Game Fishing Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
We need a governor that puts salmon runs at the top of there priorities. We need to clean up the spawning beds, then the river mouths. That some will improve the River system and the Puget sound. We need a governor that is willing to sink some money into the Puget sound. Jay Inslee if not that guy. Idk if Bryant will be much better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,056 Posts
Salmon are important to me, but even I wouldn't put salmon as the number 1 priority in government in WA state. According to the state constitution, public education is the number one priority (IIRC), and I can't disagree with that.

And what do you mean by "clean up the spawning beds, then the river mouths . . .?" Spawning areas in many rivers are gradually improving since forestry regulations were tightened, first under the Timber, Fish, and Wildlife and now under the Fish & Forestry act. But that improvement comes in small increments over decades of time. Do you have a method in mind that would achieve the desired result more quickly? If so, what is it?

By river mouths I presume you mean estuaries. Most Puget Sound estuaries have been developed with industry and bulkheads that have degraded their productivity. How would you clean them up? Are you proposing that the next governor cause shoreline industries and commercial developments to be removed? If so, how? Because there are no state laws that require such removal. I'm curious to understand what your definition of "cleaning up" is and how it would work to restore higher salmon productivity to rivers and river mouths.

Sg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,456 Posts
Salmon are important to me, but even I wouldn't put salmon as the number 1 priority in government in WA state. According to the state constitution, public education is the number one priority (IIRC), and I can't disagree with that.

And what do you mean by "clean up the spawning beds, then the river mouths . . .?" Spawning areas in many rivers are gradually improving since forestry regulations were tightened, first under the Timber, Fish, and Wildlife and now under the Fish & Forestry act. But that improvement comes in small increments over decades of time. Do you have a method in mind that would achieve the desired result more quickly? If so, what is it?

By river mouths I presume you mean estuaries. Most Puget Sound estuaries have been developed with industry and bulkheads that have degraded their productivity. How would you clean them up? Are you proposing that the next governor cause shoreline industries and commercial developments to be removed? If so, how? Because there are no state laws that require such removal. I'm curious to understand what your definition of "cleaning up" is and how it would work to restore higher salmon productivity to rivers and river mouths.

Sg
You have mentioned several times that you're a fiscal conservative. You keep supporting dems that only care about appeasing teachers unions, not kids education.

As to fish... with fewer dollars to spend, maybe a fiscal conservative will prioritize where habitat dollars go instead of who contributes the most to their campaign.

I'm sure you (and Eddie, the other liberal) have noticed, you keep voting the same way most of the time and expecting better results. Ain't happening guys! Please give us the list of stellar accomplishments of your pal, Governor Lisp.

That president you backed last time got his precious Nobel Peace Prize and proceeded to murder thousands of innocent people in a half dozen countries. He turned out to be a liar and a con artist, starting with his appointments at the FDA and various other agencies. What's more, you both supported him twice.

Then you vote for Hillary, knowing the level of corruption she deals in. If you aren't asking yourselves if you've been seriously mislead, you certainly should be.

At least I know Trump is a rich jerk. A fairly honest one at that. You said that early on Salmo, that his appeal was telling the truth... you prefer to be lied to???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts
Salmon are important to me, but even I wouldn't put salmon as the number 1 priority in government in WA state. According to the state constitution, public education is the number one priority (IIRC), and I can't disagree with that.

And what do you mean by "clean up the spawning beds, then the river mouths . . .?" Spawning areas in many rivers are gradually improving since forestry regulations were tightened, first under the Timber, Fish, and Wildlife and now under the Fish & Forestry act. But that improvement comes in small increments over decades of time. Do you have a method in mind that would achieve the desired result more quickly? If so, what is it?

By river mouths I presume you mean estuaries. Most Puget Sound estuaries have been developed with industry and bulkheads that have degraded their productivity. How would you clean them up? Are you proposing that the next governor cause shoreline industries and commercial developments to be removed? If so, how? Because there are no state laws that require such removal. I'm curious to understand what your definition of "cleaning up" is and how it would work to restore higher salmon productivity to rivers and river mouths.

Sg
Those are all good questions. However, it needs to be pointed out that there is some (albeit limited) estuary restoration occurring principally via removal of dikes. And while that may be a good thing is it going to make a difference - that is, are there other limiting factors with the same or greater contraint? Nisqually was not industrialized and significant farmland dike removal has occurred. Has there been a measurable improvement correlating to that habitat improvement?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,056 Posts
FS,

Yes, I lean fiscal conservative, but not tightwad conservative, meaning I'm willing to pay taxes that promote the public interest, at least that part of it that I agree with. That said, you should note that I don't go around bragging about most D leaders either. While a fiscal conservative might prioritize where habitat dollars go, my expectation is that a R governor would instead choose to give quality lip service to environmental protection and no dollars and actively, if indirectly, promote the continuing degradation and destruction of the natural environment for its beneficial business benefits. Fiscal conservatives are just as married to campaign financing as liberals, unfortunately. It's all part of having the best government that money can buy. It's tough being a moderate; we generally have to choose between the deplorable and the despicable.

PD,

Dike removal for estuary restoration seems like it should result in increased production of estuarine dependent species like Chinook, pink, and chum salmon. Does it achieve that result? I don't know. It's hard to do the kind of multi-variate analysis that would actually pin-point changes in productivity due to the estuary improvements. In the case of the Nisqually, the least developed estuary in Puget Sound, its geographic location at the bottom of PS, where all smolts have the greatest distance to travel to reach the ocean, may offset the potential benefits expected from the recently expanded estuary. I only know that Nisqually Tribal biologists report that juvenile fish are abundant and using the restored areas. Time should tell if increased adult production occurs as a result.

Sg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,456 Posts
Salmo, it's all a little late now, but for the next go around, I think your fears of WA Republicans are misplaced. I think you'll find they are fiscal conservatives, but most are no where near what you describe. They can't be in this state, or they couldn't get re-elected, which is their first priority.

After traveling to the east coast and back, we truly ARE being over-taxed and getting little in return. Our policies lean hard left and strongly influenced by big city politicians that don't give a patooty about the rest of us. Do you REALLY want to continue on the path to becoming North California?

The R's put up two great choices for the last two elections. The last one Rob McKenna would have been an awesome governor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,056 Posts
McKenna would have been extremely competent, but his social values are very Catholic, anti-abortion, anti-gay, etc. Can't resist imposing his values on others. And that's why an R has such a hard time getting elected here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts
FS,

PD,

Dike removal for estuary restoration seems like it should result in increased production of estuarine dependent species like Chinook, pink, and chum salmon. Does it achieve that result? I don't know. It's hard to do the kind of multi-variate analysis that would actually pin-point changes in productivity due to the estuary improvements. In the case of the Nisqually, the least developed estuary in Puget Sound, its geographic location at the bottom of PS, where all smolts have the greatest distance to travel to reach the ocean, may offset the potential benefits expected from the recently expanded estuary. I only know that Nisqually Tribal biologists report that juvenile fish are abundant and using the restored areas. Time should tell if increased adult production occurs as a result.

Sg
The Nisqually at one time had robust runs so being in south sound then was apparently not the impediment it seems now to be. My point was not to disparage reasonable estuary recovery but to suggest that there are probably other emergent factors limiting the potential of that improved habitat.

I have previously posted this August 2015 presentation to the Commission but do so again because I believe it provides some strong hints: http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/08/aug0715_06_presentation.pdf. Some interesting info in there - just wish I were better educated on the statistical aspects of the studies. Fortunately, they did dumb down their findings a bit..........

Hopefully the effects of the Blob have not totally screwed up the Squaxin/PSRFE experiment whereby they tagged groups of salmon (Coho?) and then released those discrete groups at several different locations progressing north in an attempt to determine if there truly is a South Sound death zone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts
FS,

Yes, I lean fiscal conservative, but not tightwad conservative, meaning I'm willing to pay taxes that promote the public interest, at least that part of it that I agree with. That said, you should note that I don't go around bragging about most D leaders either. While a fiscal conservative might prioritize where habitat dollars go, my expectation is that a R governor would instead choose to give quality lip service to environmental protection and no dollars and actively, if indirectly, promote the continuing degradation and destruction of the natural environment for its beneficial business benefits. Fiscal conservatives are just as married to campaign financing as liberals, unfortunately. It's all part of having the best government that money can buy. It's tough being a moderate; we generally have to choose between the deplorable and the despicable.

Sg
Just remember that it was Inslee who reappointed Miranda Wecker to the Commission and shortly thereafter was forcing her to submit her resignation. Only last minute intervention saved her - one of the strongest conservation-oriented (versus preservation) Commissioners. Double dealing politicians (is that redundant?) do not sit well with me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,456 Posts
McKenna would have been extremely competent, but his social values are very Catholic, anti-abortion, anti-gay, etc. Can't resist imposing his values on others. And that's why an R has such a hard time getting elected here.
Inslee is doing EXACTLY the same thing. Imposing his values on others, making Seattle the city of rainbows and unicorns instead of being part of the Evergreen State.

You put education as #1. Rather than concentrate on schools, Inslee opts for ways to create bigger government with more control of YOU and I, not less. Let's not discuss his roaming tax schemes. He can't work with his own party members to accomplish anything.

This liberal state government can't even keep litter off the highways. There wasn't a single state that I traveled through that looked as bad as our state does. Even the major cities were cleaner. We look like a garbage dump in one of the most beautiful places in the world.

That's pathetic and that's on the liberals and their supporters who keep electing them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,349 Posts
go marsh go ,so nice to hear somebody call it like it is.This state use to be a great state for somebody into the outdoors.Now its full of cali transplants that just bring their stupid liberal ideals with them.They screwed up their state and had to leave .unforutantly they bring they same stupid crap here that messed up cali.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,456 Posts
When WSDOT erected all those "Keep Washington Green" signs, they meant "we're going to take all your money".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,095 Posts
Inslee is doing EXACTLY the same thing. Imposing his values on others, making Seattle the city of rainbows and unicorns instead of being part of the Evergreen State.

They've got their share of rainbows for sure. Their Unicorns have more of a resemblance to a rat with a giant brain tumor.

Has anyone else here followed the Chris Hansen Sodo Arena news like I have? If so then you've been exposed to the Jay Inslee value imposing from the majority of the Seattle City Council also. Kshama Sawant lashed out at owners who control our professional sports teams'' and pit sports fans against working-class jobs. Wouldn't the Sodo Arena bring lots of working class jobs for 250-300 nights a year? Not to mention all the bars and restaurants that would be built and create an economic hot spot in the midst of what is now a ghost town.

Sawants point was that this new Arena would cause congestion and mayhem when the port workers clock out. Events at the new arena would be held at 7 PM. The port closes its gates at 4:30 PM. Traffic wouldn't coincide in between the two groups. Traffic isn't her gripe in this debate. Her main gripe is the destain she has for the wealthy. Not only is that stupid it's just about as bad as racism if you think about it. It's hating just to hate rather than hate that is justified through a negative action.

A great opportunity is there economically but it takes a back seat to bike lanes, their sanctuary city BS and planning camping trips for the homeless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts
go marsh go ,so nice to hear somebody call it like it is.This state use to be a great state for somebody into the outdoors.Now its full of cali transplants that just bring their stupid liberal ideals with them.They screwed up their state and had to leave .unforutantly they bring they same stupid crap here that messed up cali.
Waiting for another 100 straight rainy days.......so I can tell the whiners that I-5 runs both directions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,374 Posts
The Nisqually at one time had robust runs so being in south sound then was apparently not the impediment it seems now to be. My point was not to disparage reasonable estuary recovery but to suggest that there are probably other emergent factors limiting the potential of that improved habitat.

I have previously posted this August 2015 presentation to the Commission but do so again because I believe it provides some strong hints: http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/08/aug0715_06_presentation.pdf. Some interesting info in there - just wish I were better educated on the statistical aspects of the studies. Fortunately, they did dumb down their findings a bit..........

Hopefully the effects of the Blob have not totally screwed up the Squaxin/PSRFE experiment whereby they tagged groups of salmon (Coho?) and then released those discrete groups at several different locations progressing north in an attempt to determine if there truly is a South Sound death zone.
If the South Sound is a death zone, then how did Minter get back double the numbers of coho over most other state hatcheries?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts
If the South Sound is a death zone, then how did Minter get back double the numbers of coho over most other state hatcheries?
Interesting....but exactly what are the facts?

If Minter Creek saw twice the absolute number of coho returns than most other State hatcheries that could simply be the result of having released twice the number of coho smolt than most other State hatcheries - with the same (or worse) rate of return.

I would be really surprised if Minter Creek saw a much higher rate of return for coho than from other State hatcheries.

More info would be appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,095 Posts
All you gotta do it get the smolt release numbers and divide it with the total escapement to get the percent of the return.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,056 Posts
Metal,

You're leaving out the factor that is usually the largest % of the population for your calculation. You also need to account for all the harvests of those fish, including B.C., where most of the catch occurs. Smolt to adult hatchery return only accounts for part. And in a year like this when most of the harvests in WA were closed or greatly reduced. a larger than average terminal area return can happen.

Sg
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top