Hammer Bob Discussion Part 1

[Centerpin]

River Physical Habitat and Predators

I believe our writer is confused with the core sampling that has taken place. I believe core samples were taken from several Alaskan lakes and a correlation was drawn between the abundance and presence of certain indicators and the historic magnitudes of the returning fish. It was found that before man's impact of commercial fishing and habitat destruction there were dramatic highs and lows of returning fish. I believe this gives us the idea that returns have ups and downs without our interferrence. If we could track the cycles more effectively we might be able to avoid excessive harvest on lows. It also speaks volumes for the impact of oceanic conditions on salmon survival.

I agree with the statement that "popular human conceptions of proper river habitat are not the same as the salmon's conception of proper river habitat". I also agree that "excellent stream habitat is available, but is not being used by salmon" I do not agree with how he jumps from these statements to the conclusion that 95% percent of the problem is predators, food, and ocean conditions. Recent returns of Vancouver Island steelhead indicate that wild fish survival is much higher than hatchery survival during periods of low oceanic productivity. We should in fact be ensuring that our wild fish get every opportunity during their juvenile stages of life.

I do not agree with his theory on salmon predators. The predator prey relationships are too difficult to predict. Predators have been factored into the salmon's life history since day one. Perhaps that is why they have such high fecundities to ensure an adequate number of their offspring survive to continue the species. I do agree with one point he makes and that is the predators are competing for the salmon's food supply. The question is has the food supply diminished and what is the relationship between salmon survival and food. That will be covered in the next part.

------------------
Support BC Steelhead Recovery... check out http://www.bcfff.bc.ca/

My Photos... http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/RallyRd/centerpin/

[Hammer Bob]

In discussing the points and purpose of this article we should remember that the author claims this to be a review of the science to date.

I agree the author may be confused about the core samples but without a proper reference for his claim we cannot really speculate where he got the data from. Assuming he has proper references when he is stating that river habitat was not necessarily connected to the decline in salmon what is he talking abou? Does he mean on a yearly basis? all salmon species? or on a decades level scale? We just cannot tell what he is talking about or where he is indicating that this happened. His reference to ocean species and salmon declining..again what species of ocean fish? All? and where did this occur? Without references we can't seperate what is his opinion and what areas were actually studied.

the author makes a broad statement about the Keogh river study.....what did the study conclude and what did the researchers attribute the decline to? how did the study show that the "present approach" is not performing. I have to ask what were the criteria of the study, how were the measurements made? and most important what were the actual conclusions of the authors of the research. Again no citation so we will never know.

I do agree that the fish will what suits them better than we. But the author then goes on to state that good habitat is not being utilized....but he just states we aren't qualified to determine what is and is not good habitat. most of all the biggest question i get is where is this habitat located and hs it been historically used by salmon?? We'll never no...no referneces.

I have no idea how he comes up with the 95% figure and while ocean conditions change for the worse they also change for the better at times.

[Centerpin]

Food and Ocean Conditions

First of all I believe the author has had very little experience on old growth streams. He states that old growth is starving our streams. It is true that a deciduous overstory produces more nitrogen and detritus compared to coniferous stands. Coniferous stands also tend to make the water slightly acidic which limits the productivity of the system. What he fails to note is that productivity is directly correlated to the amount of sunlight that reaches the stream. Instream vegetation and algae need sunlight in order to grow and the grazing inverts are dependant on the algae and instream vegetation. Sunlight also effects stream temperature. Productivity and growth are directly proportional to stream temperature. So if it were true that old growth streams had high crown closures and the riparian vegetation was strictly coniferous we would in fact have a nutrient poor stream. From experience I know this to be false. Most streams are subject to disturbance (flooding and erosion) which allows sucessional species such as alder, willow,maples and various shrubs to establish themselves within the riparian zones of these streams. These disturbances also create canopy openings which allows for direct sunlight penetration to the stream channel. The author also states that salmon carcasses are an important contribution to the overall nutrient input into the stream. This being said I believe he overlooked the fact that at a stream in its natural environment should be able to subsist off of the natural salmon carcasses in the same way that tropical rainforests live off of the thin layer of soil they produce via leaf litter. The cow **** theory is a bunch of BS. Feces produces ammonia which becomes toxic to fish as the concentration increases in the water.

Oceanic productivity

Man cannot alter oceanic productivty due to the fact that it is based on phytoplankton production. The input of nutrients from streams or rivers is insignificant in the big picture. The problem with ocean productivity is in the mixing of the surface and bottom layers. Bottom layers are nutrient rich but sunlight can only penetrate so far. When these bottom layers come to the surface through upwelling and with ocean currents we get huge production as they are exposed to sunlight. The trends in mixing and current shifts is cyclical and closely matches increases and decreases in abundance. I don't know about the clean water act but there are many substances that are very detrimental to salmon and inverts. To allow the potential benefits of a few while risking exposure to many does not make sense. On to the next section I guess.

------------------
Support BC Steelhead Recovery... check out http://www.bcfff.bc.ca/

My Photos... http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/RallyRd/centerpin/

[Hammer Bob]

Centerpin so far I have to agree with you the author doesn't know waht he is talking about! Let's contiunue until someone tells us to take a hike...others are welcomed and encouraged in this debate on the salmon report!

The authors comments are somewhat misleading. There are some pristine and low nutrient (oligotrophic)stream systems which depend or depended on an annual input of marine derived nitrogen from decaying salmon carcasses. If the salmon run is stopped or depleted the system spirals out of kilter and you are left with what is now a very low productivity stream. This can also happen through chemicals, ex heavy metals, impacting certain trophic layers preventing the release of nutrients through decay of vegetation. An example of this which comes to mind is how a Colorado stream system imapcted by mine tailing runoff had all the shredder insects eliminated from metal toxicity. Leaves which were processed on an annual basis releasing nutrients now remain untouched and it is possible to find leaves over 15 years old intact in the stream bed...but I digress.

I agree the aspect of using cow manure (or any other) is ludicrous. Over-enrichment (eutrophication)of inland waterways and estuaries as well as near shore waters has and is causing all manner adverse consequences worldwide. Elimination of the Clean Water Act will do nothing but send us back in time where our rivers and streams were little more than open sewers and chemical dumps.....also gotta think about where drinking water comes from..it ain't all wells!

The authors thoughts and sentiments that we can influence oceanic conditions and productivity are naive. Climatic conditions such as the El Nino and la Nina cycle govern much of the weather worldwide. These climatic phenomena drive when and where upwelling will occur and there is nothing we can do about it....except pray for rain!

Who was counting salmon before 1800? Evidently the author has some inside info on this! The expected high numbers of returning salmon are linked to river conditions despite what the author states. In-river conditions in any give year determine the number of fry which hatch and grow to smolt and migrate to sea. This section IMHO is filled with any number of inaccuracies which indicate the author has little knowledge of limnological processes concerning nutrient cycling...what are his credentials anyway!!

[Centerpin]

Holistic Approach and Introduction

Here is where I totally agree with the author. We must create a model that accurately predicts the fluctuations of survival in a salmon's life cycle. I added a few words but the meaning is the same. He includes another major theme which is rivers, estuaries and ocean make up salmon habitat. Estuaries are often overlooked and may play a greater role in overall survival than we realize. Mortality rates drop once a fish reaches a certain size. The key is to get the fish to this critical size ASAP. The estuary is the first dinner table the outmigrating fish hit when they hit the big oceanic buffet.

I don't really agree with his critique of the scientific process. I believe it is unfounded and off base. Money is the reason we have done more fluvial research. It is quite expensive to conduct research on the open ocean. It is quite a bit cheaper to conduct research on your local stream. I agree that we need more information and much of our management priciples are made up of guesswork. We are making due with the information we have. More $$ is needed if we are to adequately gather data, analyse it, and make biologically sound management descions. I think we should all support good research and I think we should be outraged when managers fail to gather it.

------------------
Support BC Steelhead Recovery... check out http://www.bcfff.bc.ca/

My Photos... http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/RallyRd/centerpin/

[Hammer Bob]

Centerpin, From your initial response to my criticism of the paper I had assumed that we would engage in a critique of the paper...not basic issues surrounding salmon recovery efforts. I think our purpose and time would be better served if we would focus our efforts on the analysis of the merits of the paper as it is written. Remember the author claims that this is "An Unfunded, Independent Review of the Science Surrounding the Salmon Issue"

So far you have agreed with me that the majority of what the author states and concludes about the science is wrong, unfounded or a misrepresentation of the original data.

You have stated that you are of the opinion that the author meant this paper as a route to discussion...you must have inside info! All I can go on is his statement that this is a review of the science....in that it is severely lacking as we have both agreed.

My question to you is do you support the authors analysis and conclusions as he presents them? If you do then we can have a meaningful debate of the paper.....if you don't (which has so far been the case) then there is no point in continuing except to discuss the issues surrounding salmon recovery efforts (another topic all together!).

I think we are just boring everyone to tears! Your comment to me on the other BB "If you are not up to it then I suggest you refrain from entering the discussion." I ask you where is all the discussion I am supposed to refrain from? It is just you and I...no one else is interested and apparently believes the content of the article is mostly bunk..otherwise I would assume that they would defend it and the authors opinions!

I think the paper as it is written is a very poor review of the science behind salmon recovery and to me it is obvious the author has some agenda he is cultivating.


What is your stance on the paper as it is written?.....other than that "you think" it is meant for discussion. Neither of us is in a position to determine what was the author's intent. We can speculate but that is all. As far as the paper goes we can only critique what he has presented.

If you want to support the authors conclusions I am willing to continue....if we both agree that most of it is BS...why go on!!



[This message has been edited by Hammer Bob (edited 02-16-2001).]

[Snagly]

Having read CP's and H. Bob's exchanges on this and another board, my first comment is that two intelligent people should spar only when the cause is worthy. As far as I could work out from the seven (of 31) pages I read, this is not a paper the deserves serious study. I say that based on a couple of observations:

1. As Bob and others have pointed out, if you are going to review the science (a "meta study" in geek-speak) then you have to cite the sources every step of the way. (Recalling my single college course on the philosophy of science, it appears he has misrepresented the thinkers in that field, too, starting with Popper.) So first and foremost this is an opinion piece.

2. The author does make a good point in noting that salmon life cycles are complex and there are many factors affecting salmon survival. Furthermore, I think it's a fair criticism of the author to say that existing regulations may be based on either (a) ten-year old science (b) a less-than-comprehensive look at the entire salmon life cycle when framing policy recommendations.

3. One of the author's agendas appears to be the retention of dams on the Snake, arguing that salmon returns may be enhanced by keeping the dams in place (augmented by fish ladders). Another is blaming the environmental legislation of the last 30 years for making the rivers devoid of nutrients (and depriving the ocean of same). These are two of the many squirrely ideas mixed in with thought-provoking (and sensible) contrarian thoughts. But the whole paper is such a mishmash that I couldn't bring myself to finish it.

Centerpin's buddy Billy Meyers is a true expert in this area. If we can get Billy off the river long enough to sit at the keyboard I'd been interested in his take on some of the opinions expressed by the author.


[This message has been edited by Snagly (edited 02-17-2001).]

[Centerpin]

HB,

I agree we should shut it down unless we want to proceed with the problems surrounding salmon survival and abundance trends.

Snagly,

As you read deeper it becomes obvious that the author becomes confused with the direction he is heading. Often contradicting himself. I propose we send the poor fella an e mail and ask him to provide us with a list of his references and to maybe clarify some of his points.



------------------
Support BC Steelhead Recovery... check out http://www.bcfff.bc.ca/

My Photos... http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/RallyRd/centerpin/

[Hammer Bob]

Snagly, comments and isnight welltaken!

CP, i believe we are in agreement on the problems surrounding salmon recovery issues. I think we need to step back and consider an approach which will provoke (inspire) insight from othe ifishers. Shoot me an e-mail on how you think we could accomplish this goal. Open discussion and knowledge is all we have to combat the present problem. Oh and yeah I am jealous of your work site conditions....I can only hope the bugs are biting (jk).