Jim Myron, not misquoted anymore!

[Jennie@ifish]

For those of you who wouldnt sign the letter due to the misquote, our apologies to Jim Myron, and the letter is rewritten.
Any more excuses?
Wow! Over 200 letters now! GO Ifish!
Jen
Rewritten letter here (http://www.ifish.net/hatchery.html)

No need to sign another one, unless you want to.
Please DO email this to everyone you know who cares about this issue!
Jen

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]</p>

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Yeah, explain how this hatchery produces more salmon than nature does?

[WaterDog]

***,

If your talking about the entire region or world, I guess your right. :rolleyes: Nature does produce more.

But if we are talking about specific rivers and its reaches then why don't you explain how nature can produce more fish when the habitat does not allow maximum natural reproduction? Tell me how we can fix the habitat to sustain maximum production within our lifetime?

Not having the hatcheries could be the difference between fishing and NOT fishing. For now, I'll take and pay for the hatcheries.
:smile:

[Nanook]

*** what do you really do? No offense, just curious?

[garyk]

Waterdog:

you wrote - "why don't you explain how nature can produce more fish when the habitat
does not allow maximum natural reproduction? Tell me how we can fix
the habitat to sustain maximum production within our lifetime?"

Deep question, here's my short answer:

1. You protect what remains. Healthy rivers are our most cost-effective hatcheries - they've never been equalled. This will require capital expenditures.

2. You work at restoring what's been damaged where feasible. This will require capital expenditures.

3. The capital has to come from somewhere's. You can continue making huge investments year after year into hatcheries and still have the habitat problem (as well as access) or you can try something different. Hatcheries aren't going to disappear, but for long-term benefit, we have to start shifting some of these captital investments from concrete tanks to healthy watersheds.

Costly? Yes. Long term. Definitely. But look at what 100 years of hatchery culture have brought us and what would you rather have?

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Waterdog

I appreciate your comments. I cannot offer you some silver bullet that is guaranteed to fix the problem with our rivers ability to produce salmon, more than likely because there are many, many bad things that we have done in the past and continue to do today that impact native salmon. Some are obvious while others are not. Some issues can be resolved with simple common logic while others deify logic all together.

I think it is important to realize that we cannot fix this problem in reference to the short term. It took many years to create the problems we have now. I cannot offer a quick and simple solution, but I can offer you two separate glimpses into the future. One is where we continue to hold steadfastly to our hatcheries until one day the funding just disappears and four years later we have nothing to show for all of our efforts and money. Or two, where we see the writing on the wall and instead of wallowing in denial we work to reduce hatchery expenditures now and use the savings to create stabile funding for habitat improvement. That way when the money dries up for our hatcheries we still have the ability to improve our runs. The most cost effective thing about habitat is once we fix it the spending is done. Even if we run out of money fixing habitat at the end we still have something to show for it. As you have pointed out previously I sometimes advocate too much for sports fishing interests, in the long run I believe this too would be what is best for that interest.


******

What do I do? About 55 on the highway…

No sense being pessimistic, it probably wouldn't work anyway…


*** Clerk

[Capin' Dan]

Yahoo, Its this kind of disagreement that makes PETA and enviromentalist smile. We have to keep our hatcheries healthy and manage them smartly. They are not the problem. If money goes away that is supporting hatcheries who is to say that it is going to fix our rivers. Yes it is going to take years of dedication to fix our rivers in the mean time I will take the hatcheries. Yes they have been working for 100 years we do not always manage them properly, but that is something that we have to live with.

I will end this all with one thought. We as sportsman must pull together wether we agree with each other or not. For the furture of the sport.
One more thing to leave you all with I hope it makes your day.

Dan! :smile: :smile:

[WaterDog]

garyk,

Your right and believe me, I understand. I'm on the Yamhill Basin Council and I'm amazed by the work that landowners, the Grande Ronde Tribe, and a few of the local timber companies have done to protect and enhance what is left. I applaud these folks and their effort. I have done my part by volunteering on habitat enhancement projects as well as at the Whiskey Creek Hatchery.

I also know all about capital expenses. There are several new regulations that Cities, large and small, are going to need to address regarding stormwater runoff. Some cities have been already doing this stuff. This is a HUGE issue but doesn’t seem to get much press. :depressed: This is going to cost millions of dollars. All of this the to "save the Salmon". On the surface it's the right thing to do. Will it work? Not in your wildest dreams.

In a nut sack, the regs require "urbanized" areas to implement Best Management Practices(BMP) (swales, ponds, etc.) to control and clean stormwater before it gets to the rivers or creeks. A big component of this is erosion prevention and control. Contractor's would need to install silt fence, hay bales, and whatever to prevent soil from leaving the site. Well that make sense right? Some places already require this. Well, once you leave the "urban" areas, what do you see? Acre's of farmland that is open and exposed. I sit in meetings 2 or 3 times a month and I drive home looking at the very thing that will soon be "illegal" in my city, but is ok if it's farm land. I'm not trying to pick on farmers but it's what I see. I’m not going to bring up non-point source pollution from fertilizer and insecticide use. :rolleyes:

None of this stuff will work unless EVERYONE does their part, and not EVERYONE will. So in the next year or so I have to explain why there is a new "stormwater fee" on everyone’s bill and what it pays for. :rolleyes: I have to explain why we can’t issue a new building permit if the silt fence isn’t up. I know I’ll have to answer the question, “what about the property next door?”, when the 10 acre subdivision under construction gets nailed for having a shovel full (yes a shovel full – thanks NMFS) of dirt leaves the site in a rain storm, when right next door is 100 acres that was just plowed the day before. :mad:

I’m a realist. I don’t live in some fantasy world where planting a few trees is going to save 100,000 fish. Having more hatcheries isn’t going to be the answer either. It’s so one way or the other these days. It’s someone else’s fault, they should fix it. Close all hatcheries, build a hundred more. Remove all the dams and everything will be hunky dory again. Until EVERYONE does their part, we are stuck with the system as it stands. Hatcheries, stormwater runoff, sewer overflows, erosion, and wasted money. :mad:

So garyk, there is my long observation and the reason behind, “in my lifetime”.

***, looks like do agree on something. :smile:

******, what do you mean besides selling hunting and fishing licenses. :wink:

Captin’ Dan, I’m not done yet! :wink:

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: WaterDog ]</p>

[ry]

waterdog- your way off base pal, you want to talk about in my lifetime and talk crap about farmers. dont you think there will be a hell of alot more polution coming from that 10 acre subdivision than 100 acre farm. you call yourself a realist, well get real, all those families, a couple cars each, fertilizer on lawns, paint, the list goes on and on about the efects of a subdivision an the enviroment and water run off. I can't buy 20 acres from my parents farm to buid a home for my family and help out on the farm, but some rich deviloper can come in and get the county to make prime farm land into a subdivision. then some rich a$$ comes in and has a $200 to $400 thousand house built on it. probably the same kind of **** heep that whines about farmers polution and turns a blind to their own neighborhood.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Waterdog

Congratulations, I thought you would never come out of the closet… ahh so to speak. Being on a basin council and dealing with the intricacies of water quality management is to be commended.

There is a lot to be done but at least you have started. I appreciate all the work you and other basin councils are doing.


Ry

I agree that there are problems with our current land use regulation and that they can be applied unevenly. It always seems as though the person who has the most money to spread around gets what they want.


*** Clerk

[ry]

*** you are 100% correct, those with the almighty dollar will always win. They are the same type of people who get on these commitees, boards, and councils so they can fight for their own agenda. this guy will probably use his council status to condem some farmers duck pond, buy it cheep, build $300 thousand homes around it and call it a sancuary.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

I happen to know that Waterdog is not the type you refer to. A Basin Council is made up of many types of people. Yes, there are people who represent big business and real estate developers, there are also people who represent municipalities and other public organizations as well as a group who are made up of the public at large. Waterdog does not represent big business and to my knowledge the Yamhill Basin Council has never even delved into sanctuaries. Further, basin councils have no regulatory authority to order condemnation or to direct other agencies. They can recommend but state agencies are not required statutorily to obey (however the Governor has told state agencies to listen hard to them under the Oregon plan)
I think what you are describing has happened somewhere but we call that place Portland or California.

*** Clerk

[ry]

do you actually believe the farmer wants the one resource that he makes his living off of washed down the river, I think not. Where exactly are you driving seeing all this soil washed away. these developers need different rules because they will take advantage. they don't make their living off the land. they move from town to town throw up some houses and move on. your right land use laws aren't the issue. your the one that brought up farmers though and that subject really hits home with me(literally). Farmers CARE about errosion and water quality. Farmers like to fish too you know.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

ry

Soil conservation districts do go work too.

[Bait O' Eggs]

Wow, I hadnt been on this thread. Looks like the dirt wars are just starting, or maybe we more appropriately call it Stormwater wars. Been kind of slow with no jig wars lately. :rolleyes:

I wanna defend my buddy Waterdog, right up until the point that he wont talk to me anymore. :wink: The Yamhill Basin council is the best basin council out there and their stormwater runneth the cleanest. :tongue:

Just funnin ya SS. :wink:


Pro Staff Yamhill Basin council :wink:

[hustlerrjim]

welcome to the barstool bio 101 class
I hear all this static about habitat,habitat,habitat if the habitat is so bad how come the screw traps tell us we have exellent spawnig success.
bar stool bio 102,tells us we must focus our attention elswhere,because the smolts make it past that part of there life cycle,both hatchery and wild ,this leaves only predation and ocean conditions,does anybody out there know what a screw trap is?????or the results?????[no it isn't a set of handcuffs on the bed post]

[WaterDog]

The specific example are the fields just south of West Salem. The last time I drove by the rivulets were all over the fields 3 to 6 inches deep. There was no cover crop just bare dirt. Haybales have been placed there since but it’s too late.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>these developers need different rules because they will take advantage.<hr></blockquote> And farmers don’t take advantage of anything?!?! :rolleyes:

ry, I see it has hit home, but its hit so hard your not seeing the big picture. I’m not trying to say all farmers don’t care. It’s only one part of the puzzle and whatever you might think, I have nothing against them or how they make their living. If any of the proposed solutions, programs, mandates, laws, doctrines, whatever….. is EVER going to work, then EVERYBODY needs to be on the same page. Gawd, I sound like a broken record. :mad:

The plowboy, pass me a chew, where’s the spittoon attitude isn’t getting us to a solution.

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/324020246.gif

Over and out.

[ry]

I've got a couple of personal agendas that I'd like to work on waterdog. can you recomend any commitees, boards, or councils that have any empty seets--just figured you'd be the perfect one to ask.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

hustlerrjim


http://www.ifish.net/Jim/screwtrap1.jpg

http://www.ifish.net/Jim/screwtrap.jpg


ry

you could try the local basin council but good luck, they won't let me on... it seems I am too liberal. Oh well

[CAGEY]

Whoooopeee, Waterdog, ride em cowboy.

[Straydog]

Ry,

As a member of a Watershed Council, a State fish task force and a Dept. of Interior Regional Advisory Council, I can tell you from experience that membership in these organizations is not skewed heavily towards those with what you seem to want to characterize as an agenda of evil.

Rather, I find that the vast majority of those that give of there time freely to be involved in these organizations are there because they truly care about the resource and have the drive to go beyond just talking the talk. They are willing to walk the walk.

I suggest you do attempt to become involved in any myriad of organizations out there that are trying to make a difference.

Leave the attitude at home and attend some of these meetings with an open mind and you might be suprised. :wink:

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: Straydog ]</p>

[big guy]

we dont here much about hustlerrjim's point but its also a very good one. go jim

[WaterDog]

ry, take a chill pill dude. :smile:

As *** stated, land use laws are an entirely different subject.

All I'm saying is that EVERYONE needs to do their part. NMFS sees erosion as a major problem, right, wrong or indifferent. You think it's fair that there are different rules for developers and farmers when the basic issue is exposed soil? It's ok for the top soil to run off the family farm, but no way should it run off a development? :rolleyes: How the heck does this move towards a solution to saving our fish? :whazzup: If there is not 100% participation from all of the stakeholders, the money that is being spent is just getting ****** away. And believe me, the **** runnith over! :depressed:

Yeah, my own agenda I formulate out of my $300K home as I drive around in my Mercedes. :rolleyes: I wish I had a house that was half of that amount. The only agenda I have is to catch fish and take care of my family. :smile:

***, Thanks. :grin: