An ineteresting piece of literature passed my way (thanks Scaly!) today that I thought some might find interesting!

WATCHING THE COLUMBIA RIVER SALMON DWINDLE TOWARD EXTINCTION - ELEPHANTS
IN THE ROOM
>
> COLUMBIA RIVER CONFERENCE IV, March 16 & 17, 2000
>
> Dr. Jack Ward Thomas, Boone and Crockett Professor of Wildlife
Conservation,
> University of Montana
>
> Let me begin with the customary disclaimers. I am not an expert on salmon,
> nor am I as well informed on all the details surrounding the intricacies
of
> the salmon's continuing decline in the Columbia River System as I would
like.
>
> Now, I follow with my "claimers." I spent some ten years of my
professional
> career involved in high-profile roles dealing with spotted owl/old-growth
> issues in the Pacific Northwest. I was involved as a member-usually as
team
> leader-of a series of task forces that started with the consideration of
the
> welfare of a single sub-species (the Northern Spotted Owl) in a relatively
> specific habitat type (old growth forests) and ended up with a plan for
> ecosystem integrity. That plan included consideration of streams that
> harbored dwindling runs of salmon.
>
> These efforts included the Interagency Scientific Committee (ISC), the
> so-called "Gang of Four," the Scientific Team (SAT), and the Forest
> Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). I then served three years as
> Chief of the Forest Service dealing with implementation of the Northwest
> Forest Plan. In that role, along with Dr. Michael Dombeck, who was Acting
> Director of the Bureau of Land Management, I ordered the Interior Columbia
> River Assessment. I had no idea that the effort would outlive my tenure as
Chief.
>
> I now spend my time as a professor, and have made one certain discovery in
> the process. I find that pontification is much easier and more fun than
responsibility.
>
> Those are my credentials for my pontification for today.
>
> I also have some reputation as one who "tells it like it is," or, more
> likely, how I think it is at the moment. My impression is that I was
invited
> to address you for that reason.
>
> In preparing for this presentation, I made only a cursory review of the
> extant literature. But I did discuss my ideas with ten colleagues who are
or
> were intimately involved, past and present, with the issue of salmon in
the
> Columbia River System. None of them disagreed with the premise that I put
> before them, and encouraged me to "tell it like I think it is"-and added,
> "it is about time somebody did."
>
> I think that many of the shortcomings in the current situation surrounding
> the welfare of salmon in the Columbia System are related to a failure to
> recognize that there are "elephants in the room." If that analogy does not
> ring a bell, I got it from a cartoon showing a group of people at a
cocktail
> party blithely carrying on party conversation, ignoring the fact that the
> columns they were leaning against were the legs of elephants. If they
> recognized the elephants, they would have to react.
>
> Look around you. Squint your eyes just a bit. The elephants are here.
>
> I remember once being in a tour group that was on the Starkey Experimental
> Forest and Range on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in the Blue
> Mountains of northeastern Oregon. We stood on the banks of Meadow Creek, a
> tributary to the Grande Ronde River, which, in turn flowed into the Snake
> River. There were colleagues on the tour who remembered when there were
> salmon in Meadow Creek. No salmon now came back to Meadow Creek, though we
> were looking at a dramatically improved section of the stream. A short
time
> earlier our research unit had been threatened with a "jeopardy call"
because
> we were using a two-inch stubble height in the meadow to signal the time
to
> move the cows. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) had dictated a
> three-inch stubble height. Someone asked me what I thought of the
situation.
>
> My reply went something like this: "As we stand here talking, the trawlers
> are working right off the mouth of the Columbia, and the sports fishing
> boats and their occupants are catching salmon. But we would not want to
> handle the economic, social, and political consequences of addressing that
situation.
>
> "Whatever salmon escape the nets and the hooks at sea start up the
Columbia
> River and swim through the effluent from Portland and the settlements of
the
> Willamette River. From this point forward they begin to encounter nets set
> by Native Americans fishing in concurrence with their treaty rights. A
> glance to either side of the river reveals an Interstate Highway and a
> parallel set of railroad tracks on one side and a double-lane road and a
> railroad on the other bank. There are dredges opening a channel for barge
> traffic. But, understandably enough, it would be tough to handle the
> economic, social, and political consequences of dealing with those
limiting factors.
>
> "And, whatever fish are left come to the first dam. Some get over the dam,
> and some don't. Then, the survivors swim through the tens of miles of
slack
> water to the next dam, and the process is repeated. Some get over the dam,
> and some don't. This is repeated eleven times before the survivors can
turn
> up the Grande Ronde River headed for the spawning gravels from which they
> emerged. But, clearly, we are not willing to face the social, political,
and
> economic consequences of facing up to the problem associated with
> dams-particularly the dams in the lower river.
>
> "As the fish proceed upstream they encounter agricultural areas where
plowed
> fields stop only where they encounter the stream banks, and the runoff
from
> the fields is laced with herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizer. Pumps
> pull irrigation water from the river and there are diversion ditches.
Roads
> and railroads parallel the stream course for many of the miles from the
> mouth of the Grand Ronde River to Meadow Creek. Cows pound the stream
banks
> on the private lands to the boundary of the Experimental Forest. But,
> clearly, we are not willing to face the social, political, and economic
> consequences of dealing with those problems.
>
> "It is probably not necessary to go through this litany again to describe
> what the smolts will go through as they make their journey to the sea. And
> these would be the very few as might result from a chance encounter
between
> what few salmon might make it back to the spawning gravels.
>
> "So now we stand here and argue. We argue about whether the stubble height
> of three inches is so significantly different from that of two inches that
a
> grazing experiment should be shut down in a riparian zone on a stream
which
> has not had a single salmon return in 20-plus years. What is wrong this
> picture? Something had to be done somewhere to make it seem as if
meaningful
> actions were underway somewhere. And so we were chosen. Why here? Why us?
> The answer seems simple enough to me. There were no social, economic, or
> political impacts of enough consequence to attract attention. We were
relatively weak.
>
> "We are not focusing on the real problems. We are taking on targets of
> opportunity, as regulators are demanded to do something, and it is
directed
> toward those with relative lack of political clout." (small tree farmers,
> small rural landowners and non-corporate farmers, etc,?!!! note added by
Jim Malinowski)
>
> Viewing the long term and continuing gyrations with the issue of saving
> salmon in the Columbia River System is, at the very least, not encouraging
> as far as long-term success is concerned. Actions thus far are similar to
> the story described earlier, as new targets for action are chosen on the
> criteria of limited social, political, and economic impact. The rule seems
> to be: start with the weakest first, and move up the ladder as action is
required.
>
> Unfortunately, most of these efforts produce little or no result. For
there
> is an elephant standing unseen in the room. That elephant is that the big
> problems, the real problems, are ignored as a matter of political
expediency-or, perhaps, reality.
>
> Simply put, as costs skyrocket, the Columbia River salmon continue to
slide
> toward extinction. Simply put, as the struggle labors on to develop
coherent
> policy and approaches between all the players-federal, state, tribal,
> quasi-public (not counting the myriad agencies at all levels)-the salmon
> continue to slide toward extinction. Simply put, as regulatory agencies,
> feeling forced to act under limiting factors, focus on players that are
easy
> targets (and, regretfully, that are relatively insignificant to salmon
> recovery) and avoid dealing with the truly significant factors, the salmon
> continue to slide toward extinction.
>
> One run of salmon after another "winks out" as the fish returning dwindle
to
> zero in spite of the existence of spawning habitat. How, in the biological
> sense, is it possible that there can be any "take" by harvesting (i.e.,
> killing) of salmon that might be upstream migrants in the Columbia System,
> headed for stream stretches where "wink out" is increasingly likely?
>
> Clearly, managers are driven by the Endangered Species Act to carry out
> their roles in the prescribed drama, even if one failure after another is
> the consequence. I cannot think of another instance in the application of
> the Endangered Species Act where such ongoing failure would be tolerated.
> But, even that is not too hard to understand. The erstwhile
> "environmentalists" who took on the issues related to the northern spotted
> owls and other such tough fights simply do not have the heart for this
one.
> They are willing to settle for incremental changes that address
> environmental issues piece by piece, whether or not truly related to
salmon
> recovery. They cannot help but know that many of these actions are not
> likely to reverse the decline of the salmon, but will result in
improvements
> in dealing with mine wastes, abusive grazing, roading, etc.
>
> When they view the potential consequences of the suite of actions that
would
> give salmon a real chance in the Columbia River System, they too ask that
the cup be passed.
>
> Let us examine just a few of the other elephants in the room as we ponder
the fate of the salmon.
>
> Examination of the purposes of the Endangered Species Act is in order:
"The
> purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon
> which endangered and threatened species may be conserved, to provide a
> program for the conservation of such endangered and threatened species . .
> ."
>
> The Columbia River System has been so dramatically changed over the last
> century and a half-probably irreversibly-that "conservation" of the
> ecosystem in any semblance of its original state is simply not possible.
> Even draconian actions, such as removal of the lower Columbia dams, are
> almost certainly impossible due to astronomical direct costs and social,
> economic, and political consequences. Even cursory examination of dams,
> hatcheries, barging fish, dredging, roads, railroads, diversions,
effluents
> from many varied sources, agriculture with associated pesticides,
> herbicides, and fertilizers, altered water flows, influences of urban
> development, and varied other impacts, quickly erase any vision of the
> protection of a long-gone ecosystem upon which threatened and endangered
> species depend. Many of the runs of salmon that still exist can be
compared
> to a dying man essentially on full life-support-and still their numbers
and
> range of occupancy dwindle. These pitiful remnants of what once was, not
so
> long ago, but are no more except in dreams, are what Aldo Leopold called
> numena, or the spirits of a place.
>
> For these wonderful creatures were the numena of the wild Columbia. The
> Columbia River of today is a working river. The economic, social, and
> political realities, I believe, assure that it will remain as such.
Undoing
> of what has been done, except for a little cosmetic dab here and there,
does
> not seem within the realm of the possible. The only parts of the ecosystem
> that are reasonably intact are the public land areas-and, oddly enough,
(or
> perhaps understandably enough), they seem to receive most of the attention
> of regulators and planners.
>
> Clearly, chances for survival of various runs of salmon are not equal.
Many
> of the runs have winked out, and the genetic make-up of the fishes in
those
> runs is forever lost. Other runs continue in what appears to be an
> inexorable death spiral in spite of "best" (i.e., politically acceptable)
> efforts. Some runs are in reasonably good shape, and may well survive with
> appropriate management actions.
>
> The perceived inflexibility in the ESA precludes the use of techniques to
> assign limited resources to those runs that have the best chance of
> maintenance and recovery, while ignoring those that are likely doomed. It
is
> time to apply "triage" techniques, i.e., face up to what are likely
> irreversible declines in some runs in order to direct resources to those
> runs where the odds for long-term survival are better with adequate help.
>
> Such an approach would also entail identifying land whose management can
no
> longer be conceived as having an impact on salmon. Regulatory agencies
> should reduce their arena of activity to habitats that can realistically
be
> identified as important to salmon welfare-and, simply put, leave other
folks alone.
>
> Costs of actions should be reported and recognized in a more realistic and
> comprehensive fashion. Costs are not limited to payrolls and expenditures.
> Both direct and opportunity costs are imposed on others-government and
> private-by regulatory actions. Frequently such costs are not accounted for
> and weighed in the balance. They should be.
>
> The political process dealing with the salmon issue is hopelessly confused
> in spite of the best efforts of all involved parties. How could anything
> else be expected? Every entity involved has a different mandate, power
base,
> constituency, objective, personality, source of funding, capability,
vision of scale, and "boss."
>
> I have absolutely no doubt that every "boss" is a person of good will,
> impeccable honesty, and dedication to do the "right thing." I have no
doubt
> that every scientist involved from every agency and from every discipline
is
> appropriately skilled and motivated to do the best possible job.
>
> I am saying that the circumstances that exist could have been derived as a
> platform on which scripts for an old-time Keystone Cops comedy could be
> structured. In spite of all the good people involved, the circumstances do
> not bode well for either developing rational outcomes that will stand the
> test of ESA compliance, or that can be effectively executed.
>
> If past is prologue, there may be lessons that can be derived from the
> experiences of dealing with the spotted owl/old growth/salmon "situation"
> (some might say "fiasco"). First off, it should be clear that the Columbia
> River salmon issue is far more complex-ecologically, politically,
socially,
> legally, and administratively-than its predecessor crisis in the Pacific
> Northwest. Second, there are dramatic parallels in the amount of delay in
> developing a coordinated response and subsequent loss of options as
various
> runs of salmon wink out. Third, the situation was allowed to fester until
a
> series of teams were appointed that were given cover to work through
> appointment of a leader, who in turn was given the authority to work
without
> political oversight to derive and evaluate options for a decision.
>
> Experience with the Interior Columbia Basin assessment effort indicates
that
> to be the case-and reveals that more and more and more assessment does not
> produce significantly different results. In fact, more and more assessment
> and the time required produces rapid erosion of options for
decision-makers.
> Threatened or endangered species are likely to suffer from delay, and
> chances for successful management dim accordingly.
>
> However, continuing assessment and planning does make it appear that
> additional important and essential work is in progress-and, perhaps, even
> more research and assessment is essential prior to a decision. Maybe of
> greater importance for consideration is that drawn-out assessment and
> planning produce delays in making decisions that are to the detriment of
> threatened or endangered species, persons who will suffer as a result of
the
> decisions, and politicians in whose back yards the decisions will have
effect.
>
> So there may be advantages to those who will be hurt or made miserable by
> change-and that makes up a considerable array. Delays can carry one beyond
> the next election, or, simply, put off the day of reckoning.
>
> It may be time to ask: "What do we not understand about the salmon issues
in
> the Columbia System that precludes coming to a reasoned conclusion?" The
> likely answer seems to be "not much."
>
> In looking at the options that are currently under consideration, I find
> none that I believe would satisfy the intent of the ESA. Be that as it
may,
> it seems likely that declines in some runs would continue, and some would
wink out.
>
> On top of that, I believe there is yet another very large elephant in the
> room. That is the question of who, finally, is to make the momentous
> decisions as to how much protection is afforded, and who takes the
economic
> and social consequences. I do not believe that the continuing group grope
of
> regional directors of various political entities and agencies "with a dog
in
> the fight" will produce appropriate decisions. The mix of missions,
> mandates, pressure groups, constituencies, personalities, and political
> loyalties does not yield a suitable cultural medium for the growth of a
solution.
>
> Further, given the complexities surrounding the issues and the almost
> certain dramatic magnitude of the economic, social, ecological, and
> political impacts of any decision, I do not believe that this is a
decision
> that should be made by a bureaucrat or a collection of bureaucrats. Given
> that the issue has international, interstate, and nation-to-nation
> connotations, and in view of the sheer magnitude of the impacts of that
> decision, there is one obvious choice for the decision-maker: the
President of the United States.
>
> There is a precedent for the President to make such a decision in a case
of
> such dramatic import, and under strikingly similar circumstances. One of
the
> ramifications of a decision by the President is that there are no appeals
> possible internal to the administrative branch of government, and the
first
> step in opposition are the courts. Certainly, speed is of the essence in
the
> case of the Columbia River salmon given the rate at which salmon runs are
> declining and the reduction of options implied in those losses.
>
> Given the likely magnitude of economic and social consequences of any plan
> with any real chance of saving the salmon, the President would probably
cut
> the finest possible line in choosing an option that would minimize impacts
> on human welfare while affording salmon a chance for survival. If the
> precedent of the Northwest Forest Plan held, legal actions from
> environmentalists and the tribes could be expected. These challenges would
> relate to charges of inadequate attention to salmon welfare. Those
suffering
> economic damage would charge lack of adherence to process, inadequacy of
> data, inappropriate interpretation of data, or any other circumstances
that
> would preclude institution of action under the chosen alternative.
>
> A loss to the environmentalists or the tribes would require either more
> attention to salmon welfare, with associated increases in social/economic
> impacts, or an immediate appeal to the Endangered Species Committee (the
> "God Squad"). Either event would escalate the speed of resolution with
> associated savings in time, money, and options ("decision space" in the
parlance of the planner.)
>
> Congress, then, would be able to bless the decision by appropriating the
> funds necessary to execute the plan. Or, by refusing funding, veto the
plan
> and open the door for a certain legal action for failure to adhere to the
> requirements of the ESA. Such a "veto" would run the risk of a
judge-ordered
> action that could have dramatic impacts in the economy of the Northwest
United States.
>
> It seems implausible that the Congress would exercise such a "veto"
without
> instituting legislation, predicated on the phrase "all other laws
> notwithstanding," that would legislate a solution to the impasse.
>
> It does not seem possible that the Endangered Species Act was written,
> debated, and passed with any inkling that an issue of the magnitude of the
> Columbia salmon issue would arise. Magnified by the collateral issue of
> tribal fishing rights, this set of circumstances makes the spotted owl/old
> growth issue pale into relative simplicity and insignificance.
>
> So I doubt that there will be any immediate overt recognition of the
> elephants in the room. But, if the elephants are not recognized and dealt
> with, there seems no room for bold strokes to come to grips with the issue
> to even be suggested. For, after all, it is said "the devil you know is
> better than the devil you don't know." And, what official in his or her
> right mind, agency or political, would take a "lose-lose" situation of
this magnitude?
>
> The likely alternative of plodding on down the path that is being followed
> will likely produce continued diminution and wink outs of the salmon runs,
a
> continued buildup in expenditures, accumulating restrictions on landowners
> (whether effective or not), and drawn-out assessments and evaluations.
> Declines in the fish runs may well continue as the inverse of
expenditures,
> with no indication of cause-and-effect relationship.
>
> Maybe it is time for someone to stand up and say loudly "Hold! Enough!"
>
> This ongoing set of circumstances has taken on a life of its own, with its
> own cast of characters-and that cast routinely increases in size and
costs.
> How many people's professional lives, how much occupational energy, how
much
> political and social capital, and how much treasure (direct and
opportunity
> costs) is it rational to spend in a losing game? The salmon continue their
> slide toward extinction, and options disappear as the runs wink out one by
> one-but the debate and disconnects with realities and costs continue to
mount.
>
> We have become too complacent, too accustomed to extant processes, too
mired
> in those rituals, and too addicted to piecemeal "show piece" actions as
the
> Columbia River salmon runs drift, seemingly inexorably, into the shadows
> known as history. There to become, for future generations, one of the
myths
> of what once was in this land near the sea.
>
> One of the first orders I gave when I became Chief of the Forest Service
was
> to "tell the truth" and "obey the law." That made a lot of my fellows
angry.
> I do not think, as a result, many paid much attention, and nothing changed
> much. But there is always hope. I thought it was good advice then and good
> advice now. So I repeat what I said then to you: tell the truth and obey
the law.
>
> The truth is that the situation for salmon is getting worse. The truth is
> that the situation is not likely to improve much unless we start breaching
> dams-and not just the four in the lower Snake River. The truth is that
will
> occur when there is a really cold day in hell. The truth is that there is
no
> acceptable way that we can come into compliance with the Endangered
Species
> Act as it relates to salmon in the entire Columbia River System. The truth
> is that we are simply unwilling to come to grips with the issue that we
> have, probably irrevocably, decided that the Columbia River is a working
> river harnessed to provide the cheapest electrical energy in the
world-and,
> simply, we ain't about to give that up. The truth is that playing games
with
> various combinations of attempts to assuage limiting factors for the
salmon
> will not do the job-and we know it.
>
> If we frankly admit that we cannot obey the law, we are free to do the
best
> we can to save the remnant populations. That can be done through a
> combination of directing money and resources to the places they will do
the
> most good, and letting people off the hook who have nothing to do with
those
> efforts. There should be no shame and much honor in facing the facts and
telling it like it is.
>
> We should do better. The law says so. Our professional ethics say so. Our
> consciences say so as we ponder what the Columbia River would be like
> without its numen. But in my opinion, we will do better only if we, very
> soon, recognize and deal with the elephants in the room.

The information is well said and of course correct. As a person that makes his living as a fisheries scientist, however, I find the information just another day in the office, sigh. Any "honest" (not working for private gain) biologist can tell you exactly what needs to be done for salmon in our region. In fact most non-professionals can also tell you, everyone is a biologist you know, just ask any farmer. That's the easy part, the trick as a scientist is finding things that are good for fish AND financially and socially acceptable.

Consider this: Suppose your car wasn't running well and you take it to the mechanic for repair. You told the mechanic he could do whatever he wanted so long as he didn't touch the engine...wash it, wax it, new tires, wheels, stereo, etc. Well, you get the picture, lots of expense and little result. This is exactly what we have done in the past and continue to do today. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on lots of look good, feel good projects without ever doing anything to the things that will really make a difference for salmon. The needs of salmon are clear, but as a society it's also clear that we are unwilling to embrace them.

jed ><>

When I read the essay all I could say was WOW!!

It summed up, much better than I could ever explain, how I have felt over the past few years...plus some!!

------------------
Ryan S. Petzold
aka
Sparkey and/or Special

Holly molly! This article makes a person stop and think about the endangered salmon on the Columbia River system.
I realize that in my stopping of sport fishing for salmon/steelhead would be a miniscule way of abiding by this effort to save the salmon. I could easily be pursuaded to do a catch and release (which I do most of the time anyway). My main gripe is that I do not support the fishing nets by the Native Americans and the comercial fishing that have little interest in the fish besides a way to make a dime. If the Native Americans want their treaty rights than by all means keep what you catch by the way your ancestors did it. Spears and or fishing poles like the sportsman are required to do.
Get rid of the nets and get rid of the trollers and impose a catch and release program than we just might see a turn around of the salmon/steelhead into the Columbia River system.

....What he said......
Mac- I think the point is that this issue is a lot bigger than indians netting the hell out of runs, and continued commercial fishing that makes little economic sense. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But, removing the lower four dams on the Columbia would;
Turn most of Portland into a swamp EVERY year for a couple of months during spring runoff(kinda cool to drive down and look at, but probably not appreciated by those who live and work there)
Rid BPA of the four workhorses that provide most of the cheap electricity we all use every second of our lives(maybe those of us that love anadromous fish could live with, but most people find this unacceptable)
Destroy the two highways and two rail lines that follow the banks of the river because they would collapse into the new canyon created by the significant lowering of the water level(again, cool to look at, but in reality businesses and people across this country count on goods that are transported on these highways and rail lines..PLUS: It would be a lot longer drive to see downtown Portland flooded )
End shipping traffic into the Portland area, again a huge economic loss

Sooooooo many things are entangled in the salmon mess that is the Columbia-Snake watershed, many people would rather sacrifice the fish than the rest of it. I for one, will continue to enjoy it while it lasts, but I do believe the days are limited. And when they close it all down to fishing, forever, I will travel to Forks every weekend until our politicians and big business(and indians) can destroy those runs as well, in the name of the 'good' of the people. When that happens, I will follow Bob to the great north(nets in the Kenai???) until those fisheries expire. And then, onto Russia, until myself and several other thousand smucks who live in cardboard boxes and eat cup o' noodle three times a day, everyday so we can afford the trip, overfish their streams into extinction because they let us. THEN, I will join BASSMASTERS, because the Columbia will be bubbling with smallmouth by then.......

Here is my $0.02 worth (which I also posted on ifish BB).

Dr. Thomas as well as other conservation biologists, eg. Peter B. Moyle UCD, have been proponents for managing landscapes for ecosystem health for quite a while. Endangered species are typically a result of habitat modifications, fragmentation, or outright destruction. Fixing these problems involve landscape magnitude changes within the ecosystem in question. These are indeed formidable tasks requiring tough decisions. I totally agree that a "triage" system needs to be implemented. Many ecosystems and watersheds have no hope of being restored sufficiently to restore historic fisheries and available monies and effort should indeed focus on those ecosystems which do have a chance for succesful restoration. Fish species are very good indicators of what is or has been going on within a defined watershed and how ecosystem modifications have affected the fisheries populations, i.e. shifts in types of fish species persisting within a given reach, over time. The prospect for the successful outcome of correcting decades of insult to our watersheds throughout the Pacific NW as well as everywhere else in the world has very depressing prospects. However, there are success stories out there and by becoming proponenets for fixing the things which can be fixed we will take great steps towards the goal of salmon and steelhead restoration. WE must become very outspoken advocates of reasonable fisheries management. As the Dr. stated there are very few mysteries out there about what is wrong with our fisheries and what must be done to correct the situation. Sorry to say but we need to give up on the lost causes and focus on achievable goals.....it is depressing but major improvements can be accomplished. To implement the policies needed to effect change we also must give up on trying to keep every user group happy...everyone will have to take their lumps and in nearly every case forced to do so. Yes, this will mean livlyhoods will be impacted across many user groups in extraction industries but there is no other way to accomplish the substantial improvements in ecosystem health which are needed for fisheries restoration. WE certainly must acknowledge the existence of the "Elephant" and come to grips with the sacrifices which must be made to get him out of the room....it will not be easy and we must not be dis-heartened by the maginitude of the problems facing us.

enough of my ramblings. Think locally act globally!!

HB