Most all major conservation groups are against I640. Why? Because it does
nothing to increase salmon population. Instead it blaims the gill-netters
for all the salmon woes. Why not look at the real issue - dams! Why not
look at what real needs to be done
At 09:08 PM 10/20/95 -0700, you wrote:
>Gene:
>>There seems to be feeling among some of the Tweeters respondents that a
>>'dark force' ,such as the timber companies, are backing I 640 to protect
>>there interests and therefore the initiative should be opposed.
>> That may be true.
>
>Hell, as I understand it it's DOCUMENTED as being true. That's what
>public funding disclosure laws are meant for. "the feeling"? "may be true"?
>
>Get real. It's not "a feeling". It's not a case of "may be true".
>It IS true. Unless Seattle newspapers are lying...
>
>Thus, consideration of the issue on political grounds is not
>simply an exercise in paranoia, or a hypothetical exercise
>based on intuition of a scenario that "may be true". This
>measure does represent a political struggle, with big timber
>trying to impose their spin on the salmon issue: that timber
>harvest practices aren't the problem, that commercial fishing
>is the problem. If they win the measure, they've gone a great
>distance towards winning the underlying point, and a great
>distance towards ducking out of the need to improve timber
>practices.
>
>Do you have a competing theory to explain why big timber would
>put money into such a measure? A sudden attack of environmentalist
>concience leading them to attack another group of resource
>users? The timber industry? Give me a break - they see for
>themselves a great advantage if this measure passes.
>
>> However, regardless of how great or bad the forestry
>>practices are if minimal amounts of fish get to the rivers then the
>>future returns are going to be dismal.
>
>Of course, bycatch is irrelevant to salmon recovery. If 2 salmon
>are caught by all fishing interests combined, it doesn't matter of
>one is caught by commercial folk and one by sports folk, or both
>by one or the other. Nor does it matter if 1,000 seabirds are
>killed by commercial fishermen in the process (in regard to
>salmon recovery only).
>
>No - bycatch is not a good thing. I'm not arguing in favor of it.
>
>Nor is strengthening the timber, aluminum and agriculturals position
>in the political fight over salmon. The reality is that campaigns
>like this are going to be co-opted by those interests in an effort
>to convince the populace that fishing, not habitat degredation, is
>the one and only culprit in the salmon decline.
>
>But, the "minimal fish back to the rivers" problem isn't the issue
>addressed by this bill, so I have a difficult time understanding
>why you bring it up. Without other changes in salmon management,
>the fish not caught by commercial interests are available to be
>reallocated to sports interests. This may even have something
>to do with the fact that sportsfishing interests back the bill...
>
>In Oregon at least, a total catch limit is set, then is divided
>amongst the tribes (who get, what, 50%?), sportsfishermen, and
>commercial fishermen. We've seen fights over the proportions
>between the commercial and sports folks in Oregon, but these
>aren't over the total number of fish returning to the rivers,
>but only over who gets them.
>
>Does this bill reduce the overall catch? Since it's set by
>a multi-state commission overseen by feds, it's hard to see
>how it could...
>
>So, how does reducing bycatch increase the numbers of salmon
>return back to the rivers? How does it reduce smolt kills
>in dams? How does it mitigate die-off due to stream degradation?
>
>There's also bycatch problems in the Alaska fishery, yet the Yukon
>run is strong, I believe???
>
>This bill is designed to reduce bycatch, yet is being (as I, an Oregonian,
>I admit, understand) promoted as a salmon conservation measure.
>
>It does nothing for salmon conservation.
>
>It does everything to strengthen the various well-heeled interests
>in their fight to derail efforts to protect salmon spawning habitat.
>
>I look at it as a matter of triage - solutions to the bycatch
>problem can be addressed over the next few years, while the
>"final solution" to instream habitat preservation/restoration
>matters must be solved very soon. Political alliance with
>commercial fishermen may open avenues for addressing the
>bycatch issue in concert. They're the first resource users
>to "come over" to the conservation side here in the PNW,
>and I hate to scuttle this recent alliance. I disagree
>with them over several issues, marine mammals being one (to
>a degree). But, dumping them to help timber ain't my style.
>
>Think politics. Think prioritization. Think triage. Follow
>the money, and ask if you really want the timber industry in
>the driver's seat of the salmon recovery engine.
>
>It is a political, not technical, problem.
>
>> At that point the problem is
>>irresponsible fishing practices. The fact is any of following issues
>>can decimate a salmon fishery by itself, logging, dams, commercial
>>fishing practices
>
>Not sports fishing practices? Why not?
>
>>Failure to deal with any of these
>>issues means the fishery loses. This is not the 1950's. Mining has
>>changed, logging has changed, and now fishing practices must be changed.
>
>Yes, and logging is well on the path towards changing back - read the
>news, my friend, and tell me that congress is not on a path towards
>freeing timber of much of burdens placed on it by the NEPA, NFMA and
>ESA legislation of the 1970s.
>
>"We've not yet given up the dream of logging in designated wilderness
>and National Parks". James Geisinger, 1988ish, then PR flack for the Oregon
>Timber Coalition, now doing similar work for the Western Forest
>Alliance (both of these lobbying groups).
>
>"It's ours. We want it. We want it now." Harry Merlo, then
>CEO of Louisiana Pacific, in regard to Tongass National Forest old
>growth.
>
>>The catch must be managed on the basis of sound management practices for
>>wild fish and not whether someone can meet their boat payments. There
>>is not enough resource out there to keep all of the current commercial
>>fishing capacity going,
>
>>especially with the wasteful bycatch problems.
>How does bycatch affect salmon catch?
>
>There is already a big shakeout in commercial fishing, in Oregon
>at least. Two winters ago I wandered about the Newport Marina,
>where about 2/3 of the commercial fishing boats were up for
>sale. They had a coho season measured in days that year, as
>I recall.
>
>>This measure is supported by the Puget Sound Anglers (at least 7
>>chapters) Trout Unlimited (? chapters) Poggie Clubs (? chapters) the
>>Friends of the Cowlitz, etc, etc. All of these groups work on habitat,
>>pen rearing fish, work with hatchery programs. etc, etc.
>
>And is also opposed by a large number of conservation groups, as
>I understand it (or, at least, a large number have chosen not
>to support it). Also, when you state the Sierra club "is in
>favor of gillnets in WA", isn't that an oversimplification? Is
>it not possible to oppose a particular measure that may well
>cause deep, long lasting political losses for overall conservation
>work even if one thinks that the goal of reducing bycatch is
>one worth working for?
>
>>A sports caught salmon is worth $312 to the Washington State economy and
>>a commercial caught salmon is worth $16.
>
>Irrelevant in regard to salmon conservation - a dead fish is a
>dead fish. An old-growth stand of Doug Fir is worth tens of
>thousands of dollars, a spotted owl nothing. Are you suggesting
>I conclude that ... naw, I doubt it.
>
>>Some people say I 640
>>is divisive within the fishing industry. I have lived in this state 50
>>years and sportsfishing and commercial fishing have never "gotten
>>along".
>
>True enough. I've lived in Oregon about 35 years, and Democrats
>and Republicans have never gotten along, either. This doesn't
>change the fact that current actions within Congress are
>deepening the divide between the two parties...
>
>>Sportfishers in Oregon tried to go thru the legislative process for a
>>similiar effort this year, they were shot down. It seems that no matter
>>how the subject is presented it is poorly timed, poorly written, not
>>quite right, but if, what if, etc etc etc
>
>It is because proponents continue to push the idea as being good
>for salmon, when it is only good for timber interest, sportsfisherfolk,
>aluminum companies, agriculture ... and of course the bycatch. I
>don't want to minimize the latter, but the fate of various salmon runs
>is an issue of great short-term importance. Not biologically (the
>political timescale can be measured in months, I believe), but
>politically - the decisions we make now will be lived with, most likely,
>the rest of our lives.
>
>In our current situation, conservationists can't afford to ignore
>attempts at political manipulation.
>
>- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
>
>
>
>
Kim Patten
Washington State University Long Beach Research and Extension Unit
Rt. 1, Box 570, Long Beach WA 98631
phone and fax 360-642-2031
e-mail pattenk at coopext.cahe.wsu.edu