"Allen" wrote in message
...
In article KFRLe.5175$Al5.3208@trnddc04,
"B J Conner" wrote:

BTW when you were flying around looking at those nets did you notice the
clear cuts? The country south of Olympic National Park looks like some
of
the photos of Brazil. All those bare areas on virtulaearth.com aren't
potato
fields or cow pastures.

Yep, and spent quite a lot of time hiking, hunting, camping and fishing
near and in both clear cuts and selectively logged areas in the
Olympics, Cascades, Methow Valley area and over in Okanogan. Not sure
which method is worse (or better for that matter). I don't think that
you get a real perspective on the large forest areas East and West until
you get over it via a road or airplane. It's shocking how much logging
there is but even more shocking is how much logging there isn't. My
point I guess is that development and use of natural resources does not
have to be in opposition to protection of natural resources. Hyperbole
on any side of an issue usually leads to non-useful discourse. I think
in some cases our protection of resources is going to lead to some real
ugly situations. Look at the Blue Ridge parkway in VA. Miles and miles
of in many cases a single species of tree planted by the CCC in the late
twenties and thirties. A truly great effort but what happens when the
next Chestnut blight or Pine Bark beetle comes along? The Blue Ridge
will look much like it did in the 1920's without a tree is site. We
might be better off in carefully logging parts of it and replanting to
create a more diverse biology. There was a great article in last months
Outside I read on the way back from Bozeman about a green leaning
individual who bought some property and found that the forest on it was
a real mess and that he had to carefully log it in order to make it
healthy. Because it was so bad he had a whole lot of "useless" little
trees that, although old, were all less than a foot or so in diameter.
He did some thinking and with some help from gov't grants created a
company to cut and marketing the small, very densely ringed lumber for
high end dance floors and such. Used an expensive Swedish machine to do
so IIRC. A fine use of gov't seed money that may well pay off in getting
folks to pay attention to smarter logging in non-traditional spaces
There is actually reasonable amount of non-roadbuilding helo logging in
the Cascades for large, high dollar trees. Even though they were
supposed to let the schedules folks know when and where they were going
to be in operation, on low level training routes about once a year you'd
come over a ridge inverted at 200' and 500 knots to find a helo with a
log slung under it in front of you, usually you just passed under him
and hoped he didn't drop it.

None of this issue, or any other environmental issue is simple and none
will be solved with a sound bite. The depletion of resources is due to
many smaller issues over a long period of time. It will likely be a
serious of small, appropriate midcourse corrections over time that will
fix them and not some giant change. My earlier comment about the nets on
the Skagit was based not only on flying over them but also fishing the
Skagit with the nets in and the nets out and seeing the difference. Yes,
in most cases those nets are NA nets but they have the same obligation
under treaty and law to protect the resource.

"Pacing the streets of Medford, Trouvelot must have walked around in a daze
half the time. With knowledge not only of the interstellar dramas crashing
overhead but of the minute worlds writhing through the microscope, he must
have tried to grasp the complexity visible at every scale. Strange,
thought, that with the sun shrugging off million-mile-long licks of flame
like so much comet dust, he counted on the microscopic world to follow a
regular plan. While he watched an eclipse make day into night as scientists
helpless to exert control jotted notes, he thought that an insect might
easily be harnessed to industry, that the natural world would follow his
dreamed-up rules. It's a common enough assumption, and many stake their
fortunes on it. But Trouvelot? With all that he knew, with all he'd seen,
he surely might have suspected that control of the natural world might elude
him."*

Place an immdediate and total ban on ALL salmon fishing and logging in the
northwest. Blow up all the dams on all the rivers in which salmon
traditionally spawned. Raze every human made structure within a mile of
open water......yes, including roads. Summarily shoot anyone responsible
for the kind of repugnant, morally and intellectually bankrupt debacle (on
whatever scale) that just occurred on the Black River in NY. That might do
it.

At any rate, it would be a LOT cheaper than the hundreds of billions of
dollars being spent on the killing of a few thousand Americans and a few
scores of thousands of Iraqis for no discernible purpose.

Sorry for the length, off the soapbox.

That's o.k. Where would we be if we couldn't spare the bandwidth for a
rational discussion of reasonable alternative theories and plans?

Wolfgang
*from "Tinkering With Eden", Kim Todd, W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"Allen" wrote in message
...
//logical analysis snipped//
"Pacing the streets of Medford, Trouvelot must have walked around in a
daze
//presumably Goldsmithian analysis snipped//
Sorry for the length, off the soapbox.

That's o.k. Where would we be if we couldn't spare the bandwidth for a
rational discussion of reasonable alternative theories and plans?

Wolfgang
*from "Tinkering With Eden", Kim Todd, W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.

Actually, if we weren't so rich we wouldn't take the time to worry about it.
How much time do you suppose the guy in China or India or Russia - or any
number of third-world countries - spends worrying about what's being dumped
into his air or water? Much less how much of his crap is affecting you or
me?

As for BJ's original point, I suspect that many of the streams affected by
the new policy probably aren't significant - in and of themselves - to wild
fish. But it looks to me like a narrowing of the margin between what's safe
and what's not, or even perhaps a reinterpretation. All of the individual
landowners in the country who put their land into conservation trusts and
sign easements to protect their streams won't amount to a hill of beans
compared to homebuilders' and real estate agents' organizations who
successfully argue that there's already ENOUGH eagle habitat, or ENOUGH
trout streams, or that the economic impact of their new subdivision is
greater than the economic impact of that ten-foot stream running along one
side.

Bob

Bob Patton wrote:

..... homebuilders' and real estate agents' organizations who
successfully argue that there's already ENOUGH eagle habitat, or ENOUGH
trout streams, or that the economic impact of their new subdivision is
greater than the economic impact of that ten-foot stream running along one
side.

And it's an easy argument to make to folks who already believe the only
thing that has any REAL value is money....

JR

"Bob Patton" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"Allen" wrote in message
...
//logical analysis snipped//
"Pacing the streets of Medford, Trouvelot must have walked around in a
daze
//presumably Goldsmithian analysis snipped//
Sorry for the length, off the soapbox.

That's o.k. Where would we be if we couldn't spare the bandwidth for a
rational discussion of reasonable alternative theories and plans?

Wolfgang
*from "Tinkering With Eden", Kim Todd, W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.

Actually, if we weren't so rich we wouldn't take the time to worry about
it. How much time do you suppose the guy in China or India or Russia - or
any number of third-world countries - spends worrying about what's being
dumped into his air or water?

Water is more than a recreational medium for a lot of those guy in China,
India or Russia. See "Caviar", by Inga Saffron, for example, for an
interesting perspective on water resource issues in Russia and other
countries bordering the Caspian. Rice, a very thirsty (and very important)
cereal crop, is grown in abundance in large parts of China and India. China
is also into aquaculture (and has been for centuries) in a big way. In all
three countries, a substantial portion of the population is much more
closely tied to the land and water than is the case here. I suspect their
attitude with respect to those resources is anything but cavalier.

Much less how much of his crap is affecting you or me?

Well, I, for one, think they should care just as much about us as we do
about them. That's fair, wouldn't you say?

As for BJ's original point, I suspect that many of the streams affected by
the new policy probably aren't significant - in and of themselves - to
wild fish. But it looks to me like a narrowing of the margin between
what's safe and what's not, or even perhaps a reinterpretation. All of the
individual landowners in the country who put their land into conservation
trusts and sign easements to protect their streams won't amount to a hill
of beans compared to homebuilders' and real estate agents' organizations
who successfully argue that there's already ENOUGH eagle habitat, or
ENOUGH trout streams, or that the economic impact of their new
subdivision is greater than the economic impact of that ten-foot stream
running along one side.

Bob

All of which points to one simple truth; unless a great many REALLY radical
changes are made......and made SOON......the fish are doomed. Or, to put it
another way, the fish are ****ing doomed. Logical analysis isn't going to
change that.

Wolfgang
what's a goldsmith?

"Bob Patton" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"Allen" wrote in message
...
//logical analysis snipped//
"Pacing the streets of Medford, Trouvelot must have walked around in a
daze
//presumably Goldsmithian analysis snipped//
Sorry for the length, off the soapbox.



Actually, I think I should have said "Swiftian" instead of "Goldsmithian".
Got my 18th century Jonathans mixed up. Tom is not involved, although he
perhaps should be.
Bob

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

//snip//
Water is more than a recreational medium for a lot of those guy in China,
India or Russia. See "Caviar", by Inga Saffron, for example, for an
interesting perspective on water resource issues in Russia and other
countries bordering the Caspian. Rice, a very thirsty (and very
important) cereal crop, is grown in abundance in large parts of China and
India. China is also into aquaculture (and has been for centuries) in a
big way. In all three countries, a substantial portion of the population
is much more closely tied to the land and water than is the case here. I
suspect their attitude with respect to those resources is anything but
cavalier.

Absolutely. But isn't that attitude directly mainly toward making sure
there's enough fish or rice to feed the family next year, and to hell with
the number of caddis flies? Expand the analysis just a little, and the
Chinese national petrochemical industry is entitled to do as it pleases in
the interest of the greater glory of the country. Just like the foundation
of any number of fortunes that were made in this country.

Much less how much of his crap is affecting you or me?

Well, I, for one, think they should care just as much about us as we do
about them. That's fair, wouldn't you say?

//snip//

Wolfgang
what's a goldsmith?
the wrong Jonathan . . .
I was thinking of Jonathan Swift and his proposal for dealing with the Irish
problem . . .

Bob

"Bob Patton" wrote in message
...
//snip//

Actually, I think I should have said "Swiftian" instead of "Goldsmithian".
Got my 18th century Jonathans mixed up. Tom is not involved, although he
perhaps should be.
Bob

Dammit.

Oliver Goldsmith; Jonathan Swift. Maybe if I'd spent more time with Jonathan
and less with Tom I'd remember my English lit better.

Bob

On 8/15/05 11:03 PM, in article , "Bob Patton"
wrote:

"Bob Patton" wrote in message
...
//snip//

Actually, I think I should have said "Swiftian" instead of "Goldsmithian".
Got my 18th century Jonathans mixed up. Tom is not involved, although he
perhaps should be.
Bob

Dammit.

Oliver Goldsmith; Jonathan Swift. Maybe if I'd spent more time with Jonathan
and less with Tom I'd remember my English lit better.

I'm just glad you got it all straightened out before I logged in :-)

Bill
Reference 'R' Us

On 8/16/05 10:16 AM, in article , "Jonathan Cook"
wrote:

William Claspy wrote:

And the Starbucks double grande caramel mochachino, don't forget! Poor
brookies never knew what hit 'em.

It'd be funny if it wasn't true... 1/2 :-)

I believe I posted that sans smiley. "Spoken" with my usual bemused,
ever-so-slightly smart aleck voice, but no smiley.

And speaking of Starbucks, how are those Gila trout getting along?

Ummm... :-) ?

B

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:03:57 -0500, "Bob Patton"
wrote:

"Bob Patton" wrote in message
...
//snip//

Actually, I think I should have said "Swiftian" instead of "Goldsmithian".
Got my 18th century Jonathans mixed up. Tom is not involved, although he
perhaps should be.
Bob

Dammit.

Oliver Goldsmith; Jonathan Swift. Maybe if I'd spent more time with Jonathan
and less with Tom I'd remember my English lit better.

Bob

Swift could never have written something as outrageously amusing as
one of my fav characters. Mrs. Malaprop. A rather darker view of
humour.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)