Apparently Split Bamboo needs to reread his post and wet line's response.
I think it is not only a right (see Constitution) but a duty to point out bullshit especially when disinformation can have grave impact on natural resources such as salmon and trout populations. If someone takes the time to be informed and back up their assertions with examples and facts then they won't be criticized for bieng ignorant or talking out their ass. If more of us called bs on these clowns, maybe they would think before they communicate. Far too many fishers think they know more than the resource managers that are tasked with the unenviable job of protecting the resource. Most of the time these self appointed armchair biologists don't have a clue what they are talking about and their misinformation does damage. None of them are ever happy or thankful when their version of the issue is proven to be drivel. Misinformation tends to be exaggerated as it is passed from one person to another and it spreads like disease. I see it all the time on this site but I wasn't going to let it slide in my back yard. If people want to take it personally instead of becoming informed and arguing from that standpoint then that is their right. I'm not here to baby their egos but I will point out when I think they are full of it! Most people don't want to be told they are ignorant or incorrect, but constructive adults will come around and admit to being wrong and try and learn from the experience. If you don't want to be labelled as ignorant, don't get on the soapbox when you are poorly informed about the topic at hand! Ignorance is rarely recognized and outed unless it is voiced. If your soapbox collapses, don't blame the guy who points at it before it does.
Split bamboo accuses the City of Seattle of paying lip service to ligitimately threatened species and then admits he hasn't read the document he is criticizing. And he thinks he can question my credibility? Amazing! When you take the line that you can judge a document you haven't read (ie "paying lip service" statements are very judgemental and suggest being well informed) you leave yourself open to all kinds of criticism especially from those who may have helped write the document! Kind of like reading an abstract of a scientific paper and then lambasting the synopsis of results without reading the methods and materials or discussion sections. You would be criticized and likely mocked by informed readers or professionals. Perhaps split bamboo would be more informed if he read the whole HCP instead of a synopsis on a web site? He may then realize that the HCP was written and implemented 10 years before steelhead were listed in P. Sound! Just to be clear split bamboo here are your words: "They acknowledge that O. mykiss is an ESA listed species, but in their Habitat Conservation Plan, in which they tout their metrics used to monitor ESA listed species, they do not have any metrics in place to monitor steelhead." So, in actuality you did not refer to a website in this sentence but the document itself. Had you actually read it, which your statements imply you did, you would have realized that the sockeye hatchery is part of the Landsburg Mititation Agreement which provides payback for blocking fish at Landsburg Dam and for sockeye production that would have occurred above the dam, if sockeye were allowed into upstream habitats. The Instream Flow Agreement lays out the steelhead monitoring program and the associated metrics. So, yes, your statement was erroneous. If you find that too personal, I guess you must be the thenthitive type. Can't help you with that, I'm a biologist not a mental health practitioner.
Split bamboo then goes on to support wet line by implying that wet line never implicated local politicians and media on what he thinks are poor decisions regarding the historic sea lion problem at the locks. I think people set themselves up for embarassment by making assertions without any backup examples or citations or, in this case, no information at all. Wet line stated "The city of Seattle and the Seattlle media were big factors in thwarting the efforts to do something with the sealions." How on earth could they be big factors in thwarting efforts to deal with the problem if they didn't affect the decisions? Why would thwarting those efforts be in the interest of City of Seattle residents or their reps? I never stated that wet line implied that media and politicians had final say, geez. Feel free to quote my response to show this! Did wet line provide examples as I requested? Instead, splt bamboo brings up a totally different issue in a completely different part of the state. He then goes on to state that I asserted federal decisions are immune to public input but nowhere in my response do I even come close to such an assertion. Did Seattle media and politicians have there say about Hershel and his buddies...yes...did that input amount to a big factor thwarting the effort to find solutions...give me a break. Tell me how!!!!!! Examples in situ not in Forks! The City had no more influence than you would have at a federal public hearing on the issue. However, as I asserted, the co-managers do have pull because the fisheries are managed by them and because the fish and animal populations in question are not ecompassed by federal lands and facilities.
SB is correct that sockeye will not be allowed above the dam due to the fact that the diversion dam diverts drinking water. Salmon carcasses tend to cause problems with nutrients and algae blooms in water storage reservoirs. Algae blooms and fish carcasses cause taste and odor problems for drinking water never mind issues with public health. Algae blooms aside, does anyone want to drink from an unfiltered water source with rotting fish in it? Perhaps SB likes to drink water mixed with rotting fish, I do not and most others do not, hence, no sockeye above the dam. The hatchery is actually designed to provide a substitute for that lost sockeye productivity above the dama and the lost productivity from the historic blockage. Anyone that actually read the HCP or the City's HCP website would know that.
I agree with SB that a hatchery is not worth it if the fishery only happens every 4 to 6 years. However, sales taxes providing marginal if not negligible increases in tax revenue to Seattle coffers is not a reasonable theory for Seattle support of this mitigation hatchery and that was my point about the beer gas and food for sockeye fishers. Wet lines assertions seem to imply that Seattle's and King County's support for the hatchery was all about money which as I stated, is just a bunch of hot smelly air. Here's what he wrote:
"Now that Seattle utilities is on line with the hatchery as well as the King County council they are pushing and finally succeeded in propagating a non resident species. This is all about perceived revenues increases for the city and county. The once in awhile Lake Washington Sockeye mad house fishery generates huge dollars in revenues." The fact is Seattle had been paying for an interim hatchery for many years and the permanent hatchery will only double the production goal for the interim hatchery. The City has not recently gotten on board for the money. In fact, the City will pay to contrcut the permanent hatchery and will provide the funding for WDFW personnel to run it. That's right, the City will pay all costs associated with building, staffing, maintaining and monitoring all hatchery operations and results. You think a little sales tax is going to pay for that with enough left over to sway the mayor to get on board? I do not believe that would provide positive cash flow but even if I was wrong, would it be enough to make it the primary reason for "being on board" like wet line suggests? Not even in the realm of reality. I stated why the City was on board and I stand by those assertions. The idea that this is all about revenue for the city of Seattle is a cop out by someone who doesnt' want to take the time to read and be informed. The fact is, the sockeye in the Cedar River are in trouble, partly due to flood impacts on incubating eggs and alevins and partly because of conditions in the lake and in the ocean. The returns over the last 4 years have been below 30,000 so the idea that there will be 200,000 harvestable sockeye anytime soon is not realistic. Not sure where you got that number but the last fishery provided approximately 70,000 fish harvested commercially and recreationally and that year, the co-managers didn't even come close to meeting their escapement goals on the spawning groundsn of 450,000 fish (Cedar River and N. Lake Wa. and Samammish Tribs. Will the hatchery provide fisheries if and when lake and ocean conditions improve? I don't know. What I do know is floods can't scour eggs in a hatchery and without the hatchery, the current trajectory for Lake Wa. sockeye is very dismal.
Sorry if I offended anyone who doesn't take the time to know what they are talking about. Certainly the poorly informed people like that are far more credible than someone who rude enough to take the time to provide reasonable arguments and assertions that are based in fact and backed with real examples. Could I have been more politically correct? Probably, but hey, this is a thread, not a public hearing. It's no wonder our fishery resources are in such dire shape. People are more worried about their personal feelings than they are about providing factual discourse that support justifiable solutions. I don't take it personally when someone calls me an asshole because I know that such a reaction likely implies someone has been forced to think about something with more depth and breadth and that's a good thing. Perhaps the uncomfortable feeling will make them think before they spew. Besides, i really like pissing off ignorant people inbetween fishing trips. It keeps me from taking it out on them on the river.