Klamath Fish Kill and Politics.

Straydog · 08-05-2003, 09:26 AM

This should probably be on LIG but since there is another similar post on this board I have chosen to put this here.

As distasteful as it is for many, the reality is our fishing world is very much influenced by politics. We need to be informed and act accordingly lest we one day wonder why we have no fish to pursue.

Politics and the Klamath fish Killl

BrionLutz · 08-05-2003, 09:57 AM

Straydog,

And we see the consequences of politics killing the fish this year also.

July 29, 2003 GRANTS PASS, Ore. � Biologists have found 20 endangered Lost River suckers dead in Upper Klamath Lake, where water quality has been deteriorating due to an algae bloom and hot, windless weather, authorities said yesterday.

I believe subsequently another 120 dead fish were discovered.

What's most disturbing is this part of the article noting that the "legal limit" cooked up by the anti-fish anti-public pro-special interest politicians is clearly deadly to fish...but "legal".

Quote:

There was no immediate plan to cut off water to farmers to provide more for the suckers because the lake's level meets federal requirements governing protection of the suckers under the Endangered Species Act, said Bureau of Reclamation spokesman Jeff McCracken.

The answer is to manage the water for the fish and then see what, if any, level of agriculture is sustainable. The problem is using valuable water via elaborate, expensive and damaging canal systems to irrigate marginal farmland whose crops require Federal subsidies because they are not sustainable envirionmentally or economically. The anti-fish policies and practices require large state and Federal tax subsidies but they do produce big political contributions...and massive fish kills.

Gets back to our discussion about sportsfishermen and being pro-fish. I think you'll see most sport fishermen support the politicians and policies which are clearly bad for fishing.

Brion

BrionLutz · 08-05-2003, 10:44 AM

Straydog,

And another thing <grin>...

In Ramstrongs reference to the California Department of Fish and Game, you see what I mean about fishermen supporting the anti-fish policies. That they need to dismiss the scientific findings in order to support anti-fish policies is real problem for sports fishermen.

You may remember some fishermen were dismissing the massive salmon fish kill last year saying it was "just 33,000" but the scientific report notes that this was the preliminary finding and that the final study noted:

Quote:

Therefore, the estimates in the lower Klamath River for September 2002 should be viewed as a minimum number of fish killed and may have significantly underestimated the actual numbers of dead fish.

Further to politics intervening in anti-salmon policies, regarding the current, largely political efforts to delist coastal Coho. We have to remember that NOAA opposed listing the Coho and had to be sued. That the scientific data supporting listing the Coho was strong enough to overrule NOAA. And now we have a huge political push from Washington politicians to again delist the Coho. Again you see sport fishermen supporting delisting the Coho vs. taking a more conservative, more scientific more pro-fish position.

Brion

freespool · 08-05-2003, 12:15 PM

Skein,does that comment really bring anything to the table? Let me assist you,no it doesn't.

FishaholicAZ · 08-05-2003, 12:18 PM

No offense Skein but I appreciate the info Straydog posted. Sure, I get tired of the bickering to but I still like to find out what I can and they really do help. Living in AZ, this site is really my main form of fishing info from the NW. I am not saying all they post or say is relevant or necessary but its still good to read and can be very informative.
As for the intent of straydog's question, I agree. Fisherman for the most part are anti-fish when it comes to quotas and fishing rules and guidelines. Sometimes, we do more harm than good and I do agree that bad politics are the main reason for the Klamath river fish kills...
Keep posting stuff Dog and Lutz. This is a forum and you are free to post your thoughts... I will then decide for myself whether or not its worth taking or not...

Fish on and release the wild ones...
Romeo

08-05-2003, 12:38 PM

Lutz,

Quote:

I believe subsequently another 120 dead fish were discovered.

If you could read you would have noticed that the 120 fish were in Lost River, a totally different drainage. Not all were Lost River or Short Nose Suckers either.

The level of Upper Klamath Lake is the highest than I've ever seen it this time of year. It's during high water years with high temperatures that the massive fish kills have occurred in the upper lake.

FishaholicAZ,

Quote:

Sometimes, we do more harm than good and I do agree that bad politics are the main reason for the Klamath river fish kills...

Like in dumping 70 degree or higher water down the canyon where it never went historically?

Like allowing California to take 90% of the water out of the Trinity River and 100% out of the Shasta River and Scott River?

If the flow at the mouth of the Klamath were at historical levels the salmon would have stayed in the ocean until the river conditions were better.

JohnB · 08-05-2003, 12:57 PM

trying to delete this post

[ 08-05-2003, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: JohnB ]

BrionLutz · 08-05-2003, 02:02 PM

Skein,

Hmmm....so you could just ignore our conversation as one option.

Beyond that salmon are a most political fish. Every fish you catch is the result of political decisions.

How can sports fishermen ignore salmon issues?

Brion

BrionLutz · 08-05-2003, 02:12 PM

Keta,

Quote:

If you could read you would have noticed that the 120 fish were in Lost River, a totally different drainage. Not all were Lost River or Short Nose Suckers either.

Just a suggestion...instead of starting off with an...ahem..editorial comment...why not provide a link to the subsequent report about more dead Klamath Basin fish and then point out the geography factors and their significance.

So Lost River is not part of the Klamath Basin?

Since the entire water system is artificial, by default all the fish kills are man-made. Politics, not science, is pushing those decisions.

Brion

08-05-2003, 02:36 PM

Lutz,

I said "Drainage" I didn't say it wasn't in the Klamath Basin. Lost River is in the Tule Lake Drainage. The fish kill was above Harpold Dam in Poe Valley. Lost River water never gets into Upper Klamath Lake.

Lost River Fish Kill

Upper Klamath Lake Fish Kill

Lost River is a AG sewer, Upper Klamath Lake is a nutrent overloaded (mostly natural but some AG)eutrophic lake. The fish kill in the lake was due to algae and hot water, the same hot water you want to dump on the salmon downstream.

Here is a link to some information on the 1997 Upper Klamath Lake Fish Die-off

[ 08-05-2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

Thumper · 08-05-2003, 02:38 PM

Brion and Straydog --- So specifically - what would you folks like to have done. Specifically please. Or is complaining enough for you? I would really like to know.

Woody · 08-05-2003, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Is it okay to be sick and tired of both you guys?

Well, I am.

Skein

I'm with you buddy.

Quote:

Hmmm....so you could just ignore our conversation as one option.

OK, good idea.

BrionLutz · 08-05-2003, 03:44 PM

Keta,

Quote:

I didn't say it wasn't in the Klamath Basin.

Thanks...so the article was correct that there have been additional (120) fish kills in the Klamath Basin.

You'll note what the Director of the Reclamation project noted and why the fish kills are related.

Quote:

"It just shows that it is a Basinwide issue, as opposed to a lake issue, because we are having problems elsewhere," she said.

Gets back to Straydogs original point about politics over riding the science as far as what's best for the fish.

Quote:

The fish kill in the lake was due to algae and hot water, the same hot water you want to dump on the salmon downstream

Nope..what I want to do (can't speak for that wild and crazy Straydog guy) is manage the water for what is best for the fish, specifically restoring the huge runs and the associated fishing, recreation, tourism industries and for the public good.

Brion

Thumper · 08-05-2003, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
what I want to do (can't speak for that wild and crazy Straydog guy) is manage the water for what is best for the fish, specifically restoring the huge runs and the associated fishing, recreation, tourism industries and for the public good.

Brion

Specifically, please, Brion......?

BrionLutz · 08-05-2003, 03:58 PM

Thumper,

Quote:

--- So specifically - what would you folks like to have done. Specifically please.

I always loved hanging curve balls <grin>.

Specifically to Klamath Basin, restore the entire natural watershed which produced provided a huge upland wetlands for birds and other wildlife and spawning grounds for fish, huge runs of salmon.

Let me know if this is not specific enough...there's more.

There Are Real Solutions to the Problems in the Klamath River Basin

1. A Basin-wide, 20-year restoration program under the direction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

2. Reclaiming and restoring wetlands, especially those near Lower Klamath, Tule, and Upper Klamath lakes to improve and increase fish and wildlife habitat, increase water supply, and improve water quality through natural filtration and runoff reduction.

3. Transferring Agency Lake Ranch and Wood River Ranch, currently managed by the Bureau of Reclamation, to the Upper Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service management.

4. An equitable phase-out of commercial grazing on Clear Lake and Klamath Marsh National Wildlife Refuges.

5. Protection and restoration of riparian areas. Providing fish screens and fish passage for dams and diversions, or removing dams altogether. Restoration of the natural water retention and flow regulation of upland forests through reforestation, canopy retention, and road removal.

6. Determining the sustainable level of groundwater withdrawal, and protecting groundwater from over-drafting. Restoring and protecting the quality and quantity of the Town of Bonanza water supply.

Brion

[ 08-05-2003, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

Thumper · 08-05-2003, 04:13 PM

Thanks Brion. Are there any estimates of what all this would cost, both to the current stakeholders (irrigators) and/or to the U.S. taxpayer?

BrionLutz · 08-05-2003, 06:20 PM

Thumper,

Quote:

Are there any estimates of what all this would cost, both to the current stakeholders (irrigators) and/or to the U.S. taxpayer?

Eyup...much more economic kick in the fish and reclamation than in the agriculture. It's a very fringe area for agriculture.

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.

On the agriculture subsidies, we have $50M for water "conservation projects" and $48M in crop subsidies (no market for the crops grown).

So we have $100M per year in state and Federal payments.

Then we have the BLM, Corp of Engineers and other spending to maintain the water system.

Thirty years ago, farm sector earnings accounted for 8 percent of Klamath County's total income. By 1998, this figure had plummeted to 0.5 percent.

So spending the $100M to restore the Klamath Basin we gain 30 times the benefit from similar dollars spent subsidizing marginal agriculture.

Brion

08-05-2003, 06:25 PM

Brion, :grin:

Hey ol buddy, have I got a deal for you! I'll sell YOU my water rights (A) and back fill my irrigation ditch (I am on the end of the ditch and it goes into a drain from my place) for the low, low price of $300,000. I'll throw in my property for an extra $75,000. Then you can grow all of the sage brush and mosquitoes you want.

Deal?

wambam · 08-05-2003, 06:34 PM

30,000 dead hatch salmon whew what a loss.cheap produce to fead americas families, priceless, i get tired of hearing about the poor salmon, really there is a bigger picture. [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

BrionLutz · 08-05-2003, 06:35 PM

Keta,

Quote:

The fish kill in the lake was due to algae and hot water, the same hot water you want to dump on the salmon downstream.

Apparently your idea to withold water from the salmon is incorrect:

At the time of the 2002 fish kill, The Klamath Tribes� biologists concluded ��the portrayals of Upper Klamath Lake water temperatures being too warm to send downstream because of concerns about harming the salmon are clearly incorrect. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation� and anyone else portraying the present situation in this manner should stop immediately, because the facts directly contradict this position

Brion

BrionLutz · 08-05-2003, 06:43 PM

Wambam,

Quote:

30,000 dead hatch salmon whew what a loss.cheap produce to fead americas families, priceless, i get tired of hearing about the poor salmon, really there is a bigger picture.

Yes...you seemed to miss most of it since the majority of fish were native.

Therefore, the best available estimate is that 68% of the Chinook salmon that died were naturally produced fish.

The other bigger picture is that we get 30 times more economic benefit from restoring the Klamath Basin via fishing, tourism and recreation than from marginal, highly subsidized agriculture.

Brion

rebell · 08-05-2003, 07:19 PM

I'm with you Skein.

Good lord guy's, have you ever enjoyed one single day of life? Give it a rest gentlemen, there is more to life than picking fights. Straydog, you should know better.

08-05-2003, 08:03 PM

Lutz,

The source for your last link is a joke. The tribe is using the water issue to get the Winema back so they can finish logging it. Wait until the federal biologists finish their study and then we can discuss this. As of now the only data is from bias sources.

All of the water released from Upper Klamath Lake after mid July to mid October should be sent to Lower Klamath Lake and Tule Lake Basin. If the Lower Klamath Lake and Tule Lake were restored the waterfoul numbers in the basin could expand.
The farming on the refuge needs to be grain not potatoes, onions and hay and 30% of the crop should be left for bird feed. More water from the Trinity, Scott and Shasta rivers should be left in the streams so the Klamath River flow runs cooler.

Above JC Boyle Powerhouse where the Klamath River runs like it did pre project, clear, cool and the fishing is good year round. Below the powerhouse it's a warm to hot algae filled sewer all summer and muddy in the winter. I can email you the way to get to the nice natural (as natural as it gets on the upper river) section of the river if you would want to fly fish this stream. It has a dynamite stone/salmon fly hatch that turns on a large trout feeding frenzy you wouldn't believe.

The Klamath Basin will never be as it was in the past but with the right management, farming and ranching can co-exist with abundant wildlife.
Your way would envolve a drastic decrese in the population of our country.

) :shocked: ( Do you want to take me up on my offer to buy my water rights and/or property? ) :shocked: ( I sure would like to retire and relocate closer to the BIG BLUE LAKE.

Wambam,
We need both fish and wildlife and family farms. I would gladly give up some my water if I felt it would help the salmon runs in the Klamath system.

Skein, Woody and Rebell,
I can't let this Bull go unchalenged. Sorry to take up your time. I'd rather live somewhere else and be fishing.

[ 08-05-2003, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

08-05-2003, 08:07 PM

D'oh

[ 08-05-2003, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

willametteriveroutlaw · 08-05-2003, 09:12 PM

Skein,
I think it DEFINATELY okay.
I truly wonder what is more important to some people, fishing or arguing about fish related political issues with no chance of their complaining, surmising, or theorhetical solutions even making a dent in the problem.

BrionLutz · 08-05-2003, 09:20 PM

Keta,

Quote:

The source for your last link is a joke.

You'd have to explain why the Bureau of Reclamation source is not valid. I think you can understand why your opinion is not quite enough.

Quote:

All of the water released from Upper Klamath Lake after mid July to mid October should be sent to Lower Klamath Lake and Tule Lake Basin...

I'm sure you have lots of personal theories but the detailed work of the BLM, California Dept. of Fish and Game, National Geologic Survey, all referenced and linked above, is correctly given more weight than your raw opinion.

Quote:

The Klamath Basin will never be as it was in the past but with the right management...

No reason it cannot be restored and we can't stop paying $100M in subsidies for unsustainable, unmarketable agriculture products vs. collecting $300M in economic benefits from sustainable fish, recreation and tourism per the economic study referenced.

Quote:

We need both fish and wildlife and family farms.

We don't need farms in marginal areas that require the over use of natural resources better used elsewhere and massive taxpayer subsidies.

In the discussion presented here, baseline TCM of $3.2B per annum are combined with survey based contingent use (US) to estimate the benefits of improving the water quality and angling harvests of the mainstream Klamath River and its tributaries.

That same report puts the cost of Klamath Basin restoration at $1.7B and the resulting economic benefit at $15.28B.

Brion

BrionLutz · 08-05-2003, 09:25 PM

willametteriveroutlaw,

Quote:

I truly wonder what is more important to some people, fishing or arguing about fish related political issues with no chance of their complaining, surmising, or theorhetical solutions even making a dent in the problem.

I don't see a difference between fishing and discussing the very real issues that affect fishing. Especially true with salmon.

As for making a dent in the problem, I'm an American Dreamer, I always think we can fix the problem, especially the ones we created. There would be no salmon today unless folks dealt with the problems of salmon extinction.

Brion

BrionLutz · 08-05-2003, 09:28 PM

Straydog,

See what I mean about sports fishermen not being pro-salmon?

Despite the overwhelming scientific and economic data, most sport fishermen will not support efforts to increase salmon populations.

No example could be more stark than Klamath Basin where the economics are so hugely in favor of salmon restoration over marginal, subsidized desert farming.

Yet sport fishermen in general oppose those efforts.

It's a sad puzzle.

Brion

Straydog · 08-05-2003, 09:39 PM

Skein,

If you don't like it don't read it. You remind me of the old maid whining of the guy running naked through his house across the street. Don't look!

Willametterriveroutlaw,

The only way to insure you will not make a difference or dent in an outcome is to do nothing. That is not my nature.

Thumper,

It is too late and I too tired to go into specific detail at this time. Contrary to the misquided opinions of some, I do a whole lot more than sit at my computer and pick fights all day. I got in off the road at 9:15. In a nutshell I would like to see willing farmers bought out, and as much water conservation as possible through out the basin. I would to see the refuge not be farmed or possilby farmed as Keta suggests and I would like to see more water from Cal. As for what I would have done last season, I would have let more water out of where ever I could find it. Given the federal injunctions protecting the Cal. farmers, that would have been the Klamath basin.

Rebell,

I post this stuff for much more than merely picking fights. Education is the key to bringing us to some sort of understanding and finding solutions to our problems. To do nothing and share nothing is not my nature.

No one is making anyone read this nor respond to it. I will not be hurt if they go with no reply......... just doing what I can do and trying to spread some information and fuel for thought beyond the next hottest bait or next zipperlip fishing experience. I live that daily, this is a diversion and part of my passion for the sport and our state in general.

Don't like it? Ignore it.

crabbait · 08-05-2003, 09:40 PM

Three in a row is a rant. Rants go on LIG. :grin:

[ 08-05-2003, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

08-05-2003, 09:57 PM

Lutz,

[img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] Since when is the ONRC the BLM? [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]
Either you don't read the information you link or you tell untruths. Which one is it?

My sugestions on how to improve the wildlife habitat of the Klamath Basin are not a "personal theory". Put the water back where it was pre project and things will be better. Before the dam there was hardly any flow out of Upper Klamath Lake into Link River, after mid summer. The lower lake was marsh fed by spring run off from the upper lake. Tule Lake (marsh) was much bigger.

[ 08-05-2003, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

Straydog · 08-05-2003, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BrionLutz:

Gets back to our discussion about sportsfishermen and being pro-fish. I think you'll see most sport fishermen support the politicians and policies which are clearly bad for fishing.

As ironic as it is, there is no doubt in my mind you are correct.

Make no mistake, my opinion that sportfishers are leaders in terms of fish conservation and efforts to make things better in no way implies we have all or even a majority of sport fishers doing what they can do to make things better.
My comment was only comparing how many folks I see from the sport side out making a difference as compared to commercial folks.

Unfortunately, in many respects the sports are our own worst enemy, not only in how they vote but in how they conduct themselves on the rivers, lakes and oceans as well. Case in point is the recent publicity given to the number of violations on the coast. Today I heard several sad stories of people snagging fish on both the lower Rogue and Umpqua rivers. Talked to people that saw the snaggers being so bold as to cull the fish, leaving smaller ones on the bank. It is sick. These are the same people that will cry when we raise the fees and go vote for the most conservative, anti fish candidate they can, come next election.

lingslayer · 08-05-2003, 11:36 PM

As just one of the many folks from the Klamath basin that was involved in the Salt Caves dam project issue, (reams and reams of printed reports) I can tell these guys have NO CLUE what is involved with "fixing" the Klamath Basin watershed. There are so many "studies" out there that are slanted for political/financial gain that the issue becomes muddier than Lost river water!
The biggest issue I see is that the dam(s) are the only reason there is water there in the summer months following the middle of July, and unless you've lived there, fished there, and REALLY studied the waterflows and the natural trends of Klamath Lake, it's tribs and the surrouding watershed you can't possibly understand.
FYIs to all:
1) Algae blooms have been happening on Klamath Lake forever. They are HUGE when they happen.

2) The gill parasite that lives in the Klamath watershed has been there forever. Nates there are resistant. That is why there is no stocking in the system from the lake downstream.

3) There was a chub kill of the early 70s. The whole town stunk from rotting fish. That in itself was enough to screw up the trout fishing. The food source for the trout was the chub. The average size of Klamath Lake trout caught dropped by close to 50% after that, and still hasn't fully recovered. It was due to a gill parasite that proliferated after 2 years of near record high water levels in July and August. The salmon and steehead of years ago fed on the chub too.

Ten years ago the restoration of lands formerly owned by Tulana Farms surrounding the upper marsh (Klamath/Agency) was undertaken by a wildlife organization (I don't recall which one). That was supposed to be a big step in the right direction for the basin water quality and quantity,...
It has been getting progressively worse ever since.

The lake is dying people. Its a natural occurence. The only reason there IS a lake is due to the dam(s). As it dies, the water gets shallower AND warmer. The water downstream has no choice but to deteriorate as long as the other tribs are used for other purposes like slaking Californian's thirsts.
As for the farmers, They have nearly as much (or more) history in the klamath basin than the tribes IMHO. They were promised "water in perpetuity" generations ago, and the same dam system that supplies them with water has preserved the lake, not degraded it.
The crops they grow are some of the most valued livestock feed in the world. The next time you all head to the store for beef, remember the cost of feeding them is low because of those crops.
I find it VERY difficult to believe that tourism and fishing would even come close to sustaining the local economy to the degree that farming/ranching does Brion. The waterfowl hunting industry is HUGE there, as robust as ever. And it is less than 5% of the area's income.

Some people need to stop following the political "party line" and think for themselves. Preservation isn't always the best thing. Nature moves on. And some species will become extinct because of that, but if it happens in the Klamath basin the farmers won't be the cause.

Jamie

[ 08-06-2003, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: lingslayer ]

skein · 08-05-2003, 11:55 PM

Is it okay to be sick and tired of both you guys?

Well, I am.

Skein

Straydog · 08-06-2003, 05:58 AM

Jamie,

You make your attack to "you guys", plural.
I only read one person saying anything about removing the dams.

The fed. government has made many promises it can not keep. Ask any tribe.

Further, you accuse others of being clueless but we are talking about Salmon in the river, not trout in the lake. :whazzup:

I agree there is economic benefit from the harvest of hay, however I think you and others overstate it's value. Besides, I have not suggested a complete end to farming in the basin. It seems much like the timber debate, one side asks for a more sensible, realistic approach and the other side accuses them of wanting to shut it all down. There is middle ground and gray areas if one is willing to look for them.

You say the lake is dying, change is inevitable, deal with it. That is what I say about family farming. It is slowly dying, change is inevitable. And it is not environmental issues that is killing the farmer, it is big agri business and competition.

And finally, to say the farmers have as long a history as the tribes defies the reality of history. I think it best we avoid trying to rewrite history to maintain party line thinking, wouldn't you agree? Some history on K falls........... check out the part about the Indians living there for generations before white settlers. Perhaps this will help avoid another attack and labeling of "you guys have NO CLUE".........

[ 08-06-2003, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Cool Texan · 08-06-2003, 06:37 AM

Am I missing the Politics part of this? I read the first few articles...they said that warm weather and an algae bloom were mostly to blame. One even said that he wasnt sure a change in the water level would help anything.

So...are we just complaining about Mother Nature then?

Not me, I like her (ducks from the lightning).

:grin:

Straydog · 08-06-2003, 06:52 AM

CT,

The politcs part is in the article I posted originally.

It seems rather than focus on that the discussion went to me being a trouble maker and then to the problems with the water today.

Funny how simply posting an article makes one a fight starter in some people's mind. I guess some think we must keep our heads in the sand and our mouths shut or we are trouble makers. For those people I remind that the song "Everything is Beautiful" was just that, a song, not neccesarily fact or a crede to live by.

For the record too, Rebell, I enjoy almost every day of my life. Thanks for asking.....

[ 08-06-2003, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

08-06-2003, 07:08 AM

lingslayer,
Were you a member of "Save Our Klamath River"? Nerta and me were envolved from the start.
Salt Caves Dam was BS!

freespool · 08-06-2003, 07:16 AM

Cool Texan,in a nut shell this is what is happening. The Klamath basin is being operated with the farmers well being attended to first. Fish,Indians and other interests are managed as secondary users. These decisions are made by politicions, ergo the issue is political in nature. Another example of this being political was last years televised debates between Gordon Smith and Bill Bradbury. Bradbury said it was harmful to fish to hold back water. Smith responded saying there was no scientific evidence to prove that claim.

GutshotApe · 08-06-2003, 07:37 AM

It is interesting that many believe the key to salvation of the coastal coho is to return the watersheds to the pre-settlement conditions the fish evolved under (which, BTW, many erroneously belive was solid, unbroken oldgrowth)......yet, when discussing the Klamath River salmon kill of 2002 (and others), we never hear any mention of returning the Klamath River system to the pre-settlement conditions that the Klamath fish evolved under (i.e. restore Trinity, Shasta & Salmon River flows in summer/fall, stop un-natural releases of upper basin water in summer/fall). Instead, all we hear is the upper Klamath farmers are the problem and are taking too much water, etc.....the Trinity River & other California diversions are ignored.

Cool Texan · 08-06-2003, 07:43 AM

Thanks everyone. Had to go re-read Stray's article. As for televised debates...

...dont watch 'em.

Skein and Rebell....

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

lingslayer · 08-06-2003, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Straydog:
Jamie,

You make your attack to "you people", plural.
I only read one person saying anything about removing the dams.

No attack Stray, just pointing out that if ALL you do is read and quote from the studies you agree with you can come up with enough info to muddy the issues. There are literally dozens of studies and reports dating back to the 60's. I participated in one in the 80's during the Salt Caves project debate. There were at least a dozen done at that time. Everything from off stream storage to dredging/deepening the lake has been looked into. Read them all and you will find factual info that, while it may go against what you agree with, makes a strong case to do the opposite of what "seems" to be the best thing for the fish.

Quote:

The fed. government has made many promises it can not keep. Ask any tribe.
[/QB]

And the local tribes have had their agreement(s) rewritten many times, through lawsuits. Everything from hunting and fishing rights to logging rights, to reassessments of the original $$$ values.

Quote:

Further, you accuse others of being clueless but we are talking about Salmon in the river, not trout in the lake. :whazzup:
[/QB]

Trout and salmon feed on the same feed fish, do they not? Read the WHOLE statement Stray.

Quote:

I agree there is economic benefit from the harvest of hay, however I think you and others overstate it's value. Besides, I have not suggested a complete end to farming in the basin. It seems much like the timber debate, one side asks for a more sensible, realistic approach and the other side accuses them of wanting to shut it all down. There is middle ground and gray areas if one is willing to look for them.
[/QB]

And I would agree with that Stray. There is currently a large (new) fish screen at the Klamath Lake source of the water. Just built in the last year. As for the hay's value?? We could always find out. But if the farmers are gone and the cost of beef is through the roof, do we spend the tax dollars to restore the farms to bring the cost back down??
I don't see that as a viable option.

Quote:

You say the lake is dying, change is inevitable, deal with it. That is what I say about family farming. It is slowly dying, change is inevitable. And it is not environmental issues that is killing the farmer, it is big agri business and competition.
[/QB]

Big agribusiness has suffered at least as much in that area as the small farmers Stray. Tulana Farms that I mentioned in that post turned over thousands of acres ten years ago due to a lack of profitability, there was more value in the tax write off apparently. The result has been not nearly as successful at restoring the lake as everyone thought it would be.
Large corporate ranches all over south central and eastern Oregon have struggled and gone broke in the last couple decades. Tulana is just one of many. Disney's venture died too. There is a golf course and resort there now. Biggies further east have gone away too. The MC is one example, but there are more

Quote:

And finally, to say the farmers have as long a history as the tribes defies the reality of history. I think it best we avoid trying to rewrite history to maintain party line thinking, wouldn't you agree? [/QB]

There is "tribal history" there that includes the snagging of the suckers in the rivers by the hundreds, and letting them rot on the bank. This isn't something I've just read about, I've seen it first hand many times. The tribe may have used these fish, but not in the way that is currently implied. They also knew the suckers would eat the eggs of the trout, salmon and steelhead (which were the tribe's true food source) and caught and killed as many of them in the upper drainage as possible.
As for their history, the sucker's contribution is a traditional one not a practical one. Try eating one of those things and you will see what I mean!

The issue is HUGELY complex Straydog, and while the local farmer there suffers from the wrong decisions about what to do in the interim, there are other reasons the fish in the lower river died, many of them natural.
Take a better look at them and the trubutary issues before ruining the farmers of the Klamath basin.
Its not as simple as removing the irrigation system, but the narrow mindedness of the preservationist's handbook would have you believe it is. And that would be a fool's gamble with other peoples lives and livelyhood.
Jamie

lingslayer · 08-06-2003, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Straydog:
Jamie,

And finally, to say the farmers have as long a history as the tribes defies the reality of history. I think it best we avoid trying to rewrite history to maintain party line thinking, wouldn't you agree? Some history on K falls........... check out the part about the Indians living there for generations before white settlers. Perhaps this will help avoid another attack and labeling of "you guys have NO CLUE".........

Stray,
Klamath basin and Klamath and Modoc tribal history is well known to anyone that spent 20+ years there growing up (and paying attention).
Your link is about the Favell Museum. And while Gene Favell did a reasonable job of displaying the art and artifacts from local tribes, the link has little to do with actual tribal history,....
Did you read the article on the link you posted??
Jamie

Straydog · 08-06-2003, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lingslayer:
No attack Stray, just pointing out that if ALL you do is read and quote from the studies you agree with you can come up with enough info to muddy the issues.

Sorry, yelling NO CLUE feels rather attack like......

Quote:

And the local tribes have had their agreement(s) rewritten many times, through lawsuits.

Which is proof we can go back and reevaluate the water promises as well....

Quote:

Trout and salmon feed on the same feed fish, do they not? Read the WHOLE statement Stray.

Well, no they don't. Salmon don't feed once they enter the fresh water on their migratory mission. Salmon fry don't eat chubs, do they?

Quote:

And I would agree with that Stray. There is currently a large (new) fish screen at the Klamath Lake source of the water.

Yea, I know. I am on the Fish Screening Task Force for ODFW and am supportive of that huge expenditure for the benefit of fish and farmers. (farmer hater that I am said to be.......) In fact, I am giving up my Sat. for a FSTF meeting in Klamath this weekend. We are going to tour the new screens at the A Canal. Come on over!!

Quote:

But if the farmers are gone and the cost of beef is through the roof, do we spend the tax dollars to restore the farms to bring the cost back down??
I don't see that as a viable option.

Nor do I see the Klamath farmer being that big an influence in the overall pricing of beef.

Quote:

Big agribusiness has suffered at least as much in that area as the small farmers Stray. Tulana Farms that I mentioned in that post turned over thousands of acres ten years ago due to a lack of profitability, there was more value in the tax write off apparently. The result has been not nearly as successful at restoring the lake as everyone thought it would be.
Large corporate ranches all over south central and eastern Oregon have struggled and gone broke in the last couple decades.

That makes sense because in the big picture of farming in the country and others Oregon Ag is not a major player, at least not that part of Oregon.

Quote:

OOpppsss....I messed that one up but waste of fish by the Indidans is not what we were talking about.

A whole different issue than that which we were talking about.

Quote:

The issue is HUGELY complex Straydog, and while the local farmer there suffers from the wrong decisions about what to do in the interim, there are other reasons the fish in the lower river died, many of them natural.
Take a better look at them and the trubutary issues before ruining the farmers of the Klamath basin.
Its not as simple as removing the irrigation system, but the narrow mindedness of the preservationist's handbook would have you believe it is.

I am not one that has asked for something as simple of removing the irrigation system and I agree it is a hugely complex issue.

[ 08-06-2003, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Straydog · 08-06-2003, 08:21 AM

Ling,

I did read the whole article.

That was just the first of hundreds of articles that came up when I did my google search of the history of Klamath Indians.

Since Keta has used the museum as a source of information in the past I thought it must be on the up and up and haste led me to use the first source I found. Sorry, you are not going to convince me that the Indians moved in with the settlers but if you can find documentation to back your opinion I would be interested in reading it.

[ 08-06-2003, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Straydog · 08-06-2003, 08:48 AM

Ok, for my official rant post of the day, here is a New York Times editorial for today.

Not trying to perpetuate the "fight", just showing this is a national issue and while very complex, also very far reaching, not just Oregon.

More Klamath fish politics.......NY Times

[ 08-06-2003, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Cool Texan · 08-06-2003, 09:01 AM

Not picking a fight, but that's just an editorial...just another "opinion". Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it wrong. It agrees with yours, so that is good. However, there are others that will disagree with it, that is also good.

No need for bickering and squabbling (not pointing a finger at you Stray, just making the comment in general).

Carry on gents.

BrionLutz · 08-06-2003, 09:28 AM

GSA,

Quote:

...we never hear any mention of returning the Klamath River system to the pre-settlement conditions that the Klamath fish evolved under (i.e. restore Trinity, Shasta & Salmon River flows in summer/fall, stop un-natural releases of upper basin water in summer/fall).

That has been the push from the fishing and environmental groups...if you didn't hear it, that's another issue <grin>.

Quote:

Instead, all we hear is the upper Klamath farmers are the problem and are taking too much water

Correct, farming in an area that is marginal at best for farming that only exists due to billion$ spent on a water system that is killing other jobs and industries and farming that requires $100M per year in Ag. Dept. subsidies to grow crops that have no sustainable market.

Farming in the Klamath Basin is a totally artificial enterprise cooked up during our dam building days.

As the economic study noted, we can get 30 times the economic value by restoring the basin and the jobs.

Cost to buy out the farmers and restore the system is about $2B with the economic benefit about $15B.

Brion

Cool Texan · 08-06-2003, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
GSA,

That has been the push from the fishing and environmental groups...if you didn't hear it, that's another issue <grin>.

In the spirit of a kinder, gentler LIG, why dont you show GSA a source for that, to help him understand, instead of the jab. That would be more productive.

BrionLutz · 08-06-2003, 09:41 AM

Cool Texan,

Quote:

Not picking a fight, but that's just an editorial...just another "opinion".

Not exactly, it clearly documents that Bush Jr's top political consultant was the decision maker not biologists.

Those decisions resulted in a massive fish kill.

The editorial was to note what happened and to offer the evidence that political decisions have overriden science in this administration with disasterous results and to offer the opinon this should stop.

From delisting the Oregon Coho, to killng Klamath Salmon, to attacking salmon and salmon restoration in every decision in logging, power, development etc., we see politics overriding science to benefit the special interests of big ag (Archer Daniels Midland) and big energy (Enron, Dynergy) who supply campaign funding.

We lost 1,200 mfg jobs in Oregon dueo Enron written energy bill that provided subsidies for fossil fuels but killed subsidies for windpower.

Politics over riding science and killing salmon in the NW. A person can ignore it, can even be for it (as many here are) but no one can deny it.

Brion

BrionLutz · 08-06-2003, 09:44 AM

Cool Texan,

Quote:

In the spirit of a kinder, gentler LIG, why dont you show GSA a source for that, to help him understand, instead of the jab. That would be more productive.

Two kinder and gentler steps ahead of you...see all the links in the previous messages on the various fishing and environmental groups who have been fighting for years to restore the lost jobs due to the destruction of the Klamath Basin water system.

GSA claimed no one was there when, as you can see from the links, these groups have been leading the fight for decades.

Brion

08-06-2003, 10:26 AM

Lutz [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]
Your links are all BS, come up with something that doesn't have the ONRC/Earth Justice stench

FishaholicAZ · 08-06-2003, 12:54 PM

Keta,

FishaholicAZ,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes, we do more harm than good and I do agree that bad politics are the main reason for the Klamath river fish kills...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like in dumping 70 degree or higher water down the canyon where it never went historically?

Like allowing California to take 90% of the water out of the Trinity River and 100% out of the Shasta River and Scott River?

If the flow at the mouth of the Klamath were at historical levels the salmon would have stayed in the ocean until the river conditions were better.
-------------------------------------------------

Keta, I dont know the history of the klamath basin and I dont know what if any affect "dumping" warm water down the canyon would do. What I do know and said is that bad politics is a big issue in the decline of salmon.
I agree that California is way to stingy with that water and more should go into the Klamath but I also still believe that water from in the lake should come on down to. Both sides need to face the facts that fish need water and the only way they are going to prevent another fish kill is to give the fish more water. Both sides need to find a common ground and settle on how much should come from where. However, that isn't my job because I aint no Bio... I just like fishing.
However, I will chime in if I think it will make a difference.

One question though, I have heard and thought that water will actually cool down in a river much quicker than in the lakes because the water is moving instead of standing still... I may be wrong on this but I could have sworn that to be fact. So, technically, even the "warm" water from the Klamath basin will cool some during its travels down stream... I may be wrong but more water is better than no water. As for the historical flow of that system, I dont know enough about that to comment. Cali has to release more water and so does Oregon in order to keep that from happening again. (fish kill)

Fish on...
Romeo

08-06-2003, 01:07 PM

FishaholicAZ,
Pre project there was little or no flow out of the upper lake mid summer to late fall. Link River ran dry most years.
The river below Keno was fed by several springs and ran cooler all summer. Now lots of warm lake water dilutes the spring water making the system to warm. Water flowing down a canyon that is 95-100 degrees will not cool down much. To go back tio as close to natural as we can and not remove the dams and thousands of people we would have to release much less water down canyon than we do now. I don't feel that this water should be used for "new" farm land but left in the upper basin (on the lower lake and Tule Lake NWR's) for wildlife.

GutshotApe · 08-06-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
Farming in the Klamath Basin is a totally artificial enterprise cooked up during our dam building days.

Cost to buy out the farmers and restore the system is about $2B with the economic benefit about $15B.

Farming anywhere is a totally artificial enterprise...most of it is dependent on dams, canals, pipes, irrigation, etc. Show me people without any such totally artificial enterprises and I'll show you primitive hunter/gatherers...I think there are still some un-contacted tribes in South American jungles like that.

As for your $15 BILLION

figure of supposed economic benefits once we get rid of the farmers...that's all smoke & mirrors. Of course, the real number is nothing near that amount...the real "benefit" would most likely be a negative number.

freespool · 08-06-2003, 03:08 PM

Keta,please elaborate on BS and stench of Brion's sources. What exactly do you object to? Just straight talk,no labels please.

[ 08-06-2003, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: freespool ]

BrionLutz · 08-06-2003, 03:45 PM

FishaholicAZ,

Quote:

Both sides need to face the facts that fish need water and the only way they are going to prevent another fish kill is to give the fish more water.

More water...exactly correct.

The argument that they shouldn't release the water because it is "too warm" is bogus. The Bureau of Land Reclamation already admitted it and the study on the fish kill by the CA Dept of Fish and Game confirmed it.

The flow is extermely important. The fish could have and do surive the temp (the Columbia right now is 71 degrees) but lack of water is the killer.

According to the California Department of Fish and Game, �water temperatures in and of themselves, were not the factor causing the 2002 fish kill.�[9] But it is true that higher water temperatures can stress or even kill salmon and their eggs. Water flows and water temperatures are directly related. As the amount of water released into a river decreases, the depth of the river and the velocity with which it moves also decreases. Shallow water heats up in the sun much faster than deep water, and the slower a river�s current moves, the longer the water has to warm. Worse, low flows dry up side channels�channels that are often shaded by vegetation and offer salmon some refuge from the hot sun. Low flows also reduce the depth of the deeper pools in the river, further reducing the salmon�s ability to escape the heat.

Quote:

Both sides need to find a common ground and settle on how much should come from where.

Problem comes when it's crunch time. There is only enough water for one to survive. That is the current situation. At some point, a decision has to be made. On one side we have an artificial, unsustainable, highly subsidized desert farming by a few vs. sustainable fishing and related industries on the other side.

The economics are on the side of the salmon, recreation, tourism. The science is on the side of the salmon, recreation and tourism. The decision seems clear, go with the most environmentally sound, most scientifically sound and most economically viable and that is the salmon.

Brion

BrionLutz · 08-06-2003, 03:57 PM

GSA,

Quote:

As for your $15 BILLION figure of supposed economic benefits once we get rid of the farmers...that's all smoke & mirrors. Of course, the real number is nothing near that amount...the real "benefit" would most likely be a negative number.

Not mine...National Geologic Survey commissioned economic study of the Klamath Basin water issues. Soooo....there is your opinion vs. the NGS Economic Study and the Wall Street Journal analysis of that study.

Thus a comparison of the lower bound 90% C.L. for the Klamath-Trinity system restoration action benefits with the salient costs is also relevant. The lower bound 90% C.L for the Klamath Trinity system benefits estimate is [$8.0611628 billion + $9.98199983 billion] = $18.0431611 billion

Hmm...who do we think has more credibility?

Brion

08-06-2003, 07:18 PM

Fr3eespool,
Earthjustice and ONRS aren't above "Stretching The Truth" (like in lying) when it comes to their "Facts". This is the "Stench" I refer to. Lutz also infers he is linking to the BLM when he is linking to the ONRC. In my mind that's lying too.

08-06-2003, 07:19 PM

Freespool,
Earthjustice and ONRS aren't above "Stretching The Truth" (like in lying) when it comes to their "Facts". This is the "Stench" I refer to. Lutz ) :grin: ( also infers he's linking to the BLM when he's linking to the ONRC. In my mind that's lying too.