On coho, it's red faces all around

Oregon 's analysis of its coastal coho plan may be flawed, but federal oversight is hardly a panacea for salmon  

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

The Oregonian

A federal magistrate's strongly worded criticism of Oregon 's coastal coho salmon plan likely is the beginning of the end of the state's unusual opportunity to try to restore one of its own depleted fish stocks.

That is disappointing. We've been strong supporters of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds ever since former Gov. John Kitzhaber launched the state effort a decade ago. The plan was, and still is, an important experiment in local and mostly volunteer efforts to restore salmon habitat.

Ruling on a lawsuit brought by fishing and environmental groups, U.S. Magistrate Janice Stewart concluded that Oregon 's analysis of its salmon plan is seriously flawed. The magistrate's ruling quoted a federal fisheries scientist as saying that Oregon 's coho analysis "does not meet the red face test."

Maybe not. But given the record of federal salmon recovery efforts, there ought to be red faces all around. After all, the Northwest is not exactly swimming in federally protected salmon, either. Further, Oregon isn't the jurisdiction that has spent decades and billions of tax and ratepayer dollars, and employed legions of fisheries scientists, to create one salmon recovery plan after another soundly rejected by federal judges.

The point here is not to criticize the Endangered Species Act or federal efforts to restore salmon. But it is to suggest that not all fish recovery wisdom, or even all the "best science," resides in Washington , D.C. There may be other effective ways to support and restore salmon. Certainly Kitzhaber, one of the most committed conservationists ever to serve as Oregon governor, strongly believed that creative state efforts could restore the coastal coho.

It's far too early to tell whether Kitzhaber was right or wrong. Coho numbers have fluctuated sharply over the past seven years, depending on ocean conditions. The hundreds of habitat projects carried out in Oregon over those years -- and the many more that are planned -- will take time to pay off. Meanwhile, the state has restricted coho fishing and stopped its hatcheries from churning out so many pen-raised fish to compete with wild coho.

Is that enough to recover coastal coho stocks, or would the fish benefit from a return to rigid federal endangered species protections? Stewart's findings, which require a new listing decision for the coho within 60 days, are in the form of a recommendation, which must be approved by a higher federal judge.

State officials should argue strongly for the continuation of the Oregon plan. We'll concede that there are flaws in the state's analysis, and the plan has not yet led to a resurgence in coho. But it has engaged thousands of people in on-the-ground salmon restoration projects on scores of streams. Oregonians still deserve an opportunity to restore the coastal coho salmon.  

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml


Source:  http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/

base/editorial/1184716542178570.xml&coll=7