Essay on the politics of WA salmon recovery effortts

Rob Allen

Active Member
#2
This is exactly what i was saying before.

Spending millions or billions on salmon recovery with no results of actual recoverd salmon. Makes it easy to cut salmon recovery funding.

If there are not more salmon now than before all that money was spent then it appears that the money was wasted.

Billions were likely wasted on the F-22 program but we got the world's best fighter out of the program..

I am all for spending money on salmon recovery but if there is sny future for our fish the money we spend on recovery has to start recovering salmon.
 

Charles Sullivan

ignoring Rob Allen and Generic
#3
This is exactly what i was saying before.

Spending millions or billions on salmon recovery with no results of actual recoverd salmon. Makes it easy to cut salmon recovery funding.

If there are not more salmon now than before all that money was spent then it appears that the money was wasted.

Billions were likely wasted on the F-22 program but we got the world's best fighter out of the program..

I am all for spending money on salmon recovery but if there is sny future for our fish the money we spend on recovery has to start recovering salmon.
????????

What are you talking about? Are you talking about the article above? I am usually astounded by your lack of thoughtfulness, this time I think you failed at basic reading and comprehension. Am I missing something?
For a minute I thought you might be reacting to an ignored member so I logged out. Turns out you are just straight up off your rocker.

What if the money spent so far has only slowed the decline in the face of a changed environment that is politically and scientifically hard to change back (I-5, population growth, climate change etc.)?

A parallel would be wetland regulation that has been around for 25 years or so in my county. That is 6-8 Chinook life cycles and they only limited new impacts to wetlands. Politically, Trump and the Republicans in my county would love to eliminate wetland reg's all together. Think of how much worse off salmon/ steelhead would be in my county without them. Does that mean wetland reg's have failed? No it means they have kept it from being worse. It isn't all or nothing or black and white.

Go Sox,
cds
 

lee c

Just Trying to C
#4
Thanks for posting that link Richard. I found it informative and uplifting, something I find hard to find in these trying times.
 

Klickrolf

Active Member
#5
We spend tons on habitat improvement that doesn't improve habitat! We spend tons on hatcheries that don't improve returns! We spend nothing on removing gill nets, commercial fishing, and almost nothing on removing predators. We aren't really involved in trying to improve anadromous fisheries in Washington State. We are involved in watching wild fish become extinct! I've been forced to watch passage improvement where passage should be denied. Not every creek can support anadromous salmonids, when water is plenty yes but when water is low no. Those fish should be forced to spawn where their offspring have a chance to survive. The east side is not the west side but I'm certain this happens on the west side too!

Also, why do we think the other 49 states should give a sh*t about fish in WA? Why should we expect the other 49 states to save us from our ignorance with more money that doesn't produce anything. If Washington wants to improve returns of anadromous salmonids WA should invest itself to doing so. Working with Oregon could help with the Columbia but the Feds should have no responsibility here. It's our job not the Feds, open your eyes folks, the Feds can't help us if we refuse to help ourselves.
 
Last edited:

Rob Allen

Active Member
#6
I don't know when America started spending more money than it made on an annual basis but it sent us all into this fantasy land that we are in now. Billions here billions there hell even trillions.
We do not have any of it.

I am all for conservation spending but if salmon recovery money is going to be spent we have to end up with more salmon. End of story.

Making people feel good about the idea of salmon recovery is of no value if the fish aren't recovered and it makes it easy for politicians to cut salmon funding.

And to answer the question she asks.
Yes you tell the commercials and the tribes and sport anglers that the days of harvest are over. It's not complicated the intentional harvest of listed species is stupid any salmon recovery plan that appeases harvesters is doomed to fail.
The very concept is unintelligent.
 

Alex MacDonald

that's His Lordship, to you.....
#7
I agree here completely. And I wonder just how much damage has been done to salmon with the Marine Mammal Protection Act. When I was a boy, commercial fishermen shot sea lions regularly, and there were adequate populations of both around. Now, seems like lots of pinnipeds, (and lots of great whites) and not a lot of salmon: cause and effect?
 

Charles Sullivan

ignoring Rob Allen and Generic
#8
Why the feds?

The feds approve and license dams, the feds approve and permit wetland fill, the feds built I-5, the feds approved and paid for diking rivers. So now we have locals trying to restore things with federal money. It is not simple. It is not black and white. If you want simple and black and white then the nexus of natural science, social science and politics that is fish recovery in Washington State is not the place for you.

Further, the "is there more fish" argument is asinine. The question is, is there more fish than there would be without the project? and also does the project increase the likelihood that more fish are possible in the future?

So if we were able to get a handle on pinnipeds, reduce dam related mortality etc. is there a place for the fish to spawn and rear? Not all projects are the most sound, nor do they all work but many do.

I live in a county with a river that has been decimated by farming, logging, diking, and development. If left only to the locals it would get far worse. They would fund no recovery. There would be no regulation on farming or timber harvest and they'd pretty much shit in the stream (the farmers already do). It seems the easiest way to fuck up a local environment is to leave it to the locals who extract for their own profit.

Go Sox,
cds
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
#12
I think the article about what Trump doesn't get about salmon recovery gives Trump far too much intellectual credit. That salmon recovery is complicated and expensive doesn't begin to make his radar screen. Trump's actions suggest something far simpler. He just flat out doesn't care. Salmon mean less than zero to a guy like Trump, unless served on a plate, overdone, and with ketchup.

The way Trump's narcissistic child-like mind seems to work, it makes complete sense to zero out every single thing that he doesn't give a shit about. And that is why he sees so many money saving opportunities with the federal budget.

Rob's posts are yet further examples of his black-and-white, either-or, binary thinking. Unable to contemplate the slightest shade of gray, any topic that isn't binary simple is above his intellectual level. Trying to reason with Rob is like trying to recover salmon: you can't get there from here.

And Charles is absolutely correct about the federal nexus. The federal government is the proximate cause by approving, permitting, and often funding the actions that degrade salmon habitat and reduce or destroy its productivity. Therefore it's entirely logical that federal funds be appropriated to mitigate the damage caused by federal action. If you think that federal funds are spent inefficiently or less effectively than is possible, then welcome to pluralism - our system of government. By definition it is inefficient, and unlike Burger King, you cannot have it your way.

Sg
 
#13
I don't know when America started spending more money than it made on an annual basis but it sent us all into this fantasy land that we are in now. Billions here billions there hell even trillions.
We do not have any of it.

I am all for conservation spending but if salmon recovery money is going to be spent we have to end up with more salmon. End of story.

Making people feel good about the idea of salmon recovery is of no value if the fish aren't recovered and it makes it easy for politicians to cut salmon funding.

And to answer the question she asks.
Yes you tell the commercials and the tribes and sport anglers that the days of harvest are over. It's not complicated the intentional harvest of listed species is stupid any salmon recovery plan that appeases harvesters is doomed to fail.
The very concept is unintelligent.
This began during the Revolutionary War, the United States began with a debt.
 

Shad

Active Member
#14
Until we increase escapement goals, not one fish will be gained by habitat improvements. That said, had we increased escapement goals each time we've improved habitat, I think it would have made a big difference by now.

Strange but true that the best, cheapest way to recover salmon is to stop killing them all.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
#15
Apparently this it too complicated for all you educated people.

Trumps position on salmon recovery is the same as 90+% of the American people.
Most people do not care. That's just fact don't overthink it.

We all know salmon recovery at least in Puget Sound is complicated.. again most people don't care.
What do most people care about? Money!
Human nature is not complicated at all.

Money spent with no tangible gain is seen as wasteful and easy to cut from the budget.
If salmon recovery money had produced a thriving fishery and subsequent economy it would be much harder to cut.

If you think that's too simplistic then you do NOT understand humans at all.

The best way no.. the only way to safeguard salmon spending is to produce results now.

The American people do not care about 50 years down the road except their 401k.
Spending billions with nothing concrete to show for it is what is asinine.
I want there to be funding for fish. The best way to ensure that is to produce results, that means more fish now.
 

Latest posts