Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Oregon Confronting Possible Closure Of Salmon Fishery For 2006

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 01:25 PM
Original message
Oregon Confronting Possible Closure Of Salmon Fishery For 2006
Fishermen and businesses along the Oregon Coast are bracing for the possibility of no commercial salmon season this year. Hoping to develop a strategy to minimize the impact on coastal communities, Gov. Ted Kulongoski plans to meet this morning with some trollers, coastal legislators and agency directors and Oregon's congressional delegation.

The third consecutive season of poor chinook returns to Northern California's Klamath River to spawn has federal fisheries managers considering closing 700 miles of coastline to salmon fishing for the May-October season, despite plentiful stocks elsewhere. They already have closed this year's spring season.

The governor's natural-resources adviser said that today's meeting at the Capitol will focus on how best to help people possibly affected by the proposed closure of coastal waters to commercial salmon fishing. "What we are really looking for (today) is for commercial fishermen and community leaders to tell us what has worked well in the past and any new ideas they have," Mike Carrier said Monday.

Among the possible forms of aid to be discussed will be temporary jobs in streambed and watershed restoration, direct grants to help owners make payments on their boats and job retraining for fishermen who might opt to leave the business, he said. Federal fishery managers are considering three options. One would close the season in Oregon and California, and the others would impose deep reductions in the catch.

EDIT

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060328/STATE/603280317/1042
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. good bye salmon - sorry - our food chain will loose another link


how stupid of us
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
motocicleta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. Ah, jesus h
we gotta pull our heads out and fast. What kinda world is my daughter, much less her children and their children, going to live in?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
motocicleta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. do you know how far we've fallen?
estimated fish numbers in pre-columbian times? 11 to 16 million salmon, yearly, in the Columbia River system. Now? Last year, last I heard from my spot on the east coast was we weren't seeing 10% of the expected run of 500,000. That's a lot of biomass not returning to our ecosystem, folks.

We really need to jettison all forms of activity that are not ecologically sustainable, I don't think we have time for market forces to provide us with the proper information. I suspect that information will come in a form I don't want to view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. a BIG first and immediate step would be for the world to stop
Edited on Tue Mar-28-06 02:10 PM by donsu
driving cars every Wednesday

not trucks, emergency, cops, etc.

just cars

THERE HAS TO BE A FIRST BIG IMMEDIATE WORLD STEP

suggest your, meaning the readers, first world step. mine is no car driving on Wed. anywhere in the world
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
motocicleta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I'm thinking holistically
I'm not entirely sure what I mean, other than I am trying, on every front, to limit my ecological footprint and increase my impact on positive change. Obviously I will always have a footprint, but for example, I will never buy a new vehicle again, because I don't want to contribute to the market for production of new vehicles (metals, plastics, etc). I drive as little as I can, and I take commuting into account on this basis for every potential living situation and job. I eat as locally, organically, and package minimal as possible. I try to focus my efforts on what is really important to me, my family and community, and leave all extraneous efforts behind. And I am changing my career to work in sustainable development, both nonprofit and for.

I tend to avoid big first steps, because of the difficulty of bringing lots of people along, the letdown when the first step doesn't pay off immediately, and I think solutions are unique to everyone, but I'm open to suggestions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. I'm with you on leaving my softest ecological footprint


but a large part of america and the world doesn't even know what an ecological footprint is

and tick, tick, tick is there time to teach them?

think emergency room protocol

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. "...tell us what has worked well in the past..."
I'm not a fisherman, but I know the thing that used to work well in the past was not taking so many goddamned fish out of the water.

Or, more generally speaking, having fewer than 6.5 billion human beings all living on planet earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
motocicleta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. should be easily 9 billion in 44 years
if the food doesn't run out, ala peak oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. We'll see. My tea-leaves say...
that by 2100 there will be fewer than one billion humans. Maybe a lot, lot fewer.

Prediction is hard. Especially about the future.
--Yogi Berra
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
motocicleta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. for a variety of reasons, I won't take that bet
but I will spend the rest of my life trying to figure out how to help my daughter survive, and very little else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 10th 2024, 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC