2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

How can NOAA add value? The obvious answer is NOAA can contribute a sound scientific basis for the recovery plan, which is lacking from the Fish Accords. The most sound way for recovery planning is a clear-eyed analysis of all the options, including dam removal or by-pass.

Even if a "majority" of regional sovereigns is rallying around the Columbia Basin Fish Accords, it does not follow that the plan will lead to the recovery of salmon and steelhead. Ms. Lubchenco should be basing her decisions on science, not a popularity vote from political interests.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context