The Oregonian's Bill Monroe!

Go Back   www.ifish.net > Ifish Fishing and Hunting > Ifish Community

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-25-2004, 04:44 PM   #1
Ivana Fishalot
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Clackamas, OR
Posts: 448
Default No Federal Protection for Coho?

From The Oregonian today:

The state regulates several factors, but the Endangered Species Act will not apply

02/25/04

JOE ROJAS-BURKE

A federal appeals court Tuesday prohibited authorities from protecting Oregon coast coho under the Endangered Species Act, reinstating a 2001 order by U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan.


Conservation groups had sought to overturn Hogan's decision, which said the government erred by considering only wild spawned coho and ignoring the abundant supply of hatchery-born coho when it decided to list the fish for protection. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said it lacked jurisdiction to get involved.

the result: Oregon coast coho now appear to be in an endangered species limbo. The species is still listed as threatened, the appeals court stipulated. But the court then denied enforcement of the federal law unless a federal agency now studying the listings finds that the listings are legally justified.

"The immediate effect is Oregon coast coho will not be protected under the Endangered Species Act," said Bob Lohn, northwest regional director for the National Marine Fisheries Service, the federal agency responsible for protecting threatened and endangered sea life and studying the listings. Government agencies will not be required to seek permission from the service before taking actions that could harm coho, such as approving an expanded fishery.

But Lohn said coho will continue to be protected under Oregon's fishing, land-use and water laws and under the provisions of Oregon's plan for salmon and watershed restoration. Ocean fishing will be regulated by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council.

"As a practical matter, I expect the fish to continue to receive good protection from the state of Oregon," Lohn said.

Under orders from Judge Hogan, the service has been reviewing its findings on coho and the role that hatchery fish play in sustaining the population. Lohn said the order, reinstated Tuesday, does not dictate the status of coho; it required the service to make that determine after taking into consideration hatchery fish.

Lohn said the agency expects to propose the updated determination by early summer, after evaluating the strengths and durability of habitat restoration work by the state of Oregon. Oregon officials have been working on a plan for assuming responsibility for the recovery of coho.

Lawyers who brought the original case against the listing called the appeals court decision a significant victory for Oregonians' property rights.

"It means that the good citizens of the state of Oregon no longer have to suffer under needless restrictive land-use regulations imposed as a result of that listing," said Russell Brooks, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation in Seattle, a group that has represented home builders, farmers and ranchers, and other property owners.

Emboldened by the dismissal of environmentalists' case, Brooks said his group plans this week to ask a federal court to throw out endangered and threatened listings of steelhead stocks in the Columbia and Willamette rivers. The group has already challenged the listings of coho and steelhead in California, and chinook salmon in Puget Sound, all based on the exclusion of fish artificially produced by hatcheries.

Joe Rojas-Burke: 503-412-7073; joerojas@news.oregonian.com Coho: Group plans to challenge other species' protection C1 approving an expanded fishery.

[ 02-25-2004, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]
Ivana Fishalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2004, 04:56 PM   #2
BrianMaguire
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,463
Default Re: No Federal Protection for Coho?

Quote:
Originally posted by Ivana Fishalot:

Lawyers who brought the original case against the listing called the appeals court decision a significant victory for Oregonians' property rights.

"It means that the good citizens of the state of Oregon no longer have to suffer under needless restrictive land-use regulations imposed as a result of that listing," said Russell Brooks, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation in Seattle, a group that has represented home builders, farmers and ranchers, and other property owners.

Emboldened by the dismissal of environmentalists' case, Brooks said his group plans this week to ask a federal court to throw out endangered and threatened listings of steelhead stocks in the Columbia and Willamette rivers. The group has already challenged the listings of coho and steelhead in California, and chinook salmon in Puget Sound, all based on the exclusion of fish artificially produced by hatcheries.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">&gt;&gt;.Pacific Legal Foundation in Seattle, a group that has represented home builders, farmers and ranchers, and other property owners.

Where have I heard this before? Nice guys aye who needs fish and habitat. Environmental laws are just "needless restrictive land-use regulations". If they are useless then we should fire everyone on the ODFW staff. Think of the money we could save enforcing needless laws.

[ 02-25-2004, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: BrianMaguire ]
__________________
"The significant problems we face today cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." Albert Einstein
BrianMaguire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2004, 05:21 PM   #3
Ty
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Alaska! from Oregon, college in Montana
Posts: 4,224
Default Re: No Federal Protection for Coho?

NW Power Planning Council Press Release:
http://www.nwppc.org/library/2001/rulingoncoho.htm

Quote:
What the court decision did not hold: (1) The court did not tell NMFS that it cannot list the Oregon coast coho as threatened, only that NMFS wrongfully failed to consider the ESU as a whole when making its listing determination. (2) The court did not hold that there is no difference between a hatchery produced fish and a naturally spawning fish, only that when NMFS made the distinctions between the two when listing at a level or division below the ESU level, this took the listing decision to a level not allowed by the ESA. (3) And, the court did not hold that NMFS was correct or incorrect to establish an ESU policy that linked hatchery spawners and natural spawners in the same ESU, or that NMFS was correct or incorrect to include the hatchery stocks in this specific ESU -- the determination as to what went into the Oregon coast coho ESU was taken as a given, and the issue decided was whether NMFS properly considered that ESU as a whole in making the listing decision.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">
Ty is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Cast to



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:07 PM.

Terms of Service
Page generated in 0.05991 seconds with 10 queries