Salmon agreement

You know the state has an uphill fight against the Endangered Species Act when it has more environmentalists suing it than salmon returning to some of its rivers. But Maine and two environmental groups at least are taking the proper steps to put the fish ahead of the legal battle.

A letter sent last month to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shows that their efforts are sincere. Trout Unlimited (both national and state groups), the National Fish and Wildlife Federation and the Maine State Planning Office agreed recently to a four-point proposal that tries to improve salmon returns in exchange for TU postponing for six months its intention to sue. Another group, Defenders of Wildlife, and nearly a dozen cosigners, sued two federal agencies last week over the state’s salmon plan.

The first point made in the joint letter is the most important. It calls for an immediate peer review of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s hatchery and stocking program. Hatcheries have operated in Maine for 130 years, putting millions of salmon into the Downeast rivers. The fish swim out to sea, but return in numbers far lower than what would be expected with wild salmon. Finding out why should be the beginning of an honest search for the reasons behind the declining salmon population.

So start with the stocking program and this thought: Some rivers to the north and south of those affected by the lawsuit lack hatcheries but have better return rates than the Downeast rivers. Is it something in the hatchery salmon that makes them particularly susceptible to predation? It’s a question worth exploring. The agreement requires Maine to accept the review panel’s recommendations and seek assurance that the hatcheries will modify their practices based on the review.

The three other points in the proposal are as follows:

A review of TU’s request that other streams will be included in the year-old state plan that was crafted by Maine and federal officials to take the place of a listing through the Endangered Species Act.

An opportunity for TU to address concerns about the state plan’s enforceability and proposed actions.

The state and TU agree that the United States should not support any interceptory harvest of Atlantic salmon in the North Atlantic and that it should support an end to Greenland’s high-seas harvest. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation agrees to continue to seek a negotiated purchase of fishery harvests.

Whatever charges are traded during the lawsuit brought last week against Maine’s salmon plan, the public should be aware that a serious, sincere effort — from both sides — has been under way to protect salmon. It’s a good sign in a debate that often has been about politics and posturing.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should support the positions in the letter by agreeing with the need for the actions stated in the letter. It could lead to improved cooperation all around and, perhaps, more salmon returning to Maine’s rivers.