Developers, Farmers Want Salmon Protections Stripped Away
By Tom Chandler on Apr 19, 2007 in Environment, News
There’s nothing like waking up to an April snowstorm — and reading that a group of developers, farmers, and “property rights” activists want all salmon protections stripped from the law:
EUGENE, Ore. - Property rights advocates, farm groups and development interests asked a federal judge Wednesday to lift Endangered Species Act protections from all threatened and endangered salmon across the West, arguing that the government failed to count fish spawned in hatcheries.
Gosh, who could be behind such a blatant water grab lawsuit?
Pacific Legal Foundation, a property rights public interest law firm based in Sacramento, Calif., brought the lawsuit on behalf of the Building Industry Association of Washington, the Coalition for Idaho Water, farm bureaus in Idaho and Washington, the California State Grange and others.
The central issue revolves around the counting of hatchery and “wild” fish in the same group, and you’ll see the phrase “best available science” bandied about in this article.
Of course, one man’s “best available science” is another’s barrier to unfettered water. I’m holding my breath.
Read the entire article at: Lawsuit challenges salmon protections - The Olympian
Technorati Tags: salmon, esa, endangered species act, salmon protections
Kevin | Apr 19, 2007 | Reply
The Pacific Legal guys are pretty extreme in their views on property and the environment. Damien Schiff is one of the sharpest minds I have worked with, but these are also the guys who sued to get the bald eagle de-listed, as if such a thing should even be possible. Definitely not cool. We should be very concerned about this suit, as this group is extremely cunning and relentless in their methods.
Tom Chandler | Apr 19, 2007 | Reply
I assume they’re pretty well funded too. Their backers have a lot to gain.
Greg | Apr 19, 2007 | Reply
My take on this is that the ESA represents a big roadblock to the entities that want to return to the all out freedom to pollute the streams. In the future with more growth in population some streams are going to be used to supply water to communities and if these
b—–ds are allowed to pollute the streams future taxpayers will end up having to bear the costs of cleaning up the water so they can use it. So IMO this is not just about fish and hatchery vs. wild and definitions of such, it’s about the profits to be made by unrestricted poisoning of the streams.
Tom Chandler | Apr 19, 2007 | Reply
I’m sure the suing groups would love a return to the “good old days” when unfettered growth, bluegrass lawns in the desert and water-intensive crops in arid areas were the norm.
It ain’t gonna happen.