Klamath Salmon Kill in 2003?

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

The NSA is a unbiased reviewer and doesn't have a money interest here, unlike Earth Just Us and the state of California. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">1. NSA contradicted your views.

2. EarthJustice is non-profit. The lawyers could make more money suing McDonalds over hot coffee.

3. State of CA arguably makes more money with the Klamath water in agriculture, the salmon lost are in Oregon, but it was the CA scientists who contradicted you with the facts after the fish kill.

You try to avoid the facts by pointing out the date that they were published rather that mistakes in the research. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">1. Everything you posted was prior to the fish kill. All you posted were links to the same NSA report prior to the fish kill.

2. The CA biolgists study was after the fish kill and confirmed the prediction by the National Marine Fisheries prior to the fish kill. That was the report suppressed by Sec. of Interior Norton.

How does 70 degree or higher water help salmon? Simple question and you should be able to come up with an answer. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">National Marine Fisheries and CA Fish and Game biologists already answered your question...as did the 40,000 dead salmon.

Why do the eco lawyers chose to ignore the real problem in the Klamath Watershed? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">They listen to the scientists, biologists and economists who all stated that best use for Klamath is end the highly subsidized farming and restore the more economically productive salmon.


You will not address this either <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Au contraire mon ami &lt;grin&gt;.

What % of the fish killed were Klamath River fish and what % were from the Trinity River? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">You'll note the fish kill was downstream. Fish never made it upstream. Was it on a Wednesday or a Thursday might be a more meaningful question.

The NSA reviewed their "science" and refuted it. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Nope...they said they didn't have enough info prior to the fish kill but did note that the science might find in favor of the fish...it did.

"The available scientific evidence does not support current proposals to change water levels or river flows to promote the welfare of the fish currently at risk, although future research may justify doing so," said William M. Lewis Jr., chair of the committee that wrote the report."

I like the study commissioned by the National Geologic survey (see links in the first message) that showed that the best economic use of Klamath Basin is fishing.

This was the one where the Wall Street Journal (of ultra green media) liberated the study and published it.

Sec. of Interior Norton has been proven wrong by:

1. National Academy of Sciences.
2. National Marine Fisheries
3. CA Dept of Fish and Game.
4. National Geologic Survey.
5. 40,000 dead salmon.

Stop her before she kills again.

Brion

[FishaholicAZ]

I am not sure what you guys are saying but its obvious that the ag guys in the Klamath Basin are a big reason for the massive fish kill.
I tend to agree with Brion but then again, what do I know?... :rolleyes:

I just like to fish...

[skein]

He's trolling.

Let him talk to himself.

Kinda like the old joke where the young guy asks the old guy, "why do you always answer a question with a question." and the old guy replies, "why do you ask?"

Don't bother responding to my comment, Brion, 'cause I won't be back. &lt;grin&gt;

Skein

[BrionLutz]

FishaholicAZ

I am not sure what you guys are saying but its obvious that the ag guys in the Klamath Basin are a big reason for the massive fish kill. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Gets jargon infested when folks start using the abbreviations after the 50th time &lt;grin&gt;.

If you look in the first message in the thread, I included links to the sites that reference the National Marine Fisheries and CA Fish and Game studies. If the link isn't obvious, run the mouse over it and the little hand should show up for the link.

No doubt the diversion of water for agriculture killed the salmon.

The snowpack this year is less than last year so the same issues are going to come up with the water diversion.

Prior to Bush Jr and Sec. of Interior Norton, the fish would get priority.

Norton changed that (you remember the headlines and the dead fish) and she will again this year unless the fishermen, tribes and conservationists can stop her.

It's hard to figure since the studies are pretty clear that there's more money and jobs in a healthy run of salmon while the Klamath agriculutre requires some $70M a year in taxpayer money to stay in "business".

Nature Conservancy and others are doing buyouts of the farmers and putting the water back in for the salmon.

I'd buy the farmers out. It's not their fault the Feds lured them into farming in the desert.

Then restore the river systems for max salmon and reap the economic benefits up and down the watershed.

Brion

[Keta]

FishaholicAZ,

Then maybe you can answer me as to how 70 degree water is good for salmon. See what it did for the salmon in AZ :grin:

What would be good for the Klamath system would be to put 100% of the water that isn't used for irrigation (no more acres, but what is in use now) and put it in Tulie Lake and Lower Klamath Lake to restore the marshes. Then this warm water will go to where it did in the past and not harm the fish down river. Next the water from Jenney Creek, the Shasta, Smith and Trinity rivers needs to be allowed to flow into the Klamath bringing the water temp to the range of what salmon need to have for survival.

Bryan,
You are hopeless. Post all the lies you want. )grin(

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

What would be good for the Klamath system would be to put 100% of the water that isn't used for irrigation (no more acres, but what is in use now) and put it in Tulie Lake and Lower Klamath Lake to restore the marshes. Then this warm water will go to where it did in the past and not harm the fish down river. Next the water from Jenney Creek, the Shasta, Smith and Trinity rivers needs to be allowed to flow into the Klamath bringing the water temp to the range of what salmon need to have for survival. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Those are all great suggestions and improvements.

I'd go further and the economic analysis posted by the Wall Street Journal confirms that...but above would be a start at least.

The problem is that Sec. of Interior Norton opposes them.

You know in your heart she's going for the salmon jugular again. Her policies are so relentlessly anti-salmon. It's an ideological thing with her...not to mention the agricultural lobby money and votes for her boss.

Every salmon group involved in the Klamath opposes her.

Brion

[GutshotApe]

As was mentioned before, this topic was hashed and rehashed back when it was current, in Aug & Sept.

The smoking gun is the Scott, Salmon & Trinity River diversions.........not irrigation using stored spring runoff water in the upper basin.

The dead salmon were in the lower Klamath and most were at the Trinity River confluence.....the dead fish were nearly all Trinity River hatchery fish that died in the warm Klamath water because the Trinity, due to its 90% diversion to Fresno-area farms, was too low for the fish to ascend.

Because of, not despite, the upper basin project, there is much more water being released into the upper river during the low flow late summer period than was the case before the upper basin reservoirs were built. In effect, this warm lake water serves to replace the cool, clear water that once came from lower river tribs - these are now diverted to Calif farms. So early returning adults come into the lower river that has much warmer water than the river ever experienced under natural, pre-project conditions.

An appropriate solution would be to release only the amount of water from the upper basin that once flowed under the natural, pre-1917 regime (that would mean a big reduction during the low-flow period) and restore the now-diverted flows in the lower river tribs, esp. the Trinity. That would put a bunch of California farms out of business but would restore the river to a much more natural condition.

Let's see.....Oregon has a 7-member congressional delegation, California has what?......54 members?

Science, unfortunately, has little to do with the proofs you've cited, Brion. This thing is 100% political.... :depressed:

[Keta]

BL,
Try just once to see the what efect of 70 degree water and the diversion of the Smith, Shasta and Trinity Rivers has done to the salmon in the Klamath insted of spouting anti farm propaganda. You haven't answered me on what 70 degree water does for salmon either. Why? )grin(

[BrionLutz]

Gutshotape,

Science, unfortunately, has little to do with the proofs you've cited, Brion. This thing is 100% political....<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">But you've gotta start with the science. The science seems clearly on the side of the salmon vs the high desert subsidized farming.

Once you get the science, you look at the economics, even the Wall Street Journal, the Darth Vader of newspapers, editorialized that it made much more economic sense to go with the fish. They were using the example of the Klamath to argue against the $100B agriculture subsidy bill.

So...now that we've got the science and economics...mix in the environmental and tribes and it should be a winning lobbying group.

Let's see.....Oregon has a 7-member congressional delegation, California has what?......54 members? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Yeah but a lot of'em are ultra geen like me. And you can even grab a couple of the real conservatives who don't like the ag. subsidy on economic grounds.

I think the politics are more national. Bush Jr is using the salmon to score points with the folks who are anti-environment or, more correctly, react to what they perceive as "Eastern liberal scum" image of enviromentalists (what one of the guides uses to describe me...he answers to "Western reactionary trailer trash"...we get along fine &lt;grin&gt;).

So the salmon get sacraficed.

If the conservative Republican fishermen would at least support the salmon and get on their fellow Republicans about it, I think it would take the pressure off and let Bush Jr follow the science and economics and do something good for the salmon.

Brion

[bait boy]

Keta I hate to be wrong and stick my nose where it doesn' belong , but I'm going to anyway...

He did answer the 70 deg. water question by saying that 40,00 fish died because of it and the 2 regulating bodies said it would as well. he's actually got some OK points to discuss.

I have no clue about Earthjustus. so I won't stick my nose in...

[GutshotApe]

Brion, you're missing the point........the "science" is far from conclusive that the fish kill was somehow the fault of upper basin irrigation.

WHAT ABOUT THE TRINITY RIVER DIVERSION??? What does the "science" say about the effect of that (and the other Calif. diversions)? Why do groups like EarthJustUs ignore the SMOKING GUN??? :whazzup:

That's OK, Brion, I know why you can't answer that. :wink:

[BrionLutz]

Gutshotape,

you're missing the point........the "science" is far from conclusive that the fish kill was somehow the fault of upper basin irrigation. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I think "blame" language sets off the testosterone.

Way back when, the government thought we should make the deserts bloom.

We now know that had a huge cost and killed the salmon.

OK...we made a mistake...nobody's fault but let's fix it.

The science of National Marine Fisheries, CA Fish and Game and National Geologic Survery are pretty clear.

Even the Wall Street Journal admitted that the economics and science were on the side of the salmon.

If some plan exists that the farming can exist with the salmon restored I'm all of for it...but no one on either side of the issue believes that.

I think the aggies know this but are fighting for their lives...who wouldn't. Just as we subsidize the farming now, we take the same money and the money spent on the dams and irrigation system and we:

1. Buy out the farmers.
2. Restore the salmon.

Nobody get's hurt.

We get a much better economic return, we have a healthier, more sustainable economy.

WHAT ABOUT THE TRINITY RIVER DIVERSION??? Why do groups like EarthJustUs ignore the SMOKING GUN??? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I don't see any evidence that the fishermen, biologists, economists, environmentalists and the tribes are ignoring anything. These are the groups who come to Earthjustice for legal help.

They are going by the science and biology of the reports and they have 40,000 dead salmon on their side. If the salmon were rebounding like crazy no one would be complaining but they are not. They are dying off.

Why do you say they are ignoring anything about the Klamath Basin salmon.

Brion

[Keta]

Bait Boy,
The agencies in question were accused of using "bad science" by the NAS. They are doing more of the same. Klamath Lake water does not belong in the river after late June.

30,000 dead Trinity River hatchery salmon and less than 3.000 Klamath Rver fish. The total kill was around 33,000. Why do we not look where the problem is?

It's money and political power. California can kill fish and the poor Klamath Basin farmers have to pay.

All of his links go to Earth Justice writings (unbias?) and refer to biologists that have some butt to cover, they were the same ones that the NAS accused of using "bad science" when they shut off the irrigation water.

70 degree water will kill salmon.

California takes 90% of the Trinity River and puts it into the Sacramento Dranage.

California uses almost 100% of the Shasta River and a high % of the Smith River.

Klamath Basin irrigators pay 100% of the cost.
Why?

Klamsth Lake water does not belong in the River in the summer and early fall. It would do wildlife much more good in the Lower Lake and Tulie Lake.

[ 02-17-2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Pilar]

Hi, I noticed some quotations from 'A Moveable feast' in another thread so I thought I'd quote from "for Whom the Bell Tolls". In other words add something just as meaningful to this discussion as our 'ultragreen' gadfly has.


The Lobbyists prayer (forgive me for paraphrasing Mr. H)


"Our nada who art in nada,
nada be thy name
thy kingdom nada thy will be nada
in nada as it is in nada.
Give us this nada our daily nada
and nada us our nada
as we nada our nadas
and nada us not into nada
but deliver us from nada; pues nada.
Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee."

Ernest Hemingway

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What do I know, I'm just the reincarnation of an old wooden boat?

&gt;GRIN&lt;

[Master Baiter]

The State of CA DOES NOT OPERATE ANY OF THE KLAMATH SYSTEM PROJECTS and therefore is not making any money on the water! As for the rest of the arguments, AHHHHH never mind... graemlins/dork.gif

[nerta]

To clarify a statement made in the second post by Brion! " the lost salmon are in Oregon". So everyone discussing this understands, there are NO Klamath River salmon in Oregon! The lack of fish ladders on the CA. dams prevents access to the upper river. Water flows in the past from Klamath Lake didn't reach the lower river every year. Link River dried up. Proving the need for the CA rivers. (pictures of Link River dry, in the klamth county museum) Please study the history of the Klamath River before trying to gather more sheep for some ill focused cursade of this subject. GO FISHING! P.S. :grin: Always flush twice CA still needs all the water they can get. :grin:

[ 02-17-2003, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: nerta ]

[Keta]

Hi MB :smile:

You have far more knowledge of what has been happening to the Klamath System and can be far more objective than either BL or myself. I don't alway agree with you :shocked: on this but you have the facts and numbers. California agriculture is benefiting from tributary water not Klamath Project water, with the exception of the Tulie Lake area.

Keep in touch :smile:

[garyk]

KETA writes -- "The agencies in question were accused of using "bad science" by the NAS."

If memory serves, they were not 'accused' at all.

NAS came to a different result, and in their opinion the data that had been relied upon was insuffecient. It wasn't 'bad science' -- that's a favorite phrase of the anti-fish crowd - but rather the data was inconclusive.

Anyway, it's amusing to see shots taken at people committed to preserving fish and who're trying to put some brakes on the industries that would prefer they went extinct.

Yeah, maybe the Farm Bureau and the American Enterprise Institute will collaborate with Oregonians In Action to effectively restore salmon. graemlins/dork.gif

[Keta]

BS Gary.
Klamath Lake water in the mid summer and early fall will kill salmon. I don't have a big money interest here and I fish. Me and Nerta were some of the first members of "Save our Klamath River" in the early 80's when the city of KF was trying to put another dam on the Klamath River. I was an early member of "Sea Cops" when the Japanese drift gill net fleet was devastating the salmon. I was on the board of directors of the Alaska Outdoor Council for over 12 years fighting commercial over exploitation of OUR salmon.
I have a long history of defending fish and their habitat. The water from Klamath Lake doesn't belong in the river after late June.
There are fish kills in the lake due to it's poor quality and high temperature.

SALMON DIE in 70 degree water.

Most of the fish that died in the Klamath last year were stacked up at the mouth of the Trinity River and couldn't get up it due to the diversion of 90% of the water to the Sacramento Valley.

The return to the hatchery at Irongate Dam on the Klamath was in record numbers.

Why are you blaming the Klamath Basin for something that we didn't do?

The majority of the farms in the Klamath Basin are small and family owned. Most are not wealthy. Most don't want to hurt the salmon runs ( :mad: Some don't care and I'm always fighting with them too :mad: ) The only reason that the Upper Basin is taking the heat for this is $$$$$ and political influence.

[GutshotApe]

Keta is absolutely right.......the 2002 lower river fishkill COULD NOT be the fault of upper basin irrigation due to the timing of the withdrawals (spring) and timing of the dieoff (fall). Hint: check Trinity River diversion.

The enviro groups smell blood and are going in for the kill, and don't seem to want to be bothered with the facts. :hoboy:

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

The agencies in question were accused of using "bad science" by the NAS. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">A bit of fact checking.

There is no quote of the National Academy of Sciences critiquing either the National Marine Fisheries study or the CA Fish and Game Study.

1. All the Academy said prior to the fish kill was that they did not have enough scienfific data to make a call either way for the water diversion. They did suggest that further studies might show that water diversion would harm the salmon.

Here is their conclusion again.

"The available scientific evidence does not support current proposals to change water levels or river flows to promote the welfare of the fish currently at risk, although future research may justify doing so," said William M. Lewis Jr., chair of the committee that wrote the report."

1. The Academy never saw the National Marine Fisheries prediction of a salmon kill because Sec. of Interior Norton suppressed it.

2. The Academy has not commented on the CA Fish and Game study after the fish kill.

The only two scientific studies of the water diverison predicted and confirmed that diverting the water from the Klamath River killed the salmon.

Brion

[ 02-17-2003, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[Straydog]

Of course the fact they didn't cut off the water the year before and the fish did not die and the fact that the very first reaction by the BOR was to release additional water at the time of the fish kill is nothing more than coincidence!
:hoboy: :shrug:

[BrionLutz]

MasterBaiter,

The State of CA DOES NOT OPERATE ANY OF THE KLAMATH SYSTEM PROJECTS and therefore is not making any money on the water! <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">That's a bit misleading, the State of CA farmers get the water so CA has a big economic stake.

The sugar beet processing factories for the silly money losing sugar beets grown instead of money making salmon killed were in CA...jobs, taxes, political contributions.

Brion

[Keta]

More fish last year and the water was warmer.
I would bet that the year after next is a bad return year. I will agree with you that the river needs more flow when the smolts are heading downriver. And why was it mostly Trinity River fish?

PS: Brion,
The water you are refering to came from the Trinity River. MB is refering to Klamath Project water. He is one of the most informed people I know on this subject. We don't see eye to eye most of the time but I respect his opinion.

[ 02-17-2003, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[BrionLutz]

The water you are refering to came from the Trinity River. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">It's not the water I'm refering to...its the water the National Marine Fisheries and CA Fish and Game are refering to...they did the science noting that low flows of water in the Klamath River due to water diversion for irrigation resulted in the salmon kill.

The Klamath Basin is pretty complex with the dams, tunnels, pumps and canals etc.

It would be a great construction project to put it back the way it belongs...now that would provide a LOT of jobs.

We already know that the restored water system and the salmon provide a much bigger and better economic base for the area.

Seems like a win-win, the farmers say they can't make any money. We buy them out, they and their kids can get jobs on the 10 year reconstruction project. Construction pays better than farming.

Once the working system is back and the salmon are back, if any water is available for irrigation that won't have a negative impact on the salmon, that's fine.

With a 50 year cycle of declining snow pack, my guess is there will not be much water available for agriculture.

Brion

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Straydog:
Of course the fact they didn't cut off the water the year before and the fish did not die and the fact that the very first reaction by the BOR was to release additional water at the time of the fish kill is nothing more than coincidence!
:hoboy: :shrug: <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">That's right, SD, it WAS nothing more than coincidence. The water used in the upper basin IS NOT diverted or withdrawn in the late summer/early fall. The reservoirs are filled with snowmelt runoff water IN THE SPRING. The fishkill was in Aug/Sept when there is no water being "taken" from the upper basin. Indeed, as I have pointed out here far too many times, during the time of the fishkill the upper basin was RELEASING more water (by a factor of at least 3) than ever flowed out of the upper basin during the same time before the project was built.

Am I missing something??? :whazzup:

[Keta]

If the Klamath Project was decommissioned, the dams removed and the channel in the basalt dam upstream of the Klamath Lake dam filled there would be less water in the mid Klamath July to November than there was last year when the fish kill happened. The spring runnoff would flood the lower lake and Tule Lake like I sugested several posts ago. The springs in the canyon below Keno would keep the reduced flow cold. Jenny Creek, Shasta and Scott Rivers would flow into the reduced Klamath and cool it off more. The Trinity would flow into the Klamath and cool it down still more. :smile: Cool water=happy salmon :smile: All this could happen with the project intact and ALL of the water in the Klamath Dranage properly managed. Put minum flows on the cool streams and when Klamath Lake is cool let the water go down the canyon. When the lake reaches the temperature where the salmon are going to be harmed, divert it to the refuges in the lower lake and to Tule Lake.

[Straydog]

GSA,

You are missing tons by continually refering to before the basin project as if everything else remains the same.

Before the basin project the woods hadn't been *****. (you threw me a fat one there!!)

Much, much less development had taken place.

The Central Valley had not been as developed and was not pulling the water it is now.

Fishing pressure was not the same.

Fewer chemicals were used for ag.

So much has changed since the project was put in place that you sound very silly to keep making this rediculous comparison.

[ 02-17-2003, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Keta]

Never was many trees in the canyon. On top yes but not down by the river. The area downstream of JC Boyle was logged in the late 1800's and early 1900's. The Klamath Dranage isn't like west side land. Ag waste is a problem. I think that the declining lamprey population is due to chemicals sprayed on private timber land.

None of these allow salmon to live in 70 degree water though.

[Straydog]

Keta,

I am not convinced that water put in at 70 degrees in Klamath remains that temp all the way down to the mouth.

One Klamath farmer I talked to on the radio claimed it was cooler after flowing through the springs and being cooled by what ever trib. waters enter it...

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Straydog:
GSA, Before the basin project the woods hadn't been *****. (you threw me a fat one there!!)
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">If you go to the Fremont National Forest's website you can find three hydrological analyses conducted by USFS researchers on the upper Klamath Basin watershed........the upper Spraque, Sycan and Williamson rivers. This is probably where the "****" you refered to occurred. They analyzed federal lands and the inholdings (Weyco/US Timberlands, J-Spear, etc). Their conclusion was that the lands in question have "hydrologically recovered" from the logging. Mule deer habitat still has a ways to go but from a snowmelt and water infiltration standpoint, and with respect to runoff characteristics, the reforested clearcuts have recovered to pre-logging conditions.

You still are missing the point I've been trying to make about the timing of the withdrawal/storage in the upper basin vis-a-vis the lower river fishkill. I give up. :depressed:

[Keta]

Dog,
Still cooler if it starts out at 56 degrees rather than 70 plus. And the water historically didn't flow out of the lake in much volume during the summer and early fall. There are springs along Link River and between Keno Dan and Boyle that help but Boyle is still too warm. Between Boyle Dam and the powerhouse the Klamath is PRIME trout water. Why? No lake water! It's 95% spring fed and cool year round. Jenney Creek helps too with the spring fed tributaries that come out of the Soda Mt. area. It dumps into Copco Lake and warms up (or cools down Copco slightly, is your glass 1/2 full or 1/2 empty?). I wish that I could get water temp readings for the river below Irongate Dam but haven't found where they can be located. End results is water that is too warm for salmon to survive in.

[Straydog]

GSA,

I am talking about past logging in all of the Watersheds from Fremont NF all the way way to the ocean.. It all has impacts just as everything else that has taken place in the region.

I am not missing your point about the water. My point is there was less water flowing down the river at the time of the fish kill than there had been the year before at the same time.

That is why the fish were crowded and the gill rot spread much faster than normal. That is why the BOR immediately ordered additional water released when they learned of the fish kill.

The simple fact is, Salmon need water.... :shrug:

[ 02-17-2003, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Keta]

Can't post any data but there has been many years when there was also less water. In the 80's Klamath Lake was down several more feet and Mt Shasta had no snow on it. No fish kill then either. And why was it mostly Trinity River hatchery fish that died last year?

[GutshotApe]

Yeah.....and the simple fact is the cool, high-quality water they need is being diverted out of the Trinity to the Sac., and also from the Scott and Salmon rivers. The water the fish get, and the water that contributes to the problem, is warm water, low in dissolved oxygen, from the upper basin that normally wouldn't be coming down the river in August. Releases of more water from upper basin storage might have helped last year's problem (that is debatable)........but it is simplistic and unfair to lay all the blame, as has been and is being done, on the upper basin project. If not for the upper basin project, there would have been a lot more dead fish. But the solution to this problem, if I understand your position, is to restrict and reduce the upper basin irrigation
water and release it for fish production.......and continue to ignore the lower tributary diversions. Sheesh! :hoboy:

[Straydog]

Keta,

Run timing would be my guess, but only a guess.

Not all of the fish return at once and I am guessing the timing coincided with the return of the Trinity hatchery fish.

Also, you can not make the historical comparison back to the '80's unless you compare all the factors, not just the amount of water......... how many fish were there? (darn few, I was watching the fishing economy of the No. Cal coast going belly up in the '80's)
What was the temperature? What was the aquifer like? How much development and resource extraction has taken place since the '80's.? How much ag. runoff was affecting things in the '80's?

You and GSA keep making historical comparison of just the amount of water, that is a bogus comparison!!

That's it............. it's dueling Kwikfish this Spring for sure!!!!! :grin:

[ 02-17-2003, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Straydog]

GSA,

I have state very clearly in the past that I understand and agree that water from the Central valley is a huge part of the issue and needs to be reworked.

However, that does not change the fact that more water from Klamath would have also averted this disaster. You will never convince me otherwise.

I agree that ideally 56 degree water would be the norm. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen anytime soon and warm water is better than no water.

I have heard no one dispute the fact that the lack of water, any temp., water added to the crowding and spread of the rot.

One more time....... is the Klamath basin 100% responsible for the fish kill? Nope.

Would more water in the river, regardless of it's source averted the fish kill? Absolutley in my opinion.

[Keta]

The river was full of mixed stock fish. The hatchery at Iron Gate is further up stream than the one on the Trinity. Yes salmon do need water and bad water is far better than no water. But the good water isn't even being considered here. What about Jenney Creek and the Shasta and Scott Rivers. Why weren't they dumped like Klamath Lake was?

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

If the Klamath Project was decommissioned, the dams removed and the channel in the basalt dam upstream of the Klamath Lake dam filled there would be less water in the mid Klamath July to November than there was last year when the fish kill happened. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Come on...there was a huge salmon run in the Klamath prior to all the wacky water diversion projects.

All the studies, particularly the National Geological Survey Study say that if we restore the Klamath Basin, the salmon will rebound with economic gains that far outstrip the money losing forced irrigation projects have produced or lost.

Oakland, CA-- An economic analysis of Klamath River water use shows returning the water to the river would generate 30 times more economic benefit than continuing the current practice of diverting it to farmers in the Klamath Basin. The greater economic returns would come from increases in sport and commercial fishing as well as related recreational activities in the Klamath and its tributaries. The report was prepared by the US Geological Survey and was reported in today's Wall Street Journal. (http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=466)

Brion

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

Here's a new thread on Klamath so we don't keep polluting the gill netting thread with the Klamath issue. You have to face facts, Bush Jr. admin. is the most anti-salmon group we've ever had in office. The answer to saving the Klamath salmon run is to end the huge government subsidies for desert farming and restore the natural salmon industry.

As the NGS study shows, the economic benefits for this are huge.

Suppressed Government Report Shows Klamath Irrigation A Bad Investment (http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=466)

1. We gain a self sustaining economy that benefits everyone.

2. We don't have to pay $70M per year in tax payer money killing salmon and watering the desert growing crops that have no economic value.

Regarding the Bush Jr admin's decision to kill the salmon, here are the two sources of actual biologists studies, one by the National Marine Fisheries biologists before the killer water diverision and one by CA Fish and Game after the killer water diversion. This is the one surpressed by Sec. of Interior Norton where the bioligist had to go into the Whistle Blower Protection program to expose her.

National Marine Fisheries suppressed tudy predicted Klamath salmon kill. (http://www.earthjustice.org/urgent/display.html?ID=70)

One predicted the water diversion would kill the fish, the other confirmed the water diversion killed the fish.

Scientists conclude that water diversion killed Klamath Salmon. (http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=523)

As you see below, you've sited the same item four times, trying to make it look like you have four sources...tsk, tsk &lt;grin&gt;. The single source you are citing is the National Academy of Sciences report prior to the fish kill which stated that NAS did not have enough information to come to a conclusion.

1. Your National Academy of Sciences link. Notice the Feb. 2, 2002 date. Fish kill was in September 2002 . As your own source notes prior to the fish kill, the NAS said they did not have enough information. Had Sec. of Interior Norton not withheld the National Marine Fisheries study, the NAS would likely have been able to render an opinion.

"The available scientific evidence does not support current proposals to change water levels or river flows to promote the welfare of the fish currently at risk, although future research may justify doing so," said William M. Lewis Jr., chair of the committee that wrote the report."

2. Your "Biofraud" link is simply an editorial by a corporate agriculture site and has no scientific value. Also April 1, 2002 prior to fish kill.

3. Your "Bad Science" reference is of the same NAS report prior to the fish kill in which they stated they did not have enough information to make any evaluation.

4. Your "Government Science Falsified" from the National Review (right wing advocacy group) again is the NAS from Feb. 2002 prior to the Sept 2002 fish kill.

Brion

[Keta]

More Earth Just Us propaganda. Earth Justice lies for profit.
The Basin ecosystem doesn't change much from year to year and 70 degree water still kills salmon no mater how old the research is.
The NSA is a unbiased reviewer and doesn't have a money interest here, unlike Earth Just Us and the state of California.
You try to avoid the facts by pointing out the date that they were published rather that mistakes in the research. You use Earth Just Us propaganda and lies as if they were "facts".

Why did Earth Just Us support a NSA review before the facts came out and then opposed it when it exposed their lies? )stupid grin(

How does 70 degree or higher water help salmon? Simple question and you should be able to come up with an answer. I bet you won't. )Big Stupid Grin(

Why do the eco lawyers chose to ignore the real problem in the Klamath Watershed?
You will not address this either )another stupid grin(

What % of the fish killed were Klamath River fish and what % were from the Trinity River?
You will ignore this one too. )stupid grin(

Go ahead and post more Earth Just Us distortions of the truth. The NSA reviewed their "science" and refuted it.