Though it is hardly an absolute victory, the stay on the killing of sea lions is promising.  It is good news that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has made it an important consideration, that the killing of an animal would be an "irreparable" solution.  That human beings in authority should take the time to weigh the life and the death of individual wild animals in this way seems not that common.

Presumably this decision will be red meat for the historic right-wing foes of the Ninth CCA, who are working for it to be dismembered and/or crushed.

And then, from another direction, one might predict that animal-rightsist extremists may complicate things further, by arguing that the sea lions would be better off dead, than be imprisoned in aquariums ...

I know that the ideal situation would be to allow the sea lions to live their lives in the nature. However I am glad to see that the seas lions will not be killed.  Plus I trust the Humane society to do follow up check ups and make sure they are in good homes.  

Which ever zoo/aquariums takes them would know about the public attention on the sea lions and therefore would be more committed to taking care of the sea lions and the other animals too.

I really do love the Humane Society. In the last few years they seemed to have made good progress. - Especially in the legal department.

All my birthday present and Christmas presents will be checks made out to the Humane Society. I am proud of them!

I somehow missed this story as it unfolded on Grist, but it just seems crazy to me.  

Sea lions consumed at least 4 percent of returning spring chinook salmon last year, according to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. One California sea lion usually eats about seven salmon a day. By comparison, sport, commercial and tribal fishing harvested 14 percent of last year's run on the upper Columbia River.

So, the issue of legal concern is, that the sea lions are depleting an endagered species, and must be stopped?  If that were the legal argument, it seems a no-brainer to stop issuing fishing licenses (or limit the fishing take to 10%, thereby compensating for the sea lion's 4% take).

This truly makes no sense to me; no one owns these salmon, correct? I mean, it's not like a rancher shooting wolves that are attacking his livestock: I don't agree with that approach either, but I can understand the rationale behind it (in the rancher's mind) when said struggling rancher is faced with protecting his investment.

I don't see how this could have any legal standing.  If a bald eagle wandered into my backyard, and started eating the wild strawberries (which I love, and which are very scarce, but I have no "investment" in propagating, they simply come up every year), I could sue to shoot it?  It's simply crazy.

Can anyone explain to me what legal footing this suit has?

Right, JavaEarth, the HSUS have been involved in some excellent projects.  They, Defenders of Wildlife, and Best Friends are my favorite animal-related organizations right now.  (I used to be much more of an Audubon person, but I seem to have drifted; NWF is always fine, with lots of great photography and good information; and then there are those heroic fellow travelers, Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd; and of course Oceana, for whom I shall be doing a bit of volunteering this weekend at a green convention here in NYC.)

Kaela,
what you write makes perfect sense.  And actually, the reality seems worse than that the sea lions take 4% of the salmon: there is apparently a bit of uncertainty in estimating just how many salmon they take; 4.4% is the high figure, but in fact they might easily be taking far fewer.