California's outdoors industry -- wildlife watching, hunting, and fishing -- is an $8.2 billion-a-year business. That's roughly equivalent to the GDP of Cambodia.
So imagine the shock waves sent by the state's first salmon shutdown:
Salmon fishing was banned along the West Coast for the first time in 160 years Thursday, a decision that is expected to have a devastating economic impact on fishermen, dozens of businesses, tourism and boating.
Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez immediately declared a commercial fishery disaster, opening the door for Congress to appropriate money for anyone who will be economically harmed.
Unfortunately, the forecast for salmon doesn't get much better from there, according to a new report released Thursday by the National Wildlife Federation and Planning and Conservation League Foundation. With salmon habitat already decimated by dams, climate change now threatens to warm their remaining cold water spawning grounds.
What can be done to reverse the trend?
- Develop comprehensive and aggressive greenhouse gas reduction policies that steadily cut global warming pollution 2 percent per year to meet an 80 percent reduction goal by mid-century that scientists say is necessary to avoid the most damaging effects of climate change;
- Include all major sources of global warming pollution: electric power companies, factories, and the transportation sector (the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in California);
- Ensure polluters pay to pollute, with some of the revenue generated dedicated to fund programs to protect California's critical natural resources, invest in clean technology, and mitigate impacts on low-income communities;
- Create a new water management regime for California that benefits people, fish, and wildlife; and
- Help wildlife survive impacts now considered inevitable due to past and current global warming pollution.
"The unprecedented closure of the salmon fishing season is just the tip of a melting iceberg," said National Wildlife Federation president and CEO Larry Schweiger. "More than 10 million people in California are wildlife watchers or sportsmen. The global warming issue cuts across all income levels, all political boundaries, and all religious beliefs. If you like to hunt, fish or watch wildlife, you're affected."
"Most of California's ecosystems are already fragile, having withstood years of pressure from human activities. Without decisive action, global warming could push them over the edge," said the Planning and Conservation League Foundation's Matt Vander Sluis. "The single most important conservation action we can take is to quickly reverse the growth of global warming pollution."
Are developers making mis-LEED-ing claims?
Frogs in the forest: the new canaries in the coal mine
Comments View as Flat
L25kin Posted 3:01 pm
03 May 2008
Removing some dams would help
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004386630_ ...
Connect the dots to save orcas, salmon
May 2, 2008 (Seattle Times op-ed by Kathy Fletcher and Howard Garrett)
Most people realize that saving Puget Sound's beloved resident orca whales depends on saving the Sound itself, removing the toxic chemicals that are killing the whales, preventing oil spills, and restoring the orcas' essential food, salmon.
But it may be news that our local orcas also depend on restoring salmon runs in the Columbia River Basin. Recent reports of the dramatic declines in West Coast salmon populations make this connection between the mighty Columbia and Snake rivers and our endangered orcas all the more crucial to examine.
Orca and salmon scientists alike have identified the Columbia River Basin, which once produced more salmon than any other river system on Earth, as an essential food source for southern resident orcas during their seasonal travels away from Puget Sound to coastal waters. In fact, the federal government's orca-recovery plan cites the decline in Columbia River Basin salmon as "perhaps the single greatest change in food availability for resident killer whales since the late 1800s."
Strangely, though, the plan does not call for the one action scientists say is central to any Columbia Basin salmon-recovery plan: removal of four costly and outdated dams on the Lower Snake River, a tributary of the Columbia.
Climate change makes removing the dams even more important, because the salmon and steelhead that will be saved are more likely to survive warmer temperatures. These fish spawn at higher elevations than any other -- some at over 6,000 feet above sea level, where streams are likely to stay cooler. Removing the dams will also lower water temperatures downstream, providing help to fish in the lower river system.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:33 am
04 May 2008
Not many lumberjacks in Seattle nowadays
either. Salmon fisherman: wrong job, wrong place, wrong time. They should have seen it coming. They fought it. All the same, the government is obligated to help them transition to other livelihoods because that is what government is for.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 5:00 am
04 May 2008
About those dams
I may be mistaken but most of those dams were built quite some time ago, and the salmon run was very good in the old days. Plus think carefully, because taking out a dam can costs as much as it cost to build in the first place, and the opportunity for hydro-power and flood prevention is lost.
I really don't think we know what all the causes are for the nearly complete collapse of the salmon fishery. It could be some hypoxia caused by low flows during the drought periods ... to global warming effects ... to the effect of fish farms and pollution ... to more recreational fishing pressure.
The collapse of the grouper fishery off Florida in the mid-80's seems similar but for very different circumstances (e.g., they don't spawn upstream in rivers and creeks). There is was a clear case of commercial fishermen taking out the "brood stock" or large females that were prime restaurant fare.
I am not completely convinced that as Bio-D says, the salmon fishery collapsed just because of commercial over-fishing. Nor am I convinced that the parallel to the lumberjacks (the timber industry) is a good one. It is all rather shocking what has happened in a very short time, and I think it will be years before we get a good salmon run again, if not a decade or two. /sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 9:13 am
04 May 2008
Causes Are Clear, But Humans Don't Care Enough
The causes of the salmon collapse are 1) global warming, 2) dam(n)s, 3) destruction of riparian areas by a) logging and b) cattle grazing, 4) water pollution, and 5) overfishing. But, as pointed out inadvertently by Sam Wells, most humans don't care anywhere near enough about the natural environment to change their Earth-destroying lifestyles, so none of these causes will be adequately addressed, except for overfishing, because the fishing industry doesn't have that much money/political power and thus can be scapegoated without politicians and bureaucrats suffering much backlash, all while appearing to do something meaningful.
Humans have created a huge mess over the past 10,000 years, ever since the beginning of agriculture. If we don't make major lifestyle changes that result in much less consumption and greatly lower the human population, the mess will continue to get bigger until we destroy life as we know it.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 9:23 am
04 May 2008
Final nail...
... in the coffin will be the lack of stewardship on the watersheds and ecosystems. Just letting them burn is NOT good scientific stewardship but, that is what most people today seem to prefer.
Instead of allowing unnatural amounts of trees to suck up the diminishing groundwater, careful thinning can recharge cold springs and revive streams and rivers. Fires only damage, destroy and kill (especially salmon and other forest species on the edge).
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 2:54 pm
04 May 2008
Oh Please!
Sorry Backcut, but the Earth's ecosystems were just fine until humans started messing with them, beginning with agriculture. We don't need ANY logging, except where the trees are unnaturally dense due to human interference, such as fire suppression and cattle grazing. Except for this restoration, the model to live by is, no killing except for what you eat.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:31 pm
04 May 2008
Only problem with non-natives
Instead of allowing unnatural amounts of trees to suck up the diminishing groundwater
The only areas where this is a major problem are where the trees aren't native, or have grown outside their traditional ranges due to human interference...like mesquite tress in the southwest.
Last time I checked, forest fires didn't kill salmon in large numbers.
Do salmon even migrate upstream or reproduce durin' the traditional "heavy" fire season?
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:19 pm
04 May 2008
The evil trees hypothesis....
Sorry Backcut but I just don't think you're going to find a salmon biologist in favor of logging. I'm pretty sure that I can find a salmon biologist in favor of low-temperature controlled burns of forest overgrowth. Even if that means the occasional wildfire.
That thinning of small wood that you talk about is a good idea but it's neccesary to do that without creating new cuts or soil disturbance. Since commercial logging almost always increases the silt loads in streams with salmon endangered it's going to face tighter restrictions. That will hopefully mean less logging and more road abandonments.
Due to fuel prices helicopter logging is out of the question. How are you with an ox team? The best hope for the salmon is oil prices so high that logging roads cost more than the logs.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:59 pm
04 May 2008
Look to Scandanavia
The eco-friendly logging nations have come up with machines that don't destroy the soil and the forest, and yet still remove selected trees and brush. And even allow waste wood to be chipped for recycling, use in building materials, animal bedding, and energy recovery.
They are also a lot safer for loggers. Logging is even more dangerous than coal mining according to accident statistics.
We still see mounds of brush, ready to fuel forest fires after every clear cut logging sale here in northen Wisconsin. Logging companies and pro-industry forestors still are not getting the message. This industry needs to recycle this brush, not burn it, and do real selective cutting, instead of clearcutting.
Evidently they just will not do this on their own. They need to be broought into line with environmentally beneficial forest managment policies. From the attitude of elitism exhibited by forestors, it is clear that this will involve the replacement of many GOP/logging industry friendly appointees in forest services.
"Backcut" refers to the logging term for the wedge cut that steers the tree down to the ground, an unfortunate choice of nickname for a purported environmentalist, that seems to blame every single forest problem on "liberal" preservationists. Was that name intentionally provacative back?
How about switching to "smokey the brushbuster"? Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Backcut Posted 2:24 pm
05 May 2008
Ahhhh, yes!
This thread clearly shows the level of scientific prowess of Grist posters. The last time I looked, there are plenty of National Forests suffering terribly (the San Bernardino, the Dixie, the Bitterroot, the Tahoe Basin, the forests of Colorado, etc), with mortality exceeding both growth AND harvesting combined. Do you think that salmon enjoyed the Biscuit Fire? Do trees get thirsty when drought hits and there are too many trees per acre, compared to historical records? Does catastrophic fire enhance salmon breeding habitat?
When will Gristers learn that forests are key to us surviving the century? When will they abandon their faith-based dogma drama of eco-Armageddon for our forests? When will science be used against the forest management deniers bent on re-wilding, regardless of the deadly and destructive effects?
Unfortunately, history is proving me right, with my observations and predictions on the Internet, going back to 1997. It's really too bad that our forests will be going away and polluting our atmosphere.
Unless we can reach some miraculous consensus...
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:12 am
07 May 2008
Time to give up
One major thing Grist has taught me in the time I've been posting here is that all my warnings and all my observations will NOT stop the ongoing disaster in our forests. The political, judicial, economic and emotional inertia is too great for science to overcome. I tire of the battle and it's looking like it's too late to save what is left of the forests. Everything you need to save the forests is in my comments if you can sort through the rhetoric. Buh-bye, but I'll lurk from time to time.
Keep up the good fight on energy and pollution, though.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink