????????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.
This began during the Revolutionary War, the United States began with a debt.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.
Shad,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.
So now that you've outed this thinly veiled Trump dump on salmon policy thread, my question is why didn't O'Blameless take action in his first term?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.
Columbia River.How would you spend salmon recovery money and produce more fish now?