Chinook Prognosis by NYT - Spey Pages
 7Likes
  • 1 Post By rakuz66
  • 1 Post By ENSO
  • 1 Post By rakuz66
  • 2 Post By Jason
  • 1 Post By SSPey
  • 1 Post By Yooper-Fly
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
post #1 of 10 (permalink) Old 09-17-2019, 10:19 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Yellowstone406's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 65
Yellowstone406 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 10 (permalink) Old 09-18-2019, 07:16 AM
Registered User
 
rakuz66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SE Pennsylvania waters
Posts: 56
Thanks for posting. I always hesitate to read stuff like this mainly because I don't want to hear any more bad news. But, I force myself to read it. And after I read it, I get even more pissed off and in despair for the environment from what I've just read. It pains me to read about Don Chapman who fought on behalf of the dams and now has reversed course citing they need to be removed for the salmons survival. I believe he knew unequivocally that building these dams would decimate the salmon, and it has. Now, he thinks differently? I call Bulls***. Hey Don, who lined your pockets back then?
And then to read on to such insanity as to start killing off sea lions as a way to improve the salmons survival? These are the ideas of the people making such important decisions?
kenobione likes this.

Last edited by rakuz66; 09-18-2019 at 09:30 AM.
rakuz66 is offline  
post #3 of 10 (permalink) Old 09-18-2019, 10:10 AM
Registered User
 
ENSO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 390
i would like to see sockeye salmon return to Dutch Creek which flows into the north end of Columbia Lake. When that happens Chinook will have access to most of the Columbia River watershed. This will not happen in my lifetime but should happen before the end of the 21st century.

As for the title of the NYT article: How Long Before These Salmon Are Gone? ‘Maybe 20 Years’

Chinook are well established in many places on the Pacific coast. These salmon are extremely aggressive colonizers and have established populations in the Great Lakes, Chile and New Zealand.

The risk of extinction or even mass scale extirpation converges on zero (ignoring the possibility of nuclear war).

I find the misleading rhetoric of the article title most disappointing and frustrating. On principle, it is anti-democratic. I view using false information to promote policy as anti-democratic.

In practical terms, the larger population of voters gets weary of special interests always crying wolf and making up stuff. Then it gets a lot harder to get the message out and to get policies to change.
Sardina likes this.

°

Science is not common sense. Much of it is devoted to a systematic documentation of what we do not know and understand.
ENSO is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 10 (permalink) Old 09-18-2019, 11:56 AM
Registered User
 
rakuz66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SE Pennsylvania waters
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENSO View Post
i would like to see sockeye salmon return to Dutch Creek which flows into the north end of Columbia Lake. When that happens Chinook will have access to most of the Columbia River watershed. This will not happen in my lifetime but should happen before the end of the 21st century.

As for the title of the NYT article: How Long Before These Salmon Are Gone? ‘Maybe 20 Years’

Chinook are well established in many places on the Pacific coast. These salmon are extremely aggressive colonizers and have established populations in the Great Lakes, Chile and New Zealand.

The risk of extinction or even mass scale extirpation converges on zero (ignoring the possibility of nuclear war).

I find the misleading rhetoric of the article title most disappointing and frustrating. On principle, it is anti-democratic. I view using false information to promote policy as anti-democratic.

In practical terms, the larger population of voters gets weary of special interests always crying wolf and making up stuff. Then it gets a lot harder to get the message out and to get policies to change.
I think you are misreading the article. The article is speaking specifically about this river and this rivers salmon returns and the prohibiting dams and nowhere else. Hence the title "These salmon". And where is there any false information in this article regarding that? Never does it mention the possible extinction of every viable Chinook salmon. Then you go on and attempt to make it political,,,,,,,,,,,,
JoshL likes this.
rakuz66 is offline  
post #5 of 10 (permalink) Old 09-18-2019, 01:52 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: N.Cal
Posts: 868
Agreed about the title being a bit overly sensational, though if you read the article they do specifically talk about the urgency of Chinook survival in the middle fork of the salmon river in Idaho. In that regard, I suppose it is entirely plausible extinction could come in just a few decades? There’s certainly plenty of cause for alarm here, and the article does address some specific threats that are very real and substantial.

As for making meaningful policy changes, it’s pretty crucial to raise the issue to a higher priority issue for the general public. In this day and age it seems like we are being constantly bombarded with information of all sorts; from truly urgent to meaningless fluff (I could personally care less about what attire some celebrity was spotted wearing in some Walmart). Our collective attention span seems to shrink by the year, to the point where more and more things fade from our attention that would have been cause for alarm not so long ago. Perhaps the author felt that without such a sensational title the article would be another glanced over casualty of the 24hour news cycle? I don’t know, but I do hope it gets noticed, and I hope a lot more people may take the time to learn a little more about a very special river before it looses what remains of its Chinook salmon run.
JB
Aldo and Sardina like this.
Jason is offline  
post #6 of 10 (permalink) Old 09-18-2019, 02:16 PM
loco alto!
 
SSPey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,928
Salmon are resilient if we give them half a chance. Sadly, we don't.

check out these Maps of the Six Species of Salmon
steelguy likes this.

CF Burkheimer fly rods advisory staff
Nextcast lines pro staff
SSPey is offline  
post #7 of 10 (permalink) Old 09-18-2019, 02:49 PM
Registered User
 
ENSO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakuz66 View Post
I think you are misreading the article. The article is speaking specifically about this river and this rivers salmon returns and the prohibiting dams and nowhere else. Hence the title "These salmon". And where is there any false information in this article regarding that? Never does it mention the possible extinction of every viable Chinook salmon. Then you go on and attempt to make it political,,,,,,,,,,,,
This and that, eh? I guess I should hire an interpreter for American media articles. Except many Canadian articles on these kinds of subjects are just as bad. According to high-profile ecologist David Suzuki, we are already dead.

Did you read the sub-title rakuz66? Here it is:

Warming waters and a series of dams are making the grueling migration of the Chinook salmon even more deadly — and threatening dozens of other species.

There is no mention of the Columbia watershed.

The editor could have chosen a different title, example: How long for Columbia River chinook?

Besides, chinook will not be extirpated from the Columbia system in the next 20 years. That is nonsense. There is no science to back that claim.

°

Science is not common sense. Much of it is devoted to a systematic documentation of what we do not know and understand.
ENSO is offline  
post #8 of 10 (permalink) Old 09-18-2019, 03:40 PM
surfing sucks dont try it
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: STEAMER LANE
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENSO View Post

I find the misleading rhetoric of the article title most disappointing and frustrating. On principle, it is anti-democratic. I view using false information to promote policy as anti-democratic.
I just reread that article and I couldn't find any patently false information. There may be opinions that one could dispute, but that's not the same. Just wondering, what was false?

Surfing sucks. Don't try it.
surfdog is offline  
post #9 of 10 (permalink) Old 09-29-2019, 08:01 PM
Registered User
 
Yooper-Fly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Upper Peninsula Michigan
Posts: 1,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakuz66 View Post
Thanks for posting. I always hesitate to read stuff like this mainly because I don't want to hear any more bad news. But, I force myself to read it. And after I read it, I get even more pissed off and in despair for the environment from what I've just read. It pains me to read about Don Chapman who fought on behalf of the dams and now has reversed course citing they need to be removed for the salmons survival. I believe he knew unequivocally that building these dams would decimate the salmon, and it has. Now, he thinks differently? I call Bulls***. Hey Don, who lined your pockets back then?
And then to read on to such insanity as to start killing off sea lions as a way to improve the salmons survival? These are the ideas of the people making such important decisions?
Manage,ent of sea lions would help. You have to have some sort of management of them. If humans weren’t here on earth at all, then it would balance. But since we commercially harvest fish, baitfish, etc., if you then don’t manage a predator of those you will have a misbalance. I understamd your point though, and it sucks you have to manage wildlife, but when you have good management of wildlife like that, it generally works

You make known to me the path of life;
in your presence there is fullness of joy;
at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

PSALM 16:11
Yooper-Fly is offline  
post #10 of 10 (permalink) Old 09-29-2019, 08:06 PM
Registered User
 
Yooper-Fly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Upper Peninsula Michigan
Posts: 1,015
I’ll tell you the best answer though that would have an immediate impact and is totally in our control......commercial fishing. If you were to ban commercial fishing of salmon and steelhead along with pacific herring for about 3-5 years, I bet you would see a comeback that would rival anything we’ve ever witnessed. We all have opinions with climate change, and to be honest, if you eliminated all fossil fuels right now....100%, but kept going on with commercial fishing, I doubt it would affect anything 1 iota. But, commercial fishing is something we could control right here, right now.
DarthWader likes this.

You make known to me the path of life;
in your presence there is fullness of joy;
at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

PSALM 16:11
Yooper-Fly is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Spey Pages forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Rate This Thread:



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome