Salmon thrived millions of yrs - declined in past few hundred

[starlite9]

Originally Posted by Lunabell

I agree. Human activity has greatly impacted salmon in the Pacific NW, aside from AK(in general). I don't think that point is deniable. It also sounds like the author addresses how salmon evolved with climatic and geological pressures and upheavals, including extinction in some cases. I don't understand denying the impacts of over harvesting, hatcheries, changes in land use, and dams have had on salmon populations. Those are pretty easily observed.

If we don't understand causes in natural resources, we cannot figure out how to mitigate impacts. In any natural resource issue, it shouldn't have to be one ideology vs. another, but without understanding the problem there is no way to work with the issues of all stakeholders.

You are correct in aspects where mankind has affected some of the species, but overall we are are not affecting the planet in the way the Al Gore in his "Church of the Global Warming". Change happens in nature, sometimes it's an Earthquake, tornado, hurricane, volcano or just a forest fire. The sun controls more of the planet's destiny than man even thought about.

That doesn't mean we just ignore being good stewards of our planet, but being stupid about it as well is what seems to be overtaking sanity!

We can drill for oil and still do a clean job of it and not damage the animals. We had this drill back in pre Alaska Pipline. Where the animals were going to die off, they didn't, the caribou went from some 5,000 to 25,000 now. Anyway, this just do nothing to save everything is just stupid.

[Lunabell]

Originally Posted by starlite9

You are correct in aspects where mankind has affected some of the species, but overall we are are not affecting the planet in the way the Al Gore in his "Church of the Global Warming". Change happens in nature, sometimes it's an Earthquake, tornado, hurricane, volcano or just a forest fire. The sun controls more of the planet's destiny than man even thought about.

That doesn't mean we just ignore being good stewards of our planet, but being stupid about it as well is what seems to be overtaking sanity!

We can drill for oil and still do a clean job of it and not damage the animals. We had this drill back in pre Alaska Pipline. Where the animals were going to die off, they didn't, the caribou went from some 5,000 to 25,000 now. Anyway, this just do nothing to save everything is just stupid.

Just to clarify, when I referenced the salmon and climate change, I meant over the evolutionary history of the species, not the modern climate change debate.

It just seems on these issues there is only a black or white and no in between. For instance the article mentioned that an earthquake caused a toxic spill in a state-of-the-art New Guinea mine and that seemed to be an argument to stop the mine. Assuming the mine goes forward, it seems to me that whatever happened to this New Guinea mine could serve as a lesson to learn from since Bristol Bay is also in an active seismic zone.

Most natural resource debates in this country are based on the values people place on the landscape. You and I could look at the same location and have very different thoughts on how it should be managed. I just think there is a lot of room for conversation to find out where agreement or at least understanding may be. I am not sure a lot of people look it at it that way though. I think that is part of the insanity. Who knows maybe I am getting in the the wrong field, since I am more a shades of grey person.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by NomadicBear

It doesn't sound like you know much about volcanoes. They fertilize the land and sea.

Yes, they do. But they also cause widespread cooling, and can completely destroy any fish habitat miles around.

Fertilize the lans and sea? Humans do exactly that with human waste. Just visit South Korea, and even Mexico

By the way, when in South Korea long ago, the strawberries, lettuce, and all kinds of produce were just incredible. Huge, juicy, and quite tasty!

[ShipOfFools42]

Can't rep you Lunabell, but some of the things you mentioned are actually reasons I am almost certain that I won't be pursuing natural resources anymore. And I hate to think of it as a copout; I like to think that it's solely because I love aviation, but that might not be the whole truth. It's hard to have strong views about things, backed up by solid facts, and have so many people fight tooth and nail against what it is that you're trying to do. There's no doubt that both sides have a point at times, but it makes me wonder if good economics and conservation can live in harmony with the vast number of people we have on this planet.

And really, "sustainable" is a loaded word now because of the steadily growing burden on our resources in general. If everyone's going to eat, and especially if everyone is going to have cars, boats, computers, etc., it's going to take a lot to make it happen sustainably. But I don't mean to sound like a pessimist; I have faith that some great minds will make it happen.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by dcarrot

That's not what I got from the article at all. It seems he was pointing out how salmon have declined/been eliminated from much of the Pacific NW except Alaska due to the cumulative impacts on their habitat. Impacts add up and can cause havoc.

I agree. Alaska was in a similar situation, with a declining salmon population while it was still a territory. This was caused primarily by Washington State and Oregon fisherman coming to Alaska and depleting its resources. By 1959 there were fewer than 5 million salmon in Alaska.

Since statehood, Alaska has managed to increase the salmon population to just over 25 million returning salmon each year. So either the Alaska Department of Fish & Game is doing a good job at managing the salmon populations since statehood, or there is some other factor involved.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by ShipOfFools42

Can't rep you Lunabell, but some of the things you mentioned are actually reasons I am almost certain that I won't be pursuing natural resources anymore. And I hate to think of it as a copout; I like to think that it's solely because I love aviation, but that might not be the whole truth. It's hard to have strong views about things, backed up by solid facts, and have so many people fight tooth and nail against what it is that you're trying to do. There's no doubt that both sides have a point at times, but it makes me wonder if good economics and conservation can live in harmony with the vast number of people we have on this planet.

And really, "sustainable" is a loaded word now because of the steadily growing burden on our resources in general. If everyone's going to eat, and especially if everyone is going to have cars, boats, computers, etc., it's going to take a lot to make it happen sustainably. But I don't mean to sound like a pessimist; I have faith that some great minds will make it happen.

The problem is that you can't get away from using natural resources such as oil, gold, silver, lumber, and the rest. Right now as you read this post, look around your room as you sit in front of your computer, and you will notice that everything around you, from the roof and walls on your house to the floor below are "natural resources."

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by Glitch

I agree. Alaska was in a similar situation, with a declining salmon population while it was still a territory. This was caused primarily by Washington State and Oregon fisherman coming to Alaska and depleting its resources. By 1959 there were fewer than 5 million salmon in Alaska.

Since statehood, Alaska has managed to increase the salmon population to just over 25 million returning salmon each year. So either the Alaska Department of Fish & Game is doing a good job at managing the salmon populations since statehood, or there is some other factor involved.

This. At one time before statehood, Eisenhower actually declared the state to be a disaster area because of the depleted salmon runs..but make no mistake, the Alaskan owned salmon canneries played a big a part in that as the out of state (and out of country) fishing boats.

With statehood, the management of the fisheries shifted from federal management to state management, and Alaska Fish and Game has done an incredible job. I wish that they had jurisdiction over halibut, because the feds have pretty much wrecked that fishery.

[ShipOfFools42]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

The problem is that you can't get away from using natural resources such as oil, gold, silver, lumber, and the rest. Right now as you read this post, look around your room as you sit in front of your computer, and you will notice that everything around you, from the roof and walls on your house to the floor below are "natural resources."

Well sure, but that's not the point of what I was saying. And also, I've noted before that I am no exception when it comes to the consumption of our resources. I don't argue that we not consume resources, because that's not feasible, but I do think that unless we do some very large-scale procrastinating until the problem is too big to handle, we're going to have to preemptively figure out a way to consume LESS resources, and to consume them more efficiently.

There are some rather extreme environmentalists who would practically have us returned to the stone age were they to have their way, but most of us are not nearly so short-sighted as to not realize that that would be the end result of their ideas. The idea isn't to rapidly change things with radical legislation, it's to find some kind of compromise (for lack of a better word) where we can use the resources without depleting them. Because none of us wants to see those resources ruined.

And the depletion wouldn't necessarily come from direct causes like overfishing, cutting too much timber, etc., it could come from things like acid rain and non-native pests, which are things that have ruined hemlock trees here in WNC. And the acid rain has been proven to be directly caused by pollution from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), an enormous regional power supplier. So I think there are things we could do that would lead to a better quality of life for everyone involved.