Southeast Trolling closed

[Patsfan54]

Also, there are our representatives, the mere fact that fish and game management is supposed to be accomplished in an entirely different way and not by court ruling should go a long way toward getting something done. It should rankle a lot of Alaskans, states rights people across the United states and our representatives that an incursion into wildlife management was done this way.

Those are just off the top of my head, and I will need to look into it further. There are a lot of things to think about and, a few things that can and should be done. We have won against federal judges before so it is incorrect and fruitless to think nothing can be done and just throw our hands up in the air. Just complaining here does nothing. The very most we can hope to do is arouse a few people and hope action will be taken. May here will do nothing.

Mark,

As surprising as it is some people here believe that states have little or no rights especially when it comes to fish and game management when the Feds or the courts decide something they agree with, they believe that State and Federal Legislatures make laws only so the Judiciary can wholly disregard them, and that as long as their political viewpoint is the only viewpoint allowed then the system works for everyone. Sure 'a' court ruled, but just because 'a' court rules doesn't not put an end to the matter. As you pointed out, the courts do not have authority to make legislation. For some people here silencing opposing views is the goal, and pretending that 'a' judges decision that he's "pretty sure" about is worth the price of admission.

And you're absolutely correct, many here will do nothing more than gripe. But if their griping spurs someone into taking some of the action you've talked about then as small as that contribution is, it's something.

 

[iofthetaiga]

You know also that, there are appeals courts for court rulings, I will start there.

Yup, the case is being appealed.

There is also strength in numbers and my guess is, there is already someone working on this, a commercial fisherman's association probably. I will check into that.

The Alaska Trollers Association is a defendant in the case.

 

[R.E.B. LA]

Here are links to news articles about the closure in the Kenai Peninsula Clarion, Alaska News Source, and KTOO/KCAW out of Sitka. The first article may not open if you don't have a subscription. Alaska government is trying to get a "stay" order.

Juneau, state lawmakers join effort against salmon lawsuit | Peninsula Clarion

Washington case could halt some Southeast fisheries

www.peninsulaclarion.com

Southeast Alaska chinook salmon fishery closed by Seattle court

The Seattle Federal Court ruled in favor of the Wild Fish Conservancy, closing king salmon fisheries in southeast Alaska to bolster orca populations.

www.alaskasnewssource.com

Southeast Alaska king salmon fishery is in limbo after orca lawsuit rulings and appeals

A federal judge in Washington state issued a ruling this week that threatens to shut down trolling for king salmon in Southeast Alaska this summer.

www.ktoo.org

State asks for stay of order that forces the closure of Southeast Alaska king salmon fishery

The court ruled that the summer and winter Southeast Alaska king salmon fisheries were operating in violation of the Endangered Species Act.

www.ktoo.org

 

[NRick]

I'm pretty sure the judge's decision was grounded in law, and based on the testimony and evidence presented by the plaintiff and defendant. I'm curious who you intend to voice your opposition to? Perhaps the appellate judge will consider random public testimony?

Congress writes some pretty crappy and vague laws. Then a federal agency has to take that poorly written law and create specific regulations and that’s where a lot of the problems begin. Take the Clean Water Act. Enacted in the 1970s and they (states, industry, and feds) are still fighting to this day over the definition of “the waters of the United States.”

The Endangered Species Act is similar. How far down do you split things to call it a “species?” Beluga whales are not endangered in a word-wide sense but then you claim belugas in Cook Inlet to be a different species, and on the decline and, therefore, endangered. Mark’s example with the wolves is similar. As is calling a particular group of orcas in Washington a different species than the rest of the orcas up and down the west coast and therefore endangered because their numbers are declining.

For the sake of argument, let’s say this group of orcas is indeed special. The thing I think most people find wrong with the ruling is that preventing SE trollers from catching kings is not going to save this population. It just won’t. To say this decision was grounded in law is incredulous to a lot of us.

 

[iofthetaiga]

Congress writes some pretty crappy and vague laws. Then a federal agency has to take that poorly written law and create specific regulations and that’s where a lot of the problems begin.

[...]

The thing I think most people find wrong with the ruling is that preventing SE trollers from catching kings is not going to save this population. It just won’t.

No question there are crappy laws. The problem is that judges are obligated to make decisions based on those laws and the merits of the legal arguments presented before them. The fact that people think this population is doomed regardless, is beside the point. My understanding is that the arguments presented before the judge were regarding whether or not due diligence was performed, and proper procedures followed in certain decision making processes. People here are talking about orcas, which evokes strong emotions, but plaintiffs in the case aren't standing before the judge and saying "if you don't close this fishery orcas will die". They are arguing before the judge that certain policy decision making processes that allowed the creation of this fishery were flawed, and are asking the judge to rule on that specific thing, and the judge apparently found sufficient merit to their argument to order a review. The judge doesn't have the latitude to say "meh, those orcas are going to die anyway, so it doesn't matter if the decision making process was flawed." The judge has to rule on the specific question presented before him: were things done correctly, or weren't they?

 

[R.E.B. LA]

Congress writes some pretty crappy and vague laws. Then a federal agency has to take that poorly written law and create specific regulations and that’s where a lot of the problems begin.

I used to think that the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service had gotten over-zealous in their listing of threatened and endangered populations of species. But when I finally looked in the actual law, it says clearly under Definitions:
"The term “species” includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature."
Too bad those bull whales are interbreeding with their own family members. If they weren't, they wouldn't be protected. Well, at least not under the Endangered Species Act.

 

[Patsfan54]

I used to think that the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service had gotten over-zealous in their listing of threatened and endangered populations of species. But when I finally looked in the actual law, it says clearly under Definitions:
"The term “species” includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature."
Too bad those bull whales are interbreeding with their own family members. If they weren't, they wouldn't be protected. Well, at least not under the Endangered Species Act.

Just to be clear, interbreeding and inbreeding are not synonymous.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have gotten over-zealous in their listing of threatened and endangered populations of species.

It's worth pointing out that the Southern Resident killer whales in the Pacific Northwest can and do breed with other populations of orcas (interbreeding). According to the study that shows inbreeding is contributing to their decline, the orcas in question are just more inbred, on average, than other populations. Another study found that just two of the Southern Resident killer whales had sired more than half of the others sampled from that group (inbreeding). The Southern Resident killer whale is a subspecies of orca, and as a subspecies capable of and (inter)breeding with other orcas it is not a species unto itself.

 

[R.E.B. LA]

Just to be clear, interbreeding and inbreeding are not synonymous.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have gotten over-zealous in their listing of threatened and endangered populations of species.

It's worth pointing out that the Southern Resident killer whales in the Pacific Northwest can and do breed with other populations of orcas (interbreeding). According to the study that shows inbreeding is contributing to their decline, the orcas in question are just more inbred, on average, than other populations. Another study found that just two of the Southern Resident killer whales had sired more than half of the others sampled from that group (inbreeding). The Southern Resident killer whale is a subspecies of orca, and as a subspecies capable of and (inter)breeding with other orcas it is not a species unto itself.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

 

[NRick]

I used to think that the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service had gotten over-zealous in their listing of threatened and endangered populations of species. But when I finally looked in the actual law, it says clearly under Definitions:
"The term “species” includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature."
Too bad those bull whales are interbreeding with their own family members. If they weren't, they wouldn't be protected. Well, at least not under the Endangered Species Act.

I figured someone would comment on my choice of the use of the word "species." I didn't write "distinct populations" because the title of the act is Endangered Species Act of 1973 not the Endangered Distinct Populations Act. Like you, and I suspect most people, I often felt the agencies were going overboard with a number of designations.

But back to the subject, having a Washington environmental group use the Act as justification to go to court to close an Alaska fishery that has a very minimal impact, one way or the other, on a far off distinct population of orcas and that there are other serious impacts to their survival not being address first, just rubs a lot of us the wrong way.

 

[iofthetaiga]

Trollers, state file new appeal in lawsuit to halt SE Alaska salmon fishery - The Cordova Times

A new appeal has been filed in a fisheries case rooted in the alleged impact of the Southeast Alaska commercial salmon troll fishery on endangered Southern Resident killer whales (SRKW) in Puget Sound. The Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) on Monday asked the U.S. District Court for Western...

www.thecordovatimes.com

No relief for beleaguered Southeast Alaska trollers as judge rejects request to keep fishery open - Alaska Beacon

A District Court judge denied the request by Gov. Dunleavy’s administration to set aside a ruling affecting trollers from earlier this month.

alaskabeacon.com

 

[NRick]

Richard Jones, a U.S. District Court judge in Washington state, denied the request by Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s administration to set aside his own ruling from earlier this month.

Jones, in a five-page order Friday, said he would not “stay,” or set aside, his earlier decision while the state’s underlying appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals plays out.

Maybe that's normal, I don't know, but that doesn't seem right that the same judge reviews his own ruling. I would think you'd have a different judge from that district court review the ruling to determine whether or not to stay the decision.

 

[iofthetaiga]

Maybe that's normal, I don't know, but that doesn't seem right that the same judge reviews his own ruling. I would think you'd have a different judge from that district court review the ruling to determine whether or not to stay the decision.

That is normal. You can petition a judge to reevaluate his/her ruling, for various reasons, but the case stays in that judges court until it's appealed. The appellate court is where new judges evaluate the prior judge's decision(s). The defendant(s) could petition the appellate court to temporarily stay the lower court's ruling while they consider the case, but there would have to be something pretty egregious at face value about the lower court's ruling for them to do so.

 

[bottom_dweller]

Just an update. The Wild Fish Conservancy has notified the state that they intend to petition for the listing of Chinook salmon as endangered. That means SW Alaska and Cook Inlet as well as SE. Better enjoy your last King steak. Might be coming sooner than you think.

 

[Chez]

https://northernjournal.substack.com/p/to-protect-orcas-federal-judge-orders


Any Orca that can target Chinook in the salt water can find other food sources. This is asinine over reach by Federal Government.

Its not over-reach as much as it is people with "higher" educations and degrees making decisions based on a book they read vs actual experience and fist hand knowledge.

That being said, YEAH it is overreach and they are doing everything in their power to hurt the outdoors industry

And that being said, the more commercial fishing operations they shut down = the better it is for sport fishing

Damn I'm all over this

 

[kenaibow fan]

Well it was only a matter of time before it happened. I’m kind of surprised given the current state the country is in that it took this long before the wheels started spinning.

 

[bottom_dweller]

Its not over-reach as much as it is people with "higher" educations and degrees making decisions based on a book they read vs actual experience and fist hand knowledge.

That being said, YEAH it is overreach and they are doing everything in their power to hurt the outdoors industry

And that being said, the more commercial fishing operations they shut down = the better it is for sport fishing

Damn I'm all over this

I’m afraid you are missing something here. Endangered means no sport either possibly no subsistence or PU

 

[Patsfan54]

I’m afraid you are missing something here. Endangered means no sport either possibly no subsistence or PU

To add insult to injury, in Washington State they actually allow sports fishing on some of the distinct populations of species that are listed as threatened or endangered.

 

[SmokeRoss]

Best I can do on my own is blast a couple seals and a dozen or so sea otters.

 

[Chez]

I’m afraid you are missing something here. Endangered means no sport either possibly no subsistence or PU

Labeling them as endangered comes from people with "higher" education and very little if any first hand experience or knowledge

 

[kenaibow fan]

Best I can do on my own is blast a couple seals and a dozen or so sea otters.

Well keep up the good work!