![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
So the Chinook salmon population is way down and there's whispers that the whole season could be cancelled, which has a lot of people nervous as wild salmon is a big deal (though a small piece of the total coastal economy). The local paper has quotes from fishermen and party boat operators saying it'll be pretty devastating if they can't fish this year. Fishermen in general are all over the map about conservation, catch limits, sanctuaries, and the lot -- some don't get it at all, but mostly there's a very broad range of accepting that the resource must be managed, within which there are many different opinions as to what that should look like.
For some reason the online version of the article has fewer statistics and more complaints. Yesterday I read that they expect, if they cancel the season, about 29 thousand fish to return to the Klamath River for spawning next fall: if they don't cancel the season, they expect about 18 thousand fish to return to the Klamath next fall. To maintain the population, they estimate they need about 35 thousand. Today, the first two numbers are missing from the article and there are three or so paragraphs added featuring complaining local fishermen. These guys think it's unfair to cancel or even restrict the season in the Monterey Bay because about one in a thousand Monterey Bay fish spawn in the Klamath (the rest spawn in the Sacramento River). But it seems to me that that is the wrong statistic. Salmon only spawn when they've lived for several years, and there's a lot of attrition between heading out to sea for the first time and coming back to spawn. So only a rather small fraction of the fish in the Bay are going to spawn anywhere. Some of them spawn in our own little rivers, for that matter, contributing to the long list of reasons the Bay is a wildlife sanctuary. Anyway, the right question is not "what proportion of Monterey Bay fish spawn in the Klamath?" but, if anything, "what proportion of Klamath spawning fish spend some time of their lives in the Monterey Bay?
But even that misses the point. If the Klamath population is declining -- and it is, then restricting the catch in the Monterey Bay Sanctuary seems like an efficient way to build up a robust population. As usual, the small businessman -- the fisherman or party boat operators -- are reacting like peasants, blinded to the long run, desperately reflexive in dealing with the crisis.
On another front -- a cold front, I believe -- we're having snow as far sown as 2K feet. You can imagine what that does for the area, which sees maybe two snww storms a year. The snow, apparently, stuck.
On another front, our local boy -- Bruce McPherson, who used to own the Santa Cruz County Sentinel, has, in his capacity as secretary of state, authorized the use of the Diebold voting machines. Yes, those voting machines.
And finally -- Frank (the orange guy) has shaved his face, cut his hair like an army recruit, and gone off to get recertified as an EMT.
For some reason the online version of the article has fewer statistics and more complaints. Yesterday I read that they expect, if they cancel the season, about 29 thousand fish to return to the Klamath River for spawning next fall: if they don't cancel the season, they expect about 18 thousand fish to return to the Klamath next fall. To maintain the population, they estimate they need about 35 thousand. Today, the first two numbers are missing from the article and there are three or so paragraphs added featuring complaining local fishermen. These guys think it's unfair to cancel or even restrict the season in the Monterey Bay because about one in a thousand Monterey Bay fish spawn in the Klamath (the rest spawn in the Sacramento River). But it seems to me that that is the wrong statistic. Salmon only spawn when they've lived for several years, and there's a lot of attrition between heading out to sea for the first time and coming back to spawn. So only a rather small fraction of the fish in the Bay are going to spawn anywhere. Some of them spawn in our own little rivers, for that matter, contributing to the long list of reasons the Bay is a wildlife sanctuary. Anyway, the right question is not "what proportion of Monterey Bay fish spawn in the Klamath?" but, if anything, "what proportion of Klamath spawning fish spend some time of their lives in the Monterey Bay?
But even that misses the point. If the Klamath population is declining -- and it is, then restricting the catch in the Monterey Bay Sanctuary seems like an efficient way to build up a robust population. As usual, the small businessman -- the fisherman or party boat operators -- are reacting like peasants, blinded to the long run, desperately reflexive in dealing with the crisis.
On another front -- a cold front, I believe -- we're having snow as far sown as 2K feet. You can imagine what that does for the area, which sees maybe two snww storms a year. The snow, apparently, stuck.
On another front, our local boy -- Bruce McPherson, who used to own the Santa Cruz County Sentinel, has, in his capacity as secretary of state, authorized the use of the Diebold voting machines. Yes, those voting machines.
And finally -- Frank (the orange guy) has shaved his face, cut his hair like an army recruit, and gone off to get recertified as an EMT.
no subject
I've heard of at least one court case from people with this attitude, but don't recall the disposition (it was about MBTE in gasoline, I think).
no subject
Most fishermen have bought into the idea of conserving the fisheries, though the Sentinel article doesn't show that. The arguments among the fishermen, the Fish and Game people, the political conservationists, and the scientists (which categories overlap quite a bit, actually) are usually not whether but how, who, and how much.