When the federal government listed wild Atlantic salmon as an endangered species in eight Maine rivers just over a year ago, Gov. King promptly sued, alleging that the listing was based upon faulty science. When a National Academy of Sciences panel was convened last summer to sort through the conflicting evidence on whether the Maine salmon are genetically distinct and thus candidates for protection, the governor said he would abide by the academy’s judgment.

The verdict is in. The panel – the NAS’ National Research Council Committee on Atlantic Salmon in Maine – released its report Monday, concluding that North American Atlantic salmon are clearly distinct genetically from European salmon and – here’s where Maine’s lawsuit begins to unravel – proof that wild salmon in Maine are distinct from Canadian salmon “is surprisingly strong,” despite extensive additions of non-native hatchery and aquaculture fish to Maine rivers. Throw in the finding of considerable genetic divergence among populations in the eight Maine rivers, and the suit is in tatters.

This is an interim report, a designation that must not be misconstrued as suggesting the possibility of a final report with a different conclusion. It was the committee’s intent from the start to assess the genetics issue first, then to complete its comprehensive study of other factors affecting wild salmon, such as the interaction among hatchery, aquaculture and wild populations, the impact of various land activities and marine conditions, water use by agriculture and the changing hydrology of Maine’s streams and rivers, and subsistence, recreational and commercial activities. The report may be interim regarding the entire universe of salmon-related issues, but on the specific question of genetics, it is final.

Since that specific question is the basis of the litigation, the state should withdraw. The private-sector interests that joined the suit – aquaculture, blueberry and forest-products businesses – are entitled to pursue the case as they wish, but the public interest is the business of government. The public is not served by having its money and the time of its officials spent on a suit that likely cannot be won.

It is not hard to find other ways the state and its officials could busy themselves – they are described quite explicitly in the list of other factors that will be evaluated in the full report to come. Progress in reducing irrigation withdrawals during critical times has been infamously slow. The aquaculture industry remains in dire need of assistance to adapt to the necessary changes. There are in the eight watersheds a thousand or more small bank-erosion, faulty septic and other water-quality problems that must be remedied. None of this is glamorous work, but it is doable – a distinct improvement over suing the federal government.

This entire episode has been a challenge for Gov. King. The state conservation plan, accepted by the federal agencies in 1997 in lieu of the endangered species listing, was not implemented with sufficient vigor and commitment to produce concrete progress in improving habitat. The scrapping of the state plan and enactment of the listing in late 2000 resulted in imprudent comments by the governor that generated baseless fear in the affected regions and raised the level of animosity between competing interests, in contrast to the cooperation last summer between aquaculture and environmental groups that led to an agreement on ways to reduce fish-farm escapes.

It is time state government followed suit, acknowledged the preponderance of evidence in the NAS report and closed this unfortunate case.