Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Bob Triggs, Jan 20, 2018.
I thought you were a cocaine and hooker kinda Sauk camper.
I think that may have been me with the sand and such....
Jamie, if you do a little research on the dams of the Skagit you'll soon discover that there is a natural barrier to fish migration buried under one of the impoundments. This was used as one of the justifications for dam placement. You can even find old photos of it, although it is very hard if not impossible to deduce any scale to it from those photos. Research was done to try and find any anadromous fish above this 'barrier' but I have to admit that I could not determine who paid for the science.
When I first read Rich's article I had a hard time trying to determine what it was that he was getting at. There are at least two camps obviously. In one camp, rising returns are a "rebound" and lower returns are "slipping" Others with decades of experience with the steelhead of Puget Sound see these fluctuation of numbers as part of the normal cycle of varying conditions of habitat both on land and at sea. And these fluctuations also translate to those streams with severely depressed populations and streams with no hatchery plantings for many many years.
Occupy Skagit has always tried to stick to the facts as we know them. Here's some that keep getting overlooked. Those responsible for the plan at WDFW care about the future of this fishery. How do I know this? I have talked to them face to face - for hours. That is a fact. Without a certain degree of monitoring and enforcement and almost daily accounting, there will be no fishery - period! That is a fact. WDFW has the hammer of emergency closure and will use it when deemed necessary. That is a fact.
Because it is easier to close fisheries than open fisheries on ESA listed fish, the plan is more broad than what many might feel comfortable with. Keep in mind that because they are in the plan, not all numbers and areas will be used all the time, but can be in favorable conditions without seeking another federal permit.
I liked what Nick said at the end of his piece. Fishing through Recovery. It's a great idea! But everyone is going to have a different picture of what that looks like.
You will be getting a phone call soon from Tralfamador.
What happens at Sauk Park stays at Sauk Park!
Except for trees. Those don't stay there.
Brain cells and livers are also lost in those woods.
You have to consider where these scientist get their paycheck from, this influences their science.
I actually think that this is mostly not true. Generally, it is the third party interpretation of the science that is the problem. Mostly scientists are pretty freaking honest from what I've seen.
Unfortunately Bill cherry picks data to coincide with what these .orgs want and ignores the real issues and promotes false information. A person in his position should stay in the realm of facts and science, but he would rather sensationalize and mislead the sheep.
If science is "honest" why do the "mega chems" give so much to fund it? Why is there such a chasm between the haves and the have nots? We are all codependent on what we do to make a living and bios want to keep their jobs like the rest of so called "middle class America" and to do that they need funding for trials and data not necessarily solutions. It's a tough road; we all want fish, we all want as much of an unabashed world as we can. Yet the largest contributors to what kills the resources we love are the ones with the biggest lobby's because they've got the most money, Big power, big Ag, big business. If we really want to know how money effects decisions and science let's start with transparency in political funding and work backwards.
Scientists are honest? Mostly, yes. The system they have to survive in? That's the real question.
The beauty of science is that it begs questioning and requires that the claims predict an outcome.
Whether one chooses to educate themselves enough to understand the nuances of the science and how to interpret them, that’s where chasm is created
Correct and the self restraint and unbiased analysis must be applied no matter how much we want an outcome. Only statistical well gathered data should matter. Unadulterated by personal opinion or self interest.
Biology is the hardest of all science because the scope of the variables. It's because of this, interpretation can be clouded in bias. Not that its diabolical, but human nature wants to be right.
The toughest thing we all want to fish and we all want what is best for the fish so we can have that opportunity. My wife tells me steelheaders live in this ironic dichotomy and have created our own pain.
Doesn't matter where you go or who you work for, you learn to toe (spelling error) the line or they will get rid of you. Every organization/agency has an agenda.
There are many places scientists work without a line to tow. The cynicism towards science belies the amazing advancements society has made due to science and scientists. From medical advancements to communication and everything in between scientists have improved my life.
I have a lot more to say on the topic but it may be best that we not argue the point here.