Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by ChrisC, Jan 13, 2012.
There are more benefits obtained from a restored habitat than just an increase in fish.
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.
Nooksack and Skagit in specific reflect this data.
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??
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.
Maybe I'm not bright enough to have the correct vision, but to me seems it's time to circle the wagons and save the women and children.
I'm sure the $$ mentioned in the article will be spent. but how much will it actually revive these fisheries? The "roadmap to recovery" is another one of those catch phrases that make the pubic think it's all going to be good. It's kinda like this recent NOOA release... http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/01/1_12_steelhead.html ...Just keep studying and planning this situation forever. Now that's what we know how to do. :rofl:
I say let's take the streams that have a decent chance of recovery and spend all the money available on them now. Do whatever it takes. Pay the tribes to stop fishing--no matter the price. Then at least, like the National Parks & Wilderness Areas, there will be a place to go and see what it used to be like everywhere.
As I say. it's time to circle the wagons and save what we can and forget about some places.
Unfortunately you're probably right. However, the concept of "saving the last best fish habitat" gets no real traction. High quality lip service yes, but then the agencies continue to approve projects that can't help but further degrade more of that last best habitat. Death by a thousand cuts. Did I mention the high quality lip service?
The comments are pretty disturbing. If they looked past the fish aspect and educated themselves on the benefits of a properly functioning watershed they would understand that the restoration of such an ecosystem could improve their water issues.... was going to start a rant but not worth it :beathead: