43 replies to this topic

[tony]

 

 

Tony, this is the problem with the militant environmental movement.

 

When the "protection" of this species and that species trumps the human species, you start to get into dangerous territory. How far are you guys willing to push the envelope?? We got dangerously low last year, but we lucked out and got a nice wet winter. That won't always be the case. And when S50 adds all those additional homes and businesses, will you guys alter your lake releases and environmental goals to reflect that, or will it be business as usual??

 

I hope that the releases will be cut back VERY soon, as you say, but we'll see. The perception is that Folsom Lake is doing more than it's fair share. Still over 2 months of good boating left and it will be down to 5 mph in 10 days or so?? That's ridiculous.

 

People are mad, and it's totally understandable.

Aces,

 

There you go name-calling again; sound like some political candidate. And even if you think my views on this are not mainstream, or even radical, "militant" is a ridiculous leap. READ what i wrote.  There is nothing in there even mildly suggesting anything militant. Way to take a nuanced response and make it turn it into a black and white "us" or "them" issue.  No one is equating a life or death comparison of fish to humans. The equation, even last year, was fish versus green grass; or maybe fish versus exported nuts.  And keep in mind, these species being protected are the last of what were once much, much larger populations. We've already wiped out most of them in CA; current efforts are to safe what little is left. 

 

And, of course, you seem to forget that those fish are an important source of protein for us humans, not to mention an important part of the economy.

 

We need to leave some water in the rivers, otherwise, they cease to be rivers (as the Colorado and San Joaquin do, for example). Just who is short-sighted here?  By your view, as long as there is water in Folsom Lake for boating through August, and plenty of water for Folsom's expansion, then apparently it doesn't matter what happens downstream.

[2 Aces]

I don't care what you say. When you are more concerned about your precious species than you are about Folsom's water supply, then I consider you radical/militant. I would bet you that most people reading this would agree with me.

My comment isn't political. It's reality. Calm down.

There's no name calling on my part. I only talk from a common sense point of view.

The fact that you are *offended* speaks volumes. Don't be angry. Let's just address the reality.

[tony]

I don't care what you say. When you are more concerned about your precious species than you are about Folsom's water supply, then I consider you radical/militant. I would bet you that most people reading this would agree with me.

My comment isn't political. It's reality. Calm down.

There's no name calling on my part. I only talk from a common sense point of view.

The fact that you are *offended* speaks volumes. Don't be angry. Let's just address the reality.

Clearly you don't care what I think, or what information I present, for that matter. Let me be clear: I think the threat to the Sacramento River salmon (they are in danger of extinction this year, or soon thereafter) is much more imminent than the threat to Folsom's drinking water, given the fact that there is a lot of water stored in northern CA reservoirs at this time, including in Folsom Lake.  I don't believe that the fish have to become extinct for us to have adequate water. 

 

As for name calling, your initial response to my first post called me "Short-sighted", questioned my credibility (hmm, at least I use my real name): "Not sure he's credible" and suggested I had an agenda; "But he may have an agenda. 

Be careful who you listen to. Lots of disinformation out there." That is attacking the messenger if ever I saw it. At least I provided some information, none of which you even attempted to refute.

 

I wasn't suggesting your comments were political; I was suggesting your comments reminded me of a certain presidential candidate who hi-jacked the Republican party and is fond of oversimplifying complex issues.

 

BTW, I'm not angry or offended, but I am also not pleased to be attacked just because I post something you disagree with.

 

Finally, look up "militant" in the dictionary. I may be a lot of things, but that ain't one of them. And, frankly, I'm not sure how defending the water policies of the USBR makes me a radical environmentalist.  I don't think you'll find the folks at Earth First defending Reclamation very often. Ever read the Monkey Wrench Gang?  The characters therein were militant radical environmentalists.

[2 Aces]

Tony, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

I think you have a flippant, cavalier attitude towards Folsom's water storage issues.

 

And keep your political opinions in the Politics Section please or you will be reported to Steve !!  

[nomad]

Whatever the reasons it sucks. We pay full price every year for shorter and shorter time in the marina with no pro-rating. When we first got our boat we used it until Oct I think it was, and that was only like 6 years ago maybe? 

 

Have the policies changed that much in that amount of time?

[Carl G]

Clearly you don't care what I think, or what information I present, for that matter. Let me be clear: I think the threat to the Sacramento River salmon (they are in danger of extinction this year, or soon thereafter) is much more imminent than the threat to Folsom's drinking water, given the fact that there is a lot of water stored in northern CA reservoirs at this time, including in Folsom Lake.  I don't believe that the fish have to become extinct for us to have adequate water. 

...

 

Hi Tony - where did you find any information regarding extinction of salmon in the Sacrament River?  Just looking up the life cycle of Chinook salmon, they can take up to eight years before their return journey.  I could see years being low, but over time I would expect them to ultimately recover.  (I have a new question for the rangers next time I ride my bike through there)  I'm wondering if different hatcheries are facing varying success rates given the drought and water temperature issues.

[tony]

 

Hi Tony - where did you find any information regarding extinction of salmon in the Sacrament River?  Just looking up the life cycle of Chinook salmon, they can take up to eight years before their return journey.  I could see years being low, but over time I would expect them to ultimately recover.  (I have a new question for the rangers next time I ride my bike through there)  I'm wondering if different hatcheries are facing varying success rates given the drought and water temperature issues.

Carl:

 

Here's an article that describes the status of the winter run Chinook Salmon on the Sacramento river.  They mention the 3-year cycle, although I think you are correct, they can take longer to return, but my understanding is that 3 years is when most return. http://www.sacbee.co...le41684160.html

[The Average Joe]

I can understand wanting to keep a sense of "natural" flows as we have disrupted them with our dams.  However, I fail to understand maintaining artificially "normal" flows for fish when there is a drought. If we cut our usage by a whopping 30%, that only amounts to a 3% savings on the total water usage. Wouldn't a 10% cut to fish flows accomplish far more? And wouldn't the natural flows (without dams) have been warm trickles last year without our storage release? Wouldn't the fish have had to deal with lack of snowpack and the corresponding flows if we weren't here? If you want to mimic "natural" flows, there have to be serious adjustments based on actual conditions, not an arbitrary "best guess" by government bureaucrats. 

 

I find it disturbing, and quite frankly arrogant, when government tries to "manage" nature. Witness the forest management that resulted in massive wildfires, the wholesale introduction of wolves in the north, the dumping of mine sludge by the EPA, and destruction of farms for fish (and other management plans). Now we have to have wolf hunts to cull the population. Fertile ground sits fallow and fire fuel has built up tremendously, resulting in more extreme fires.  Today's best intentions are tomorrows unforeseen consequences.  So many governmental  decisions are made on the basis of political expediency rather than facts. By politicizing science, the environmental movement has done incredible damage to the credibility of scientists.

 

Not all government programs are bad, but they are also not the answer to all problems either. I just wish more people asked more questions about government AND that ANYONE in government could be held accountable for bad/harmful decisions.

[Sandman]

Absolutely Joe, Salmon have probably been on this planet longer than man and withstood far worse environmental conditions than what they have exoerienced in our lifetime, yet they still exist...

The enviro nut jobs however think man is creating the demise of every species on the planet.

[alaakmann]

I don't think ancient salmon had to deal with massive damming of their rivers and their spawning grounds.  Man's efforts to control nature to his benefit have had drastic effects on other species.

[Sandman]

Yes and no... Disruption of spawning grounds yes and why hatcheries have been constructed.

As for water flows during fall spawning they would have been much worse in times of heavy drought before dams were constructed.

All you have to do is look at the inflows to Folsom lake last Fall to get an idea of what they would have faced before dams were built.

[tony]

Absolutely Joe, Salmon have probably been on this planet longer than man and withstood far worse environmental conditions than what they have exoerienced in our lifetime, yet they still exist...

The enviro nut jobs however think man is creating the demise of every species on the planet.

 

That would, of course, ignore the fact that we have eliminated 50% of their historic range and 70% of their historic spawning grounds by building dams, and often made the remaining portions of the rivers unsuitable by controlling the flows downstream of those dams. Consequently, their ability to bounce back from droughts and other environmental calamities is vastly diminished. Did you look at the graph in the Bee article?  The decline in numbers in just a couple years was staggering. 

 

To say that species survived tough times before man was around and they will continue to do so whether we assist them or not is to ignore the dramatic increase in the rate of extinction since industrialization, and the recent increase in that rate, referred to as the "sixth mass extinction".  The "enviro nut jobs" happen to be backed up by the facts. Read the US News article (see previous link), or articles in Popular Mechanics and other radical environmental publications.

[tony]

Here's the farmers' take on the salmon issue.  Their basic argument is that the current attempts to save cold water in Shasta are resulting in too low flows for them to  use, and that there are other ways to help the salmon, like improving habitat. While they suggest correctly that cold water is not likely to be sufficient to save the salmon, they don't, however, convincingly argue that it is not necessary. All the improved spawning habitat in the world won't help if the salmon die before getting there because the water is too warm. 

[The Average Joe]

Again, wouldn't the "natural" flows during droughts have been warm as there is no snowmelt? I realize that we have diminished their habitat. We have also tried to mitigate that with fisheries. Man will have an impact on everything. Just as any other apex species will.  The difference is that we alter our environment. We use pavement and  energy. Housing and resources. All of those alter the environment. The trick is not to pretend that we don't exist and then attempt to (and generally fail to) create an arbitrary "natural" state. The salmon runs will never be what they once were. Neither will the buffalo herds, old growth forests, the migrating birds, the Colorado River, or any other number of things.  As long as man is here and thriving, those things will not return to their "original" everchanging state. That doesn't mean we ignore our impact, but that also doesn't mean we let our quality of life be run by a titmouse.

 

I tried to find the Baronsky study, but the article makes some pretty questionable assumptions and presents them as a given. He is pretty ideologically driven (just look up his publications).

 

Almost all of the Pop Mech listed species were subspecies that were only located in a very narrow ecological niche.  And statements like the Cost Rica one that climate change was to blame is silly. Most of the rising temperatures occur more predominantly AWAY from the tropics and are especially big in the Arctic (of course, that has much to do with "averaging" and the limited data resources there, but that is a whole other topic). Even if you believe in AGW, to blame climate change of half a degree for widespread ecological doom is just nuts. Even further nuts to extrapolate worst case climate scenarios into your theory like (I'm assuming) Baronsky did to create a crisis.

 

Species die. Climate changes. You don't see any sabre toothed tigers around here do you? Sure, some animals were directly impacted adversely by man. No doubt about it. Whales, fish (in general), bears, elephants, rhinos, carrier pigeons to name a few.  There has to be a balance between what is good for man and what is good for "nature". The only place we disagree is where that line has to be drawn.

[Carl G]

This is why I can't help but thing nature has got it right in varying the Chinook salmon return from three to eight years.  During a "normal" drought cycle of four to five years the flow is low and the reproduction down.  In the next three to four years of "normal" years hopefully reproduction will be back to normal.  After several generations of fish the overall number and the average number of reproducing fish will be back to normal.