The Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation has submitted comments to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) encouraging NMFS to issue a not-warranted finding on a petition from animal extremists asking NMFS to list Chinook salmon in the Gulf of Alaska as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
On May 24, 2024, NMFS issued a positive 90-day finding on a petition submitted by the Wild Fish Conservancy asking NMFS to list Chinook salmon, or any evolutionarily significant unit that may exist in the petitioned area, as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA and to designate critical habitat concurrent with the listing. NMFS’s positive 90-finding means the agency found “the petition . . . presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.” A positive 90-day finding means that the first hurdle for placing Chinook salmon on an ESA list was cleared. NMFS is now working on a 12-month finding to determine its final recommendations for southeast Alaska Chinook salmon.
The Sportsmen’s Alliance has significant concerns about the wide-sweeping impacts of the potential listing of Gulf of Alaska Chinook salmon as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA and strongly disagree that listing is warranted. Similarly, we remain opposed to the designation of critical habitat for Gulf of Alaska Chinook salmon under the ESA and the undertaking of the incredibly broad status review requested by the petitioners.
It would be unconscionable for NMFS to conclude in its 12-month finding that listing a southeast Alaska Chinook salmon under the ESA is warranted. Specifically, among other flaws, the petition misrepresents or omits information on aggressive and successful regulatory protections and conservation activities historically and currently being implemented by the state of Alaska. Additionally, per the NMFS own determinations, the petitioners have failed to provide a complete and balanced representation of relevant facts, and “the petition contained numerous factual errors, omissions, incomplete references, and unsupported assertions and conclusions.” Read more