BANGOR – The federal government erred when it listed Atlantic salmon in Maine as an endangered species, because it doesn’t have adequate scientific information to justify such action, Gov. Angus King told a National Academy of Sciences panel Tuesday.

The panel, which was formed at the behest of the state’s U.S. senators, was in town to hear from experts on all aspects of salmon to determine how best to protect the species, which has been dwindling in numbers.

The senators and King hope the group will find that the government was not justified in listing Atlantic salmon in eight of the state’s rivers as endangered last year.

King said the ultimate question is whether the fish are “Maine salmon or salmon in Maine.” If they are merely salmon in Maine, as King said he believes they are, the endangered listing is not warranted.

“I have concluded they are neither a species nor a defined population segment and believe you will, too,” King told the 13 members of the panel who attended the all-day meeting at an airport hotel.

King said the salmon in the eight rivers cannot be considered a “distinct population segment” as the government claims, because hundreds of millions of fish, from Canada and elsewhere, were put in the rivers over the past 130 years in an attempt to boost populations.

But the stocking program did not work and native populations persisted, said a biologist from the National Marine Fisheries Service, one of the federal agencies that called for the listing.

John Kocik presented the panel with data showing that from 1970 to 2000, 81 percent of the fish returning to Maine rivers were of natural origin, while 19 percent came from hatcheries. This was concluded from analyzing scale samples from the fish.

The dueling claims are the latest round in a years-long battle between the state and federal government over the best way to restore the state’s lagging Atlantic salmon stocks. State officials believe a state plan developed six years ago offers the best hope, while the federal government believes the state effort was inadequate and that the more onerous Endangered Species Act listing was necessary.

The National Academy of Sciences was called into the fray in an effort to try and settle the matter.

King said in an interview Monday that he had an “understanding” with the former undersecretary of the Commerce Department, which oversees NMFS, that the agency would reconsider the listing if the NAS found fault with the science underlying it.

“If the panel … supports our view, it was likely [the agency] would revisit it and reverse it,” King said.

On the other hand, if the academy finds that the federal government was on solid scientific ground, King said he would accept that outcome and the state would continue its efforts to protect wild salmon.

“If the National Academy of Sciences says it is a [distinct population segment], I’ve got to step up and say, ‘You’re right,'” King said. He said he hoped the agencies would do the same if the opposite happens.

“We would look very carefully at what they have to say,” said George Liles, a NMFS spokesman, stopping short of saying the agency would reconsider the listing.

While the governor clearly impressed panel members, who are all professors and scientists, with his knowledge of the issue, his presentation was followed by that of geneticists and biologists who quickly delved into complicated discussions of the minutia of the genetics and life cycles of salmon.

Looking at the same genetic information, a federal government scientist concluded that Maine’s salmon were clearly different from the fish in nearby Canada while a University of Maine professor said the information was not conclusive.

Ninety percent of the time, he and his colleagues can correctly say whether a salmon is from Maine or Canada based on analyzing genetic information, said Adrian Sidle who works for the U.S. Geological Survey in West Virginia. The agency conducted genetics studies for NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that were part of the basis for their listing decision.

“We have shown that Atlantic salmon in Maine are a discrete unit,” Sidle said.

Not so fast, said Irv Kornfield, a population geneticist at UM.

“The federal information is ambiguous at best,” he said. There were errors in the analysis done by federal scientists and they came to conclusions that were not necessarily borne out by the data, he said.

While not officially second guessing the federal agencies, it is up to the national academy to sort through the rhetoric and data and make recommendations on how best to reverse the declines in Maine’s salmon population. The group will say what information is missing and suggest additional research, if necessary.

It will issue an interim report focused on genetics by the end of the year. A final comprehensive report is scheduled for release by Nov. 30, 2002.

The panel will reconvene Wednesday morning to discuss what additional information it would like to review and what sites in Maine, such as fish farms and blueberry barrens, it wants to visit.