If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   Bush moves to protect salmon? What next, Democrats move to save industry?   ( sfgate.com) divider line
    More: Strange  
•       •       •

174 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Jun 2006 at 6:52 PM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

21 Comments     (+0 »)
2006-06-29 04:47:40 PM  
NOAA spokesman Jordan St. John added that the agency was trying to allow limited fishing to keep the industry alive.

"The original discussion was to close the entire fishery," St. John said. "At the request of fishermen's groups and some of the very same members of Congress, they worked out some way to keep the season partially open so there could be fishing."

That about sums it up.

Scientists do the best study they can, say "It's probably okay to catch (this many) fish."

Fishermen whine, complain, say the government is ruining their livelihood.

Politicians get involved, force the agencies to allow larger catches.

Fish disappear.

Fishermen whine, complain, say the government is ruining their livelihood.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
2006-06-29 04:50:05 PM  
I think submitter read a different article than I did.

Lawmakers from California and Oregon, angry at the Bush administration for refusing to aid struggling Pacific Coast salmon fishermen, brought the House to a standstill Wednesday -- ultimately forcing GOP leaders to offer a small amount of economic relief.
"It's just unfair that this would happen, especially when this is a disaster that was created by the Bush administration," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez. "They ought to take responsibility; they ought to be held accountable for their actions, and they ought to provide relief for these hard-working families."
2006-06-29 04:51:31 PM  
Mmm, salmon. Almost as tasty as dead baby seal.
2006-06-29 05:20:22 PM  
If only we could grind caribou and spotted owls into petroleum...
2006-06-29 05:27:52 PM  
subby: Bush moves to protect salmon?

That sure is
img.fark.netView Full Size
. What were these moves of which you write?
2006-06-29 05:36:24 PM  
This will definitely spawn some controversy.
2006-06-29 05:42:59 PM  
Read up on this issue before you go off half-cocked and make an ass out of yourself, zorgon.

The last few years, everybody who knows anything about the science has said that the feds could not divert additional water from the Klamath watershed, because to do so would deprive the Klamath run salmon of their spawning grounds. But as the Bush administration does with stunning consistency, they completely ignored the scientists and cave in to some big agribusine$$ interests who lobbyed them for some more cheap (subsidized) federal water, and they increased Klamath water diversions for the last couple of years and diverted that water to agribusiness interests.

And, of course, the warnings were 100% correct, as everyone who knew anything knew they would be. There was vitually no salmon spawn in the Klamath watershed last fall, because the water levels were too low for them to get upstream and (also as a result of the lower water levels) water temperatures were also too high to support a naturally spawn run. Basically, any yearling salmon in the ocean now are ones that came from the Sacramento River, but the Klamath run didn't exist last year.

Because of this, the Dept. of Fish and Game was initially going to close salmon fishing entirely for the year. Ultimately they agreed to open a limited season, with drastically reduced limits, in an attempt to get the salmon population to recover.

The fishermen asked for $81 million in federal disaster assistance, because the government deprived them of their livelihood by diverting the water from the Klamath watershed and--exactly as everyone said would happen--decimating the salmon spawn, then basically closing the salmon fishery and telling the fisherman that was tough shiat. So Congress has given them $2 million instead--about what they pay Halliburton for a few thousand gallons of gas in Iraq--even though the fisherman are 0% at fault for this problem and the government caused it 100%.
2006-06-29 05:43:58 PM  
And, BTW, the headline here is 180 degrees the opposite of reality.
2006-06-29 05:49:09 PM  
Cyberluddite: even though the fisherman are 0% at fault for this problem and the government caused it 100%.

I wouldn't go this far - overfishing has been something of a problem on every salmon watershed, from California to Alaska.

But, yeah, I've never been a big fan of the DFG, and they've muddled this even more than their usual bumbling.
2006-06-29 06:25:52 PM  
biandlarge: This will definitely spawn some controversy.

Nice one!
2006-06-29 06:47:03 PM  
The greenlight quality sucks, these days.
2006-06-29 07:00:32 PM  
Hah. Generic political stereotype. So... funny.... (snore)
2006-06-29 07:01:23 PM  
"This will definitely spawn some controversy."

Dam you.
2006-06-29 07:34:42 PM  
Big agriculture can afford to pay more than middle sized fisheries.

Water subsidies out west for agriculture are insane. They really need to pay more or be urged (i.e. swatted with a stick) to conserve more then this crap wouldn't happen as often as it does.
2006-06-29 08:25:47 PM  
2006-06-29 07:34:42 PM Kuta
Big agriculture can afford to pay more than middle sized fisheries.

Unfortunately, they can also afford to pay more to their lobbyists and make more bribes "contributions" to "our" elected officials, so this shiat will continue to happen. But yeah, you're absolutely right.
2006-06-29 09:31:16 PM  
Manfred J. Hattan:
"This will definitely spawn some controversy."

Dam you.


/i lol'd at both
2006-06-29 09:53:09 PM  
Stupid salmon fisherman. They have nobody but themselves to blame for their ruined livelyhood. Of course, in this situation, Cyberluddite is right, the agriculture lobby helped to fark over the fishing groups.

Submitter is an ass for submitting this story with nothing but gratuitous partisan hackery that had nothing to do with the article. Shame on the mods for greenlighting it.
2006-06-29 10:49:06 PM  
didn't this happen a month or so ago?

Or am I having deja-vous all over again?
2006-06-29 11:26:16 PM  
At the risk of being a cliche', I must confess that I own seafood market. Sell ONLY wild salmon, and check the source of them quite frequently. Salmon are unique in that they spawn in the same river(s) in which they were born. Fark a river up and you'll lose an entire stock. For good. This is just yet another example of this administration's war on the environment. I'm too drunk to type much else, that is all.

/ looking forawrd to laughing at myself in the morning
2006-06-30 12:08:22 AM  
the biggest redneck here: looking forawrd to laughing at myself in the morning

We can laugh at you now, if you don't want to wait.
2006-06-30 03:10:51 PM  
Don't the stupid NW tribes get to fish for as much salmon as they want whenever they want? Well, at least I'm glad they're not part of the problem.
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.