You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘salmon’ tag.
No date mentioned in the TS article. The water flow is an issue. Younger forests and changing weather patterns are an issue. The writer, perhaps wisely, avoided too much discussion of residential and underground commercial draws from the river, probably because that might be interpreted as blaming people who don’t want to be blamed. So I hope when the meeting time and place are announced, all of the stakeholders will show up and be ready to listen as well as talk.
Already the comments thread attached to the article is heating up.
The image comes from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Times Standard has an article this morning. There is a debate about what to do. Actually, the debate is over whether to do anything at all.
Thousands of young salmon are struggling to survive in the mouth of the Mattole River, but biologists can’t agree whether to attempt a rescue or leave them alone.
Temperatures in the estuary, which is sealed off from the ocean by a sand bar, have been perilous to the little chinook salmon for weeks. The fish may have been prompted to move from rearing areas in the upper river to the river mouth by a mid-July rain. Now they are languishing, easy prey for birds and competing with steelhead trout for food.
The Mattole Salmon Group has lobbied federal agencies and the California Department of Fish and Game to be allowed to net about 5,000 chinook and keep them in a rearing facility upstream until fall rains set in. Biologists with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have offered to help if the plan is approved. But Fish and Game biologists believe the operation will kill more fish than it will save.
Totally out of my area of expertise to comment. Please feel free to comment if you have any knowledge of the topic. Or even if you don’t.
Photo comes from this government site. Click on the photo to enlarge.
The Klamath is making a lot of news lately, thanks in part to the efforts of Rep. Mike Thompson. The fishing industry is of course in a lot of trouble, as well as the ecological health of the Klamath River. Two headlines provide rays of hope for the forces of light.
The Times Standard notes that Thompson managed to finesse 2 million of the 81 million he’d been pushing for in federal aid as well as a declaration of disaster. While the money will be gone in a heartbeat, it may in fact prime the pump according to Thompson.
Lawmakers originally asked for $81 million, but settled for $2 million after a strange legislative display in which the lawmakers used procedural votes to force action on an amendment Wednesday. ”What we decided to do was pull out all the plugs,” said Thompson, D-St. Helena.
The $2 million may sound like little compared to the original amount requested, but it gets the foot in the door, said Thompson’s press secretary, Matt Gerien, and allows for the U.S. Senate to provide even more money down the legislative line.
This came on the heels of bad news that the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration was refusing to declare a disaster until possibly next February – ie. when the next congress has settled in.
Thompson went on to remind us that the problem stems from the Bush administration’s water policy – though completely absent from his statement as well as the article is any reference to the diversion of water for agricultural interests in Oregon.
Meanwhile, the ER is reporting that the Yurok Tribe has struck a deal with the the Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agencies “in river monitoring, data collection, strategic planning, land acquisition and recovery and related natural resource management efforts.”
All very nice, but will the Bureau be willing to make any recommendations regarding – I hate to keep bring it up – river water allocations?
I guess it’s too close to an election to take on farmers.
Per the Times-Standard title, “death-with-dignity” died in committee in the state senate. Looks like it’ll take a ballot measure, but something like it already failed back in 1992, an election where liberals and other lib causes did fairly well. California has a higher percentage of ethnic minority voters than Oregon, and though they tend to vote for lib pols black and Hispanic voters aren’t necessarily socially liberal.
Chris Rall isn’t against cars. We just use them too much.
Meanwhile, over at the Eureka Reporter, Dikeman supporter Pete Ciarabellini laments at the claims of a previous letter by Linda and Jim Sorter in which Dikeman supporters were accused of negativity during the campaign. Ciarabellini explains to the letter writers that not all Dikeman supporters employ negativism. Then he proceeds to insult them.
Haven’t quite digested the SCOTUS decision re soon-to-be-ex-representative Tom DeLay’s gerrymandering, but the gist seems to be that it’s perfectly legal to gerrymander for partisan purposes so long as it doesn’t disenfranchise a racial group. A Kos poster expresses it in more basic language.
If I find the time, I’ll review the decision on my own and post something about it.
Speaking of DeLay, there is some serious question as to whether the Republicans will be able to replace him on the Fall ballot. This time around, DeLay may have overplayed his hand.
Son of Proposition 73 (last year’s failed abortion snitch law proposal) is on the ballot. Angelides has taken a position. Schwarzenegger is on the spot. I’ll post my thoughts from last year re prop 73 another time.
The Flag burning amendment failed.
Save Ancient Forests reports that the Bear River old growth logging plan has been all-but-approved. Never hurts to write though!
One of my depositions today was held at Humboldt Orthopedics, on Harris Street (yes folks, it was a personal injury case, for those of you who want to make more “ambulance chaser” comments). The last time I was there, a couple of years ago, there was a beautiful forest at the back of the parking lot. No more. A fence has been put up and the forest cleared for some sort of construction. There are now one fewer tree stands in Eureka.
Don’t get me wrong. The project may very well be worthwhile. The owner had probably purchased the land for just such an investment. The owner has the right to utilize the land as zoning and regulations allow. Jobs. Economic development. Probably not a major impact on the overall ecosystem.
None of that means I have to be happy with it. I’m not.