...on the hatchery v. wild debate, perhaps.

From a personal ethics standpoint I usually fall on the 'protect the fish, especially the wild fish' side of the conversation, as most of you know.

Pretty sick of people who disagree with that stance characterizing that view as equivalent to the views of PETA... that's ok though, the same people say I wear Birkenstocks because I was against the war. Just have to keep repeating the mantra...consider the source, consider the source, consider the source....

So how about a completely different take on the whole issue, framed in terms of geologic time....?

Say us humans, despite our best and most well reasoned efforts fail to save most wild steelhead from extinction.
Who cares?

Say we fail to prevent the complete destruction of old growth forests in North America?
Who cares?

Say we fail to curtail the effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the mean temperature of the Earth rises to the point that the Gulf Stream switches directions....
Who cares?

Certainly not me. I'll be dead by then...as will most of us. In fact I'm pretty comfortable in the knowledge that history proves mankind is in for massive global population correction of one kind or another, almost certainly from natural causes (asteroid, volcanic eruption (super volcano), tsunami (look out east coast, there's a bigun brewing in the Canaries....), Ice Age, mini-Ice Age...whatever)...doesn't matter how or even why. If you think I'm a whacko...so be it. Geologic history proves this idea out.

Only 14, 000 years ago North America was nearly covered by a sheet of ice two miles thick. Since their retreat, I think that mother nature has done quite nicely rebuilding herself. Too bad they couldn't cover the onset of an ice age on TV, millions of dead people would certainly be a Neilsen success. I can hear that conversation now...

Since we are all dead anyway, maybe these resources are here for us to exploit until they are gone? They'll just come back as the ice retreats or the atmosphere clears anyway so why not??

Pass me the bonking stick...screw that, pass me some dynamite, I'm goin' fishin'.

Along the same lines...

"No remorse, no repent
We don't care
What it meant
Another day, another Death
Another sorrow...another breath.

No re -morse......."

I'll end this ramble with a few line from my favorite comedian, that godless heathen Bill Hicks (RIP)...

Are there any non-smokers in the house tonight? (big uproarious cheer)
Good, because I've got a little tidbit of news for you.
Non-smokers die every day.

stlhdh2o
This war thing has not been very good for you!

Seriously, you need to take a vacation or some time off!

Cowlitzfisherman

Aunty -

The one time I leave an error up there you give me heck for it?

Give me heck when I do edit...give me heck when I don't edit. Sup with that??

The only time I point out someones errors are when they funny, like shthlh2o...or shthdh2o...or CF's 'dull'...which by the way, was one of the most tantalizing pieces of comedy bait that's ever floated through my holding spot. Remember...all I did was titter at it, I mean c'mon...that's the kind of easy, home run line that even Chappy or Steelnerves could write funny....

CF-

You of all people should know that there is the thread of a pretty damn good question running all the way through my post....right?

News Flash!

God cares.

If we repent (don't you hate that word?), we can begin to care about more than just ourselves. There is no remorse or death in love.

Who do you thank for the first fish you caught or the last one you or anyone else is going to catch? I thank the one who lives beyond "geologic" time.

Mooch -

Lets not debate the merits of God as they relate to my post, k?

How would you like it if I answered one of your (mostly excellent)posts:

Newsflash!

Jesus is dead!

See, you don't like my views on religion either.

Can we move on?

Luving this! We have a bit O religion, a bit O fish politics maybe even a hint of existentialism. Let's add in some discussion on abortion, affirmative action and gun control and we can a real fun fest. Or I guess we could just go fishing. I?m thinking we ALL need to go fishing!

TIMOTHY LEARY'S DEAD
BUT THE CAMPAIGN TO DESTROY HIM IS ALIVE AND WELL FUNDED

Ok...

Does anyone dispute the fact that ice sheets covered the Olympic Peninsula 14, 000+ years ago?

If not...then my question is valid and worthy of consideration.

I ya carumba


stlhdh2o
stlhdh2o
stlhdh2o


Its not that were against protecting wild fish, or for that matter any fish. We just dissagree on how it should be done. Its definetly not because we all have an ah whos cares the fish wont be gone till were dead anyways atitude chances are we will all be alive and well to see the fish die out! actually most native runs have already went extinct and alot of those runs have been re-seeded with green river fish which are now so called native fish in those systems! more regulation on sportsfishermen is not going to bring our fish back! It hasnt since 1968! why keep riding a dead horse! Its time to concentrate on a new approach and consolidate are resources until we achieve victory.

Just because some people disagree with you doesnt mean there for :

Pasing the bonging stick...skrew that, pas mee sume dynamight, I'm goin' fishin'

wel sume peepole mite bee foor pasing the bonging stik.

Jesus Loves you too stlhdh2o, but you have to lose the birkenstocks!

NEWS FLASH JESUS MAY BE DEAD BUT HE"S A COMING BACK!!!!!!
Where will you be when he does?????

Rudeness is the Weak Man's Imitation of Strength

stlhd: It must be 4:20 somewhere in the world

grandpa -

Did you not see my question? Or are you choosing not to answer?

Twice now you've posted on this thread, both times making drug references. My question is not about drugs. Its only even about God if you are a creationist...

Its about steelhead and their ability to recover from total devastation. Can't you see that the answer to that question has equal ramifications for both sides of the hatchery v. wild conversation and both sides of the 'environmentalist' conversation?

stlhd: Your contention that there is a "hatchery vs wild" debate going on is short sighted. It isn't about one or the other. It is about sensible positive approaches to move forward. Saving wild fish is a complex and huge undertaking which will not be solved by a small minority's thirst for lawsuits.

the rest of this is just babble back and forth with a few jokes thrown in

I disagree.

If you want to banter back and forth I can do that....but the nature of my question is serious and I would prefer to discuss its ramifications

You still chose not to answer my question.

Was the OP covered in ice 14, 000 years ago?

(edit: 500 hatchery v. wild threads and there's no conversation taking place??)

yes 14000 years ago the op was covered in ice and there was probably no such thing as a steelhead. If there were steelhead back then they were running up some river in mexico.

and if the asteroid hits tomorrow in 1400 years all steelhead that survive will agian be wild no matter where their ancestors were raised.

I'll play H2o
First yes..... the olympic penninsula wass at one time covered by ice,in fact our little planet has been thru almost 30 of those so called ice ages.

2) Jesus did die, but he came back,and he probably missed the last ice age as well.

3) Some where down the time line Hatchery steelhead ......had wild Parents ( I don't understand brat bashing)

4) That narrow mind set (who cares) ,is the reason we are in were in.....I plan on leaving something to my children and their children............Os

I am asking everyone to think for a moment in terms of geologic time.

An eye blink ago in geologic history there were no old growth forests on the OP, no steelhead on the OP etc. etc.

Os -

Since you seem familiar with history of ice ages, you know that we are overdue for another one. The preponderent theory right now is that the trigger for ice ages is global warming, naturally caused in the past. Large chunks of the greenland ice cap fall into the North Atlantic and act like ice cubes, cooling the warm surface water that drives the convection engine of the oceans.

You might also know that these changes have occurred in LESS THAN 100 YEARS. So the fishing 'resource' might be here for the next generation or the next ten....massive cyclical climate change is not theoretical, its certain.

Aunty-

Your beautiful grandkids may have an opportunity to enjoy fishing as much as you or I, in fact I would say that it is likely. Somewhere down the line however our environment is in for drastic changes. Do you disagree?

yes 14000 years ago the op was covered in ice and there was probably no such thing as a steelhead. If there were steelhead back then they were running up some river in mexico.

and if the asteroid hits tomorrow in 1400 years all steelhead that survive will agian be wild no matter where their ancestors were raised.

14000 years ago, me very cold. Hole rivr covered n ice. Cave covered in ice, hole damn place cover in ice. Fishing no good. Good thing no bait restrictions, so me kill not many fish with club. Not many fish in river covered with ice. The ones me see, very big. Me and caveman friend Ug kill one stealhed fish two moons ago. It weigh 600 pounds, me eat long time.

Me going to move to Baja. At least them have 3 months summer there.

Long live the Mastadon, Dodo Bird, Passenger Pigeon, and Snake River Sockeyes.

Proise the Lord and pass the bait.

Of course it depends on your definition of catastrophic. I think its not a very far stretch to imagine that, if the OP were to be covered with ice, it would be catastrophic to the flora and fauna of the region. No?

Remember, as Os said there have been many ice ages. Steelhead as a species have outlived at least the last of them. I'm far less concerned about the ability of the steelhead to survive such an occurrence than I am that of modern humans. Forensic anthropologists for the most part think our species of hominid barely survived the last one.

"That doesn't mean I should sacrifice the needs and desires of those that follow me to satisfy my own greed and selfishness."

Recreational anglers would do well to consider this statement in the context of declining native runs.