Surprise! Gov. fesses up - Klamath fish kill

[Straydog]

GGee williker's, fish DO do better with water!

Apologies gladly accepted. :smile:

[ 11-19-2003, 07:11 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[skein]

So it's just the Klamath farmers who are the guilty? The California farmers are exempt? The Trinity doesn't count in this equation?

Follow the water....

Skein

[Straydog]

Did you read the article Skein?

Of course not. It is a mixed bag, just as I have said.

However, there are a few that at least used to frequent this site that adamantly and harshly disputed the fact that adding more Klamath water would have made any difference at all. ("70 degree water kills fish, moron!!!" remember????)

The Gov. has now confessed that that notion is, as I and a few others <grin> have argued, false. And this should outrage anyone that cares at all about fish.

Stay on topic Skein. This is not disputing that other waters would have helped. This also points out, as I have in the past, that Trinity water is tied up in court and inaccessable. There fore, in the case of the fish kill, it was even more critical to release Klamath water but the Gov. refused to do so.

That's right, follow the water and obtain it where it is most readily available. Given the legal status of the Trinity that was the Klamath irrigation water.

Water it down as you will, the fact remains the Klamath fish kill could have been prevented had the Gov. released water for fish from the Klamath project. Very simple.

[ 11-19-2003, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[CATCH AND EAT]

No appology here. Sorry. And yes, I did read the article.

[skein]

Yes, of course you're right. I somehow thought the Trinity water was still flowing, but since it's "tied up in court" it must not be.

I'll leave this thread now since it is just a rehash and will not really go anywhere. We will just remain on opposite sides of the fence, and in truth, I kind of like it that way.

Tight lines to ya - and you are free to have the last word.

Skein

[Thumper]

Congratulations Straydog. It is so kewl that you are finally winning one. That is good every once in a while. But don't get used to it. :grin:

[lingslayer]

And then if you go to the CaDFW web page That the article provides the address to read the report, you find this:

New U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study says "combination of factors"
caused salmon die-off in Klamath River in 2002

November 18, 2003


Which doesn't have near the anti Bush slant as the Oregonian article, hmmm.
Jamie

[Straydog]

Originally posted by skein:
We will just remain on opposite sides of the fence, and in truth, I kind of like it that way.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This says it all Skein.

No reason to open ones mind and look for agreement when it is more fun to be antagonistic and "agin' one another.

This seems to be shaping up to be the "day of truth".

Thanks for finally sharing your bottom line.

[ 11-19-2003, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Thumper:
] Congratulations Straydog. It is so kewl that you are finally winning one. That is good every once in a while. But don't get used to it. :grin:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hey, one out of gazzillion ain't all bad!!!!! :grin:

Believe me, I have learned it does not pay to become smug over the small victories in life. Ones turn to once again become "the bug against the windshield" is never far off.........

:grin:

[El-Kabong]

come on Thumper lets see you write it here.

It's All Bushes fault.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by lingslayer:
And then if you go to the CaDFW web page That the article provides the address to read the report, you find this:

New U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study says "combination of factors"
caused salmon die-off in Klamath River in 2002

November 18, 2003

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That is correct Lingslayer and I challenge you to find a post where I ever said it was not a combination. Find me a post where I ever said it was solely the Klamath farmers fault. You can not.

However, if need be, I can find many that adamatly and harshly argued that adding more Klamath project water would have done NOTHING except possibly kill more fish due to it's temprature.

This new information, which was kept from public eye until recently, completley refutes the argument that more Klamath water would not have prevented or at the very least, greatly reduced the fish kill.

It is sure telling to notice who can and who cannot simply admit this.

Some would like to work together and in good faith for solutions to our problems. Some are very comfortable, in fact seem to strive to keep us divided and unable to move forward to find solutions, where ever they may be found.

[ 11-19-2003, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Thumper]

One critter's "solution" is usually one critter's disaster. Dumping more water for the fish might well have resulted in a second year of disaster for the farmers.

So what is the solution for the future? Or do you folks have to just keep choosing which disaster is going to occur?

[lingslayer]

Originally posted by Straydog:
Did you read the article Skein?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Did you read the report Stray?

Stop letting the press spoon feed you. Read the report. I did.

Yes the releases from Irongate dam were a significant factor. I never said they weren't and to the best of my knowledge neither did Keta.
But they were by far not the only factor.

If you read the report you will find that Bush isn't the only one that needs to apologize.
Lets see if the rest "belly up to the bar."

A unique set of circumstances led to this fish kill. To blame it all on Bush &lt;grin&gt; is nothing more than politcal hatred that is bad for people AND salmon.

Lets see if you can get beyond your current line of thinking.

Jamie

[Straydog]

Ling,


1. Once again, I have NEVER said it was ONLY the farmers water that would have saved the fish.

2. Once again, I have consistantly agrued with others that consistantly argued that adding more water from the Klamath project would not have helped the fish. Some consistantly insisted that the water from Klamath lake was too warm and too polluted to help the fish.

3. This paragraph: "More than a year after the largest adult fish die-off in U.S. history struck the Klamath River, the federal government has acknowledged that its diversions of water to Klamath Basin farms were partly responsible." clearly disputes Keta and others (yours?) argument while at the same time does not place the blame soley on the farmers. (danged old lopsided Oregonian, anyay......)

4. I have nothing to apologize for. I am the one that was discredited and called names for my view that holding Klamath Project water back for farmers over fish was partly responsible for the fish kill.

You, on the other hand, seemingly are still unwilling to accept that.

What "current line of thinking" would you have me get beyond? :whazzup: Would you prefer I change my opinion and say it was ALL the farmers fault? Would that make it easier for you to take the path of Skein and remain in the comfort zone of division? Would you prefer to keep that fence between us, too?? :whazzup:

[ 11-19-2003, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[lingslayer]

Originally posted by Straydog:
What "current line of thinking" would you have me get beyond? :whazzup:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That it's all ____'s fault.

It is no one's fault.
I wasn't asking you to apologize. Sorry if it looked that way.

But an apology from the California farmers is in order. One from the people that decided large releases were needed in '97 that silted in many of the holes in the lower river would be good too. The short sighted folks that held water from the lower tribs like the Scott need mention too.

Then lets not forget mother nature who forgot to make it rain in August that year, or the very high temps that we had in summer of '02.

Reading the causal report tells me that holding water back may have even saved a few salmon, given the condition Klamath Lake water was in that year. From the drought conditions and resulting algae blooms. Both of which made the water too warm and resulted in depleted O2, high Ph and greater presence of the diseases and parasites that killed the fish.

Holding water back at Irongate some 50 miles below the basin proper, and as you know, 50 miles or more downstream of the source of the farmers water, isn't and wasn't necessary to maintain the farmers water. The water held at Keno, JC Boyle, (from Spencer Creek alone) as well as Copco res. could have contributed greatly to the flow in the lower river.

Drought conditions and power production had more to do with it.

If the dams were all removed there would have been so little water in the system due to the drought, that the die off would no doubt have been worse. These things happen, and to believe that we as humans are the only contributing factor is at least self centered and extremely short sighted.

Jamie

[Straydog]

Originally posted by lingslayer:
That it's all ____'s fault.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I am not aware that I have ever said it was any one person fault.

.......and to believe that we as humans are the only contributing factor is at least self centered and extremely short sighted.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I agree, however, to not recognize that the human factors are the only ones we can control and to not take action to modify those actions, is equally short sighted.

I believe we have more agreement than disagreement, Jamie.

Thumper,

I have made myself behind schedule again. I am not ignoring your question of solution.

Bottom line is we need to modify the Klamath Project, the Central Valley Project and Scott River Project to get more water in the Klamath system.

We need to recognize that many of the irrigation agreements and resulting projects were made at a time when we mistakenly believed there was an endless source of fish. We need to recognize that the economics of healthy fish runs are just as important to us all as the economics of farming and ranching.

We need to find a way to make the pendulum stop in the middle for a change.

[ 11-19-2003, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[crabbait]

I found the Oregonian article to be fairly centered, myself. It said:

"David Vogel, a fisheries biologist working for the Klamath Water Users Association, said low flows by themselves could not have killed the fish at the outlet of the Klamath River. It was only the combination of a large salmon run, warm weather and low rainfall that turned deadly."

"There was a unusual sequence of events that acted together to cause it," he said.

To explain why it took 14 months for federal biologists to reach the same conclusion that local biologists made in four months, Sue Ellen Wooldridge, deputy chief of staff to Interior Secretary Gale Norton said, "What we didn't want to do was rush to judgment." She said Bush officials never doubted that more water might have aided fish crowded into the shrunken river. Norton freed extra water as the die-off mounted in hopes of slowing the death toll.

But she said it's unfair to solely blame farms in the Klamath Project for leaving too little water for fish. More water from the massive Trinity River in Northern California would also feed into the Klamath River if it were not diverted to California's Central Valley."

And this good news: "While the Trinity is tied up in a lawsuit, the administration won special permission to direct more water down the Trinity into the Klamath if needed to avert another die-off."

Seems to me that there is plenty of fault to go around and plenty of causes. The Bush administration made a political decision to support farmers, as they had promised. Unfortunately, the decision was made during an extremely dry year and when the diversion of other water was not possible. Salmon died as a direct result.

The good news: Steps are being taken to avoid a similar disaster.

[freespool]

The federal government steping up and saying they made a mistake is definitly a step in the right direction. This is a very complex and volatile issue with polarization at both ends of the problem. The very fact that it's being looked at at all is real progress in the right direction. There are many things that can and will be done to fix this problem. If man did it, then man can fix it. The feds must stand and deliver. The whole auqiduct system needs to be concrete lined, to stop seepage.The upper lake habitat needs much work,and water needs to be restored in the Trinity. Lets hope this won't be one of those No Child Left Behind issues,where the government says yea this is a great idea,then doesn't fund it.


free