The view of a society ignorant of steelhead

cabezon

Sculpin Enterprises
#31
A few comments. While I understand that it was one of the responsibility of the report writers to put a price tag on correcting the incredible habitat destruction that has occurred in Southern California streams, any claim of what something will cost in 80 to 100 years needs to taken with a tremendous grain of salt. Imagine what a loaf of bread (or solyent green - the youngsters may need to Google that reference) will cost in 80 to 100 years.

Second, we already know how expensive restoring habitat / access for salmonids can be locally. The BPA issues estimates of the "costs" of their efforts to mitigate their Columbia river dams, on the scale of $320 million / year (see http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19941208&slug=1946009). Some are true costs (e.g., barging fish, supporting hatcheries, harassing/relocating predators) and some are "costs" in the form of foregone opportunities to generate power when they spill water over the dams, rather than through turbines, to assist with outmigration of smolts. One can make a cogent argument that these foregone opportunities are not really costs, but BPA does and includes these in their propaganda.

Third, many of the problems facing salmonid recovery in southern California is the myriad small blockages created by small dams that lack salmon ladders and roads that lack proper culverts. The #1 priorities were water storage and vehicle access and no consideration was given to what rivers do and what lives in them. You can make the argument that the $1-2 billion price tag is the cost of previous bad designs. But, we have our own problems with access. Restoration efforts like the removal of the Elwha dams are a great step in the right direction. But, Washington state is already in technical violation of a court order in a case brought by the tribes for inadequate stream passage. While progress is occurring, the backlog of just culvert work is huge.

Steve
 

Jeremy Floyd

fly fishing my way through life
#32
It does not take a rocket surgeon to realize that if we cannot stop the demise of the lives of the animals in the food chains around us, at some point we will be helpless to stop out own demise. The earth will still be here. We just wont be, if things continue.
 
#33
Well instead of fighting a hatchery culture,sovereign native American interests, and and the commercial fishing industry for native restoration, they will be fighting the water rights consortiums of Southern California. So we can expect progress to be just as painful as in the Northwest.Peachy!
 

Abomb

Active Member
#34
It does not take a rocket surgeon to realize that if we cannot stop the demise of the lives of the animals in the food chains around us, at some point we will be helpless to stop out own demise. The earth will still be here. We just wont be, if things continue.
No, but it will take a brain scientist.
 
#35
I still don't like California or for that matter Californians.
the animals on earth when man arrived here didn't like us either I bet..I wonder how humans made it before we could defend ourselves?
Easy to point to intelligence as our survival skill or was it we just tasted bad like stinky caterpillars to birds? : )
 
#36
A few comments. While I understand that it was one of the responsibility of the report writers to put a price tag on correcting the incredible habitat destruction that has occurred in Southern California streams, any claim of what something will cost in 80 to 100 years needs to taken with a tremendous grain of salt. Imagine what a loaf of bread (or solyent green - the youngsters may need to Google that reference) will cost in 80 to 100 years.

Second, we already know how expensive restoring habitat / access for salmonids can be locally. The BPA issues estimates of the "costs" of their efforts to mitigate their Columbia river dams, on the scale of $320 million / year (see http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19941208&slug=1946009). Some are true costs (e.g., barging fish, supporting hatcheries, harassing/relocating predators) and some are "costs" in the form of foregone opportunities to generate power when they spill water over the dams, rather than through turbines, to assist with outmigration of smolts. One can make a cogent argument that these foregone opportunities are not really costs, but BPA does and includes these in their propaganda.

Third, many of the problems facing salmonid recovery in southern California is the myriad small blockages created by small dams that lack salmon ladders and roads that lack proper culverts. The #1 priorities were water storage and vehicle access and no consideration was given to what rivers do and what lives in them. You can make the argument that the $1-2 billion price tag is the cost of previous bad designs. But, we have our own problems with access. Restoration efforts like the removal of the Elwha dams are a great step in the right direction. But, Washington state is already in technical violation of a court order in a case brought by the tribes for inadequate stream passage. While progress is occurring, the backlog of just culvert work is huge.

Steve
Maybe we could revamp the WPPSS Satsop Nuclear division team to take over fish restoration. They build real pretty 600 foot tall flower pots.....
 

Jim Welch

Veni, Vidi, Fishi
#38
So, I am curious, is there such a thing as a "too much money" threshold for habitat and specie restoration? Or should we adopt a policy of "whatever it takes"? Where does the line get drawn?
 

dryflylarry

"Chasing Riseforms"
#39
I'm all for habitat restoration, but, it costs big bucks, usually. That's where volunteers help a lot to keep costs down. I think a bigger priority is "habitat protection" first. Streams and wetlands are still being screwed with today by various developers. Just look around at the developments and bulldozers in your neighborhood. That's why it's important to stay ontop of what's going on in your own community and take part in going to the public hearings with your county commissioners, etc. Ever go to a public hearing with your other fly club members to protest a buffer being violated along your favorite stream that provides steelhead or cutthroat habitat? Heck no.....
 

Citori

Piscatorial Engineer
#40
Random factoid. It costs WDFW about $200-$250 per hatchery steelhead caught to produce them, but that same hatchery steelhead caught by a recreational fisherman returns about $750 to the local economy. WDFW's numbers. Not saying hatcheries are the answer by any means, just illustrating another way to look at the "cost" issue. Turns out those steelhead and salmon are a pretty important part of this state's economy.

If you really want your stomach to turn, take a look at what this state's commercial fisheries return in direct revenues to the state, and the net economic value they contribute to the state economy. Some commercial fisheries in total are worth less than what the taxpayers pay to produce the fish for them to catch.

Another interesting factoid. After all the billions (that's right, with a "b") spent on habitat restoration in WA, there is not one river in WA that has had its escapement goal increased to take advantage of the "restored" habitat.
 

KerryS

Ignored Member
#41
Another interesting factoid. After all the billions (that's right, with a "b") spent on habitat restoration in WA, there is not one river in WA that has had its escapement goal increased to take advantage of the "restored" habitat.
There are more benefits obtained from a restored habitat than just an increase in fish.
 

Ringlee

Doesn't care how you fish Moderator
#42
Random factoid. It costs WDFW about $200-$250 per hatchery steelhead caught to produce them, but that same hatchery steelhead caught by a recreational fisherman returns about $750 to the local economy. WDFW's numbers. Not saying hatcheries are the answer by any means, just illustrating another way to look at the "cost" issue. Turns out those steelhead and salmon are a pretty important part of this state's economy.

If you really want your stomach to turn, take a look at what this state's commercial fisheries return in direct revenues to the state, and the net economic value they contribute to the state economy. Some commercial fisheries in total are worth less than what the taxpayers pay to produce the fish for them to catch.

Another interesting factoid. After all the billions (that's right, with a "b") spent on habitat restoration in WA, there is not one river in WA that has had its escapement goal increased to take advantage of the "restored" habitat.
Is that a statewide average of hatchery steelhead? How about the PS river in particular? I have heard over $1000 per fish in the Nooksack and Skagit.

Ecosystem health is the big picture through habitat restoration, not just more salmonids returning to improved habitat.
 
#44
As Southern California grew, development, flood-control measures, agriculture, ranching, mining, dams and other activity severely depleted steelhead habitat, forcing it onto the endangered species list in 1997

Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/jan/12/restoring-steelhead-to-cost-up-to-21-billion/#ixzz1kgBysNYo
- vcstar.com
Everyone here can say this is the same for any city or town up and down the West Coast including Alaska and Canada, not just California.

The problem/ignorance with the So Cal folks before they crammed themselves in that valley, bowl, desert, or what ever you want to call it, the area already had a hard enough time sustaining the flora/fauna with water.

Where in the hell do they think their water is coming from now and how expensive it is to get it there??
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
#45
Richard,

A few years back I observed that most people don't know where their water comes from, or their energy (oil, gas, electricity), or where their sewage goes. Society is woefully ignorant of basic utilities.

Sg