Washington Trout Protests NMFS’ Response to RSRP Report

The National Marine Fisheries Service should take more seriously its own scientific-review process, and accept the report of the Salmon Recovery Science Review Panel (RSRP), that criticized the agency's salmon-harvest policies. So said Washington Trout and nine other 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, and the Wild Steelhead Coalition joined Washington Trout in signing a letter mailed to Lohn on March 1, expressing our objections to NMFS' “dismissive and unresponsive” reaction to the most recent report of the RSRP.

 

In November 2001, 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.” (See RSRP Report Criticizes NMFS Over Salmon Harvest)

 

NMFS has tried to dismiss the report, blaming the Panel’s negative review on miscommunication, and responses from the Washington co-managers have ranged from calling the Panel “not experienced with salmon,” to accusing it of bias.

 

We believe these responses undercut the credibility of the Scientific-Review process. The RSRP is made up of six of the most respected and accomplished ecological and biological scientists in the country. Several are widely published experts on wildlife-population modeling. When NMFS convened the panel in spring 2000, it announced that the RSRP would “guide” the technical work of recovery planning, calling the Panel “the most comprehensive body of knowledge on conservation biology in the nation.” The question is simple: does NMFS consider the RSRP qualified to review salmon-recovery management, or doesn’t it?

 

In our letter, we 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.

 

To see the full text of the March 1 letter to NMFS Regional Administrator Bob Lohn, click here.