Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Bush continues to build his legacy - Salmon

Old 12-02-04, 11:51 AM
  #1  
Premium Member
Thread Starter
 
bfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
Bush continues to build his legacy - Salmon

Massive salmon habitat cuts proposed-

GRANTS PASS, Oregon (AP) -- The Bush administration Tuesday proposed large cuts in federally designated areas in the Northwest and California meant to aid the recovery of threatened or endangered salmon. Protection would focus instead on rivers where the fish now thrive.

The critical habitat designation originally included rivers accessible to salmon, even if no fish occupied them, and covered most of Washington, Oregon and California and parts of Idaho.

Under the federal plan, critical habitats would be cut by more than 80 percent in the Northwest and 50 percent in California -- and more cuts might be ordered based on public comments over the next six months, said Bob Lohn, northwest regional administrator for NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency responsible for saving salmon from extinction.

Large areas could be cut where state and federal habitat protections are already in place, such as national forests and places where the economic benefits of development outweigh the biological benefits of habitat.

After a lawsuit brought by the National Association of Home Builders, the federal agency agreed to reconsider critical habitat designations for 13 groups of threatened or endangered salmon in the Northwest, and seven in California.

The home builders association has been chafing under the costs of getting federal permits for development in wetlands.

"Recognizing the importance of economic costs and trying to minimize the impact on industry in areas where there are low values to species and high economic costs are well in line with NAHB's policies," said Michael Mittelholzer, the association's director of environmental policy.

In another action Tuesday, NOAA Fisheries released the final version of its latest plan for operating hydroelectric dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana.

The plan is estimated to cost about $600 million a year over the next 10 years, and relies heavily on construction of removable fish weirs on eight dams to increase the survival of young salmon migrating to the ocean. A federal judge must approve the plan before it goes into effect.

Both proposals were strongly opposed by environmentalists, Indian tribes and a commercial fishing group, which said the Bush administration was abandoning any hopes of restoring salmon beyond bare survival.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science....ap/index.html

I also heard that the Bush admin included hatchery salmon in the count of wild salmon to show that the species is not endangered.
F this guy
bfrank is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 11:55 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,263
I am glad I voted for this man.

And no, I am not being sarcastic.
SFranke is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 11:55 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
The critical habitat designation originally included rivers accessible to salmon, even if no fish occupied them, and covered most of Washington, Oregon and California and parts of Idaho.


why include the rivers if no fish live in them?
Venusian is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 11:57 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Our greenie friends are worried about salmon habitat, and the COL is running double-digit.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 12:00 PM
  #5  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,738
Not only is he killing the salmon, he's polluting the air!
Washington state's top polluter isn't a pulp mill, a power plant or refinery. It's the newly awakened Mount St. Helens.

Since the volcano began erupting in early October, it has been pumping out 50 to 250 tons a day of sulfur dioxide, the lung-stinging gas that causes acid rain and contributes to haze. At peak, that's more than double the amount from all the state's industries combined.

Normally, the state's No. 1 polluter is a coal-fired power plant owned by the Canadian firm TransAlta. The plant churned out 200 tons a day of sulfur dioxide until regulators demanded $250 million worth of renovations, bringing the level down to 27 tons a day.

Tough to get those kind of results from a volcano.

"You can't put a cork in it," said Greg Nothstein of the Washington Energy Policy Office.

Because the area around St. Helens is so sparsely populated, officials say they haven't heard complaints about respiratory problems linked to the emissions. But people with breathing ailments probably would feel the effects if they lived close to it, said Bob Elliott, executive director of the Southwest Clean Air Agency.

"We are very fortunate, in terms of the impact on human health, that Mount St. Helens is pretty remote," Elliott said.

Worldwide, sulfur dioxide emissions from volcanoes add up to about 15 million tons a year, compared to the 200 million tons produced by power plants and other human activities.
Bastard!
X is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 12:01 PM
  #6  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
Mt. St. Helens happened under Bush's watch?
Myster X is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 12:27 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 20,726
stooped to stripping away the civil liberties and land ownership rights of salmon.
Ranger is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 01:02 PM
  #8  
Premium Member
Thread Starter
 
bfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
Originally posted by Venusian
The critical habitat designation originally included rivers accessible to salmon, even if no fish occupied them, and covered most of Washington, Oregon and California and parts of Idaho.


why include the rivers if no fish live in them?
I guess you need to understand the issue. The protections are far from total and do not include the area you are mentioning. Crap, I was salmon fishing in the Washington this year. The locals of the Puget Sound understand this problem more then any. The have seen the salmon disappear in only 10 years. And now have to totally restricted/limit fishing to help the Salmon recover.

These rivers you mention are the traditional spawning areas that did support the salmon just a decade ago. Scientist canít agree on the impact of these historical spawning areas. The debate is that if we only protect the currently used spawning areas then there is no chance for the Salmon population to increase. Additional spawning areas will be needed so that Salmon could be removed from the endangered list.

Also this 80% number is based on the de-listing numerous Salmon species as recommended by the Bush Admin. Again 80% is a classic buzz line/distortion that this Admin is famous for.

No doubt that there may be a middle ground on what areas should be protected. And it would be a good idea to look at areas of concern. This however is not the case with the Bush admin as demonstrated time and time again. Just read about the steelhead trout, clean air act or healthy forest plans.

What sucks here is he is even planning to override the states on these protections.

The Bush legacy is clear on the issue of the environment.

Not sure whats worse Bush or the idea that so many here have no problem with this

SUCKEKEKEKEKEKE!!!

Last edited by bfrank; 12-02-04 at 01:06 PM.
bfrank is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 01:22 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
I have a far greater problem with what the environmentalists do than I have with what Bush does.

They endanger the future of this country.

Of course, one can argue that what Bush does (foreign policy wise) could endanger the country - but what not Bush does concerning the environment.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 02:23 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
Originally posted by bfrank
I guess you need to understand the issue. The protections are far from total and do not include the area you are mentioning.
i quoted that from the article. i have no real knowledge about this issue, but the article you posted says that the areas currently protected include rivers where the fish don't live. Are these areas where they used to live or just random areas where people think they might like to live some day?


also, it looks like part of this was a response to a lawsuit brought against hte federal govt
Venusian is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 02:28 PM
  #11  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Remeber when certain areas were protected because the spotted owl could only live in those areas? Well, turns out that isn't the case. So when environmentalists throw up their hand and chant "lost habitat" I tend to be skeptical.
http://www.ojaivalleynews.com/issues...ditorials.html

In those areas, the presumed life style of the spotted owl, for example, took precedence over the lives of humans who were also loggers. In at least one instance, the owl, which was said to procreate only in old growth forest, was found to be willing to nest in an abandonded Kmart sign. In another ironic instance, the surprisingly resilient owl was caught nesting in an abandonded log loader.
bhk is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 04:07 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
I have two creeks that run through my property. One is from a spring roughly 3 miles away, and the other is the result of runoff from the mountains. The spring fed creek doesn't change much, but the water is pretty cold. The other can nearly go dry in the summers. I have put up with more bullshit about what I can and can't do within so many feet of both creeks because they have been counted as potential salmon spawning areas. ABSOLUTE CRAP!!! Neither could handle full grown salmon, anyway. I have seen small trout, but that is it. But try to scratch your ass next to one, and the local enviro-wackos will start their hippy protest.

Having had to deal with this in my own back yard, I say "About fucking time".

But that's just me
kvrdave is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 04:12 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Anyone know how the salmon numbers have been the past decade?
kvrdave is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 05:15 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
plenty of salmon at Whole Foods Market
al_bundy is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 05:18 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Originally posted by bhk
Remeber when certain areas were protected because the spotted owl could only live in those areas? Well, turns out that isn't the case. So when environmentalists throw up their hand and chant "lost habitat" I tend to be skeptical.
http://www.ojaivalleynews.com/issues...ditorials.html
on military bases a lot of the areas are off limits because of some woodpecker, although I've never seen it.

Some eagle decided to call NYC his home, attracted a mate and is now raising eaglets near central park. Some of the greenies hate it because the eagles hunt in central park. They say the environment should be peaceful here.
al_bundy is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 06:08 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Originally posted by classicman2
Our greenie friends are worried about salmon habitat, and the COL is running double-digit.
I wouldn't describe myself as an environmentalist. Hell, I'm all for turning cornfields into houses!

BUT isn't it possible to worry about the salmon habitat AND the cost of living?
CRM114 is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 06:13 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally posted by CRM114
I wouldn't describe myself as an environmentalist. Hell, I'm all for turning cornfields into houses!

BUT isn't it possible to worry about the salmon habitat AND the cost of living?
Priorities
classicman2 is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 06:16 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally posted by CRM114
I wouldn't describe myself as an environmentalist. Hell, I'm all for turning cornfields into houses!

BUT isn't it possible to worry about the salmon habitat AND the cost of living?
Yes, and I think this accomplishes it. Why protect water for salmon where there are no salmon to begin with. I don't even have a problem with counting farm salmon in the regular count. It certainly doesn't bother me when they include pandas in zoos as part of the total number of pandas.

If we had nothing but farm salmon, but kept them at a good level, what is the harm in that?
kvrdave is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 06:49 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Shoveler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA, USA
Posts: 4,720
Originally posted by kvrdave
Anyone know how the salmon numbers have been the past decade?
I know they were a lot higher before bfrank starting killing them!

Originally posted by bfrank
Crap, I was salmon fishing in the Washington this year. The locals of the Puget Sound understand this problem more then any. The have seen the salmon disappear in only 10 years.
bfrank, no offense (seriously), but if you're so concerned about this arguably "endangered species", then why are you fishing for them? Aren't you hurting your own cause?
Shoveler is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 07:27 PM
  #20  
Premium Member
Thread Starter
 
bfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
The problem is those on the right of this issue label anyone like me as a environmental freak.

I bet over a beer Kvrdave and I would have the exact same view on this topic but here on the forum we seem to have totally different views.

I am all for finding the middle ground that can be what is best for the mass majority. The problem is we are bouncing from extremes.

I love to fish! This is the main reason that I am against this action. Its all about balance, this I am afraid is a word that both sides dont understand.

Here is a long read that is very fair on the actual problem and the decline-

http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/staff/l...bs/salmon2.htm
bfrank is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 07:39 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally posted by bfrank
The problem is those on the right of this issue label anyone like me as a environmental freak.

I bet over a beer Kvrdave and I would have the exact same view on this topic but here on the forum we seem to have totally different views.
I have no doubt that we would have the exact same view on the topic, but we probably wouldn't agree on the solution.


Freak
kvrdave is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 07:47 PM
  #22  
Premium Member
Thread Starter
 
bfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
Depends on how many s we have.

You're a freak, freak!
bfrank is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 09:26 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
GreenMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,377
I'm always amused at the people that make the attitude that doing things to protect endangered species is tree-hugging hippie crap.

Some of us just think it's not a good idea to cause an animal species to become permanently extinct. Like, maybe we might want them around in a hundred years?

Ooops! We eradicated them out of existence because we were hungry and wanted some cheap land to build a McMansion on. Oh well. We can always eat a different fish, right?

Last edited by GreenMonkey; 12-02-04 at 09:34 PM.
GreenMonkey is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 09:40 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
People who believe that a California Desert Rat is of more importance than the 70-year farmer who has farmed the land for 45 years and it's his livelihood - well, I don't know about 'em.

I just believe their priorities are all screwed up.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 12-02-04, 10:52 PM
  #25  
Premium Member
Thread Starter
 
bfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
Originally posted by classicman2
People who believe that a California Desert Rat is of more importance than the 70-year farmer who has farmed the land for 45 years and it's his livelihood - well, I don't know about 'em.

I just believe their priorities are all screwed up.
what are you talking about?
bfrank is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.