Post by: Dman on September 10, 2007, 04:41:18 PM
Post by: jackelope on September 10, 2007, 04:46:11 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,1632.0.html
Post by: jackelope on September 10, 2007, 04:46:47 PM
Post by: Dman on September 10, 2007, 05:01:15 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on September 10, 2007, 07:57:26 PM
Post by: PolarBear on September 10, 2007, 08:17:18 PM
Post by: Ridgerunner on September 10, 2007, 10:03:43 PM
Post by: jackelope on September 11, 2007, 09:16:41 AM
Post by: Dman on September 11, 2007, 03:21:34 PM
Pbear, LOL, where's the .50 cal mounted on the front of the canoe??
Post by: Hermit on September 11, 2007, 06:53:08 PM
Post by: boneaddict on September 11, 2007, 07:03:39 PM
Post by: Shadow Cat on September 11, 2007, 07:23:13 PM
Post by: Hermit on September 12, 2007, 08:34:51 PM
Post by: Coasthunterjay on September 12, 2007, 08:55:24 PM
Post by: Dman on September 13, 2007, 02:01:50 PM
Post by: Hermit on September 20, 2007, 07:32:31 PM
Post by: fish-on37 on October 04, 2007, 01:45:55 PM
Post by: Bofire on October 08, 2007, 06:23:06 PM
Are you a dope dealer because some American sold dope?
Carl
Post by: WDFW-SUX on October 08, 2007, 07:15:07 PM
Post by: boneaddict on October 08, 2007, 08:00:28 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on October 08, 2007, 08:20:52 PM
Bofire...............SHUT THE *censored* UP. :chuckle:
Agree.
Post by: Ray on October 08, 2007, 08:36:09 PM
My blood pressure can't stand this.....:chuckle:
Quote
Are you a dope dealer because some American sold dope?
To me that is a poor example of the issue at hand. But if we want to talk about it in such simple terms the answer to your question is no. Americans tend to actually try to regulate themselves with laws, ethics and penalties. Usually the only ones that get by are overly rich or politicians. Some indians (not all) often stand behind outdated treaties and speak words with meanings that they have long forgotten in order to make smoke screens for the public eye. They have talked about how acts like these are traditions of their people's past and cleverly inject statements about having empty freezers as if they are a starving community who had no choice because of the bad white man who came and made them this way. It truly is a joke when they use the tradition argument in order to get special hunting priveleges for animals that some of their tribes never traditionally hunted to begin with. For this incident these guys are even casually ingoring their own laws and any binding treaties which their own people have agreed to. The treaties have often been used as a tool. Throwing it in our faces as a callous reminder about times long past and experiences which the current generations have never lived through. Simply put... it is a guilt trip. You are either guilty of being white or guilty of being non-indian and living on the soil here. Now let's keep in mind that many indians didn't believe in physical ownership of land and animals. This guilt trip strategy works time and time again for them so they keep doing it.. As far as killing the whale... I think that there was someone who talked about the last time they shot a whale mentioning that a large portion of the carcass was left to rot in waste. I'd hardly call that the same indian portrayed on television and in people's minds who are all about respecting mother earth and all of her creatures.
To me the incident was purely a stunt. A few Indians had this .50 cal and a lot of time on their hands to calculate and plan this event. They ignored their own laws simply because they would not be upheld... and they know it. Justice in their society for this act is merely a slap on the hand. Ask yourself: Is a slap on the wrist a just penalty for knowingly killing an endangered whale in a premeditated manner? When people come to age as an adult... most societies don't plan on handing out romper-room like penalties for felonies. The outrage is centered in this area for me and everything here is why I think that your example is a gross oversimplification missing the key points.. I am glad that there was some action in our courts by filing an indictment the other day against the people who felt compelled to follow through on this foolhardy and irresponsible stunt. When I read the article on monday about how other members of the tribe being interviewed by the press felt about it... I definitely had a better picture about how their society views this and that they don't seem to have any intention of doing anything about it within their own ranks period. They even used some casual language which mocked the court systems as if they were under complete immunity from any regulation and penalty of law regarding this incident. They might as well be flipping us off. If you have some perception which is quite different please enlighten me as to the facts and point of view. Otherwise I tend to view this and the tribe as grossly irresponsible and incapable or otherwise unwilling to regulate their own when it comes to these sort of acts.
In light of this and overall it is hard for me to even give them an iota of credibility and recognition if they are unwilling to regulate their own. That goes that way for any group, race or organization in my world. So if the question was about them: yes, they are dope dealers or just as bad; harboring, condoning dope dealers.
Post by: Bofire on October 09, 2007, 06:42:03 AM
Carl
Post by: ICEMAN on October 09, 2007, 06:47:41 AM
So the tribe did nothing.....?
That is the whole point here. They do nothing. They do nothing about the criminals in their midst... Did they step up and arrest their fellow tribal members?
Post by: Bofire on October 09, 2007, 07:23:55 AM
Our courts gave it to them, Americas courts.
That however has nothing to do with what Passion, and you seconded, said to me. I am an American, 56 years, most of it in Washington state, I have earned my right to free speech and am willing to fight for it. The media uses the "broad brush" approach, there are bad apples in every barrel, get rid of them. These Makah criminals, I hope, are punished severely. The same hope I have for criminals everywhere.
Carl
Post by: arrowflinger on October 09, 2007, 07:27:28 AM
Post by: Bofire on October 09, 2007, 07:52:05 AM
Thanks
Carl
Post by: Shadow Cat on October 11, 2007, 07:24:52 PM
The DOI manages the trust account and makes the payments to individuals and to the tribe. This is a pet peeve of mine. A judge makes a ruling against the US, our taxes go up, and the DOI gets to pay them... >:( A few years ago, DOI got into hot water over some money that came up missing. A federal court judge was mad about it and took away DOI's (and the departments under DOI such as US Fish & Wildlife) internet connection to get peoples attention. ) See Cobil V. Norton: ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/dc/035262a.pdf ) "This isn't about ego, it's about making the government accountable," Cobell said. "Indian people simply don't know what they own - nobody has ever held the U.S. government accountable."
Cobell is lead plaintiff in the largest lawsuit ever filed by American Indians against the federal government.
And so far, she's won the first round of a two-part case, which has resulted in an overhaul of the government'saccounting system that has for 113 years mismanaged billions of dollars in land assets belonging to roughly 500,000 Indians and their heirs.
Now, she and all of the Indian nations are waiting for the trial to begin in which they hope to recover more than $10 billion in land, gas, oil, water and timber leases they believe are theirs and were denied them because of poor accounting practices, and is some case, no accounting.
Since this took place off of tribal lands and out side of their nautical boarders, it falls into federal jurisdiction and involves NOAA as they are responsible for endangered whales.
As far as I am concerned, The treaties need to be done away with and the indians need to become a part of society. I have native blood in me and I lived in Tuba City on the Navajo Indian reservation in Arizona when I worked for the Indian Health Services. I saw a lot of things that did not set to well with me.
Post by: bearhunter59 on October 24, 2007, 11:44:38 AM
One set of rules for all of us.
You can't have a separate "Nation" within a Nation....it just doesn't work.
And what about our natural rights to hunt and fish like our forefathers did when they first came to this continent? It's not like they had a lot of pigs, cows, or chickens, or vegatables just growing all over the place, to eat when they first arrived...they lived off the land just as the Indians did. (I refuse to call them "Natives" since they are no more "native" to this continent than we are.)
"Regulating" their hunting and fishing rights such as our hunting and fishing rights are "regulated" is only fair. Even if they have this right???, why don't they have to buy licenses and register just like all of us? Not so much to prevent them from hunting or fishing, as much as to be able to "verify" which of them are legally allowed to hunt/fish under Indian privledges. I mean let's face it, when these treaties were signed, almost 100% of the Indians were Indian. Now, probably less than 5% of them have more than 1/32nd of Indian blood in them, which means there has been more non-Indian blood introduced into their bloodline over the last 150 years, than Indian blood. Yet, these same "Indians" will stand-up and spout "It's our heritage and traditions!!!" BULL POOP!!!!
....I gotta stop...I get so riled-up when I get on this Indians and their treaty BS.......
ONE NATION! ONE RULE!!!
PS...Just a thought.....IF Indians are their own NATION, doesn't that make them NOT US CITIZENS, therefore not entitled to protection under the Constitution???? Can't have it both ways....Either your a Citizen and have to follow the same laws as the rest of the citizens, or your not, and therefore not entitled to the protections of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
ONE NATION! ONE RULE!!!
Post by: Shadow Cat on October 24, 2007, 06:44:18 PM
Post by: Intruder on October 25, 2007, 11:04:17 AM
I'm a fair man and I try to respect the culture and history of everyone I know. That doesn't mean I don't have faults nor am I immune from prejudice (no one is). But having said that I can tell you regardless of what injustices happened to anyone or anyone's family the old adage 2 wrongs don't make a right still holds true. There is certainly alot to admire about Indian culture, as there is with all cultures. But there's also things to deplore as there is with all cultures.
All I can say is it's a damn shame that we're in the 21st Century and there is whole segment of American society that have legal privileges that exceed those of the rest of the citezens. Screwing the majority to try and compensate the few for injustices they experienced over a century ago really makes no sense. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with common sense. I would feel just the same regardless of the group. No one deserves to have more legal privilege in the USA than anyone else... end of story.
Post by: Hermit on November 16, 2007, 07:29:54 PM
Post by: Jerbear on November 16, 2007, 07:43:50 PM
What a shame the whale they killed took 10 hours to die. Such humanitarians.
Post by: billythekidrock on November 16, 2007, 07:58:12 PM
Quote
What a shame the whale they killed took 10 hours to die. Such humanitarians.
I don't agree with dual rights and all the benefits they get, but the slow death was not their fault. The article I read said that the Coasties would not let them finish it off and were the ones to let it sink.
Post by: Jerbear on November 17, 2007, 09:58:40 AM
Post by: boneaddict on November 17, 2007, 06:43:04 PM
Post by: Jerbear on November 17, 2007, 07:37:13 PM
Now the damn japs are going to kill 50 of them, against international rules. And the beat goes on.,
Post by: billythekidrock on November 18, 2007, 05:30:26 AM
Quote
This is where I get into troube as I feel it should be one nation/one rule as well. I get darn right upset about this whole thing.
I do as well...once the cork pops..it all spills out until I have said my piece..and then I am po'd for the rest of the day.
Post by: Hermit on November 18, 2007, 07:43:04 PM
Post by: Buckshot Bill on November 19, 2007, 09:30:07 AM
You are right. The judge's have read more into the treaty than what is really in there. I have a copy of the treaty. Here we are upset about the rules and the fact they made a kill on an animal that we have found to be intelligent and family oriented.TOKYO (AFP) - Japan came under a storm of criticism Monday for going ahead with its largest whale hunt yet, with Australia's resurgent opposition calling for the military to be brought in.
Now the damn japs are going to kill 50 of them, against international rules. And the beat goes on.,
Defying warnings from its Western allies that it would inflame an emotional row on whaling, Japan on Sunday sent its fleet to the Antarctic Ocean. The hunt will include famed humpback whales for the first time.
A ship of Greenpeace environmentalists tried -- so far in vain -- to track down the six-vessel whaling fleet as Australia, Britain and New Zealand all condemned the catch.
Japan, which argues that whale meat is part of its culture, plans to kill 950 whales on the five-month mission using a loophole in a global moratorium that allows "lethal research" on the giant mammals.
Australia's opposition Labor Party, which is leading in polls ahead of national elections Saturday, said it would send out the navy to track the Japanese whalers and take video footage if it takes power.
"We really need to rattle the cage here," Labor's foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland said.
"It's unacceptable that it's not only going on, but getting worse."
Prime Minister John Howard said while "I totally disagree" with Japanese whaling, he opposed bringing in the military.
"What, is he going to shoot them?" Howard asked.
"Mr McClelland knows darn well that what he is suggesting is an empty gesture, that what we should be doing is continuing to pursue diplomatically and with whatever legal mechanisms are available to us."
Hideki Moronuki, the whaling chief at Japan's Fisheries Agency, also cast doubt on the threats by Australia's opposition.
"The whaling research which Japan is conducting is 100 percent based on the International Whaling Commission charter, so dispatching the military against it is impossible," Moronuki told AFP.
The environmental group Greenpeace's Espernaza ship was also trying to find the fleet to shoot footage but said that the whalers had turned off identification equipment.
"They're playing a little hard to get," Greenpeace activist Dave Walsh told AFP by satellite telephone from aboard the Esperanza in the Pacific Ocean.
"If they're so confident they were doing the right thing, they shouldn't have anything to hide, but obviously they do," he said, pledging Greenpeace would find them eventually.
The more militant Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has vowed to take to the waters next month to physically stop the hunt.
During the last expedition, Sea Shepherd activists threw bottles of chemicals at the whalers in hopes of disrupting them, leading Japan to denounce anti-whaling activists as "terrorists."
Humpback whales, protected under a 1966 worldwide moratorium after years of overhunting, are renowned for their complex songs and acrobatic displays.
The humpbacks' slow progression along Australia's coast to breed has turned into a major tourist attraction bringing 1.5 million whale watchers a year.
The Japanese whaling chief said that the fleet was not targeting humpback whales.
"Japan doesn't have a specific position on humpback whales. They are a fisheries resource as much as any other whale and when it is scientifically proven that there are enough resources, we conduct sustained research," Moronuki said.
Only Norway and Iceland openly defy a 1986 moratorium on commercial hunting of all whales.
Japan argues that it abides by the agreement but makes no secret that the meat from the hunt goes on dinner plates.
In New Zealand, Prime Minister Helen Clark said: "We don't like the Japanese whaling fleet being down there at all."
"It would just be better if the Japanese stayed home and didn't come down under the guise, the deception, the claim that it is scientific whaling when they want to take a thousand whales," Clark said.
This article seems to make the Makah's kill a little trivial. I'm not condoning what they did and it trully sickens me that they continue hunting whales but there is a much bigger problem than these 5 guys. They hopefully will be punished for violating federal law. What's going to happen to the Japanese that kill 1000 whales for their finacial benefit? Probably nothing >:( >:( >:(
Post by: billythekidrock on November 19, 2007, 05:56:54 PM
Quote
This article seems to make the Makah's kill a little trivial. I'm not condoning what they did and it trully sickens me that they continue hunting whales but there is a much bigger problem than these 5 guys. They hopefully will be punished for violating federal law. What's going to happen to the Japanese that kill 1000 whales for their finacial benefit? Probably nothing
Yes, I agree. One is nothing compared to that. But what pisses me off is the real reason for the Makah killing. It was more about pushing boundaries and sovereignty then eating or selling a whale.
Post by: boneaddict on November 20, 2007, 08:31:53 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 20, 2007, 09:47:57 AM
There are too many people watching "Dances with wolves" and still feeling bad for the poor treatment of indians 100+ years ago. It's past time to wean them off the free $ and education and (most of all) the free wildlife!
Check Ebay for trophy antlers if you think I'm exaggerating.
Post by: Shadow Cat on November 20, 2007, 10:16:35 AM
Post by: EMPyre on November 20, 2007, 11:22:40 AM
Post by: Shadow Cat on November 20, 2007, 12:39:17 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 20, 2007, 01:05:02 PM
Post by: EMPyre on November 20, 2007, 02:54:05 PM
Post by: Kent Hunter on November 21, 2007, 12:41:07 AM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on November 22, 2007, 05:19:44 AM
Post by: addicted on December 12, 2007, 06:18:54 PM
Post by: wastickslinger on December 12, 2007, 10:19:54 PM
I grew up in Omak right on the reservation and have many friends that are Indian. I know that many of them feel the same way I do about the hunting of elk by Indians in the Clockum, Yakima feeding stations, Blues, ect. I do not claim to know it all but I do have a few thoughts about this. Many of my friends know they could go right off the reservation and kill mule deer if they want and the state could not touch them. But they abide by the regulations you and I have to when they leave their reservation. Why can't all tribal members grasp this?
Indians claim that they have the right to hunt the seeded ground off the reservation because it was a tradition. From what I understand and have researched, elk were planted in those areas in the early 1900's (1913, to be exact in Yakima) by our government. So if the elk were not native how can the Indians call it tradition to hunt them now. Our dollars(tax payers) that go to feeding, growing and managing the elk heards have taken the elk numbers from hundreds to tens of thousands. What has the tribe contributed to this that makes them think they have the right to fill a truck with heard bulls every year?
So if I feed my cattle, raise them, over the years establish a nice cattle heard on seeded ground; does a tribal member have the right to come on my property and kill them. It is tradition to hunt on the seeded ground, what exactly do they have the right to hunt? Planted elk by our Game Department? I don't think so.
Very frustrating topic always for me. :bash:
I could be way off here but I would like to hear more thoughts along this line.
Post by: ICEMAN on December 13, 2007, 07:05:00 AM
So if I feed my cattle, raise them, over the years establish a nice cattle heard on seeded ground; does a tribal member have the right to come on my property and kill them. It is tradition to hunt on the seeded ground, what exactly do they have the right to hunt? :bash:
Go ask the oyster farmers who developed oyster and clam beds where they never were before. The get screwed by tribal members raping their beaches of their livelihood.
I do not think you are "way off track". The problem is this; We live in Washington State. This is about the most liberal state filled with White Guilt there ever has been, and ever will be. Until Indians come jumping peoples fences, kicking doors in and raping their daughters, the idiots in this state will never change. The facts of life are, differing peoples have warred since the beginning of time. Happened then, happens today. I take your land, you take mine. Indians did it too. Our forefathers made the grave mistake of signing treaties that were later "interpreted" differently than the framers had intended. No one ever intended to give the indians anything of value. Never. Would not have even come to mind. This is not how people thought at that time. Even the indians know this.
Every one of you guys who hates these issues, and then turns around and enters a Casino or Venue sponsored by the tribes, is helping to pay the way for more Indian litigation, more lawyers, more lawsuits.
I will never ever step foot in an indian casino or indian event.
Crap, now I am all pissed off and I am not even at work yet!!! CRAP! >:( >:( >:(
Post by: quacker whacker on December 13, 2007, 07:44:53 AM
Edit: There's probably more white hunters who bow hunt than indians who bow hunt.
Post by: EMPyre on December 13, 2007, 12:14:14 PM
Instead of focusing efforts to negate the treaties, why not focus efforts to have them again 're-interpreted'? Could it be possible to argue in court that the current interpretation (which as far as I know) doesn't take into consideration the ESA listing of wild salmon. If so wouldn't that force a new management plan that (as it appears Redden will do to BPA, Or, Wa, Id, and the Fed) force the state and tribes to develop a plan that actually prevents further damage to the salmon?
From there it seems a simple argument to make that netting on the rivers, and 50% take on runs that cannot support themselves even with hatcheries is not a viable management effort. This of course doesn't help in the case of game, but it would seem to level the playing field in the fisheries.
Maybe Pope will chime in here and give us a legal interpretation of my thought process, and the potential implications of what Redden is doing. I know its a bit different than criminal law, but you certainly know more than I on this topic.
Post by: EMPyre on December 13, 2007, 12:17:10 PM
From Saturday's Clark County Columbian Newspaper - Plot thickens?
Saturday, December 08, 2007
BY ERIK ROBINSON, Columbian staff writer
The federal judge who has twice rejected federal plans to balance imperiled salmon against dams in the Columbia River basin signaled Friday that dam managers are doing no better with their latest plan - and consequences could be severe.
U.S. District Judge James Redden raised the possibility that, without substantial changes in favor of salmon, federal dam operators could even be held criminally or civilly liable.
Redden, in a letter sent Friday in advance of a status conference scheduled for next week in his Portland courtroom, wrote that he is unlikely to send the latest plan - a biological opinion, or BiOp - back for federal agencies to try again, and hinted at repercussions if he doesn't.
"If I decide not to remand the BiOp, but decide to simply vacate the opinion instead, would this not result in wrongful 'taking' by the Corps of Engineers, the Bonneville Power Administration, and the Bureau of Reclamation?" Redden wrote. "What are the consequences of such 'takings?' "
To "take" under the Endangered Species Act means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect a member of a threatened or endangered species.
The law provides for both civil and criminal penalties for taking a species protected by the law, with criminal fines up to $50,000 and/or a year in prison. Civil fines of as much as $25,000 per violation are also possible.
Thirteen stocks of Columbia basin salmon and steelhead have dwindled nearly to the point of extinction, and Redden has made it clear he expects federal authorities to ensure dams do not jeopardize their survival. He's ruled two federal dam management plans illegal, one submitted by the Clinton administration in 2000 and one by the Bush administration in 2004.
Federal officials say they will offset harming salmon in the dams with a variety of expensive measures to improve salmon survival.
But Redden has repeatedly raised concern that many of these mitigation measures - including habitat restoration, hatchery improvements and new fish slides to reduce the number of ocean-bound young salmon killed in crossing the dams - are not reasonably certain to occur. In Friday's letter, he said the latest plan appears to repeat many of the flaws of the plan he rejected in 2004.
"I instructed Federal Defendants to consider all mitigation measures necessary to avoid jeopardy, including removal of the four lower Snake River Dams, if all else failed," the judge wrote. "Despite those instructions, the (biological opinions) again appear to rely heavily on mitigation actions that are neither reasonably certain to occur, nor certain to benefit listed species within a reasonable time.
"Moreover, Federal Defendants seem unwilling to seriously consider any significant changes to the status quo dam operations."
Scott Simms, a BPA spokesman in Portland, said the agency had no immediate response to the missive from Redden.
"We just received the letter and we are reviewing it," he said late Friday.
Judge rips latest plan to help salmon
Hydroelectric dams - A meeting with Judge James Redden is federal managers' last chance
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
MICHAEL MILSTEIN
The Oregonian
The federal judge holding the government's feet to the fire to restore Northwest salmon says the latest federal strategy to help fish falls so far short it may be worse for salmon than the plans he's already rejected.
In a blunt letter to attorneys who will appear in his Portland courtroom Wednesday in a landmark salmon lawsuit, U.S. District Judge James A. Redden signaled that the government is close to fumbling its last chance to help fish hammered by federal hydroelectric dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers.
He also offered an unsettling glimpse of what that would mean for the Northwest: a dam system that suddenly becomes illegal to operate and is taken over by the courts, with orders to divert extra water for protected fish and perhaps even drain reservoirs at what would likely be tremendous cost to the region.
Such action would compromise the capacity of hydroelectric dams to supply inexpensive electricity to the Northwest and could have repercussions on everything from irrigation to recreational fishing.
The Endangered Species Act requires the government to remedy the damage dams do to salmon if it wants to keep operating the dams legally. Redden has said he is reluctant to take control of the region's hydropower system and make those fixes himself.
But he also made clear that he might have to do for salmon what the federal government will not.
The federal plan Redden is reviewing is still a draft, set to be made final next year. But Redden told government attorneys they should be ready on Wednesday to explain what more they can do for fish in the final version, because so far it looks as if they're providing even less protection for salmon than before.
Brian Gorman, a spokesman for the National Marine Fisheries Service, which has prime responsibility for protecting salmon, cautioned against reading too much into Redden's warnings.
"He's simply raising all the appropriate questions," Gorman said. "We have legitimate answers to all of those questions."
Two plans rejected
Redden warned the government is unlikely to get another chance to do the right thing for salmon.
The judge has thrown out two previous federal proposals to remedy the damage dams do to salmon, saying they were based on flimsy and far-off promises that wouldn't provide the timely help salmon need.
The government could not persuade an appeals court to overrule Redden.
Federal agencies then responded last fall with what top officials described as their best and most comprehensive program for salmon ever, tailored to the needs of each species and population. They promised upgrades at dams to safeguard fish and habitat improvements in streams and the estuary near Astoria.
But the judge isn't buying it. He said much of the federal plan still depends on uncertain funding and may not help salmon soon enough.
He wrote attorneys late Friday outlining issues he wants to discuss Wednesday. He said federal agencies appear to have not only produced another faulty plan, but they also ignored his instructions to consider all options for helping salmon -- including tearing out four hydroelectric dams on the Lower Snake River.
"I instructed federal defendants to consider all mitigation measures necessary to avoid jeopardy (to salmon), including removal of the four lower Snake River Dams, if all else failed," he wrote. "I also instructed federal defendants to ensure that any mitigation measures were reasonably certain to occur."
"Despite these instructions," the judge wrote, the federal plans "again appear to rely heavily on mitigation actions that are neither reasonably certain to occur, nor certain to benefit listed species within a reasonable time.
"Moreover, federal defendants seem unwilling to seriously consider any significant changes to the status quo dam operations," Redden wrote.
Dam breach turned down
The Bush administration has flatly refused to consider removing the four dams on the Snake River.
But Redden told attorneys to prepared to discuss the consequences should he decide to reject the new federal salmon blueprint, leaving the dams with no legal operating plan.
He underscored many of the concerns the State of Oregon, Native American tribes on the lower Columbia River and conservation groups voiced in their court filings. Oregon officials have been some of the strongest critics of the federal approach, telling the judge that the federal plan "manipulates science to justify policy objectives that subordinate the needs of protected fish.
"Indeed, in some significant respects, the new plan provides even less protection for listed fish than did its predecessor," David Leith, an Oregon Department of Justice attorney, wrote on behalf of Attorney General Hardy Myers.
Washington and Montana officials, along with some upriver tribes and utility customers, were more complimentary, though. Washington benefits more than Oregon from inexpensive electricity generated at the dams.
Redden hinted in his letter that he is also skeptical of the government's salmon science, saying he may appoint his own panel of independent scientists to advise him on measures to help salmon.
"We have an opportunity to get this right," he wrote at the end of his letter. "I remain hopeful that the parties will do what needs to be done."
Michael Milstein: 503-294-7689; michaelmilstein@news.oregonian.com
©2007 The Oregonian
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...200.xml&coll=7