Question about the Karuk II case, Here is a question I was asked that I did not know the answer to. I th Options

[wheasonjr]

June 2009
Here is a question I was asked that I did not know the answer to. I think this is a question we do need to be addressing with regards to the Karuk II case. This seems
to be a major part that we may need to defend in this dredging case. If anyone has heard of how
the below information is being addressed in the case I would be interested in knowing it.
Dear Dredging Miners and river prospectors:
If the Tribe wins this case (Karuk II), they can get a permanent injunction against the issuance
of suction dredge mining permits until DFG prepares a new EIR and promulgates new
regulations thereupon. So, I would like to know how we are going to keep the Tribe from
winning this case?
The Tribe named a number of new species, in addition to Coho Salmon, that have been listed
since 1994. They claim that this is all they need to show to win. I checked, there have been a
number of new listings since 1994. So, my questions here are is that all they need to show to get
the permanent injunction and what are we going to argue to counter that?
Yours,
Walter H. Eason, Jr.

[Coalbunny]

That has already been covered Dan. A college kid doing intern work for the Alaska Fish & Game folks did a paper on just that, and it has been a topic in Oregon universities as well.