US appeals court allows Alaska fishery to remain open
By Nate Raymond
Aug 16 (Reuters) -A federal appeals court on Friday reversed a judge's decision that would have effectively shuttered an Alaska salmon fishery, a result environmentalists sought in order to protect endangered whales and threatened wild Chinook salmon populations.
A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that a judge in Seattle last year abused his discretion by vacating a key authorization issued by the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Services for the fishery's summer and winter Chinook salmon harvests.
U.S. District Judge Richard Jones at the urging of the Wild Fish Conservancy had in May 2023 vacated part of a so-called incidental take statement the fisheries service issued in 2019 that authorized the commercial Chinook salmon troll fishery in southeast Alaska.
He did so after finding it violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to adequately provide a plan to mitigate impacts from commercial fishing on threatened wild Chinook salmon and endangered southern resident orca that depend on them for food off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and Canada.
But the 9th Circuit panel on Friday said Jones went too far by taking the disruptive step of vacating the take statement instead of remanding the agency's decision for it to consider further but leaving it intact.
The panel said Jones "disregarded the likelihood that the take statement would be supported by better reasoning, and readopted, on remand," and "erred by overlooking the severe disruptive consequences of vacatur."
Millions of dollars in losses would be suffered by Alaskan fishermen if the fishery was suspended, yet Jones "glossed over these significant economic consequences" even as the Wild Fish Conservancy acknowledged uncertainty about how the fishery would affect the orcas, the court held.
The panel -- which included U.S. Circuit Judges Milan Smith, Mark Bennett and Anthony Johnstone -- said its decision was based partly on the service's commitment to fixing its errors before Dec. 1.
Representatives for the state and Wild Fish Conservancy either did not respond to requests for comment or had no immediate comment.
The case is Wild Fish Conservancy v. Quan, et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-35322.
For Wild Fish Conservancy: Brian Knutsen of Kampmeier & Knutsen
For the National Marine Fisheries Services: Thekla Hansen-Young of the U.S. Department of Justice
For Alaska: Laura Wolff of the Alaska Department of Law
For the Alaska Trollers Association: Douglas Steding of Northwest Resource Law
Read more:
US judge tosses authorization needed to open Alaska fishery
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; editing by David Bario
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
