PRESS RELEASE

WASHINGTON TROUT

PO Box 402 Duvall, WA 98019 · Tel 425/788-1167 · Fax 425/788-9634 · wildfish@washingtontrout.org

Contact: Ramon Vanden Brulle, Washington Trout, 425/788-1167 x222, ramon@washingtontrout.org

For Immediate Release: March 4, 2002

 

Environmentalists to NMFS: Listen to Science-Review Panel

The National Marine Fisheries Service should take more seriously its own scientific-review process, and accept the advice of a review panel that criticized the federal agency's salmon-harvest policies. So said ten environmental and salmon-conservation groups from Oregon, Washington, and Alaska, in a letter to NMFS Regional Administrator Bob Lohn.

 

The 10,000 Years Institute, the Audubon Society's Living Oceans Program, the Native Fish Society, the Northwest Watershed Institute, the Ocean Conservancy, the Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition, Oregon Trout, the Washington Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Washington Trout, and the Wild Steelhead Coalition mailed a letter to Lohn on March 1, expressing their objections to what they called NMFS' “dismissive and unresponsive” reaction to the most recent report of the Salmon Recovery Science Review Panel, or RSRP.

 

In November, the RSRP released a harshly critical review of NMFS’ current approach to managing the harvest of salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act. The Panel called the agency’s justifications for its harvest policies scientifically inadequate, calling some NMFS-approved harvest levels “biologically unsustainable.” The Review Panel concluded its report by urging NMFS to “develop a rational [harvest] policy that does not demean scientific common sense.”

 

NMFS has tried to blame the Panel’s negative review on miscommunication. In a February 14 letter, Lohn wrote that NMFS didn’t provide the Panel with “a clear understanding” of how the agency sets harvest levels. Responses from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Tribal authorities have been harsher, ranging from calling the Panel “not experienced with salmon,” to accusing it of bias.

 

The environmentalists complained that the agencies’ response to the report has “undercut the credibility of the Scientific-Review process,” and could be interpreted as an effort to discredit the Review Panel. Their letter attacks NMFS’ claims that the Panel either misunderstood or is unqualified to evaluate NMFS’ methods as “unlikely” and “disingenuous.” The environmental groups bluntly asked Lohn: “does NMFS consider the RSRP qualified to review salmon-recovery management, or doesn’t it?”

 

NMFS is the federal agency responsible for recovering all ESA-listed salmon. It convened the panel of six biological and ecological experts in spring 2000, announcing that the RSRP would review ESA-related recovery planning,  “guide” NMFS’ technical work, and ensure the “soundness of the science that will form the basis for all recovery efforts.” NMFS praised the six scientists on the Panel for possessing “the most comprehensive body of knowledge on conservation biology in the nation.”

 

“NMFS has a built-in conflict of interest,” said Jim Myron, Conservation Director at Oregon Trout. “It is expected to protect wild fish while at the same time promoting fishing opportunities and supporting hatcheries. We hope this letter will help them get their priorities straight.”

 

In their letter, the environmental groups specifically asked Lohn to direct NMFS to:

·        acknowledge the independence, integrity, and credibility of the RSRP;

·        thoroughly examine and address all the criticisms and recommendations in the Panel’s report;

·        specifically address whether and how NMFS will respond to the Panel’s recommendation to more thoroughly validate the salmon-population modeling that underlies NMFS’ harvest management;

·        provide the data and references that support all the conclusions and assertions of NMFS’ response;

·        on completion of the review, revise NMFS harvest-policies accordingly.

 

“When NMFS ignores its own independent scientific review, they become an impediment to recovery of endangered salmon,” said Bill Bakke of the Native Fish Society. “NMFS, the states, and tribes have locked the public out of harvest and hatchery policy-decisions since 1988 in the Columbia River.  Now they are arrogant enough to deep six the advice of their own science panel on harvest.”

 

“NMFS needs to take the RSRP report seriously,” said Kurt Beardslee of Washington Trout. “They told us they’d count on the Review Panel to double-check their work. On any issue, harvest, hatcheries, habitat, or hydro-dams, salmon recovery won’t happen if NMFS always lets politics trump its own science-review process.”

 

#   #   #

 

 

For copies of the full text of the Environmental Groups’ March 1 letter to NMFS Regional Administrator Bob Lohn, contact Ramon Vanden Brulle at Washington Trout.