when Lewis and Clark came out.

Rob Allen:
“they are irresponsible people who don't deserve to own land. PERIOD!!!!!”

Rob, Rob, Rob, Do you think that there are no fishermen in that whole bunch? I doubt that any of them want their streams and other waters despoiled. I’d guess that they would negotiate with the sportsmen if they considered the consequences. By the way you don’t get to negotiate for me. We’ll call you if there’s an impasse and you can make them an offer they can’t refuse.

Federal Register: August 18, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 159)]
Oncorhynchus mykiss exhibit one of the most complex suites of life
history traits of any salmonid species. Oncorhynchus mykiss may exhibit anadromy (meaning they migrate as juveniles from fresh water to the ocean, and then return to spawn in fresh water) or freshwater residency (meaning they reside their entire life in fresh water). Resident forms are usually referred to as ``rainbow'' or ``redband'' trout, while anadromous life forms are termed ``steelhead.'' Few detailed studies have been conducted regarding the relationship between resident and anadromous O. mykiss and as a result, the relationship between these two life forms is poorly understood. Recently the scientific name for the biological species that includes both steelhead and rainbow trout was changed from Salmo gairdneri to O. mykiss. This change reflects the premise that all trouts from western North America share a common lineage with Pacific salmon.


Judge Hogan Hits A Homer: Oregon Coastal Coho Listing Is Unlawful

On September 10, 2001, United States District Judge Michael R. Hogan issued a long-awaited ruling in a case brought by the Alsea Valley Alliance challenging the 1998 Endangered Species Act listing of Oregon coastal coho salmon. There are, of course, no endangered salmon species; all the listings are premised upon expansive language in section 3(16) of the Act permitting listings of "any distinct population segment of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature..................


..................As for the second option, Judge Hogan warned NMFS that it "does not appear to be possible". Among other things, Judge Hogan advised that the hatchery and natural runs "share the same rivers, habitat and seasonal runs" and most of the so-called "natural" fish are in fact the offspring of hatchery fish. Indeed, Judge Hogan noted that "NMFS considers progeny of hatchery fish that are born in the wild as "naturally spawned" coho that deserve listing protection................

here is a wake up call for some of you...

every drop of water west of the cascade mountains is or directly effects critical salmon habitat. Before human development wetlands or mudholes as some people call them were thr reason for prolific coho salmon runs.. clean gravel and cool water is not all not takes to have good runs of salmon.. rearing habitat is absolutely vital and wetlands are the best form of that habitat..

you cannot say one thing and then do something else.. if you destroy salmon habitat you by deffinition do not want salmon to recover. if you claim that you can then you are a liar and have no grasp of reality.

when the unintended consequences of your action have a negative affect yet you continue with that action thoes unintended consequences become what you desire..

therefore it is the desire of logging companies to destroy salmon runs.. if they desired not to destroy salmon runs they wouldn't destroy salmon habitat..

Yes if someone works for a company that destroys salmon habitat it means they are against salmon recovery!!!!

In my opinion it matters more what the law says than who is litigating to force its true and fair application.

In this case the envromentalists have pushed the limits of interpretation of the ESA beyond reasonableness and their misuse of that act is being challenged.

The ball is bouncing in the other direction.

Pacific Legal Foundation has recently established an "Endangered Species Act Program" designed to put an end to the regulatory abuses due to the misapplication of this law.

*****

Protecting Humanity from the Endangered Species Act

Contact: M. Reed Hopper
Phone: (916) 362-2833

The Endangered Species Act - motivated by good intentions and inspired by high-minded visions of responsible environmentalism - has proven in practice to be a bad law. As now structured, it cheapens humanity and produces unconscionable results that defy common sense.

Most people would agree, including Pacific Legal Foundation, that saving significant species and protecting the environment are important public policy issues. However, the top responsibilities of government are to protect human life and preserve individual freedom. Those values must never be jeopardized or otherwise denigrated or subordinated to animals, plants or insects. Yet throughout America, peoples’ lives and their livelihoods are jeopardized by the federal bureaucracy’s inflexible regulations and enforcement actions under a harsh law that needs to be questioned - and challenged - on ethical/moral grounds, on constitutional grounds and on common sense grounds.

PLF has established a special program that systematically puts the Endangered Species Act on trial. The program has two key components: Litigation and Public Education .


Litigation

Attacking "Junk Science" - Before enacting laws and regulations, legislators and regulators must ask whether the science behind the measure justifies the often enormous social and economic costs involved. Unfortunately, environmental policy is often based on politically motivated pressure from environmental activists and federal agencies trying to justify their budgets. The Endangered Species Act is no exception, and PLF is fighting in court to expose the gross misinformation regulators rely on to unfairly restrict the use of private property.

Limiting Federal Authority - The U.S. Constitution’s limits on federal governmental power have not been respected by the Congress. And that abuse has been encouraged by a long line of court decisions that have given the widest possible interpretation to the Constitution’s Commerce Clause which allows Congress to "regulate commerce...among the several states." As a result, Congress has authorized intrusive regulations that control our daily lives, cradle to grave, in areas only remotely associated with interstate commerce. Overzealous enforcement of the Endangered Species Act is a prime example, and PLF is fighting in court challenging federal authority to regulate purely local species that have no connection to "interstate commerce."

Demanding Accountability - In the process of designating critical habitat for species listed under the Endangered Species Act, regulators are required to consider the potential economic impacts of their actions. All too often this critically important analysis is given little or no real consideration. Accordingly, PLF is challenging critical habitat designations around the country bringing into question whether the government truly has considered the real economic impact of their actions.


Public Education

Much of the misinformation and half-truths we receive each day on environmental issues come from a mainstream media that is hopelessly biased in favor of big government regulation and against private property rights and free enterprise. To augment its legal challenges against the Endangered Species Act, PLF is conducting an aggressive public awareness campaign through targeted media relations and public education.

*****

I personally believe that the wild runs deserve protection whether they are or are not federally listed. I also believe that this can be done, although it might be done in a manner lacking the drama and fanfare commensurate with protecting them within the media spectacle of the current ESA status.

Boogles the mind to think anyone could swallow as big a stinking turd as that.

Rob Allen,

What hypocracy. Lets take away property rights so that you can sink a piece of steel into a threatened species, torture and release it and then feel great about yourself because you didn't kill it immediately, although the fish now is in a weakened condition and may well die prematurely. Is freedom of speech next?

Slug prove it there is no evidence to support your claim that catch and release causes premature death of fish..

Plunker what you fail to mention is that thoes enviromentalists have been completely ignored by all government agencies for decades where endangered fish are concerned. This is nothing more than thoes who lost a little power ovr the last 15 years grabbing that power back to they cam make wild fish extinct.. This isn't about poor landowners getting theri rights taken away it;s about big business wanting to destroy public resources.. PERIOD who will lose in the end??? Me you and wild salmon.. Thats a fact.

Plunker are you a member of

WILDCAT STEELHEAD CLUB?

WILDCAT STEELHEAD CLUB?

Aren't they affilliated with the Skagit Watershed Council and Skagit Fisheries Enhancement Group who along with some help from the Fidalgo Fly Fishers cooperate to seed the Skagit tributaries through nutrient enhancement projects ?

Why would you ask?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Why are wild fish made of meat you ask? If they were made of jello they would dissolve. Sheesh.

Wildcat Steelhead Club has a seat on Skagit Watershed Council and Steelhead and Cutthroat Policy Advisory Committee. But the Wildcat Steelhead Club has not been represented at both committees for a long time!

Plunked (Jim M.) the door is open jump in! All the knowledge you have on fishing your just the person the groups are looking for. That’s right you don’t have the time. All you do is write stuff on BB! You only live 3 miles away from SWC meeting!

And Wildcat Steelhead Club is NOT doing the Carcass Distribution on the Skagit System! The Fidalgo Fly Fishers is the group doing it! I’m the contact person on this project. Wildcat Steelhead Club couldn’t get the help to do this project, we have been help for three years now (ask Bill R.) No one from Wildcat Steelhead Club offered any help this year!

there is no evidence to support your claim that catch and release causes premature death of fish..


Rob , as usual , you are just plain wrong.....

AND THAT'S A FACT!!! PERIOD!!!

Rob Allen,

You are absolutely wrong! This is about small landowners losing their property rights. I have had personal experience and no one would call me a slash and burn type of person.

grandpa2.. please prove it..

Slug.. Todd was kind enough to tell us exactly who the pacific legal foundation has represented.. none of which were small land owners.. and if having your property rights taken from you means that it keeps you from destroying public resources such as wild salmon habitat then it's a very good thing...
I for one am sick of people complaining about the damage they can no longer cause. I don't care what rights landowners lose it's time to save the fish...

Rob..my previous post was supposed to be a joke to show you how you sound sometimes....Very absolute in your opinions...for example:

"I don't care what rights landowners lose it's time to save the fish..."

That comment is an example of why groups like the PLF exist. They exist to stop extreme regulations that, in their opinion, go way beyond the intent of laws designed to protect our environment. The fact is that many knee-jerk decisions have been made in the name of environmentalism that cannot be supported by science. Alot of people don't buy the idea that if you are a business you are a pig and against fish. As a small example, clearcutting makes me sick but I am not against all logging and I am not against all logging roads...I don't want to pound spikes into trees to prevent logging and I won't be sitting in a tree to save an owl anytime soon. I am for saving fish with sound logical science .

Grandpa and nothing is happening to stop the extreme idiocy of ladowners who think that anything they do on their property is ok.
Salmon and stelhead in the state of Washington have been and are still in long term decline and NOTHING is being done about it.. There is a lot of great talk about reforming this and habitat restoration in tiny pieces here and there but basically nothing is being done to save fish.. there are some things that should never be done in salmon habitat no matter who owns the land.. They say to hell with salmon so i say to hell with them...