Politics, Not Science, Motivates Fish Agency’s Change of Heart

The Bush Administration announced today that it has changed its mind about Oregon's coho salmon: in June of 2004 it wanted to protect coho under the Endangered Species Act, but now it says protection isn't necessary. The decision to deny protection is based largely on recent population increases, but the decision comes over the objections of scientists both inside and outside NOAA Fisheries -- the government agency in charge of recovering coho since they were originally listed in 1998.

As outlined below, the coho situation has clearly not improved enough to warrant stripping them of federal protection.

No evidence that habitat has improved. "There is simply no evidence that habitat for coho salmon has improved, or even that it can improve under current management," says Dr. Chris Frissell, past Oregon State University salmon researcher and Senior Scientist for Pacific Rivers Council. "Because harm to habitat is the overriding threat to coho, it is unreasonable to remove ESA protection until habitat and populations have both recovered."

Success of state and federal restoration efforts unknown. Peter Bahls of the Northwest Watershed Institute investigated how much progress has been made in restoring coho and their habitat, with a focus on the Alsea Basin in Oregons Mid-Coast. "It's really too soon to tell if federal, state and private habitat restoration efforts are successful or even likely to succeed in restoring salmon populations," explains Bahls, "We are still identifying and prioritizing what needs to be done to restore salmon watersheds, and the success of measures taken to date is almost totally unknown."

Oregon's ability to focus on priority recovery needs is questionable. "Oregon's leadership does not always make the best use of limited state and federal salmon restoration resources," says Mary Scurlock, PRC Policy Analyst. As an example, PRC points to the Oregon legislature's 2003 decision to spend $7 million for a Regional Hatchery Research Center in the Alsea Basin. "None of the restoration assessments for the Alsea Basin indicate that more research on hatcheries is a priority need for salmon recovery, and the research we do have tells us that hatcheries won't help coho recovery, no matter how much we reform them. The greatest benefits to coho will come from on-the-ground protection and restoration of habitat and there is a huge backlog of unfunded, important restoration projects waiting for funding."

"Stronger federal oversight and the additional resources that come with a listing are what's needed to save the coho but what we're getting is the exact opposite," said Scurlock.

Recent upswing relatively small and shrinking. "Without evidence that coho habitat is generally improving, the recent upswing in Oregon coastal coho numbers alone doesn't justify removal of federal protection," says Dr. Frissell. "The recent increase in returns is a minor blip on the long-term decline of coho populations over the past century. The upswing is likely to prove short-lived, as it resulted from a short period of favorable ocean conditions, possibly in combination with reduced harvest and benefits to wild fish from cutbacks in releases of hatchery fish."

"Freshwater habitat protection and successful restoration are what matters in the long run for Oregon coastal coho," concluded Dr. Frissell. That reality is precisely what the present administration and some agriculture, timber and development lobbies want to hide from by stripping the coho of ESA protection."

"Denial of ESA protection for coho may meet the political and economic goals of industry interests that manage much of the Oregon Coast," said Scurlock, "but it's sure not in the best interest of the fish."

To read a summary of the Northwest Watershed Institute Case Study of the Alsea Basin click here