Judge Rules that Federal Government's Salmon Plan is Illegal...Again

Washington Hunter

Well-known member
Joined
May 8, 2002
Messages
4,121
Location
Rochester, Washington
Court decision on salmon: Northwest way of life, jobs, and people win today
Thursday, May 26, 2005

By: Amy Souers Kober

Judge Rules that Federal Government's Salmon Plan is Illegal...Again

May 26, 2005

Contact: Michael Garrity, Amy Souers Kober: 206-213-0330

For the Judge's opinion, click here (PDF)
To learn more about the Snake River, visit www.americanrivers.org/snake
Portland, OR -- Today, Federal Court Judge James Redden ruled that the federal salmon plan for the Columbia and Snake rivers is legally flawed in four different respects. First, Judge Redden took issue with the federal agencies' assertions that the dams were part of the immutable landscape.

Second, he states that NOAA's approach in this biological opinion "stands in sharp contrast to...prior biological opinions" and is "insufficiently comprehensive to 'insure'" the protection of salmon. Third, NOAA did not properly analyze critical habitat for salmon. And fourth, "NOAA's jeopardy analysis is contrary to the law because it does not address the prospects for recovery of the listed species."

"Today's decision is a victory for everyone living in Oregon, Washington and Idaho," said Todd True, Earthjustice's lead attorney on the case. "Both sides had their day in court and the Judge ruled that the federal government has shirked its responsibilities to this region and cannot legally manipulate the Columbia and Snake rivers in ways that will drive our salmon to extinction."

This year's low return of spring chinook has been devastating for Northwest people and communities. Tribal, sport and commercial fisheries have been shut down or drastically curtailed. In many places, fishing was closed almost as soon as it opened. Boats are in dock, guides are idle and millions of dollars destined for river communities now and in coming months won't be realized this year. While federal officials have repeatedly stated that their plan is "on track," this year's returns indicate just the opposite.

"The judge affirmed today what the low returns of spring chinook have been telling us all for weeks - this plan does not work and it is hurting the tens of thousands of people we employ in the Northwest," said Liz Hamilton, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association. "Our businesses and region have suffered long enough. It is time for real salmon recovery - recovery that increases the number of jobs, the strength of our communities and meets our responsibilities to restore a balance to the Northwest."

Today's decision marks the federal government's second unsuccessful attempt at crafting a viable salmon plan. In May of 2003, Judge Redden ruled that an earlier plan also was illegal and ordered it replaced within the year.
In response the federal government issued a new plan in late 2004. Now that the judge has ruled the 2004 plan illegal, he will be considering a request from plaintiffs to establish specific protections for salmon migrating through the Columbia and Snake rivers this summer.

"What's at stake here is nothing less than the Northwest way of life: abundant salmon, stable jobs and reliable energy," said Jan Hasselman, National Wildlife Federation. "Our vision is for an economically and ecologically recovered Columbia basin. However, this administration's vision for the Pacific Northwest is to spend $6 billion managing the path of salmon towards extinction."

Recent studies have shown that restoring healthy runs of wild salmon would greatly benefit the regional economy. With a restored salmon fishery, Idaho alone would see almost half a billion in economic benefit from sportfishing.

Similarly restored fisheries in Washington and Oregon would raise the total to almost six billion dollars in economic benefit to the region. In addition, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations estimates that restoration of Columbia and Snake river salmon, would net the region an additional $500 million per year in commercial fishing revenue and as many as 25,000 new family wage jobs.

"The federal government has allowed the four lower Snake River dams to threaten our jobs and way of life for far too long," said Glen Spain, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. "Our Northwest leaders have the power to put this region on the right path, a path that leads to stable jobs, good fishing, abundant salmon and places in the outdoors for our families to enjoy. Anything short of that only leads to extinction for salmon and the people that depend upon them for jobs."

Scientists have told us that the Columbia and Snake river hydroelectric dams are by far the leading killers of salmon and steelhead. NOAA Fisheries' own documents state that the dams are allowed to kill as many as 86 percent of out-migrating juvenile salmon. Yet the federal government continues to disregard the value of these fish and the health of the rivers to people of the Northwest by not even considering the removal of the four obsolete dams on the lower Snake River - which scientists deem the best and surest way to salmon and steelhead recovery.

"We can have both clean, affordable energy and abundant, wild salmon," said Sara Patton, NW Energy Coalition. "All that stand in the way are four dams out of the more than 400 dams in the Columbia-Snake system. These four out-dated dams produce relatively little electricity, and the power they do produce can be easily replaced with cheap energy efficiency and cost-competitive renewable energy facilities that, in turn, will create hundreds of permanent, local family-wage jobs and new farm income."

"This decision affirms the fact that all salmon recovery options need to be on the table, including removing the four lower Snake River dams, which are draining our region's resources," said Michael Garrity, American Rivers. "We can replace the benefits provided by these four dams, and in doing so we can create jobs, revitalize local economies, create great fishing and recreational opportunities and preserve our Northwest way of life."

"The Bush administration and the federal agencies have failed the people, communities, salmon and salmon-dependent businesses of the Northwest for far too long," said Kathleen Casey, Sierra Club. "The Judge has stopped the charade of salmon recovery and now insisted that a real plan that accomplishes real recovery be put into place. The people and communities of the Northwest know that salmon and steelhead are part of our quality of life, support sustainable businesses and are important for our families and our future."

"It's a shame when we have to rely on the courts to affirm and uphold some of nature's basic truths, but thankfully today Judge Redden has done that," said Jeff Curtis, Trout Unlimited. "The take-home message here should be that if we want more fish in the river, we need to provide more of a river for fish."
 
"if we want more fish in the river, we need to provide more of a river for fish." That guy is a regular genius, eh.

If they take down the damns, then the feds. will have to pay everyone unemployment, something like that, right?

So, who is going to solve this issue? What's next, anybody know?
 
Washington Hunter said:
I think we need a new president in office before there will be any hope of saving the salmon. Bush just doesn't care.

Do you think it has something to do with the Texan mentality? You know farm raising everything to fish for and to "hunt" inside of fences? I bet Bush thinks we should just raise salmon in hatcheries and screw the wild runs.
 
No, I wouldn't say that. The majority of Texans are not dumbasses like Bush. Bush wouldn't care about the salmon even if he was from the Northwest.

I do agree that Bush probably feels that hatchery raised salmon are just as good as wild salmon.
 
Bush didn't build the dams. He probably thinks you should live with what you sow, reap what you harvest. Isn't that what's in the bible. Maybe that's it.
 
No, he didn't build them, but he sure could have some influence in getting them breached to save an endangered species. In fact, isn't he in some way required by law to do so? :confused: All the studies have been completed and the scientists have said the dams need to be breached if we want to save the salmon. For some reason that is not happening. Bush is in charge so I say it's his fault.
 
Funny thing is, Bush's ranch in Texas runs on solar power. Maybe if a few of the whiney apple pickers converted to solar, dam breaching could move forward?

So W. H. are you guarenteeing that breaching the 4 dams will save the salmon? T. U. wont even make that claim.
 
I don't think you can really say it's GWB's fault.......but if he were in favor of breaching the dams he likely would have some influence in the decision to breach them. It's all the farmers over in the Pallouse that think they need the dams for transporting their grain that influence their Senators and Congressmen for keeping the dams. Until the grain can be trucked or transported by rail cheaper than by barging it, the farmers are going to want to have the dams.
 
No, I'm not guaranteeing anything, but then I'm not one of the scientists who did the studies, either. I don't think anybody would say it's a guarantee. But after spending billions of dollars on studying the problem, that is the best solution they have come up with. There are virtually no negative consequences, so why not try it?
 
I initially thought it would be crazy to breach the dams. My first reaction was - why spend all the money to build dams (that provide power and help create navigatable water for large ships) and then go and breach them. It seems like such a waste of money at first. But after reading some studies it sure seems like breaching the dams is the best solution.

The dams don't provide much power; the only real purpose is for shipping. It would be a shame to see salmon runs go extinct because of shipping costs were a little higher to transport grain by rail or truck.

Breaching the dams won't gaurantee the runs survive but it will eliminate one variable. If the runs keep declining after the dams are gone, then more attention can be given to more of the problems facing the salmon.
 
Washington Hunter said:
Curly, From what I've read on the subject, transporting grain on the river is only cheaper because it is subsidized by the government.

I hate the idea of government subsidized things. Sounds like socialism to me.
 
"There are virtually no negative consequences, so why not try it?"

So does this mean you are voluntering to be one of the 600,000 households to disconnect your power? Have you and bro been sharing the bottle today? You guys are starting to remind me of Jose. You guys are short on facts in this thread to the point of being comical. Didn't both of you vote for Bush? Did you pay attention to any of his campaign promises in 2000? One was reguarding this issue. It's a complex issue and will only be resolved through open honest debate of ALL the parties concerns. It's easy for you (or a bunch of "scientist") that have zero capital invested in what's there now to say pull the plug. What are you two guys personally willing to contribute to move things forward? Hot air don't count for much BTW.
 
BigHornRam said:
Have you and bro been sharing the bottle today? You guys are starting to remind me of Jose.

BHR, that really hurts. I can't believe we could remind you of Jose. :(

This is just about the only issue I can agree with my brother on. I usually disagree with him on everything political.

It's my understanding that those Snake River dams don't generate that much power. Have I been fed misinformation?

Yes, I voted for Bush.........what other choice did we have? Kerry is a liberal and a joke so I couldn't vote for him. Bush is too liberal in my opinion also. From what I've read about the Snake River dams, I think Bush is wrong about the dam issue.

Maybe you can point me to some studies that will prove that the dams should stay? I'd like to read them.

Edit: oops.....I just realized you said the 2000 campaign. Well, I did vote for Bush then also, but like this last election there was not a better choice. I couldn't imagine having Al Gore as President. Just because you vote for someone doesn't mean you have to agree with everything they do, does it?
 
BHR, you know what.........I just realized I've agreed with WH on two issues today. That must be a record. I'm working from home today because the pesticide guy just sprayed the house for ants; maybe I've been affected by the ant spray:eek: . I'll have to get some fresh air and see if I still agree with him later.:D
 
Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,236
Messages
1,951,956
Members
35,094
Latest member
JRP325
Back
Top