The view of a society ignorant of steelhead

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by ChrisC, Jan 13, 2012.

  1. Yard Sale Active Member

    Posts: 302
    The Hood
    Ratings: +99 / 0
    This thread tells me more about the ignorance of PNW folks than it does about Californians. Do you think it would be any better in Texas? Kansas? New York?

    Not all of CA is in LA. SF is actually mid-california....

    Your stateism is highly offensive!
  2. Chris Bellows aka. topwater

    Posts: 1,514
    The Salt
    Ratings: +569 / 0
  3. Ringlee Doesn't care how you fish Moderator

    Posts: 1,860
    Somewhere you don't know about, WA
    Ratings: +53 / 1
    Sadly, I agree 100%
  4. Evan Burck Fudge Dragon

    Posts: 6,287
    Duvall, wa
    Ratings: +1,493 / 2
    Here's a fact about the majority people in every state: People live in an artificial environment, where the natural landscape has been paved over and shelter built. Their food is artificially provided for them, where it magically appears on store shelves and restaurant menus. How it got there is none of their concern. Because of this, they neither know nor care how their ecosystem, or lack thereof, works. And until it bites them in the ass in a huge way, they never will.
  5. cuponoodle breakfast gritty

    Posts: 1,585
    Ratings: +208 / 0
    Yeah. CA is fucked up because of all the people moving there from Washington. That, and the rabid unicorns terrorizing the streets.
  6. Klickrolf Active Member

    Posts: 492
    Klickitat, Washington
    Ratings: +95 / 0
    please excuse me if I'm out of line. I think we could restore...some, if not most...of washington state steelhead with almost nothing!!!!!!! All we need are regs that criminalize harvest of wild fish in the commercial and tribal fisheries. That eliminates all gill nets in freshwater. There are no populations of steelhead or salmon that can sustain gillnetting of wild fish "IN FRESH WATER". Tribes have a right to 50% of harvestable fish...but wild fish should not be harvestable!!

    And California would be better off if they had more steelhead...but that's just my opinion.
  7. (BigDave) Member

    Posts: 67
    Ratings: +12 / 0
    It's not all about harvest, its more a question of habitat. Harvest is easy to fix, habitat is not.
  8. JS Active Member

    Posts: 850
    Ratings: +40 / 0
    Unfortunately, the title of this post is more acurately stated as; "The ignorant views of the majority of western society".
  9. norcal51 Member

    Posts: 321
    coeur d alene, Id
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    So glad im originally from NOR-CAL, damn so-calers and there unquenchable thirst for our water. I found it funny that some of the worst comments came from people who claimed to be sportsman. obviously they have never caught a steelhead. When cali falls into the ocean it will mostly be so cal that goes. the major fault thru the middle of the state shoots out into the ocean right by San Francisco, so my beloved nor-cal should stay intact.
  10. Ryan Higgins Active Member

    Posts: 289
    East Wenatchee, WA
    Ratings: +31 / 0
    Sad sad truth.
  11. cabezon Sculpin Enterprises

    Posts: 1,699
    Olympia, WA
    Ratings: +217 / 0
    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 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.

  12. Jeremy Floyd fly fishing my way through life

    Posts: 2,519
    Quesnel, BC
    Ratings: +301 / 0
    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.
  13. robspe7370 Member

    Posts: 56
    Poquoson, VA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    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!
  14. Abomb Member

    Posts: 379
    In the skinny
    Ratings: +23 / 0
    No, but it will take a brain scientist.
  15. gldntrt40 Member

    Posts: 178
    UFO over the city
    Ratings: +2 / 0
    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? : )
  16. gldntrt40 Member

    Posts: 178
    UFO over the city
    Ratings: +2 / 0
    Maybe we could revamp the WPPSS Satsop Nuclear division team to take over fish restoration. They build real pretty 600 foot tall flower pots.....
  17. doublespey Steelhead-a-holic

    Posts: 588
    Bothell, WA
    Ratings: +18 / 0
    Anyone watch "Rivers of a Lost Coast"? If not, you can watch the trailer here:

    Just because this tool doesn't realize what Californians lost (or its value) doesn't change history.

    Wait 10 -20 years and the same will likely be said of WA and OR.


  18. Jim Welch Veni, Vidi, Fishi

    Posts: 82
    Renton, WA
    Ratings: +11 / 0
    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?
  19. dryflylarry "Chasing Riseforms"

    Posts: 4,072
    Near the Fjord
    Ratings: +533 / 0
    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.....
  20. Citori Piscatorial Engineer

    Posts: 1,187
    Federal Way, WA
    Ratings: +102 / 0
    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.