A report says population will be reduced by 2100 unless changes are made
February 17, 2005
CORVALLIS -- The future of wild salmon in the Northwest is bleak if major changes to management, funding and land-use planning are not made, a panel of scientists and policy experts said Wednesday.
"The most probable forecast if things don't change markedly is that by 2100, wild salmon will be reduced to remnant runs in the lower 48 states and southern British Columbia," said Bob Lackey of the Environmental Protection Agency in Corvallis. "What would have to be done to reverse this downward trend?"
The answer to Lackey's question is found in a project called Salmon 2100, in which 30 independent salmon scientists and policy experts wrote their prescriptions for the fish recovery by 2100. It is a joint project of Oregon State University and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Preliminary results of the project were released at a meeting Wednesday at OSU.
Scientists called for many actions including huge increases in funding for ocean research and headwaters restoration, more environmental education in K-12 schools and more authority for watershed councils.
Lackey, the project's co-leader, said the participants are working on their own solutions without coming to consensus. He said that approach is intentional even though it may produce competing viewpoints.
"We don't say that we ought to do these things," he said. "That is for the public and policy makers to decide."
Project participant Ben Stout, a retired professor and scientist who lives in Albany, said 50 percent of the money devoted to salmon recovery in rivers should be spent on the under-researched ocean ecosystem because salmon spend much of their life there.
He explained that the health and vitality of runs "probably doesn't have a thing to do with the rivers -- it has to do with oceans."
Stout also proposed the controversial idea that hatchery and wild salmon should not be distinguished. He said, "Let's manage salmon, period."
Project participant Brent Steel, a political science professor at OSU, said the biggest problem is that people haven't been told the truth.
"We've told people that they can have hydrodams and salmon, too," he said. "The public does want to save wild salmon, but if they continue to get this message, nothing will change."
Jim Martin, retired chief of fisheries for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and advisor to former Gov. John Kitzhaber, said development and climate change are going to kill wild salmon unless land-use planning changes drastically and funds are spent on restoration of headwaters.
All of the project's participants agreed that major changes have to occur to get healthy salmon runs. Not all of the scientists were convinced the public would accept those changes.
"Right now, I don't have a great deal of optimism because of the massive changes in society that would be necessary (to restore salmon)," said Hal Michael, fisheries biologist in Olympia, Wash. "My perspective is that large populations of wild salmon and large populations of people cannot co-exist in the same watershed ... I don't share the idea that we can have wild runs everywhere."
The discussion wasn't all science-based because participants noted that restoring salmon is a value-based issue.
"The real question is what kind of world do we want to leave for our kids?," said Dave Bella, a retired OSU professor in bioresource engineering. "It's not a scientific question, but it's more important than a scientific question."
bcasper@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 589-6994
Source: http://159.54.226.83/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050217/NEWS/502170372/1001