Bush to remove protections for Salmon habitat [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Bush to remove protections for Salmon habitat


hapuna
12-07-2004, 18:38
Got this sent to me from WASHPIRG an environmental lobby group. If you like wild salmon please help.;P
Where are the Conservative Republicans????

Last week, the Bush administration made two announcements regarding its plans for managing Northwest endangered salmon.

First, the administration caved to pressure from developers and announced its plans to remove 80% of the critical habitat protections for several west coast salmon species called for under the Endangered Species Act.

At the same time, the administration announced its new salmon recovery plan. Instead of restoring endangered Northwest salmon runs, the plan embraces declines in salmon populations, including declines that will lead to extinction, as legal and acceptable.

Please take a moment to tell President Bush to implement real protections for our salmon. Then ask your family and friends to take action by forwarding this email to them.

To take action, click the link below or paste it in your web browser:
http://washpirg.org/WA.asp?id=784&id4=ES
Background

On Tuesday, November 30, the Bush administration made two important announcements about the Northwest Salmon Recovery plan and critical habitat designations for endangered salmon on the west coast. The announcements were in the news in a big way, including front page articles in the Seattle Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the New York Times.

In one announcement, the Bush administration's National Marine Fisheries Service released their Final Biological Opinion for Northwest salmon recovery in the Columbia and Snake River Basins. Referred to as "the salmon plan," this plan lays the groundwork for future efforts to bring Northwest salmon back from the brink of extinction. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's plan does very little to ensure salmon populations fully recover. Most notably, the plan does not include dam removal -- the largest obstacle to salmon recovery. Instead, the plan accepts continuing decline of salmon populations, inevitably leading to salmon extinction.

In a second announcement, the Bush administration revealed plans to remove up to 80% of critical habitat designations for several west coast salmon species. The announcement was a result of a lawsuit and significant pressure from special interests, in particular builders and developers. In fact, one Marine Fisheries Service official and key designer of
the plan, Mark Rutzick, was formerly a lawyer for the timber industry who sued against the protections he now works to dismantle. Since winning reelection, the Bush administration and some Congressional leaders have publicly pledged to undermine the Endangered Species Act.

The administration had the opportunity to ensure the protection of salmon, and so far it has failed. If we are to prevent salmon from going extinct, dam removal must be an option and critical habitat areas must be protected from overdevelopment.

Please take a moment to demand that the Bush administration reconsider its disastrous biological opinion for the salmon plan and restore full protections to critical salmon habitat. Then ask your family and friends to help by forwarding this email to them.

To take action, click the link below or paste it in your web browser:
http://washpirg.org/WA.asp?id=784&id4=ES

Sixgun_Symphony
12-07-2004, 20:53
The downside of the GOP is that they are shills for big business.

ucsdryder
12-08-2004, 00:29
One reason I am NOT a Republican't. I don't see how hunters, fishermen, or outdoorsmen can be republicans. If you care at all for the environment you can't vote for Bush.

GM:(

Sixgun_Symphony
12-08-2004, 00:48
Vote for Democrats and we all lose our guns.

Vote for Republicans and we all lose the wildlife habitat.

It is lose/lose situation at the polls.

Craigster
12-08-2004, 18:29
I live near the Columbia River in Washington State. I hunt, fish and spend most of my free time in the woods some of it as a volunteer. IM a Conservative, a Republican and voted for Bush.

I will not go into the many details but as far as IM concerned………..

HE SHOULD HAVE COMPLETELY GUTTED THE ENTIRE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

The Politicians and their Socialist “Environmentalists” know nothing about how to protect OUR Native Salmon, or our “old growth” for that matter, nor do they care. Their agenda is obvious and it’s not for the fish or the spotted owl.

REMOVE OUR DAMS????? They have already shut down 5 perfectly good Nuclear plants. We go back to oil lamps so some nut in Wash DC can control the Columbia Gorge? (which they already do). By the time you “feel gooders” realise what is really going on you wont have any fish, trees, owls or property. One more thing......The farmers on the East side of OR., Wash. and some of Idaho are wondering what will happen when they lose irrigation and can’t grow YOUR FOOD.

The Environment in the Northwest desperately needs very careful, scientific, logical and LOCAL management for the sake of our resources by those who are committed to that goal. Not by a few who want control “for the good of the party” that are very good at using three word catch phrases that make lazy people feel good.

If you REALLY care and want to send a message, send that one.

hapuna
12-10-2004, 18:18
Leakage from Hanford alone could put an end to the Columbia Salmon;P

mpol777
12-10-2004, 19:20
Originally posted by Craigster
LOCAL management

Amen to that.

Sixgun_Symphony
12-10-2004, 21:15
Another problem is population growth (immigration).

Too many people coming up here, thus more urban sprawl and greater needs for energy and potable water.

A.F. Lineman
12-11-2004, 22:13
Originally posted by Sixgun_Symphony
Vote for Democrats and we all lose our guns.

Vote for Republicans and we all lose the wildlife habitat.

It is lose/lose situation at the polls.

Very well said!

water_daddy
12-14-2004, 17:53
One reason I am NOT a Republican't. I don't see how hunters, fishermen, or outdoorsmen can be republicans. If you care at all for the environment you can't vote for Bush.

The Second Amendment folks can easily make the counter arguement. Don't spend too much time defying reality, you should live happy.

The fact is the politicians in a Democracy are not going to save or doom the environment. There has to be some give and take on environmental issues. What matters most has already been stated " LOCAL Managment", not the President. In the modern world if you want to protect an animal species you create the hunting/fishing market. Recreation and revenues do more for the environment than psycho tree huggers who lobby for restrictions.

RugerFan58
12-14-2004, 18:37
Originally posted by Sixgun_Symphony
Vote for Democrats and we all lose our guns.

Vote for Republicans and we all lose the wildlife habitat.

It is lose/lose situation at the polls. ^6 ^6 Very True !!

RugerFan58
12-14-2004, 18:59
Originally posted by water_daddy
[I] Recreation and revenues do more for the environment than psycho tree huggers who lobby for restrictions. Never knew members of Ducks Unlimited and Salmon Unlimited were "Psycho Tree Huggers". Guess I'll have to sell my Orvis and Remington because I belong to both of those commie organizations. People who want to eat fish without mercury are not all tree huggers. In 2003 31 hunting and fishing organizations all signed a letter to GWB. If you'd like to see the names of those 31 hunting and fishing orgs let me know. I'd love to see your face when you see not one of them has "tree huggers" for members. ;Q ;Q

A.F. Lineman
12-16-2004, 17:32
Originally posted by Craigster
I live near the Columbia River in Washington State. I hunt, fish and spend most of my free time in the woods some of it as a volunteer. IM a Conservative, a Republican and voted for Bush.

I will not go into the many details but as far as IM concerned………..

HE SHOULD HAVE COMPLETELY GUTTED THE ENTIRE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

The Politicians and their Socialist “Environmentalists” know nothing about how to protect OUR Native Salmon, or our “old growth” for that matter, nor do they care. Their agenda is obvious and it’s not for the fish or the spotted owl.

REMOVE OUR DAMS????? They have already shut down 5 perfectly good Nuclear plants. We go back to oil lamps so some nut in Wash DC can control the Columbia Gorge? (which they already do). By the time you “feel gooders” realise what is really going on you wont have any fish, trees, owls or property. One more thing......The farmers on the East side of OR., Wash. and some of Idaho are wondering what will happen when they lose irrigation and can’t grow YOUR FOOD.

The Environment in the Northwest desperately needs very careful, scientific, logical and LOCAL management for the sake of our resources by those who are committed to that goal. Not by a few who want control “for the good of the party” that are very good at using three word catch phrases that make lazy people feel good.

If you REALLY care and want to send a message, send that one.

I just read what I quoted the first time. Even though I somewhat agree with Sixgun on what he said. I really agree with the above. Again, Very Well Said!! (With the right quote this time :) )

micah
12-16-2004, 18:20
They have already shut down 5 perfectly good Nuclear plants.

WHO shut the plants down? Explain.

Craigster
12-18-2004, 13:05
Originally posted by micah
WHO shut the plants down? Explain.

That’s a tall order.

If you want info, Google search:

“Wppss” (pronounced woops)

and

“Trojan nuclear”

Craigster
12-18-2004, 14:12
Originally posted by hapuna
Leakage from Hanford alone could put an end to the Columbia Salmon;P

True statement and carried to the extreme the fish would be the least important life threatened. Off topic, but up river and up wind from us are enough potential threats that when “spun” would make you think we are nuts to stay.

Examples:

Hanford Reservation. Potential nuclear waste leaks into the Columbia River.

Umatilla Military chemical and biological storage. Potential accidents or leaks.

The dams. One up-river failure and the domino effect would mean Portland is gone.

However I am convinced that the solutions have been thought out and using logic and science, not emotion, they are being addressed and resolved. The same way protecting our environment and recourses should be.

A good example of proper local recourse management is the tens of thousands of acres of forest owned by Weyerhaeuser forest products. The woods are healthy and the wildlife is thriving. The adjacent federal land is in just the opposite condition because “old growth” now means any tree growing and even some that are dead.

If DC and their feel gooders would get out of the way, things could quickly get back into shape, even by natures clock.

fajizzle nizzle
12-22-2004, 02:43
Originally posted by Craigster

A good example of proper local recourse management is the tens of thousands of acres of forest owned by Weyerhaeuser forest products. The woods are healthy and the wildlife is thriving.


There is a big difference between a healthy forest and industrial tree farms. The timber companies around here manage their land to produce Douglas Fir just like a farmer would grow corn.

Craigster
12-22-2004, 10:16
Originally posted by fajizzle nizzle
There is a big difference between a healthy forest and industrial tree farms. The timber companies around here manage their land to produce Douglas Fir just like a farmer would grow corn.

I have seen the type of farm you are referring to, we have some here however what I am talking about is thousands of acres of forested mountains that are managed by timber corporations for harvest. If you were to go into these areas you couldn’t tell the difference between them and any other forest except they are maintained and managed to be healthy and safe, without the influence of tree huggers. I have seen Elk in herds of hundreds plus many of the other animals you would expect. In fact I was lucky enough to draw a tag a few years ago and helped them manage the Elk population by harvesting a huge 6X6 Bull.

hapuna
12-22-2004, 12:46
Originally posted by Craigster
True statement and carried to the extreme the fish would be the least important life threatened. Off topic, but up river and up wind from us are enough potential threats that when “spun” would make you think we are nuts to stay.

Examples:

Hanford Reservation. Potential nuclear waste leaks into the Columbia River.

Umatilla Military chemical and biological storage. Potential accidents or leaks.

The dams. One up-river failure and the domino effect would mean Portland is gone.

However I am convinced that the solutions have been thought out and using logic and science, not emotion, they are being addressed and resolved. The same way protecting our environment and recourses should be.

A good example of proper local recourse management is the tens of thousands of acres of forest owned by Weyerhaeuser forest products. The woods are healthy and the wildlife is thriving. The adjacent federal land is in just the opposite condition because “old growth” now means any tree growing and even some that are dead.

If DC and their feel gooders would get out of the way, things could quickly get back into shape, even by natures clock.

Craig,
How long have they been cleaning up Hanford now????? It ain't happening. The Feds have basically reneged on their promise to put things in order. I fear we are at a point where it will be only by nature's clock which when you are discussing radioactive matl could be thousands of years. I don't even want to talk about the bio/chem issues.;b

RugerFan58
12-22-2004, 17:49
Originally posted by Craigster
I have seen the type of farm you are referring to, we have some here however what I am talking about is thousands of acres of forested mountains that are managed by timber corporations for harvest. If you were to go into these areas you couldn’t tell the difference between them and any other forest except they are maintained and managed to be healthy and safe, without the influence of tree huggers. I don't know about the lumber corporations your talking about but I'll tell you whay happened in Maine before they outlawed clear cutting. All of the lumber companies of any size were owned by outside interest. Japan,So. Korea,China,So Africa to name a few. All of these companies received huge tax breaks. In return they let sportsman and campers use the land.It's called "In Current Use". I'm one of the users for the record. Alot of Mainers didn't like the fact that these companies were raping the land and waterways and leaving a mess . They only cared about the bottom line. It cost them the election. The "tree huggers" as you call them only WISH they could take credit for winning that election. It was the taxpayers of Maine that kicked their butt to the curb. That was back in 94'. Although lumber imports from Canada have hurt these companies a little ,not one job has been lost because of the clear-cutting ban. Up until two years ago I was still driving a logging truck up North. I still camp,fish ,and hunt up there. There was nothing healthy about the way things used to be up in No. Maine. It's alot cleaner now. The big corporations don't want you to know that sometimes there can be a happy ending. They all cried doom back in 1994 and to this day every one of them is still very profitable.;c

Craigster
12-26-2004, 13:17
Originally posted by RugerFan58
There was nothing healthy about the way things used to be up in No. Maine. It's alot cleaner now. The big corporations don't want you to know that sometimes there can be a happy ending. They all cried doom back in 1994 and to this day every one of them is still very profitable.;c

It sounds like your tree farms are very different than the private forests IM referring to. For many years we have had many Christmas tree farms that sound something like what you describe but are on much smaller plots and are not usually on productive forest ground. In addition over the past years pulp tree farms have sprung up but are on converted flat farm land. Even in both of these cases wildlife is a consideration.

In the past we have had our problems here too. Profit drives corporations but now days it is in their best interest to protect and maintain their crop while keeping on the good side of their customers and the public. I used this Weyerhaeuser forest as an example for three reasons;

One. I have seen it first hand,
Two. It is possible to use reason and nature in managing a resource instead of emotion and
Three. To show how effective local management can be.

Granted, in my example it is profit driven but I don’t see that as all bad. Profit is also driving research toward building products other than wood. It may still be a few years away but in real time that’s only a blink. I just hope that in the mean time we citizens dont lose all use and control to D.C. and the feel good special interests.

RugerFan58
12-27-2004, 09:29
Originally posted by Craigster
It sounds like your tree farms are very different than the private forests IM referring to. For many years we have had many Christmas tree farms that sound something like what you describe but are on much smaller plots and are not usually on productive forest ground. In addition over the past years pulp tree farms have sprung up but are on converted flat farm land. Even in both of these cases wildlife is a consideration.

In the past we have had our problems here too. Profit drives corporations but now days it is in their best interest to protect and maintain their crop while keeping on the good side of their customers and the public. I used this Weyerhaeuser forest as an example for three reasons;

One. I have seen it first hand,
Two. It is possible to use reason and nature in managing a resource instead of emotion and
Three. To show how effective local management can be.

Granted, in my example it is profit driven but I don’t see that as all bad. Profit is also driving research toward building products other than wood. It may still be a few years away but in real time that’s only a blink. I just hope that in the mean time we citizens dont lose all use and control to D.C. and the feel good special interests. Maine has 11.8 million acres of logging land. Could'nt tell you what it has for christmas tree farms. The land I was talking about is owned by companies like Bowater,Irvine,International Paper,S.D. Warren,James River, and Champion. Most of these are NOT American owned. I've seen it first hand too. Used to work there six days a week for almost five years. I won't mention the names of the companies in what follows. I saw local and state officials turn their backs to big companies that were breaking the laws because they employed much of the county. Local management was every thing but effective. If you drive west of Jackman,Maine you come to a town called Holeb. This town never even had a road into it until 1947. The hunting camps there used to be accessed only by the railroad or canoe. My grandfather took me fishing there at The Moose River almost 40 years ago.My grandfather and the world class fishing are both gone. Last time I fished there after a rain storm the river was choked with silt from a Canadian logging operation not too far upriver from there. Trout can't survive in an enviroment like that. There was none there that year. I hear they're trying to re-introduce and restock them again. Haven't been back except to canoe-camp so I don't know if it was successful or not. Like I said in my other post I am only talking about Maine. Things may be different in your state. The "feel good interest" as you call them in Maine included Trout Unlimited and Salmon Unlimited for a reason. The sloppy logging practices of some of these companies proved they needed to be held accountable for actions. The sportsmen of Maine are alot better off now. ;c

Sixgun_Symphony
12-27-2004, 16:00
Good point,

The fishing here in Washington state just sucks these days. It is due to logging, urban sprawl/population growth, and commercial fishing.

I much prefer Washington state the way it was thirty years ago to what it is now.

fajizzle nizzle
12-28-2004, 05:21
Originally posted by Sixgun_Symphony

I much prefer Washington state the way it was thirty years ago to what it is now.

Pre-Boldt and pre-Californization.

fajizzle nizzle
12-28-2004, 05:53
Originally posted by Craigster
I have seen the type of farm you are referring to, we have some here however what I am talking about is thousands of acres of forested mountains that are managed by timber corporations for harvest.
Those are the industrial forests I'm talking about. The woods are clearcut and planted with rows of douglas fir.

If you were to go into these areas you couldn’t tell the difference between them and any other forest except they are maintained and managed to be healthy and safe, without the influence of tree huggers.
Yes, I could tell a difference. The industrial forests have hundreds of acres of same-age douglas fir criss-crossed with roads.

I have seen Elk in herds of hundreds plus many of the other animals you would expect. In fact I was lucky enough to draw a tag a few years ago and helped them manage the Elk population by harvesting a huge 6X6 Bull.
Timber companies don't like elk. They damage too many trees which equals lost profits. Unfortunately for the timber companies, deer and elk do quite well in agricultural settings like industrial tree farms.

Know what happens when a farmer plants and harvests the same crops year after year? The soil gets spent. Right now the timber companies are planting and harvesting doug fir over and over again. Second and third plantings are already being cut.

When hunting timber company land, have you encountered posted warning signs saying an area has been sprayed? The timber companies you believe are managing the forests to be healthy and safe are spraying thousands of acres with pesticides to kill off the less profitable plants when regrowth begins. Next year's venison might be browsing on Roundup right now.

Timber harvest is a necessity and the timber practices of today are much better than those of the past, but they are not creating a wonderland like you describe.

Craigster
01-02-2005, 09:22
Those are the industrial forests I'm talking about. The woods are clearcut and planted with rows of douglas fir.

Not in the forests IM talking about. They are using selective cutting methods and replanting with many different species of trees without rows or patterns.

Yes, I could tell a difference. The industrial forests have hundreds of acres of same-age douglas fir criss-crossed with roads.

Again not here. Some re-prod areas are same aged trees but eventually grow back to a semi natural state and become very good habitat for large game. Roads are few.

Timber companies don't like elk. They damage too many trees which equals lost profits. Unfortunately for the timber companies, deer and elk do quite well in agricultural settings like industrial tree farms.

This is NOT an agricultural setting and big game in this area is thriving and I doubt the very small amount of tree damage by Elk is even considered. Since Mt St. Helens went off the elk herds are huge and have recovered to the point that this year there were over 4000 Elk tag applications to harvest 75 animals.


Know what happens when a farmer plants and harvests the same crops year after year? The soil gets spent. Right now the timber companies are planting and harvesting doug fir over and over again. Second and third plantings are already being cut.

I don’t know the methods used, if any, to help the soil except for controlled burns and erosion control.

When hunting timber company land, have you encountered posted warning signs saying an area has been sprayed? The timber companies you believe are managing the forests to be healthy and safe are spraying thousands of acres with pesticides to kill off the less profitable plants when regrowth begins. Next year's venison might be browsing on Roundup right now.

Never seen a sign. I dont think they can spray but I can find out. I have seen manual thinning and fire methods used.

Timber harvest is a necessity and the timber practices of today are much better than those of the past, but they are not creating a wonderland like you describe.

What I have seen first hand in the forests I am describing is a wonderland. Its unfortunate that your area has been ravaged by timber companies and I completely understand your opinion based on what you have seen. My point however is that there are knowledgeable people that know how to manage the forests properly and that we should take advantage of what they know and not allow management our public lands to fall in the hands of people with an agenda that neither you nor I want.

Craigster
01-02-2005, 10:29
Originally posted by RugerFan58
The "feel good interest" as you call them in Maine included Trout Unlimited and Salmon Unlimited for a reason. The sloppy logging practices of some of these companies proved they needed to be held accountable for actions. The sportsmen of Maine are alot better off now. ;c

Trout unlimited, Ducks unlimited, Pheasants forever (I was a member), Rocky Mtn Elk Foundation (I support) are definitely NOT what I called “feel gooders”. I support the work these organizations perform and they do a good job representing us. I have seen good first hand results of Pheasants Forever work.

When I say “Feel Good” people I mean those that don’t want anybody to hunt, fish, cut a road or a tree. They want Mother Nature to be left alone, the birds will sing, Bambie will live with her friends and there will be piece and love. That may sound or feel good to some, but if that’s the way we want to manage our forests than we have to stay COMPLETELY out of natures way. But be ready because her methods are slow, they can look ugly and are extreme. Nature has eliminated more species, destroyed more forests, polluted more air and made things uglier than man ever will.

Again in my opinion is that we need to supplement nature with logical, scientific, unemotional and local management. Using good practices that can yield resources, wildlife and a healthy forest while at the same time understand that we live here and will impact the environment.