78% Favor Endangered Species Act

Public support for ESA and budget don’t match up.

“…a poll indicates that 78 percent of the public support maintaining or strengthening the ESA…the funding problem was brought home when it was pointed out that Washington, DC residents spent as much on pizza every year as the federal government spends on implementing the ESA.”

See http://www.newsdata.com/enernet/fishletter/#5

[BrionLutz]

Reel Tired,

Originally posted:
Public support for ESA and budget don’t match up.

“…a poll indicates that 78 percent of the public support maintaining or strengthening the ESA…the funding problem was brought home when it was pointed out that Washington, DC residents spent as much on pizza every year as the federal government spends on implementing the ESA.”

See http://www.newsdata.com/enernet/fishletter/#5

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Unfortunately 100% of the Republican Admin and Congress are against the ESA.

It will take a lobbying effort similar to our recent ODFW fee increase to keep them from weakening the act and the enforcement.

We've already seen Interior Dept kill over 40,000 Klamath salmon.

Brion

[RvW]

Good post.

I was told, and call me naive, but believe that the lobbyists and groups initiating lawsuits to reduce or eliminate commercial harvests of salmon and steelhead represent native american interests and they use the ESA and efforts to strengthen the ESA as leverage to impose further restrictions while at the same time, find every loophole and "traditional" aspect to keep from having thier own unmanaged harvest methods brought into question.

Any thoughts?

[skein]

It's called "Lip Service." It's much easier for those folks to sue somebody or write emotional letters than it is to dig into their pockets or roll up their sleeves.

I didn't see a big crowd of ESA supporters speaking out for a fee increase to help fund game officers to protect endangered salmon from snaggers or poachers, or anything else.

Remember this thread? Can't support fee increase

The sportsmen stepped up to the plate big-time. The greenies musta been at the lawyer's office concocting some off-the-wall suit to further drain the ODFW coffers.

Give me a hunter or a fisher any day - they are the ones actually on the front lines of conservation.

Enviro's don't impress me much, and the whole country is starting to figure them out as well.

Skein

[ 02-06-2003, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: skein ]

[BrionLutz]

Skein,

Originally posted:[QB] It's called "Lip Service." It's much easier for those folks to sue somebody or write emotional letters than it is to dig into their pockets or roll up their sleeves."

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">That "lip service" is spending thousands of dollars and hours to fight a Republican Admin and Congress that is adamantly opposed to salmon and salmon restoration.

You are contributing to this fight how?

I didn't see a big crowd of ESA supporters speaking out for a fee increase to help fund game officers to protect endangered salmon from snaggers or poachers, or anything else.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Oh but you did. The stats show that 78% of those of us who showed up on Tuesday support the ESA also.

Enviro's don't impress me much, and the whole country is starting to figure them out as well.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Then you need to do some research since the environmental groups are the ones largely responsible for the Endangered Species Act and the Salmon's protection under that act.

They are also the ones fighting the Bush Jr's admin's efforts to take Salmon off the ESA list...and you are doing what?

Not to mention clean air and water, logging restrictions, pesticide and fertilizer pollution, ocean fishing regs. etc. etc. that are all necessary parts of salmon restoration.

Certainly the environmental groups such as Oregon State Public Interest Research Group, Natural Resources Defense Council and Earth Justice to name three with strong Oregon roots are at the forefront of protecting and promoting salmon restoration.

Frankly they do waaay more than the sportfishing groups to preserve and protect the salmon.

Brion

[ 02-06-2003, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[garyk]

COTR --

You said - "...groups initiating lawsuits to reduce or eliminate commercial harvests of salmon and steelhead represent native american interests and they use the ESA and efforts to strengthen the ESA as leverage to impose further restrictions" and asked for thoughts.

I'd have to disagree. The Tribes are not big advocates of ESU's of fish stocks (evolutionary-significant-units) under the ESA. They want fish -- any fish -- to maintain their fisheries. In fact, they are highly critical of the non-tribal biologists who seek to sustain salmon diversity by protecting the various ESU's.

Please don't read anything further into this reply than those 3 sentances.

[Wild Chrome]

Regarding the litigious nature of the environmental community: what other choice is there? There is no fish police. There are laws to protect fish and the environment, but noone will enforce them unless someone threatens a lawsuit. If big business would obey the law and not try to creep around it for increased profit, we wouldn't have lawsuits. Remember, 50 % of Columbia salmon runs are already extinct from an era where there were no advocacy groups for the fish.

That said, we need jobs too. There is not one side who's completely right or wrong.

[nerta]

I'm with you Skein, if everyone investigated the $$$$ that support hunting and fishing they will see you hit the nail on the head. By the way I'm a recovering demOcrat, but I've been sober for twenty years now. maybe some others need the treatment YA THINK!

Where do they come up with this ****?

SALMON CAN NOT LIVE IN 70 DEGREE WATER!

It was a California judge that stoped the Trinity River water from going to the Klamath System.

[STGRule]

I'm with you Skein, if everyone investigated the $$$$ that support hunting and fishing they will see you hit the nail on the head.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Nerta, I have some interesting numbers. These numbers are from Lindsay Ball, the director for ODFW. I don't know where he got them, but I'm guessing he checked them out before sharing.
Economy contributions:
Hunters share = 364.9 million
Fishers share = 601.8 million
and drum roll please.....
Non-consumptive users (bird watchers etc.) = 769.4 million.
These non-consumptive people are your enviros and supporters of ESA along with a great number of the fishers and hunters. Remember that there are hunters and fishers, anti-hunters and anti-fishers, and the most important group - non-hunters and non-fishers. Our job is to not make the "nons" into "antis". And as a fisher and an environmentalist I suggest that you not throw labels around. You will alienate people unnecessarily.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

STGRule

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[Wild Chrome]

The most popular outdoor sport in America? Fishing?

Nope, it's birdwatching.

[BrionLutz]

Nerta,

Originally posted:
By the way I'm a recovering demOcrat, but I've been sober for twenty years now. maybe some others need the treatment YA THINK!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">The same treatment Sec. of Interior Norton gave the 40,000 dead Klamath Salmon.

The same treatment that wants to remove the salmon from the ESA list?

Almost every action of the Bush Jr admin and Republican Congress is anti-salmon.

Can you point to any action they are taking that will maintain and increase the salmon?

Brion

Brion,
Explain to me how 70+ degree water is good for salmon? It was a California judge that killed these fish.

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

Originally posted: Brion,
Explain to me how 70+ degree water is good for salmon? It was a California judge that killed these fish.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Bush Jr and Interior Sec. Norton totally disagree with you. They still won't admit that's what killed the salmon.

So go ask those respsonsible. Go ask Sec. of Interior Norton and her boss Bush Jr who both made several trips to the area to show how much they were in favor of killing off the salmon.

You do remember all that don't you. It was in all the papers.

Everyone, biologist, tribes, fish organizations etc. told Bush Jr and company it would kill the salmon.

They did it anyway and the salmon died and then Bush Jr and co. had the nerve to say "Well we don't know that's why they died."

You are certainly free to support Bush Jr and his anti-salmon policies but you can't claim that Bush Jr is not the most anti-salmon admin we've ever had in office.

You will not find a single salmon fishing organization that does not oppose the salmon related policies of the Bush Jr admin.

You've got a choice to make. Bush Jr or salmon.

Brion

[nerta]

:grin: That democrat recovery statement get's them every time. Now give me back my hook line and sinker please. :grin: :smile:

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

Originally posted by Keta:
Brion, Explain to me how 70+ degree water is good for salmon? It was a California judge that killed these fish.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Just to refresh your memory, the judge allowed the Bush Jr Admin to go ahead with it's plan to kill the Salmon.

Here's the link and more info for you.

In an abrupt about-face during the summer of 2002, the Bush administration rescinded a 1999 decision that found that diverting scarce water from wetlands harmed the refuges. The Fish and Wildlife Service instead announced that it would give priority to commercial agriculture within the refuges, even if the refuges’ marshes run dry. The agency’s policy reversal ignored its own conclusions that commercial agriculture was responsible for consuming scarce water, undermining the biological integrity of the refuges. Conservationists have also raised concerns that farming on the refuges pollutes the river and groundwater with dozens of toxic pesticides.

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

Originally posted: Brion,
Explain to me how 70+ degree water is good for salmon? It was a California judge that killed these fish.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Not to pile on &lt;grin&gt;...but here's more on how Bush Jr admin killed the salmon.

In late October 2002 a scientist from the National Marine Fisheries Service named Mike Kelly stepped forward to say his work in the spring of 2002 to assure adequate water levels for the health of the Klamath River had been over ridden for political purposes. Kelly said his team twice developed guidelines for how much water would be needed to assure compliance with Endangered Species Act protections for coho salmon in the Klamath and twice were rejected by higher ups. He said the guidelines that were eventually approved by the federal government were forced on fisheries scientists by the Bureau of Reclamation, the government branch charged with giving water to farmers. Kelly sought protection from higher ups under a federal whistle blower protection law

[GutshotApe]

Hey Brion - I see you are a new ifisher......so you probably missed the extensive discussions held here back in September when the Klamath fishkill was happening. You can go back and find & read those threads via the "search" button - ane maybe learn a thing or two . The upper Klamath irrigators weren't the problem - the problem was caused by dewatering the Trinity River to irrigate Central Valley farms hundreds of miles south. The dead fish were Trinity hatchery fish that died because of low Trinity River flows.

[BrionLutz]

Gutshotape.

Originally posted:[QB] Hey Brion - I see you are a new ifisher......so you probably missed the extensive discussions held here back in September when the Klamath fishkill was happening.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">If Nerta and Keta's misinformation is any guide, looks like I didn't miss much &lt;grin&gt;. I was pumping money into Earthjustice to support the suit to stop the salmon kill so I was fairly up to speed on the debacle.

He blamed a "CA judge" not realizing that the judge was ruling in favor of Bush Jr admin taking water from the salmon.

As you can see from the fairly detailed info and links I posted, the problem was the Bush Jr Admin, specifically Interior Sec. Norton, overuled it's own scientists and diverted the water.

The environmentalists tried to stop them as the lawsuit by EarthJustice noted but the judge ruled for the Bush Jr admin and against the salmon.

As the evidence shows, and the Klamath Basin salmon kill was just one example, the Bush Jr admin is anti-salmon.

This thread is a good example of that since it was started by someone pointing out a poll number showing 78% of Americans support the Endangered Species Act while Bush Jr opposes and specifically opposes salmon being on it.

You are free to support Bush Jr but it's mutually exclusive with being pro-salmon.

Brion

BrionLutz,
Where do you get your misinformation? The Bush Administration didn't have anything to do with the dewatering of the Shasta. Scott and Trinity Rivers. If anything they saved more fish from being killed by keeping the warm (over 70 degrees) Klamath Lake water out of the lower river.
Don't use your ignorance of this situation to further your political agenda.

PS: The judges ruling was prior to Bush being elected (like Clinton if you don't know). You are either very misinformed or tell lies.
And Nixon was the president that signed the Endangered Species Act.

[ 02-06-2003, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

STG,
Are these numbers Oregon or US numbers and do they include Pitman/Roberts and Dingle/Johnson money? I don't see where the bird watchers money comes from.
Sportsmen (and women :grin: ) built the refuge system and saved many birds from extinction.

Hummmm?

"approximately $11 Million dollars annually"

[ 02-06-2003, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Re:Play]

I think more than 80% of the public supports the intent of ESA. However they way it is being used or applied certainly misses the intent. This costs all of us lots of $$ and does nothing for the resources. I believe there is no such thing as "best science" when you mix in judges and politics

Example-- The Forest Service spent $25,000,000 + in less than 2 years doing surveys for various species. NONE of these species were listed as threatened or endangered. Some of the species included the tail dropper slug, several lichens, and mosses than sometimes could not be field identified. After many of the slug surveys were done, there was a proposal that there were more than one species of tail dropping slug, and the surveys were not done to identify that, so they must be done again. This is for species that are NOT listed under ESA.

There were many injunctions and law suits to stop projects based on these surveys. There were also situations when the data submitted for the surveys was falsified (lynx surveys in the Cascades).

My point is that virtually NONE of the $25,000,000 spent or the untold $millions in legal fees were for what the original intent of the ESA.

Whether you are Democrat or Republican, there was still $25,000,000 spent in Oregon and Washington, west of the Cascade crest. I seriously question if this was appropriate use of my tax dollars. How about you?

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

Originally posted:The judges ruling was prior to Bush being elected (like Clinton if you don't know). You are either very misinformed or tell lies.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Don't get me started &lt;grin&gt;.

Since you don't say what judge simply "a CA judge" you can understand why folks point to the ruling by the Oakland (that's in CA) Federal judge which upheld the Bush Jr admin's decision to divert the water which killed the salmon.

FYI...May 2002 is post Clinton.
<a href="http://www.earthjustice.org/backgrounder/display.html?ID=42" target="_blank">On May 3, 2002, a federal judge in Oakland refused to order the bureau to provide water necessary for the immediate survival of young salmon because the study indicating the necessity of doing so was only a draft. Nevertheless, for reasons known only unto itself, the agency voluntarily increased flows at least temporarily. As the summer of 2002 wore on the flows released by the federal Bureau of Reclamation declined as more water was diverted to farmers upstream. By late July and into August returning salmon could be seen schooling up where cool tributaries joined the Klamath.The river, running at a fraction of its historic levels for September, forced returning adult salmon to crowd together tightly in pools of the coolest water which by now were too warm for salmon. The warm water depressed the ability of the salmon to stave off disease and when disease struck, it spread like wildfire killing an estimated 33,000 salmon, steelhead and other fish. Tribal and state biologist knew the cause but the federal government refused to acknowledge the obvious; the water diversions had led to a massive die off of thousands of fish in the Klamath.
</a>

If you have some other CA judge and some other Bush Jr salmon kill, feel free to provide the details and links as I have done for you.

Seeing how you were in error, you may want to withdraw the personal insults. It hurts your arguments.

Getting back to the thread subject about how a huge majority of Americans support the Endangered Species Act, keep in mind the Bush Jr admin's opposition to the Act and to salmon being listed there.

One has to wonder why the Bush Jr admin is so relentlessly anti-salmon. The economics are soooo in favor of the salmon and we need jobs badly.

We have the US Geological Report showing that salmon would generate 30 times more economic activity than the federally subsidized farming but Bush Jr ignores the science and the economics and keeps going after the salmon.

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.

That's on top of the RAND study showing dam removal on the Snake would generate huge economic returns, something else the Bush Jr admin opposes.

It seems clear that the interests of the salmon, the environmentalists, the scientists, the fishermen and the economists are on one side and Bush Jr on the other.

Brion

[GutshotApe]

A virtual shadow industry of wildlife biologists has sprung up to conduct all the surveys for endangered, sensitive or species "of interest". Like you say, $25 million just locally. Ten years ago the spotted owl was the bread & butter species; then came the marbled murrelet needing still more expensive surveys. About 6 or 7 years ago the more savvy owl biologists switched over to mollusks, or slugs & snails, since that is where all the new federal money seemed to be directed. A neighbor couple - the wife is a permanent USFS owl bio and hubby is a contract slug inspector for the feds.- together they pull down quite a lot of govt. money and what do we get for it? :whazzup:

Geo.Bush 2 is going to put a stop to a lot of these unnecessary and wasteful surveys. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[BrionLutz]

Whether you are Democrat or Republican, there was still $25,000,000 spent in Oregon and Washington, west of the Cascade crest. I seriously question if this was appropriate use of my tax dollars. How about you?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Eyup...I seriously question your anecdotal info &lt;grin&gt;&gt;

You probably need to show us the source for the claims you posted otherwise it's just urban legend stuff.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

Keta, Nerta and Gutshotape,

The paragraphs I quoted are also links to the sources.

I just realized that they may not be obviously as links.

Brion

[Straydog]

Without the power of the ESA the forests and watersheds of Western Oregon would be completly destroyed.

Without litigation from the Environmental community the forests and watersheds of Western Oregon would be completly destroyed.

It is indeed sad and frustrating that so much time, effort and money is spent on litigation.

It would be nice if all acted responsibly without the ESA and litigation. History tells us that is simply not the case.

Richard Nixon recognized this and brought us a legal means to control the madness. The best thing he did for our country. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Earth to ! Wrong ruling, wrong rivers. You are establishing a pattern of ignoring what's posted and lying to prompte your false beliefs
I'll type this time a bit slower than I usualy do for you so you might be able to understand. It's Trinity River water that I am refering to. The majority of the fish that were killed came from the Trinity Drainage. The Shasta and Scott, cool water rivers, were both dewatered the last two years in a row. Klamath Lake water is too warm for salmon to survive in.

One biologist with an agenda similar to yours contradicts the findings of the National Acadimidy of Scientists and you quote him? Why does this sound stupid to me?

How does 70 degree or warmer water help salmon? By July the water in Upper Klamath Lake is always 70 degrees or warmer and full of algi.

[ 02-07-2003, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

OK

Easy everyone, lets not get this thread closed. We may be referring to different things

Let’s all clarify specifically which ruling and in what court we are talking about and NOT get angry…

[GutshotApe]

Not only that, Keta, but as we know, the Klamath River, where it leaves Oregon, now flows year-round at at least 750 cfs (usually 1000-1200) due to stored spring runoff water released in late summer & fall for power generation at JCBoyle. It may be 70 degrees, but if not for the upper basin releases (way more than ever flowed pre-upper basin project), a heck of a lot more fish would have died down at the Trinity confluence.

The upper basin farmers are an easy target, but, alas, the wrong one. Unfortunately, that won't stop the environmental juggernaut and its zealots. Trouble is, after you go to the time & trouble of educating the newbies, six more recruits join the EarthFirstJusticeLeague [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img] , or whatever the latest group is called [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] .

[Straydog]

"The majority of the fish that were killed came from the Trinity Drainage. The Shasta and Scott, cool water rivers, were both dewatered the last two years in a row. Klamath Lake water is too warm for salmon to survive in."

1. While it is true the fish that died were headed to the Trinity, it was in the Klamath that they died.

2. If the Scott and Shasta were dewatered two years in a row, why didn't we have the fish kill the year before? The variable most obvious was the fact the Klamath water was denied the fish. Yes, more water in the Scott and Shasta would also have prevented the kill. That however does not hold the Klamath basin harmless. The fish care not where their water comes from.

3. While 70 degree water is certainly not prime conditions for Salmon, it is absolutey NOT too warm for Salmon to survive in. If that were true, the Rogue fish would die off nearly every summer. Yes, gill rot does become much more prevelant and is likely to start killing fish when water gets over 70 degrees. However, to say that temp. is too warm for them to survive is stretching the truth.

4. It has been well established that the crowding and inabilty of the fish to move exasperated the problem to a very large degree. More water, regardless of it's source would have helped prevent the kill or at least the degree of the kill.

5. Salmon need water. End of story.

:smile:

[ 02-06-2003, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Thanks ***,
Westlands Water District Case, TRINITY RIVER WATER. The real problem

GSA,
The complex dynamics of the Upper Basin will only confuse this sadly misinformed individual.
(We need Master Baiter here, I don't agree with him on most of this but he understands the system better than most and has good input).

[ 02-06-2003, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Straydog]

GSA,

Your's and Keta's opinions do not constitute "educating" people any more than anyone elses opinion.

[GutshotApe]

Well, we sure don't seem to be getting thru to you.

Original pre-project condition: In fall, when the salmon come into the lower Klamath, there was very little flow from the upper basin. Klamath Lake often quit flowing alltogether and only spring seepage put any water in the upper river. The lower Klamath was watered by inputs from the Salmon, Scott, Trinity and other tributaries enough that large salmon runs developed over millennia..

Present condition: Even though stored water flows from upper basin much exceed natural flows, withdrawals from Salmon, Scott, Trinity and other lower river tribs result in poor lower river survival of returning adults that can't get up the Trinity because TOO MUCH WATER WAS WITHDRAWN!!! The Trinity withdrawals are also why the lower Klamath below the confluence is toxic to salmon.

George Bush didn't do it. The upper Klamath farmers didn't do it. The Westlands Water District south of Fresno, along with a California judge who enabled, did it.

Dog,
Before the Klamath Project was built Link River (the head of the Klamath) dried up due to the basalt dam at the outlet of Upper Klamath Lake. In the mid to late summer the lower river was all spring fed until Jenney Creek entered it. Go to the section of the Klamath between JC Boyle Dam and the powerhouse and see what the lower river was like in the summer. This is excelent trout water now. Go below the powerhouse and see what the lake water does to the river.

PS:Historical facts, not opinion. Go into my great grandfathers hotel (Baldwin) and you will see pictures of a dry Link River bed.

[ 02-06-2003, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

Originally posted:
[QB] Earth to moron! Wrong ruling, wrong rivers. You are establishing a pattern of ignoring what's posted and lying to prompte your false beliefs.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Dude...when you lose your composure like that, it's pretty clear to everyone that you lost the debate on factual grounds &lt;grin&gt;.

1. You said "CA judge" in regard to the Klamath River Salmon kill.

2. The salmon kill was in 2002.

3. The only CA judge ruling in regard to the 2002 Klamath salmon kill was the Oakland CA judge and I provided you the details.

I also provided you with lots of other info and links on the details of the Klamath Salmon kill.

My particular favorite is the National Marine Fisheries scientist had to get legal protection via the "Whistle Blowers Act" to prove that the Bush Jr admin ignored the scietific data which predicted the salmon kill.

Earthjustice headed the legal coalition to save the salmon so they are the source.

Here's the coalition to save the salmon. It's also a link to the source.
The Coalition for the Klamath Basin includes American Rivers, Defenders of Wildlife, Headwaters, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Klamath Basin Audubon Society, Klamath Forest Alliance, Northcoast Environmental Center, Oregon Natural Resources Council, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Sierra Club (Oregon Chapter), The Wilderness Society, and WaterWatch of Oregon.

The most interesting thing is how isolated your views are.

Not a single sports fishing or other group agrees with your views and all support the Coalition.

Doesn't that tell you something?

Brion

[skein]

Wow, I missed watching this whole shebang unfold. I was at the sportsman's show. It was a lot more fun than banging around on a computer all day.

You know what I think? I think both sides are lying. I think the information I have is tainted to portray a skewed "truth." I think the information that rebuts that is also skewed. Hence each side is saying what it thinks its constituents want to hear, and what will discredit the other side.

Phooey! I need to catch a fish.

Skein

[Straydog]

GSA,

So, what you are trying to get thru to me is that the Klamath strain of fish has only evolved since the Klamath project and before that went no further than the confluence of the Trinity...........

BTW, before you try to "educate" me further, know that while the majority of dead fish were believed to be Trinity fish, by no means were all of them.

[GutshotApe]

Hey Brion - but what about the Trinity River diversion? Why are you ignoring the smoking gun? :whazzup:

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Maybe we should take this to CHAT

Less yelling

Brion,

[img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]
are you not reading what I post? The lack of COOL WATER did this. The ruling that I linked showed the dates when the water was stoped against Babbit's ruling. Clinton was president. Bush didn't have anything to do with it! Why are you ignoring the findings of the National Academy of Scientists?

[ 02-07-2003, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[BrionLutz]

Gutshotape,

Originally posted:George Bush didn't do it. The upper Klamath farmers didn't do it. The Westlands Water District south of Fresno, along with a California judge who enabled, did it. [/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">That mysterious "debil judge" again &lt;grin&gt;. There is the Oakland CA Federal judge who upheld the Bush Jr admin on cutting back on water flow which killed the salmon...is that what you mean?

Here's the scientific conclusion on how the Bush Jr admin's actions killed the salmon:

Oakland, CA-- Scientists from the California Department of Fish and Game say in a report released late Friday that federal water diversions from the Klamath River were the primary cause of a massive fish kill in the Klamath River last September. More than 33,000 adult salmon, including federally protected coho, died before they could spawn because of federal water diversions to upstream farmers. The lack of water in the river caused river temperatures to rise and dissolved oxygen levels to drop, creating lethal conditions for salmon. The returning fish crowded together in a few spots where cooler tributaries brought colder water into the river. Infectious bacteria and parasites swept through the schooled up fish like wildfire, killing nearly all and seriously weakening the rest. The California report states, “DFG [Department of Fish and Game] concludes that low flows and other flow related factors (e.g. fish passage and fish density) caused the 2002 fish kill on the lower Klamath River. Furthermore, of the conditions that can cause or exacerbate a fish kill, flow is the only factor that can be controlled to any degree.”

I'm not sure that your and other's opinions here have as much weight.

What is hard to understand is why any fisherman would side with the errors of the Bush Jr admin. regarding our salmon. Even if you love the guy, show some tough love and tell him he's making a mistake and do some good for the salmon.

Brion

All are welcome to join in on my posts, but you are required to leave the bulk of your weapons with the sheriff at the edge of town. The weapons you are allowed to bring with you are courtesy, civility, and respect. If you will agree to that, you may also bring tasteful wit.

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Straydog:
GSA,

So, what you are trying to get thru to me is that the Klamath strain of fish has only evolved since the Klamath project and before that went no further than the confluence of the Trinity...........

BTW, before you try to "educate" me further, know that while the majority of dead fish were believed to be Trinity fish, by no means were all of them.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">No, not at all - the Klamath fish evolved with low flows from the upper basin and relatively higher, cooler & cleaner flows from the lower river tribs. Get a map and see where these tributaries are. Check the location of the fishkill.

Most of the 40,000 dead chinook were Trinity hatchery fish, jammed up at the confluence and downriver, waiting for enough water to ascend the Trinity. The Trinity diversion has nothing to do with the upper Klamath project even though that's the target the enviros aimed at as soon as the news of the dieoff broke. Meanwhile, any Scott, Salmon or Trinity natives mixed in were also delayed and exposed to crowding and disease. Upriver stocks that returned later did much better - didn't Iron Gate dam see 3rd highest run ever?

National Academy of Scientists
National Academy of Scientists
National Academy of Scientists
National Academy of Scientists

They determined that Klamath Lake water is bad for salmon. But you know much more than they do.

Babbit (Clinton Administration) tried to do the right thing here by getting Trinity River water back into the system. A California juge stoped him (maybe the juges name was Bush [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] ). The fish died. If 90% of the water in Klamath Lake was retained in the Upper Basin last summer (lower Lake and Tulie Lake Basins) maybe the salmon would have stayed out in the ocean until river conditions improved to the point that they could survive.

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
That mysterious "debil judge" again &lt;grin&gt;. There is the Oakland CA Federal judge who upheld the Bush Jr admin on cutting back on water flow which killed the salmon...is that what you mean?Brion [/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">No, there was another judge who ruled a couple years ago, I believe, that the diversion that takes 90% if the Trinity flow and diverts it into the Sacramento irrigation system could continue.........regardless of its impact on Klamath fish. Probably a judge appointed by Clinton [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] or Carter.

[Salmonator]

Guys, one thing I learned about Brion is that even if you agree with him he will turn his argument in another direction just for the sake of arguing. There is no point in continuing

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
Earthjustice headed the legal coalition to save the salmon so they are the source.[/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Yup, it probably IS a waste of time trying to convince anyone who would make this statement.

Salmon,
That's why I was refering to him as "Moron".
The Dog on the other hand is just confused :grin: and does try to do what he thinks is best for the fish :smile: . I like and respect him. Same with Master Baiter.

[BrionLutz]

Gutshotape,

Originally posted: Hey Brion - but what about the Trinity River diversion? Why are you ignoring the smoking gun?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">A question you need to answer &lt;grin&gt;.

What is the connection between a December 2000 decision to return water to the river and the 2002 Klamath fish kill?

Keta's link (perhaps he errored) has to do with Sec. of Interior Babbit ruling for the Indians and returning water to the river.

Keta's Link.

Certainly the scientists analyzing the 2002 Klamath salmon kill did not consider it a factor.

The scientific report of the Klamath salmon kill during the Bush Jr admin in 2002 does not seem to share you or Keta's view and puts the blame squarely on the Bush decision to divert water.

The scientists do not agree with you. They show the "smoking gun" for the 2002 Klamath salmon kill in Bush Jr's hands for the water diversion the Bush Jr admin pushed against the advice of the National Marine Fisheries scientists recommendations.

Link to scientists report on 2002 Klamath fish kill.

You have two scientific reports, one before and one after the fish kill that all blame the Bush Jr admin's policies.

National Marine Fisheries Report

I don't see how that leaves any room for debate.

Brion

Brion,

[img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]
You have to read more than the first line, if your attention span will handle it, to get to the part where Westland goes to court.

PS:
A cut and paste from my link to help you so you don't have to read it all to find it. I dont want your lips to get sore.

"This decision was challenged before it was even made in federal district court in Fresno by Westlands Water District"

[ 02-07-2003, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Keta ]

Perhaps you missed my earlier message.

All are welcome to join in on my posts, but you are required to leave the bulk of your weapons with the sheriff at the edge of town. The weapons you are allowed to bring with you are courtesy, civility, and respect. If you will agree to that, you may also bring tasteful wit.

Reel Tired

Go away Jr.

PS:
Liars don't deserve to be treated with anything but contempt. I'm not calling you a liar here Reel, I can't find any data to prove or disprove your opening post. I feel your numbers are a bit high but probably close.

[ 02-06-2003, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

Originally posted by Keta:
Moron, You have to read more than the first line, if your attention span will handle it, to get to the part where Westland goes to court.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I think you miss the point.

1. The scientific analysis of the Klamath 2002 salmon kill does not agree with the conclusions you make. Perhaps your scientific expertise exceeds theirs, perhaps not.

Link to scientist's report

2. The National Marine Fisheries scientists report does not agree with the conclusions you make.

Link to the National Marine Fisheries Report

Both reports blame the decisions of the Bush Jr Dept of Interior for its water diversion causing the 2002 Klamath salmon kill.

One report told them it would happen.

One report told them it did happen.

You'll have to excuse us poor "morons" if we take these scientific reports over your speculation.

Brion
PS This must be what Salmonator means by "changing the topic" &lt;grin&gt;.

One link to a biastitute with an agenda and another one to interpretation (ie. more lies) of what the NAofS report said. You must be a lawyer.

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

Originally posted: One link to a biastitute with an agenda and another one to interpretation (ie. more lies) of what the NAofS report said. You must be a lawyer.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Feel free to post a link to the National Acadamy of Scienes report on the 2002 Klamath salmon kill.

The report I provided for you was the scientific study done after the die off and specifically addressed the causes.

The scientists who analyzed the 2002 Klamath salmon die off did not agree with the conclusions and connections you made.

They stated that the water diversion carried out by the Bush Admin's Interior Dept was the cause.

It turned out that the National Marine Fisheries had told the Bush Jr Interior Dept that this would happen.

These two scientific reports specifically address the Klamath 2002 salmon die off.

They will remain the definitive scientific conclusion until some new evidence presents itself.

I don't see any reason to get emotional over this.

Brion

In your own little dream world.

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

Originally posted:
Moron. Liar. In your own little dream world.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Dude you need to calm down. Sounds like you folks had a bruising go round when the Klamath falls salmon kill was going on.

The scientists study of the salmon kill clearly points to the Bush Jr admin decision to divert water. On top of that the Wall Street Journal got its hands on the National Marine Fisheries study that predated the fish kill and told Republican Sec of Interior Norton that her actions would likely result in the fish kill.

Link to National Marine Fisheries study

Link to CA scientists report on Klamath salmon kill


If you are a Bush Jr fan, then you can do some good by writing to Bush Jr and Norton and tell them that you for anything that increases salmon runs and that you oppose anything that kills the salmon or reduces the salmon runs.

Give them something specific that relates directly to them.

For example, if you disagree with Bush Jr admin diverting water away from the salmon, tell them.

If you support the Bush Jr policy of diverting water away from the salmon, then tell them that...wait...on 2nd thought...don't tell them that &lt;grin&gt;.

Looking at the current thread, do you support having the salmon on the Endangered Species list?

Do you support the protections and corrections required by the ESA?


Brion

[Pete]

OK, boys. Enough of the personal attacks. If they continue, this thread goes away. We can have discussions about ideas without attacking the messenger.

For those that have slipped down the slope ... you have an opportunity to climb out by editing your posts to remove the personal characterizations.

Challenge the ideas, not the people that express them, OK?