A simple lesson about columbia salmon recovery

rob allen · 07-21-2005, 06:32 PM

There is great debate about salmon recovery and you hear the word compromise a lot.. here is a simple example to demonstrate the level of work that needs to be done...

consider for this example our numerical order say 1-10 is a level of what needs to be done, regulations , restoration, all of it...

The enviromental left is at 10.. the corperate right is at 1 and the idea is to meet somewhere in teh middle 4-6 that would be a fair compromise. The problem is that what needs to me done is like 10,000,000,000
even the most radical envoromentalists aren't asking for what it will take to restore wild fish.

if you are a farmer and you complain about having to fence a stream you don't care about the fish at all. Fencing would be the absolute least you could do...

If you are an angler and you complain about a river being closed to protect a wild run you don't care about the fish. not whining that's the very least you could do

If you own a factory and you complain about having to reduce your toxic emmissions you don't care about wild fish... cutting toxic run off is the very least you could do.

PEOPLE it's 4th down and 99 yards to go with 2 seconds on the clock and we are down by 100 points...

anyone who is not willing to do everything it takes to save the fish does not care PERIOD!

PGJPJ · 07-21-2005, 06:54 PM

Another lecture.

rob allen · 07-21-2005, 06:58 PM

thanks for making my point exactly PGJP3

jetjockey · 07-21-2005, 07:23 PM

Are you done yet!!!

Boat Monkey · 07-21-2005, 07:28 PM

:lurk:

rob allen · 07-21-2005, 07:35 PM

not my fault you guys don't like the truth..

the truth is we are losing these fish and we aren't doing anything about it because everything that needs to be done inconveniences someone.. ALl I am doing is cutting through all the BS. either we want to save them and we do what's necessary or we don't PERIOD everything else is useless fluff and lack of concern...

Pete · 07-21-2005, 07:37 PM

Let me introduce a new phrase, the tragedy of the commons . The metaphor isn't a perfect fit, but it has enough commonality to be useful. Through lack of a vested interest in the underlying resource, individual interest results in detriment. The problem isn't new, but I'm not aware of any successful solution.

Thumper · 07-21-2005, 07:41 PM

Rob --- The problem is that what you advocate is not going to happen. Period. Does that mean that there is no middle ground that can be productive?

rob allen · 07-21-2005, 07:51 PM

Thumper i am being very clear in what i am saying..

we have so decimated the Columbia that ONLY radical actions even have a hope of saving our fish. Thoes not willing to take such actions cannot claim to care about wild fish in the Columbia.

just trying to cut through the BS.

we have to stop killing them
stop destroying their habitat
stop breeding them out of exsistence
everything else is BS

8-guage · 07-21-2005, 08:03 PM

I couldn't agree more Rob!
And to the people that have to say something negative, why don't you abide by the old saying: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."
You can always not comment on it and more often than not, that is better than knocking someones sincere post about something that we all care about.

KZ4LIFE · 07-21-2005, 08:09 PM

Close her up!

No fishing for 50 years.

Oh, did I Mention the need to eliminate all of the

Hatcheries? Build a bunch of

Nuclear Power Plants

to make up for all of the Dam removal. Now how the heck are we going to produce the Crops and food we need. As soon as America show's any weakness on the ability to sustain our own food sources. Well lets just say we will have

bigger problems

. Just my 2 cents. Very complex problem. If limiting my take will help I say OK. So far this year I have 0 to my count. I will go Fishing this fall 1 less time than originally planned.

BentMetal · 07-21-2005, 08:25 PM

Rob,

I'll respectfully argue with you . . . and I'll use you as an example.

I remember reading on this board where you were using a two stroke engine on your bass boat!!!! I mean, what gives with that? Don't you know that if the EPA has their way, everybody and their dog will have to upgrade to a four stroke engine . . . and you are still using a two stroke engine?!?!?! I mean, don't you care about fish and the environment and what your two stroke engine is doing to them? I bet you drive an SUV to tow that gas guzzling beast around as well? I mean, the least you could do is buy a hybrid vehicle.

In reality, I remember you saying the reason why you wouldn't upgrade to a four stroke engine, and it had a great deal to do with the cost it would take to upgrade. I myself am in that boat, except for I am not trying to upgrade, I just want a motor for my drifter to open up some new water, and heck, a 8 hp four stroke is $1800 +/-. Heck yeah, they are expensive.

I guess my point is that I know you care about the fish, but economics forces you to make some tough choices and you do the best you can. I can understand that, heck I can support it. I imagine it would not be much different for the evil corporations that you are railing against. Just something to think about.

rob allen · 07-21-2005, 08:59 PM

I don't believe that I excluded myself from the equasion at all in fact I commony use the word "we"

if giving up my bass boat would save a run i'd do it without even thinking. if giving up my career would save a run I wouldn't blink.. If giving up my life would save a run I'd be dead already!

onebadfish · 07-21-2005, 09:06 PM

why is every thing a sure thing with you? everything is your way or no way? doesn't that make you wonder why no one else knows anything?

lost_sailor · 07-21-2005, 09:14 PM

Try to discuss the issue and not your opinion of Rob's personality ...

onebadfish · 07-21-2005, 09:17 PM

thanks for bringing me out of my stuper. i guess i can only handle the soapbox routine so many times.

eyeFISH · 07-21-2005, 10:37 PM

Rob's hardline demeanor may make many of you bristle, but political correctness aside (I belive he referred to it as BS), he's absolutely right.

Because the fish are dying the death of a thousand wounds, it's very difficult for most of us to see how our tiny impact as individuals makes any difference one way or the other. What we fail to realize is the cumulative impact of our individual actions. That makes a HUGE difference one way or the other.

So, are we gonna fish or cut bait?

Two Fister · 07-21-2005, 11:38 PM

Personally, I think it's way too easy to rant and rave about what everybody else needs to do. If everybody made a couple of small changes in their daily routine it would make an enormous difference. It may not be easy to see, but small actions by thousands of people add up to significant change.

Stomping on the soapbox is only a waste of energy. I'd rather see that energy put to good use. If you want to make a difference, start by changing what you do. It's only after we change our own individual ways that we can try to help others understand that their seemingly minor actions make an enormous difference.
TF

freespool · 07-22-2005, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Personally, I think it's way too easy to rant and rave about what everybody else needs to do.

I'm really grad you brought that up. I think the very least a person culd do is attend next weeks compact meeting in Vancouver. This is your chance to get involved in the process of how our salmon runs are allocated.
Or you could say my job is soooo important, I can't miss work. Then you can pee and moan the rest of the summer, here on ifish, when the gillnetters get the lions share of the fish.
We are given so few oppertunities to relay our feelings to those that govern our fishing resourses, don't let this pass without getting involved.

salmon hugger

Seefood Man · 07-22-2005, 08:24 AM

Heres 15 more people that SHOULD be at the meeting on the 28th.