![[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 as of yesterday the indications were that the salmon season will in fact be cancelled. The Fisheries Management meetings in Seattle made a statement that pretty much said so.
Meanwhile, read this to see why it's all Karl Rove's fault. Or, take my word for it: for the last several years the Bush administration has been giving the okay to projects diverting the water out of the Klamath mostly for agriculture. The result is that the Klamath is too shallow and warm to support the salmon run -- bacteria proliferate which are dangerous to the salmon and they die in vast numbers. And the demand to divert more water comes from Republican politicians in Oregon, and Karl Rove smoothes the way for them.
I've started trying to read the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan which is seventy-eight pages in pdf form but so far I've gotten only to the part where they're defining overfishing.
But let's be clear, here: the problem with Klamath salmon is not overfishing: it's degradation of the Klamath.
The thing is, agriculture does not need to destroy the environment. Water conservation does not cause fields to dry up and blow away -- squandering water does. Toxic runoff and excessive evaporation are avoidable. Fields can be located and managed so as to use water well. But the knee-jerk reaction -- "development requires water, agriculture requires water, give all the water over or we'll all starve" puts everyone and everything in jeopardy, not just the cute little cohos and chinooks.
On another front: 1700 words, on a little sidetrack story set in the universe of Esperanza Highway, and I have been thinking about what to do next about all my poor unread little orphans.
Meanwhile, read this to see why it's all Karl Rove's fault. Or, take my word for it: for the last several years the Bush administration has been giving the okay to projects diverting the water out of the Klamath mostly for agriculture. The result is that the Klamath is too shallow and warm to support the salmon run -- bacteria proliferate which are dangerous to the salmon and they die in vast numbers. And the demand to divert more water comes from Republican politicians in Oregon, and Karl Rove smoothes the way for them.
I've started trying to read the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan which is seventy-eight pages in pdf form but so far I've gotten only to the part where they're defining overfishing.
But let's be clear, here: the problem with Klamath salmon is not overfishing: it's degradation of the Klamath.
The thing is, agriculture does not need to destroy the environment. Water conservation does not cause fields to dry up and blow away -- squandering water does. Toxic runoff and excessive evaporation are avoidable. Fields can be located and managed so as to use water well. But the knee-jerk reaction -- "development requires water, agriculture requires water, give all the water over or we'll all starve" puts everyone and everything in jeopardy, not just the cute little cohos and chinooks.
On another front: 1700 words, on a little sidetrack story set in the universe of Esperanza Highway, and I have been thinking about what to do next about all my poor unread little orphans.
no subject
no subject
Anyway, I'm a committed water freak now, and I follow every wet story I can find.
Today's paper (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/08/BAGFLHJJ8563.DTL) brings news of a potential limit on krill fishing on the West Coast -- the krill is depleted! You know, that stuff that fills the upper ocean like sand on the beach? All those ittle bittle organisms (http://www.ccamlr.org/pu/E/sc/fish-monit/hs-krill.htm) that everything else depends on? Are we scared yet?
Apparently, this is not a new issue. When I google it, I get many hits, mostly centered on the issue of krill (http://www.asoc.org/Documents/XXIIICCAMLR/ASOCKrillapper.appendicies.pdf) fishing (http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/threats_fishing_hunting.htm) in Antarctica. (http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=1143)
I wondered why people fish for krill -- I mean, we usually refuse to eat animals the size of giant brine shrimp, let alone krill -- but it turns out to have another connection to the salmon issue: they dry the krill out and feed it to farmed (http://www.salmonfarmmonitor.org/) salmon (http://www.salmonoftheamericas.com/). Which themselves pose various environmental risks, especially direct threats (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030923064756.htm) to wild salmon from sexually overactive, parasite infested, and overmedicated farm escapees, (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0616_030616_farmsalmon.html) but also including degradation (http://www.watershed-watch.org/ww/salmon_farming.html)of environment around them.
(the local paper is mainly interested, sadly, because it's local scientists -- at UCSC -- who made the measurements and sounded the alarm.)
no subject
Yes, but I'm a biologist, with an interest in ocean ecosystems. I've been interested in North Atlantic fish stocks for some time (cod, anyone?) -- I think I'm expecting a fish stock crash to be the first massive scale ecological crisis we face as human beings, and I'm appalled at the lack of political will to tackle it.
I worked at a university that was doing research into the microbiology of fish farms (omg scary) and don't believe farmed fish are the answer either. It's much clearer, when you farm fish, to see how much ecological dmage is done by modern farming techniques -- it's more invisible on land, ironically enough.
Anyway. Thanks for the additional links, you've given me a morning's reading :)
no subject
Our techniques for measuring water quality are more sophisticated, and .. fish die in an egologically damaged environment, whereas sheep and cattle keep going while the damage occurs to the water table, soil salinity, etc.
no subject
What pisses me off is that this is not news. We keep going through this kind of crap, and whenever we get momentum to actually steward the mess instead of exacerbating it, some Republican comes along and sells the water rights, or shuts down the agency, or revokes the regulation, or some damn thing.
Honestly, I don't think these jerks are just selfish -- I think they actively disbelieve in the future for any of us or the world itself. I think they are partying at the end of the world, while the rest of us stumble along, either struggling to keep the world going, or altogether blind to the problem. (no, I don't mean it's the end of the world right now, I mean that they think they're at the end of the world and they're partying)