Interesting read.

Bush Plan

" By ignoring science, this administration will waste more taxpayer money on ineffective measures and chart a course toward another severe decline in salmon populations once the ocean cycles out of its current highly productive state."

No big surprise here. What is especially irksome, is that this environmentally unfriendly admin. will proceed with a token plan, that is almost certainly illegal, then when environmental groups are forced to sue to get them to enforce the law they will howl about all the unnecessary litigation.

Surecatch.. I think if Bush gets elected again ( God Forebid) I think he will push hard for legislation making it impossible for enviromental groups to sue.. He made it clear in his speach up in eastern WA that he believes hatcheries are the answers and thinks that groups that sue are bad. In other words if he gets re elected you can kiss salmon and steelhead goodbye..

Doesn't matter if all the salmon are gone. We will all be so sick from the air pollution that we won't be able to go outside anyway. And to think George Bush can accomplish this all in under four years. With that much power, we have to elect him to another term. In his second term maybe he will level the mountains and melt the polar ice cap.

No kidding!!! The three Amigos chime in with all the ills of the world being created by GW Bush....WOW!!! what a powerful guy! I'm with you ET let's elect him again and he may just kill all of us including all the world's plants and animals too.

Actually it must be the four amigos, as Goharley was simply showing us a link to a very well written article in the TNT. So I guess they are part of the team as well. And please note I don’t blame little Bush for everything. I think a lot of the problems were caused by his dad. Remember, vote for Sharpton.

Pacific Salmon obviously experienced their maximum ebb during the Clinton years and have also obviously been experiencing a great rebound during the Bush years.

Draw your own conclusions amigo's.

Right ON Plunker!!!

was bush in office in '99 and before? that's when these fish were released that everyone's catching now ...how can he claim any credit for that?

OH PLEEEEEZE

I don't really think Clinton or Bush have anything to do with the great runs we've had the last few years. It's positive ocean conditions which are cyclic in nature.

However, the breaching of the Snake River dams have been an issue for quite some time. Mostly it's been the sportsmen and environmentalists that are supporting the removal of those fish blocking dams.

A major point in the article that I caught is that with the positive cyclic ocean conditions we are currently experiencing, now is the time to remove the dams. I'm just disappointed that the current administration is opposed to opening the water ways and helping revive threatened runs.

Grandpa, Plunker,

You're cracking me up! I've read enough of your posts over a long enough period to know you both have cognitive capability. And you both know GWB had less than nothing to do with any recent good salmon returns (nor any bad ones for that matter, either).

Allow me to share my confusion. I'm passionate about fish and fishing. You appear to share that passion. I've never seen you argue that high quality habitat isn't essential for good salmon production. Quality fish habitat is fundamentally dependent on enviromental protection. Yet, the Republicans and conservative philosophy you identify with appears hell bent on severely degrading, if not outright destruction of, that environment that produces the fish and fishing we seem so mutually passionate about. Consequently, I've been driven away from conservatism in my interest to protect what I regard as the wellspring of life: air, water, and of course, fish habitat. (insert smiley face here.)

I wasn't born liberal. I regard a liveable planet as my birthright, altho that's probably naive. And I think clean air and water are policy imperatives. I just don't understand the conservative -apparent- obsession with degrading air and water, the elements that sustain us, just to make a short-term dollar. It feels like Republicans must all be rich enough to drink bottled water, so that their children don't have to use public water supplies that their business practices will poison. But what about the air? We all have to breath it, polluted or not.

Supporting conservative philosophy appears to require denying any relationship between human action and environmental outcome. How do you do it? Or do you really not care?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo,

I have to give you credit. You're question and statement sounds generally sincere whereas most of the posts on this board are dripping with sarcasm.

As far as answering your question I think you can't overgeneralize. There are certainly Rep sponsored bills that rape the land, and demo sponsored bills over-loaded up with pork and beauracracy that dilutes down what the real purpose of the bills are...

ok, heres my opionin on this matter, when were the dams built 50' 60's or earlier?
well, with todays technology, we could breach four dams and still have the same amount of elecricity that we have now, jus upgrade the current dams, ensure better fish passage, put up thousand- tens of thousands of them windmills, eastern wa, with all its level, unused land would be perfect for them windmills, plus its windy there too, like down by the columbia gorge..i have been in a powerhouse before, as my dad worked at the dworshak dam, and they have i believe 4 generators, and only like 2 run at any given time, im wondering how many generators are running at these dams on the columbia..anyone here from the corps of engineers here that can answer that.. im sure they could be getting more than enough electricity if 4 of them dams generators are all running.. **berkley boy**

Salmo

I agree with Jeff that you are over generalizing. I am very environmentally conscious and active and do not agree with any policy that degrades the environment. I am not however for extreme policies in the name of environmentalism. I can be for sustaining wild fish and against Washington Trout's extreme positions. I can also be for some of Washington Trout's positions. No absolutes here. I can be a Republican and not be for clear cut logging. I can be for the environment and against the restrictive forestry practices driven by extreme environmentalists and liberal Democrats that may have resulted in part in the disasterous fires in California in recent days. I can be for roads in the National Forests and still be against clear cutting and harvesting old growth. Basically it is an argument of over regulation using "the environment" as the weapon to over step reasonable bounds. To say that Republicans are all for raping the environment is like saying all black men are pimps. Not so.

With that said I think my point on the Bush bashing is that Bush is not responsible for the excellent return of salmon this year and in the same vein is certainly not repsonsible for the demise of salmon. Anyone who really believes that is not a reasonable person.

When you spell Grandpa upside down and Then spell Plunker sideways it = RUSH LIMBAUGH ... The smartest man on earth perhaps ???

Salmo, great post.

In terms of credit for recent salmon recovery it is mostly the short term environmental conditions particularly in the ocean.

It is also in small part the environmental policy during the eight years of Clinton. Things such as a near shutdown of logging on National Forests and a strong EPA.

It is entirely not a result of action by Bush during the last 3 years. The danger, which is the point of the article, is that Bush will undermine the salmon recovery we now have.

Granda2 and Plunker, do you really give credit to Bush for salmon recovery and if so why? Also, can you say that rollbacks in habitat protection by Bush won't hurt fish in the long run.

Fair hooker - As I said earlier...
"Draw your own conclusions."
But please don't blame them on me.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Salmo g.,

Of course high quality habitat is important to salmon production. Would anyone deny that? If not, then with who would one argue for the necessity of that environment?

You assert that, "the Republicans and conservative philosophy you identify with appears hell bent on severely degrading, if not outright destruction of, that environment that produces the fish and fishing we seem so mutually passionate about."

That Salmo is where we disagree. It's not that I identify with the Republicans and conservative philosophy but that I must defend them from such patently false and biased allegations. It seems that the environmentalist lolo's from the 60's continue to blame the so-called 'military-industrial complex' for the woes of the world but have graduated from sitting in spiked trees loaded on acid to organizing a network of radical activists. They seem compelled to repetitively point fingers in an attempt to discredit any rational approach to management of our resources.

Speaking specifically about the referenced article by Alex Uber demonizing President Bush requires mention that Mr. Uber, whether right or wrong, is fanatically committed to the removal of the lower Snake River dams. Many agree with Mr. Uber and many believe that the benefits of the dams outweigh the deficits and the costs associated with their removal.

I don't know where you personally stand on this issue Salmo and I really don't lean strongly either way myself. I do know that President Bush by publicly advocating that the dams be left standing is not proposing severe degradation nor the outright destruction of the environment that produces the Snake River fish.

Salmo, the environmental sky is not falling and the Europeans are not a cancer in an otherwise balanced world held together by the totems of the Indian keepers of the earth. Global Warming may be a myth, Corporate America does not have unlimited funds to be spent on the whims of the idealists and the tooth fairy was your mom and dad.

Most of the environmental damage from logging is done and we now have a long-term agreement with the industry so not too much more can be done to impose further restrictions. I don't think anyone will be building many major new dams soon and as you know many will be removed during this century. Our largest and most difficult environmental problem today might perhaps be accommodating more and more people. Development is spilling into farmland and forested areas at near lightspeed and zoning laws just can't keep pace or in many instances are flat out inadequate. I would suggest that anyone committed to environmental protection spend some time participating in the development of their local zoning ordinances.

Plunker..I think you hit the nail on the head with the population explosion. I have said it here many times. The increasing population is more responsible for degradation of everything in our environment than any other cause, in my opinion. So many people from countries where the environment is being destroyed through abuse are coming here and so many of them have no respect for natural resources. Travel like I have and see how horrible the environment is around the world compared to the United States and maybe you could see that what we are doing here in our country is a far cry from everywhere else. President Bush came here to show support for the dams that so many want removed. He showed support for the commerce that depends on the benefits of the dams. We complain about the damage done to fish by dams but there are many folks out there who take the opposite position. I would like to see free flowing rivers but don't expect WPPS to fire up any of those mothballed nuclear plants anytime soon. So many restrictions exist today that energy cannot be generated at any new plant...Just look to California for examples. So we are talkling about balance. Not extremes. Environmentalists sometimes are extreme and sometimes feel that closing down all the forests is the answer. I think population is the problem. I don't think you can open our doors to all comers and then demand no growth options for the environment.

Unfortunately,sometimes it is hard to see the whole picture.It is often too complicated or our emotions get in the way.

That article is definately not the whole picture.