While you wern't looking they did it again.
 

Shrub and his gang of thieves took out 80% of the rivers and streams
protected as critical habitat for Pacific salmon. Of course they
waited till late Friday afternoon to announce the move.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...880.xml&coll=7

Watch you local stream for that 6,000 sq ft. "log home", no
tresspassing signs and speeding SUVs. It won't really matter as the
only fish left will be in the Seattle Seaquarium.

In article .com,
"BJ Conner" wrote:

Shrub and his gang of thieves took out 80% of the rivers and streams
protected as critical habitat for Pacific salmon. Of course they
waited till late Friday afternoon to announce the move.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...age/1123927179
24880.xml&coll=7

Watch you local stream for that 6,000 sq ft. "log home", no
tresspassing signs and speeding SUVs. It won't really matter as the
only fish left will be in the Seattle Seaquarium.

BJ,
I read the article and I don't see at all where you get 80%. As in most
things environmental policy wise it will entirely depend on how this is
implemented. If you want to make real difference in Pacific NW salmon
stocks get rid of the nets. Used to fly the radar pattern around NAS
Whidbey over the two forks of the Skagit and the miracle was that any
fish ever made it up the river for all the nets.

Allen

"In Friday's mapping, total protected river miles amount to one-fifth
the amount protected under a set of "critical habitat" rules issued in
2000."

In article .com,
wrote:

"In Friday's mapping, total protected river miles amount to one-fifth
the amount protected under a set of "critical habitat" rules issued in
2000."

Yep JD I read that but then I look at the other stats in the article

"Out of 23,630 Northwest stream miles occupied by threatened and
endangered stocks, the agency excluded 2,817 stream miles -- an increase
of nearly 400 miles over the area proposed for exclusion last year."

and

In Washington, private landowners gained exemptions for 381 stream miles
by signing habitat conservation plans, binding legal agreements to
protect streams through a variety of land use practices such as leaving
buffer zones of trees and vegetation.

and notes like this

Lohn said that exclusions were based first on the importance of habitat
for salmon. He said the agency only excluded streams with low
"biological value," such as those running through urbanized areas and
altered by dredging, channelization, erosion and pollution.

and I look at the whole picture and I'm just not convinced this is a
doomsday scenario but something that may well allow effort to be
expended where it matters. If we can get agreements with landowners to
plant riparian boundaries and such I'd rather see it than just blanket
federal rules for tens of thousands of miles or acres with no analysis
of where efforts can make a difference and one's of over regualation. In
the case of the Chesapeake (my local big body after my move east) we
would be far better of working with the chicken farmers on the eastern
shore to figure out how to create better borders for the farms, reduce
nitrogen fertilizer use and provide economic incentive to plant those
borders than to simply plop a federal regulation in. Just my 2 cents.

Allen

For all you that just assume the Administration is evil anyway, this
might be helpful http://www.buttafly.com/bush/index.php

The same story in the Seattle Times.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...salmon01m.html
The lead paragraph says 80%. I wouln'd expect the Oregonia to be unbiased.
They supported bush and will are pro timber. The map in the print edition
of the Oregonian looked like 80+ %.


"Allen Epps" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"BJ Conner" wrote:

Shrub and his gang of thieves took out 80% of the rivers and streams
protected as critical habitat for Pacific salmon. Of course they
waited till late Friday afternoon to announce the move.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...age/1123927179
24880.xml&coll=7

Watch you local stream for that 6,000 sq ft. "log home", no
tresspassing signs and speeding SUVs. It won't really matter as the
only fish left will be in the Seattle Seaquarium.

BJ,
I read the article and I don't see at all where you get 80%. As in most
things environmental policy wise it will entirely depend on how this is
implemented. If you want to make real difference in Pacific NW salmon
stocks get rid of the nets. Used to fly the radar pattern around NAS
Whidbey over the two forks of the Skagit and the miracle was that any
fish ever made it up the river for all the nets.

Allen

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.

"Allen Epps" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"BJ Conner" wrote:

Shrub and his gang of thieves took out 80% of the rivers and streams
protected as critical habitat for Pacific salmon. Of course they
waited till late Friday afternoon to announce the move.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...age/1123927179
24880.xml&coll=7

Watch you local stream for that 6,000 sq ft. "log home", no
tresspassing signs and speeding SUVs. It won't really matter as the
only fish left will be in the Seattle Seaquarium.

BJ,
I read the article and I don't see at all where you get 80%. As in most
things environmental policy wise it will entirely depend on how this is
implemented. If you want to make real difference in Pacific NW salmon
stocks get rid of the nets. Used to fly the radar pattern around NAS
Whidbey over the two forks of the Skagit and the miracle was that any
fish ever made it up the river for all the nets.

Allen

"B J Conner" wrote in message
news:KFRLe.5175$Al5.3208@trnddc04...
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.

//snip

Here's a photo I took about fifteen months ago looking east and south from
ONP, across Sequim towards Mt Baker and the Cascades. It's pretty ugly in
terms of clear cuts. The picture shows two things: in the center, dead
ahead, are several clear cuts. But on the left you can see roads that have
been built for expensive new subdivisions for people who want to get away
from the cities and who want nice views on the edge of the wilderness.

http://webpages.charter.net/rwpatton...ypen1small.htm

Allen Epps wrote:

.......If we can get agreements with landowners to
plant riparian boundaries and such I'd rather see it than just blanket
federal rules for tens of thousands of miles or acres with no analysis
of where efforts can make a difference and one's of over regualation.

That analysis *was* done, which resulted in the original designation of
protected critical habitat. The roll-back just announced is the *direct*
result of concerted pressure from a number of lobbies (ranching, logging,
mining, etc., but *primarily* the National Association of Homebuilders) to
ignore real science in favor of the pseudosort we've been treated to so
much of in the past few years......

BTW, as long as the nets are deployed in adherence to treaty rights, they
need to be left alone:

http://www.ecotrust.org/nativeprogra...the_pearl.html

Everybody wants to point fingers.... Tribes, sea lions, "ocean
conditions", the commercial catch, Mexican immigrants, politicians,
loggers....

......better just to find a mirror and point at that.

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

Lot of causes, sure, but there's almost no doubt that the key one, the
overriding one, is massive loss of habitat. Lost to dams, lost to poor
ranching and logging practices (which, fortunately, are improving), and
lost especially now to suburban sprawl (which is rapidly worsening).....

Why? Because the knowledge and technologies that *already* exist to allow
us (and even greater numbers of us) to live comfortable lives AND restore
and protect salmon/steelhead are somewhat costly, somewhat inconvenient.
We--US, essentially all of us--are just too damn in love with money and
luxury and waste and sprawl and over-watered, pesticide-drenched,
cooky-cutter lawns and cheap gas and unfettered ease and blame games and,
well, .... it's just too bad for the poor fish, you know?

Hell.

JR

On 8/15/05 8:05 AM, in article , "JR"
wrote:

We--US, essentially all of us--are just too damn in love with money and
luxury and waste and sprawl and over-watered, pesticide-drenched,
cooky-cutter lawns and cheap gas and unfettered ease and blame games and,
well, .... it's just too bad for the poor fish, you know?

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

Bill
Guilt displaced the latte

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.

Sorry for the length, off the soapbox.

Allen

"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)

"Bob Patton" wrote in message
...
"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

"Well, dang, I can never remember for sure, but I THINK it's Oliver Swift
and Jonathan Goldsmith," mumbled Tom, crossly.

Wolfgang
who knows that tom always finds a way. :)

I too have spent a lot of time hiking and fishing in Oregon, Washington
and Northern California. That started in the 1950s as teenager. Since I
have move back to the area I have found a dozen places where there use
to be small streams that now are only winter mud washes. When you look
at those draws in the clearcuts remember there is a chance that at one
time there was flow of water down it all summer.
I remember small streams in deep shady draws, water trickling from one
clear rocky pool to the next. Some of these had small fish in them (
I'm not sure what species but I'm pretty sure they were trout ). If
you go to the same places now you find a series of dried up mud holes
forming a track through the slash piles. The shade and duff that made
the sponge which oozed life all summer is gone.
Maby these places don't rate protection or consideration because they
don't have names. They may show up on topo maps as broken blue lines.
These dotted blue lines connect to unnamed solid blue lines and those
to streams with names. There are a few rivers in this part of the
world that spring forth from holes in the groung but most are the born
of thousands of rivulets, springs, seeps etc. Even in your part of
the world the rivers you fish start with source smaller than a decent
garden hose.
I have only returned to a dozen of the places I use to know, I would be
happy if these were all that were gone.

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

//snip//
"Well, dang, I can never remember for sure, but I THINK it's Oliver Swift
and Jonathan Goldsmith," mumbled Tom, crossly.

Wolfgang
who knows that tom always finds a way. :)
I haven't seen a swiftie in years. . . .

The electricity went out here last night.

"It was so dark that I couldn't tell the difference between my scotch and my
disinfectant" said Tom, methylly.
Bob

"It was so dark that I couldn't tell the difference between my scotch and
my disinfectant" said Tom, methylly.
Bob

Seidman! Someone found your scotch!

--
Frank Reid
Reverse email to reply

"Frank Reid" moc.deepselbac@diersicnarf wrote in
:

"It was so dark that I couldn't tell the difference between my scotch
and my disinfectant" said Tom, methylly.
Bob

Seidman! Someone found your scotch!


It explains an awful lot.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply