Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Andrew Lawrence, Apr 1, 2014.
this is the listing - I have for Puget Sound
Seems to me, the decision makers were a bit preoccupied (no pun intended) with targeting public lands previously managed for waterfowl for bogus fisheries restoration projects to create side channel habitat for Chinook. Projects that were poorly planned, poorly designed, and didn't create the desired side channel habitat.
But I digress. I seem to caught on both sides of these issues. Thus the reason I stayed away from fisheries management when making career path decisions.
Um I think I know the project you are thinking of. I have worked extensively on it and you couldn't be more wrong. That habitat is for juvenile chinook and we find many of them in it during electro fishing surveys as well as coho and chum. Lots of SRCs and char too. It is rearing habitat, not spawning. Good rearing habitat in lower rivers is some of the rarest and most impacted in PS. It is also important during high flow events as refuge and acclimating slowly to salt habitats. Many chinook, coho, and steelhead live in these places for years.
Also, WDFW merely was a partner in that project, it wasn't "their" project. It also didn't cost much to blow up a bunch of dikes. Ironically, much of the money goes towards making sure land owners don't get impacted rather than the actual project improvements.
Many need to think long term. That habitat will have more fish in it every year for decades. It is also part of a long term monitoring project to evaluate how effective such projects are and to improve methods.
In the end I doubt you lost much bird hunting opportunity.
We in the restoration community are long term thinkers, and every little bit of protected or restored habitat counts. The general public typically just wants more limits now. Who is the one with the problem? I know what I think....
I agree. I have been gone from up in that state for 9 years. They were gonna improve things then. Things seem worse now than then. Jeeeeez
Of course, things are not a picnic down here either. And yet they wonder why people are leaving the fishing and hunting sports in droves.
Total estimated cost of said project in 2005 dollars: $2,748,259. Nope didn't cost much.
Total acres of accessible public land lost and not replaced: 175 acres. Nope no loss of opportunity there I guess.
The tide gates don't work correctly. It doesn't drain as intended. You didn't get side channel habitat. You got a giant brackish water pond. I am truly happy to hear the fish are using it. I really could give a rip about lost hunting opportunity at this point. What I do give a rip about is public lands access, stake holders targeting public lands for restoration projects, and the loss of freshwater wintering and feeding habitat for a large population of wintering waterfowl in the area. I understand the issues on all sides quite clearly. I am an educated working professional in the environmental/ natural resources field by the way. As I stated I get caught up in both sides of these issues whether I want to or not. As to the rest of the conversation we should take it to PMs if you wish.
I apologize guys. I had no intention of a thread hijack or ruffling any feathers here. I was merely pointing out that there was alot of things going on in fisheries at the time period questioned including a large and controversial fisheries restoration project. It should also be noted that WDFW came under severe budget cuts between to the tune of 21 million between 2007 and 2009. That might also explain some things being left undone.
my understanding is this dates from an older lawsuit from WFC which sued wdfw for operating programs without permits in regard to endangered chinook. the judge gave wdfw 10 years to comply and now that 10 years has expired the WFC has re-sued. let's be clear that even if it is only from 2007, that's still plenty of time to get the permits necessary to run your programs if you truly give a shit. i'm sure individuals within wdfw do care, but as an agency it is clear they don't give a rat's ass about wild winter steelhead.
of course, they may be using these reduced plants as they always have... as a public relations move to make those who oppose them feel increasing pressure from the public and politicians and not have to make the changes/do the work necessary.
I find it amusing when humans think they can "fix" mother nature. She has a way of regulating things in the end.
" History shows again and again how nature points up the folly of men", Blue Oyster Cult.
“It’s in everyone’s best interest to quickly reach an agreement that will promote the recovery of Puget Sound steelhead and provide for tribal and recreational fisheries,” Jim Scott WDFW.
Mmmm, promote the recovery of Puget Sound steelhead, interesting idea.
LOL. This appears to be such a clueless statement. I may be wrong. But I don't know anybody who works in restoration that thinks they are "fixing" anything. Nothing is that simple.
Here is what we mainly do: fix culverts for fish passage, fix tide gates for fish passage, remove dikes that aren't necessary to reconnect habitat, and plant trees.
If you think this work isn't important and that we are all numbskulls than I am afraid you are sorely wrong.
In every case Mother Nature does the brunt of the long term work, but I doubt she is going to remove a culvert, improve fish passage, and keep a logging road functional, all at the same time.
Think about it, does Mother Nature carefully remove an derelict dike to improve habitat and keep a neighborhood nearby from getting flooded by building a better dike which also gives more land to the river?
The work we do is a never ending set of compromises, we don't get to come and and simply "fix" anything. We work with land openers constantly and they are almost always happy with what we do.
Your comments raised hackles because it is clear you are against such projects. Some are better than others to be sure. There have been successes and failures. I won't deny that.
But to say that we simply can just sit around and let Mother Nature solve our problems, carefully create compromises, is wrong.
Mother Nature does not care about infrastructure. Or fish, or us for that matter.
Mother Nature's "fixes" can leave us devastated by the way. She doesn't exactly paint with a small brush so if you ever are part of a "fix" just tell yourself it's better than all the engineers and scientists trying to help the habitat and fix infrastructure at the same time to create a compromise between humans and nature.
I truly mean no disrespect to you, but if you think restoration groups are not working to improve fish habitat for salmon and steelhead for all of us and aren't being effective you would be wrong. We are all on the same side.
We have long ago bested mother nature. Humans have wiped a large number of species out. They won't be coming back. Once it was thought to be impossible to over fish the seas and rivers. Once the forests were thought to be endless.
"Mother nature" cannot fix the things we have broken. Rivers that have been damed, straightened, cutoff from their flood plains and "de snagged" (and maybe dredged too for good measure) will not recover themselves if we walk away.
Interesting that the gal at the counter made no mention of this when she took my $63 for the 2014 license -- seems they should tell us they'll be even less opportunity than last year (if that's even possible). Of course, this does fit well with the new mantra "paying more for less"; so I shouldn't be surprised.
Frankly, The Wild Fish Conservancy can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned. This does absolutely nothing but harden the lines between the public, the WDFW and these over-the-top groups. Lawyers will get rich and the fish and the fisherman get screwed... simply stupid.
I like what freestone said minus the go f themselves part.
Unfortunately freestone, the gal behind the counter most likely doesn't have a clue. She's not even remotely a player in the game.