PACIFIC LEGAL
FOUNDATION REELS IN WIN OVER FISHY ENVIRONMENTAL EDICTS
News Release - Oregon - 9/14/01 -Federal bureaucrats were wrong to
list certain "wild" coho Oregon salmon as
"threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, when the
bureaucrats didn't give the same protected status to other salmon that
are similar in every way except that they were spawned in hatcheries.
So ruled a federal judge this week, in the PLF case of Alsea Valley
Alliance v. Daley. As the court put it, the regulators had
created "the unusual circumstance of two genetically identical
coho salmon swimming side-by-side in the same stream, but only one
receives ESA protection while the other does not."
PLF's purpose in the litigation: To focus on the arbitrary and
illogical ways that the Endangered Species Act is often implemented.
One result of PLF's win - one hopes - might be more momentum for
reforming the ESA, a poorly crafted law that gives bureaucrats too
much discretion to interfere with property rights and trample on
people's livelihoods.
The deceptive games that regulators play were highlighted in the case.
As PLF attorney Russ Brooks noted: "If the thousands of
hatchery-spawned coho had been counted originally, their significant
numbers would have called into question the need for listing
["wild"] Oregon coho as a 'threatened species' in the first
place."
PLF argued that regulators had relied on "politicized" or
"junk science" to list the "wild" coho salmon.
Oregon officials, under the direction of federal bureaucrats, had
systematically slaughtered thousands of hatchery-spawned salmon and
millions of their eggs in the Alsea River basin between 1997 and 1999,
claiming they were a threat to the genetic purity of so-called
"wild" salmon - even though the fish were genetically alike.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
any copyrighted work in this message is distributed
under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]
|