|
|
Post by uwaztec on May 2, 2010 10:49:43 GMT -8
O.k... it was a stupid slogan to begin with. Of course we need the oil, but proceeding carefully and not opening leases haphazardly, and with stringent environmental overview, was the argument. The far Right could care less about images of birds soaking in oil or manatees looking like tar babies, but they do care about people losing money....like resort owners, commercial fisherman and countless other businesses. So maybe categorizing the environmental community (including professional biologists, scientists etc.) as wackos 24/7 on FOX and talk radio doesn't resonate so well right now? Can they put 2 & 2 together?
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 2, 2010 12:07:30 GMT -8
Oh, come on, now UW! Those are pretty heavy-handed caricatures of people with whom you disagree. Or, rather, caricatures of people with whom you think you disagree. I believe that few if any Americans in 2010 care nothing about the environment. Most Americans also want a sensible approach to solving the energy problem.
I think the sensible approach is to weigh all considerations carefully and then reach the optimum position that takes all those considerations into account. With respect to energy, the real extremists are those on the Left who are dead set against more drilling, nuclear, and coal regardless of the context. The context is this: What damage might be done to the environment (oil spills, etc.) on the one hand and, on the other, what damage to our national interests is done by continued reliance on oil bought from hostile nations?
Here's a question we should ponder. In what circumstances are we willing to risk environmental damage in order to defang hostile nations who actively do us harm? Those on the Left seem to be saying that in absolutely no case should we run the risk of environmental damage to areas such as ANWAR. They either ignore or are indifferent to the fact that it is our oil money that in large part is funding terrorist groups such as Hamas.
Such groups have been and are killing both American troops and those of friendly countries (in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel). Building new nuclear plants and/or drilling in ANWAR or other sensitive areas might well allow us, if only for a few years, to significantly lower the price of oil on the world market. Would that be important?
Yes, it would be important. Not long ago I read a piece which made the point that when the price of oil was relatively low (late 90s) countries such as Iran were much less hostile and much less active in the area of funding terrorist groups. Cut off, even partially, the money going to Iran, etc., and those regimes will be unable to fund terrorism as they have been recently. That means fewer dead Americans. It seems to me that it would be well worth the risk of damaging ANWAR or the Santa Barbara coast if the upside were fewer dead American or allied troops. And let's not forget that such damage is possible, not certain. In any event, there are few goals in life worth achieving that do not also involve risks.
We have had neither new nuclear power plants nor new refineries built in the U.S. for decades. We all know which side of the political aisle is responsible for that. Meanwhile, countries such as France are putting in operation nuclear plants that take advantage of much newer and safer technology.
There is a fundamental unreality that grips the Left in the area of energy. They talk endlessly about wind power, geo-thermal power, electric cars, etc. Fine, all those should be researched and put into operation. But, please, let's not ignore the fact that it will be years, very probably decades before alternative sources of energy, especially for vehicles, are going to reduce the need for petroleum products significantly.
It would be nice if we lived in a perfect world in which there were no cost, either economically or geo-politically, to be paid by forgoing petroleum and coal based power generation. That would be a nice world, but it's not the one we live in. On the contrary, we live in a world in which, if we do not take advantage of all our resources (oil, natural gas, and coal in addition to the more exotic ones) we may well see $5.00 a gallon of gasoline in the not too distant future.
Some environmentalists, the ones who live only a mile from work, might well welcome $5.00 or higher a gallon gasoline. Would you like to take a guess at what percentage of the American population would take the other side?
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 2, 2010 14:32:15 GMT -8
This should be a time and an opportunity to find where we agree on needs and methods rather than alienate others with wild eyed rhetoric. Lets do the right thing for both our environment and our national interest. I was trying in another thread to develop that idea in the thread about coal mining but it sort of petered out without a meeting of minds about methods and safeguards. This is an opportunity to see where all of our interests can be better served rather than just another bump in the road that ticks off everyone involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on May 2, 2010 16:44:52 GMT -8
This should be a time and an opportunity to find where we agree on needs and methods rather than alienate others with wild eyed rhetoric. Lets do the right thing for both our environment and our national interest. I was trying in another thread to develop that idea in the thread about coal mining but it sort of petered out without a meeting of minds about methods and safeguards. This is an opportunity to see where all of our interests can be better served rather than just another bump in the road that ticks off everyone involved. Win, there are some places left in the World where there is no place for compromise. I'll give you one example and that's Bristol Bay. The most important salmon fishery in the World would not survive one major industrial accident from the proposed mineral mine and oil drilling is just as dangerous. Luckily for Bristol Bay it has a large commercial interest / lobby from the commercial fishing industry. A place like ANWAR has no such lobby. There is no "mitigation" for the perfection that exists in nature's last greatest places....there is only slow, steady decline when mixed with heavy industry. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on May 2, 2010 17:24:45 GMT -8
Oh, come on, now UW! Those are pretty heavy-handed caricatures of people with whom you disagree. Or, rather, caricatures of people with whom you think you disagree. I believe that few if any Americans in 2010 care nothing about the environment. Most Americans also want a sensible approach to solving the energy problem. I think the sensible approach is to weigh all considerations carefully and then reach the optimum position that takes all those considerations into account. With respect to energy, the real extremists are those on the Left who are dead set against more drilling, nuclear, and coal regardless of the context. The context is this: What damage might be done to the environment (oil spills, etc.) on the one hand and, on the other, what damage to our national interests is done by continued reliance on oil bought from hostile nations? Here's a question we should ponder. In what circumstances are we willing to risk environmental damage in order to defang hostile nations who actively do us harm? Those on the Left seem to be saying that in absolutely no case should we run the risk of environmental damage to areas such as ANWAR. They either ignore or are indifferent to the fact that it is our oil money that in large part is funding terrorist groups such as Hamas. Such groups have been and are killing both American troops and those of friendly countries (in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel). Building new nuclear plants and/or drilling in ANWAR or other sensitive areas might well allow us, if only for a few years, to significantly lower the price of oil on the world market. Would that be important? Yes, it would be important. Not long ago I read a piece which made the point that when the price of oil was relatively low (late 90s) countries such as Iran were much less hostile and much less active in the area of funding terrorist groups. Cut off, even partially, the money going to Iran, etc., and those regimes will be unable to fund terrorism as they have been recently. That means fewer dead Americans. It seems to me that it would be well worth the risk of damaging ANWAR or the Santa Barbara coast if the upside were fewer dead American or allied troops. And let's not forget that such damage is possible, not certain. In any event, there are few goals in life worth achieving that do not also involve risks. We have had neither new nuclear power plants nor new refineries built in the U.S. for decades. We all know which side of the political aisle is responsible for that. Meanwhile, countries such as France are putting in operation nuclear plants that take advantage of much newer and safer technology. There is a fundamental unreality that grips the Left in the area of energy. They talk endlessly about wind power, geo-thermal power, electric cars, etc. Fine, all those should be researched and put into operation. But, please, let's not ignore the fact that it will be years, very probably decades before alternative sources of energy, especially for vehicles, are going to reduce the need for petroleum products significantly. It would be nice if we lived in a perfect world in which there were no cost, either economically or geo-politically, to be paid by forgoing petroleum and coal based power generation. That would be a nice world, but it's not the one we live in. On the contrary, we live in a world in which, if we do not take advantage of all our resources (oil, natural gas, and coal in addition to the more exotic ones) we may well see $5.00 a gallon of gasoline in the not too distant future. Some environmentalists, the ones who live only a mile from work, might well welcome $5.00 or higher a gallon gasoline. Would you like to take a guess at what percentage of the American population would take the other side? AzWm I'll stay away from the larger "either or" argument you make. I will argue that most Americans really don't know much about the environment...unless they are hunters, fisherman, serious outdoorsman, trained professionals etc. Yes, most do enjoy the geology, plants and animals they see on outings but might not notice subtle changes over time due to Man's activities. I think a lot of people are influenced by what they hear through the media about the environment and a lot of it is bad information. I am going to give you just one example I can think of. All of the incredible nature shows you can see now on TV, or at the theater, such as: Life, Blue Planet, Oceans, etc. are somewhat of a big lie! Crews are sent to those places in the World where you can still get spectacular images of animals and behaviors. Well guess what, there are not many places left in the World where you can still do that. My Friend collects marine samples for the pharmaceutical industry. He dives once a day to 300 feet in Indonesia (east Timor, Borneo and PNG) and off the coast of Africa. He has been doing this for the last 3 years. In the last year, he has seen just 2 sharks! He has seen 2 jacks together only once! These areas have been basically "vacuum cleaned" of life by China and Taiwan. What I'm trying to say is that unless you are out there every day, you are not seeing the changes. The point I was trying to make was that the far Right (at least by their words) are not affected by a few birds covered in oil, but they do "get" the shrimp fisherman's family losing their business and boat. Certainly, when the oil comes around the corner and covers Rush Limbaugh's beachfront property, he will get it. We depend on a clean and healthy environment for economic stability. This is nothing against BP, which is a responsible company and trying to do the right thing. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 2, 2010 21:31:10 GMT -8
I don't think I quite understand your point. Of course there are areas that are valuable as is and would be greatly damaged if an environmental disaster (Exxon Valdez type, etc.) were to occur. Does that mean that we should refuse to initiate ANY new energy projects?
No form of energy is without costs and possible negative impact on the environment. Let's consider wind energy. Wind energy sounds fine, but it costs a lot to put up the windmills, and, oh, by the way, they slaughter thousands and thousands of birds. And, it turns out, people are not really eager to see hundreds and hundreds of giant windmills marring their scenic views.
Anyway, no one has made a serious argument that we will be able to dispense with oil as a source of energy within a few years. It's a pipe dream. I do think that someday we will in fact shift to vehicle power plants that do not run on gasoline. We'll see that come fully to pass in several decades. Meanwhile, Hugo Chavez, the Mullahs, and the duplicitous Saudis rake in billions of dollars. A significant parentage of those dollars would be staying here had the Left not prevented serious exploration and drilling over the past three or more decades.
Do you remember how the environmentalists, just recently, said that additional drilling, such as in ANWAR and off our coasts would not come on line for a decade, so why bother? Well, that's what they also said a decade or more ago! What was their point? That in a decade we would not need more oil? Let's get real. Had we been doing more exploration and drilling during the past 10-15 years we would have additional supplies right now! Enough to dispense with foreign oil? Of course not. But we would have enough more to break the back of OPPEC! More nuclear power plants would also have helped, but the radical environmentalists are so hysterical over nuclear power that they cannot see how much safer the new technology is. Just ask the French about that.
If the reetaspreel industry produces 100 units a year and the world wants to buy 110, the reetaspreel industry makes out like bandits. On the other hand, if the world wants to buy only 90 units, the industry must lower its prices. Maybe a few producers actually go bust. You don't have to stop buying reetaspreels to lower the price. You just have to lower the number purchased to the point where the buyer controls the price instead of the producer.
In the same fashion, we do not have to give up buying foreign oil entirely to have the prices go down causing the bad actors who live off oil have to tighten their belts. If oil is $100.00 a barrel, Chavez does fine. If it's $50.00 a barrel he has to pull in his horns. If it's $20.00 a barrel he'll get overthrown. Same for the Mullahs. Same for Russia.
Two goals are important in all this, but the Left can see only one. The first goal is to move away from carbon based energy for environmental reasons. The second is to deny our enemies the funds they need to do us harm. The Left can only see the first goal.
The two goals I have mentioned can be complimentary. But not without pain. We can conserve by driving less or withstanding colder winter temperatures in our homes. Or we can develop more energy here using nuclear power and finding more sources of petroleum, such as oil shale. Those are not without cost, but they help us achieve the second goal, that of cutting the economic legs from under the bastards who think nothing of killing thousands of innocent people.
Obama is true to his beliefs, which seem to be in harmony with the radical environmentalists. Those fine fellows simply will not see that the shift away from carbon based energy will be a long and difficult process. Meanwhile, our refusal to increase domestic supplies (oil, nuclear, etc.) hands our enemies a major victory. It needn't have been that way.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on May 3, 2010 8:23:42 GMT -8
William, I don't get your "either or" stuff. That's not what I am saying. And please tell me what a "radical environmentalist" is?....sounds like a "catch all" for anybody that disagrees with a project. Here is an environmental radical for you. France placed over 80% of their nukes on major rivers.... the Seine, Rhone etc. Well, the difference between ocean placement and river placement for cooling is substantial. Rivers of course are a much limited environment and more easily affected by warming release water. France basically ruined all of their major rivers for salmon, trout reproduction and a host of other aquatic animals and plants. Contrast that with our own treatment of the Columbia during the set-up of the Manhattan project at Hanford in the early 40's (I have worked on biology projects at Hanford and San Onofre over the years). Commercial fisherman and fisheries biologists lobbied heavily during the early Manhattan project design period. So, the US Government assigned a fisheries expert to design a series of cooling ponds to mitigate the potential disaster that would have occurred on the most important (by far) fishery / tributary in the US. Its people like this who are labeled every day by right wing whack jobs in media as "environmental wackos"... you may disagree, but I know because I have heard it over and over again....the paint brush is that big.
Geez, even TR gets hammered these days by Beck. I guess the Right never forgave him for escaping the secret service for 3 days to hike with John Muir in the Sierras. And as far as you "either or" argument regrading the fight against the Middle East / Muslim World I disagree "either or".
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 3, 2010 15:51:22 GMT -8
This should be a time and an opportunity to find where we agree on needs and methods rather than alienate others with wild eyed rhetoric. Lets do the right thing for both our environment and our national interest. I was trying in another thread to develop that idea in the thread about coal mining but it sort of petered out without a meeting of minds about methods and safeguards. This is an opportunity to see where all of our interests can be better served rather than just another bump in the road that ticks off everyone involved. Win, there are some places left in the World where there is no place for compromise. I'll give you one example and that's Bristol Bay. The most important salmon fishery in the World would not survive one major industrial accident from the proposed mineral mine and oil drilling is just as dangerous. Luckily for Bristol Bay it has a large commercial interest / lobby from the commercial fishing industry. A place like ANWAR has no such lobby. There is no "mitigation" for the perfection that exists in nature's last greatest places....there is only slow, steady decline when mixed with heavy industry. I guess that the word that is troubling here is compromise. I am not thinking in those terms, but in the terms of genuine solutions to environmental concerns that would allow continued development of the resources that we need for our economy while not putting nature at risk. We do not need to go to Bristol Bay to do any risky experimental idea development. I am convinced that we can find answers and meet everyones concerns. We are not talking about politicians working on this kind of issue, but real dedicated environmentally concerned scientists looking for failsafe solutions. You must entertain that kind of imitative or be seen as so rigid in your position you will not entertain any ideas. That is not who I think you are. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on May 3, 2010 16:21:40 GMT -8
Win, there are some places left in the World where there is no place for compromise. I'll give you one example and that's Bristol Bay. The most important salmon fishery in the World would not survive one major industrial accident from the proposed mineral mine and oil drilling is just as dangerous. Luckily for Bristol Bay it has a large commercial interest / lobby from the commercial fishing industry. A place like ANWAR has no such lobby. There is no "mitigation" for the perfection that exists in nature's last greatest places....there is only slow, steady decline when mixed with heavy industry. I guess that the word that is troubling here is compromise. I am not thinking in those terms, but in the terms of genuine solutions to environmental concerns that would allow continued development of the resources that we need for our economy while not putting nature at risk. We do not need to go to Bristol Bay to do any risky experimental idea development. I am convinced that we can find answers and meet everyones concerns. We are not talking about politicians working on this kind of issue, but real dedicated environmentally concerned scientists looking for failsafe solutions. You must entertain that kind of imitative or be seen as so rigid in your position you will not entertain any ideas. That is not who I think you are. Win...it is who you think I am. I say no compromise at all for Bristol Bay. There really is nothing better left out there. I have been in the environmental buis. and "wars" since 1976. When you make everybody happy, it only means one thing for the resource and that's a downward spiral. Which "biologists" do you think the big company is going to hire, and what do you think they are going to say in their report? Believe me, (because I have seen it 1,000 times) when a consultant / scientist/ biologist goes to work for the client, they will come up with the most creative language to say "mitigation" is possible. I bet you could find (for the right money) an "expert" to testify that turning Half Dome into a rock quarry was mitigatable!! We have a saying in the environmental buis.... this is regarding protection of a place like Bristol Bay. "You could win 100 battles, but you only need to lose once to lose an incredible resource forever." |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 4, 2010 14:31:46 GMT -8
I guess that the word that is troubling here is compromise. I am not thinking in those terms, but in the terms of genuine solutions to environmental concerns that would allow continued development of the resources that we need for our economy while not putting nature at risk. We do not need to go to Bristol Bay to do any risky experimental idea development. I am convinced that we can find answers and meet every-ones concerns. We are not talking about politicians working on this kind of issue, but real dedicated environmentally concerned scientists looking for fail safe solutions. You must entertain that kind of imitative or be seen as so rigid in your position you will not entertain any ideas. That is not who I think you are. Win...it is who you think I am. I say no compromise at all for Bristol Bay. There really is nothing better left out there. I have been in the environmental buis. and "wars" since 1976. When you make everybody happy, it only means one thing for the resource and that's a downward spiral. Which "biologists" do you think the big company is going to hire, and what do you think they are going to say in their report? Believe me, (because I have seen it 1,000 times) when a consultant / scientist/ biologist goes to work for the client, they will come up with the most creative language to say "mitigation" is possible. I bet you could find (for the right money) an "expert" to testify that turning Half Dome into a rock quarry was mitigatable!! We have a saying in the environmental buis.... this is regarding protection of a place like Bristol Bay. "You could win 100 battles, but you only need to lose once to lose an incredible resource forever." OK! Let's not talk about Bristol Bay. Let's put that and even ANWAR off limits for however long it will take to develop and prove over the very long term that we can develop environmentally safe and responsible methods to mine or drill. Let's not hire mining or oil companies to develop these methods. Let's have environmental groups take the lead and not move till they know we have environmentally sound methods of extracting oil or mining whatever. Would you go for trying strip mining for coal in Montana and then restoring the land and protecting the watershed? Just where are you willing to go to start? |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on May 4, 2010 16:31:07 GMT -8
I guess Win...you have to give me Google Earth coordinates and a defined project for discussion. I will acknowledge that, if not for "impact analysis" I would not have made about 80% of my lifetime income. So I have directly profited from the installation of everything from 3-lot minor subdivision splits (Valley Center included) on up to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. I have also been a photographer and have had the privilege of working on some of the best underwater nature films ever made...in some of the World's most incredible locations. I have been extremely lucky in this pursuit. My first "real" assignment was on the Calypso back in the late 80's. Most people only dream about that stuff. So I kind of have "seen it all" when it comes to nature and how we impact it over time. I love the World's wildest places....and yet, I have met many great people in industry. With a background like mine, it's almost a curse. I see every plant that shouldn't be here..I see every poorly designed project...and I have personally seen whole populations of animals disappear from land and ocean over time. I guess I just want it to still all be here and not get worse for my daughter's generation....that's where my passion about this stuff comes from.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 4, 2010 18:07:50 GMT -8
You asked for a definition. Well, here it is. An environmental extremist is one who opposes ALL new energy projects, be they wind farms, nuclear plants, or new oil drilling. I think it's interesting that some very activist environmentalists have had second thoughts about nuclear. Those people, apparently, have come to understand that saying NO to everything will have very severe negative effects on the economy. And that means that millions of people of very modest means will suffer.
As for the extremists, here's a thought. It's one thing to champion wind or other "renewable" sources of energy in the abstract sense. But when somebody wants to put a few giant windmills a few miles off shore next to your Summer home, well, that's something else again.
As for me, I would accept some air pollution if the upside were a 5% decrease in our need for foreign oil. Especially if that source of pollution will be gone in a decade or two as some really practical new sources of energy come on line.
Many of us remember the oil embargoes of the 70s. I certainly do. If domestic sources, especially of oil but also nuclear, are outlawed, we may yet end up with five or six dollar a gallon gasoline. Maybe that is what we should do, maybe not. Let's not kid ourselves, however, by believing that shifting to non-fossil based fuels will be painless.
As for Obama, I guess he comes down on the painless side. But, to be frank, I'm not sure just what his enregy policy really is.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 4, 2010 21:17:33 GMT -8
I guess Win...you have to give me Google Earth coordinates and a defined project for discussion. I will acknowledge that, if not for "impact analysis" I would not have made about 80% of my lifetime income. So I have directly profited from the installation of everything from 3-lot minor subdivision splits (Valley Center included) on up to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. I have also been a photographer and have had the privilege of working on some of the best underwater nature films ever made...in some of the World's most incredible locations. I have been extremely lucky in this pursuit. My first "real" assignment was on the Calypso back in the late 80's. Most people only dream about that stuff. So I kind of have "seen it all" when it comes to nature and how we impact it over time. I love the World's wildest places....and yet, I have met many great people in industry. With a background like mine, it's almost a curse. I see every plant that shouldn't be here..I see every poorly designed project...and I have personally seen whole populations of animals disappear from land and ocean over time. I guess I just want it to still all be here and not get worse for my daughter's generation....that's where my passion about this stuff comes from. Hate to say this, but it sounds like you just want to say no to everything. There is no starting point? I have seen the destruction and th recovery. I would think you would recognize that as well. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on May 5, 2010 5:20:09 GMT -8
I guess Win...you have to give me Google Earth coordinates and a defined project for discussion. I will acknowledge that, if not for "impact analysis" I would not have made about 80% of my lifetime income. So I have directly profited from the installation of everything from 3-lot minor subdivision splits (Valley Center included) on up to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. I have also been a photographer and have had the privilege of working on some of the best underwater nature films ever made...in some of the World's most incredible locations. I have been extremely lucky in this pursuit. My first "real" assignment was on the Calypso back in the late 80's. Most people only dream about that stuff. So I kind of have "seen it all" when it comes to nature and how we impact it over time. I love the World's wildest places....and yet, I have met many great people in industry. With a background like mine, it's almost a curse. I see every plant that shouldn't be here..I see every poorly designed project...and I have personally seen whole populations of animals disappear from land and ocean over time. I guess I just want it to still all be here and not get worse for my daughter's generation....that's where my passion about this stuff comes from. Hate to say this, but it sounds like you just want to say no to everything. There is no starting point? I have seen the destruction and th recovery. I would think you would recognize that as well. Not true Win.... I was talking about the World's last great (and most sensitive) places. How bout this for specifics. I am for "in fill" projects in the urban zones of San Diego County...and not for further expansion into the back Country. Why don't we start here with something simple. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on May 5, 2010 5:21:45 GMT -8
I guess Win...you have to give me Google Earth coordinates and a defined project for discussion. I will acknowledge that, if not for "impact analysis" I would not have made about 80% of my lifetime income. So I have directly profited from the installation of everything from 3-lot minor subdivision splits (Valley Center included) on up to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. I have also been a photographer and have had the privilege of working on some of the best underwater nature films ever made...in some of the World's most incredible locations. I have been extremely lucky in this pursuit. My first "real" assignment was on the Calypso back in the late 80's. Most people only dream about that stuff. So I kind of have "seen it all" when it comes to nature and how we impact it over time. I love the World's wildest places....and yet, I have met many great people in industry. With a background like mine, it's almost a curse. I see every plant that shouldn't be here..I see every poorly designed project...and I have personally seen whole populations of animals disappear from land and ocean over time. I guess I just want it to still all be here and not get worse for my daughter's generation....that's where my passion about this stuff comes from. Hate to say this, but it sounds like you just want to say no to everything. There is no starting point? I have seen the destruction and th recovery. I would think you would recognize that as well. Please also describe "destruction" and "recovery"....give me an example. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 5, 2010 19:22:14 GMT -8
Hate to say this, but it sounds like you just want to say no to everything. There is no starting point? I have seen the destruction and th recovery. I would think you would recognize that as well. Not true Win.... I was talking about the World's last great (and most sensitive) places. How bout this for specifics. I am for "in fill" projects in the urban zones of San Diego County...and not for further expansion into the back Country. Why don't we start here with something simple. I think we agree here. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 5, 2010 19:29:17 GMT -8
Hate to say this, but it sounds like you just want to say no to everything. There is no starting point? I have seen the destruction and th recovery. I would think you would recognize that as well. Please also describe "destruction" and "recovery"....give me an example. The Clarks Fork River killed by Anaconda Smelters and now on the way to full recovery. Still more to go, but great progrss has been made. One of the great trout streams anywhere (Rock Creek) drains into the Clarks Fork near Clinton Montana and it is really good fishing and will stay that way. The Ceder River that runs into Lake Washington is also a success story. I would like to see some progress on the San Luis and Santa Margarita Rivers up here in North County, but don't see the will or even a viable way. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on May 6, 2010 10:49:34 GMT -8
Please also describe "destruction" and "recovery"....give me an example. The Clarks Fork River killed by Anaconda Smelters and now on the way to full recovery. Still more to go, but great progress has been made. One of the great trout streams anywhere (Rock Creek) drains into the Clarks Fork near Clinton Montana and it is really good fishing and will stay that way. The Ceder River that runs into Lake Washington is also a success story. I would like to see some progress on the San Luis and Santa Margarita Rivers up here in North County, but don't see the will or even a viable way. O.K...I'll do some research on those and get back. Yes, I don't hold out any hope for viable steelhead populations returning to any tributary south of Ventura County (if that). My friend just got a USF&W contract to shoot video on the rehabilitation efforts for steelhead waters south of Monterey County... and is having trouble even finding one adult to shoot (Malibu creek and south). I would like to see them make the major efforts more north were there are still viable populations. Fix the Klamath first!! They are approved to remove 3 dams off the Klamath in the next 10 years. The Klamath has been severely abused in the last 30 years, culminating with the 250,000 dead adult salmon and steelhead 4 or 5 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 6, 2010 11:02:28 GMT -8
One huge screw-up by Fish and Game was planting fresh water shrimp in Flathead Lake. It killed the Kokonee in just a few years.
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on May 7, 2010 7:07:20 GMT -8
Please also describe "destruction" and "recovery"....give me an example. The Clarks Fork River killed by Anaconda Smelters and now on the way to full recovery. Still more to go, but great progress has been made. One of the great trout streams anywhere (Rock Creek) drains into the Clarks Fork near Clinton Montana and it is really good fishing and will stay that way. The Ceder River that runs into Lake Washington is also a success story. I would like to see some progress on the San Luis and Santa Margarita Rivers up here in North County, but don't see the will or even a viable way. Interesting re: Clarks. Will never be the same, but incredible effort and $$$ put into the ongoing restoration of this Superfund site has yielded great improvements. side note...can you imagine what abandoned sites in China look like!!  So the question remains... do you give out the permit on this watershed in the first place? |
|
So the question remains... do you give out the permit on this watershed in the first place?