Salmon 2100: The Future of Wild Salmon
A conference held in Portland, Oregon
January 25, 2006
Comments by WDFW Director Jeff Koenings

It is to my great pleasure that I was invited to be here today, and to see many familiar faces around the room of people that have worked hard for salmon. I see individuals from Alaska, British Columbia, Oregon, Idaho, and of course Washington State.

My charge, like the rest of this panel, is to comment on what I heard today and to do it within my allotted time. First, I want to say that I agree with everything Bill Ruckleshaus said earlier----I find that I have less work to do in the future if I do. He takes very good notes.

Second, I have a confession to make! I am a "reformed" regulator and like "reformed" lawyers we are always in recovery. As a "reforming" regulator, I believe that government is not the total answer to restoring fish runs. We don't always have the best ideas even though we do, at times, have the ultimate regulatory authority.

So how do we capture those 'best ideas' from those outside government?

One way we have found to be very successful is to establish collaborative solutions with affected parties---through agreements that if followed don't trigger either the regulatory control or the resultant blow back by the public. Such solutions are accepted and become lasting solutions that work on the ground.

That's the way the State of Washington approaches salmon recovery!

Why? Because salmon recovery is about change---and as several speakers have pointed out--- it's a change in how people make an impact on their watersheds.

Why do people change? We've figured out that people change not in response to government edicts----in fact their first reaction is to resist those changes. People change because people they trust, their neighbors for example, say it's a good idea!

So we are in the process 'as state government' of becoming a better neighbor!

Now, back in 1998 and before most salmon ESA listings in Washington State, the State Legislature designed and adopted a 'bottoms up" approach to restore salmon populations. The state invested, yes invested, millions of dollars in local watershed groups such as 'lead entities', regional boards, regional fish enhancement groups to figure out how local collaborative efforts could lead salmon recovery efforts.

The legislature also created the Salmon Recovery Funding Board----a citizen based board that makes the decisions on funding locally developed science-based projects to recover the fish. Money doesn't flow through government agencies (as they have no vote as board members), but through the decisions of citizens like Bill Ruckleshaus.

These watershed groups have produced 5 regional plans delivered to NOAA fisheries.

These groups are implementing hundreds of projects to restore the fish.

These groups get administrative funds that are magnified many times over for projects.

Earlier today I heard a presentation on a local Okanogan County area planning process for salmon recovery. The impression I got from the talk was that the process failed. I disagree! Yes, local state legislators tried to hijack the process, but the push back by local county commissioners resulted in the recovery plan proceeding forward. That the regional salmon plan was submitted to NOAA fisheries over legislator's objections represents a resounding success.

Today's meeting was about change. The central question being: can we change people's viewpoints on an acceptable lifestyle that sustains the recovery of the fish?

• I think we can and will be successful, particularly in Puget Sound. In spite of the huge population pressure that increases daily, I believe that in the end the political will is there.

• I am not as optimistic for fish stocks on the Columbia River for the very obvious reasons articulated earlier this morning. We need to foster an integration of the 4 H's (habitat, harvest, hatcheries, and hydro) not simply create diversions through divisive attacks on one or two of the Hs.

Back to index