Ag vs Trout

[Elky Welky]

Interesting Op-Ed in The Daily Montanan a couple of days ago, about the current administration's continuing prioritization of one industry over all else, and the lack of biology and wildlife management experience from those at the top:

Pure propaganda on rivers flows from Gianforte's Fish, Wildlife and Parks • Daily Montanan

Columnist George Ochenski says that water is the one thing that's not flowing from the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks department.

dailymontanan.com

Montanans have pretty much given up on the Jefferson and the Smith being stellar trout fisheries, because the almighty king Ag needs his water. Do we need to give up on the Blackfoot and Madison now as well?

 

[TOGIE]

similar ratios of water go to ag across most the western states.

water rights are what they are and leasing is hard method to truly keep rivers full regardless of the funding. absolutely better than nothing though.

is the blame really on gianforte or the legislature for keeping that fund dry? that op ed drips with just a little too much emotion for me.

 

[Nameless Range]

Ochenski is an interesting fellow. Sometimes right(ish) while simultaneously usually doing nothing to solve the problem and in fact making it worse with his rhetoric.

I am being purposefully vague, but I have engaged with certain watershed efforts, and the irrigators willfully involved. In some instances, irrigators have reduced their water use – both volume and period of use- below their legally entitled usage for the sake of a river. I got the sense that a lot of em genuinely cared about those rivers, and though I know not all are like them, I don't think they are alone in terms of similar sentiments in other watersheds.

One could say it's insufficient, and they might be right, but the kind of wholesale villification of an industry or even demographic that ol' George engages in is simply preaching to a choir and I don't think he persuades anyone. The hard work, which is often unsatisfying and comes in dinks and dunks and takes into consideration things like human interests, historic use, and a long game, is much harder than writing an op-ed. I believe this way of thinking - which by the way is nearly always void of a practical solution to the problem - speaking about a wide array of environmental and land management issues is a net-negative. Is this article about fisheries, or a wholesale dunk on an administration? One would be more interesting to me than the other. He could stay on topic about rivers, leave things such as unrelated hyperbole about wolves out of the equation, and still wouldn't have to work too hard to convince folks on the fence that Gianforte is incredibly suspect as a steward of the public trust.

I'm old enough to remember our rivers being in peril for a variety of reasons many times over the last 20+ years.

 

[Elky Welky]

He could stay on topic about rivers, leave things such as unrelated hyperbole about wolves out of the equation, and still wouldn't have to work too hard to convince folks on the fence that Gianforte is incredibly suspect as a steward of the public trust.

Agree wholeheartedly. The wolf stuff is distracting and not very persuasive with many Montanans.

 

[44hunter45]

I fight this fight constantly with my Idaho State reps regarding the Snake River Dams.

There is no way to apply logic with them. They will merely respond with the American Farm Bureau talking points.
My favorite is that breaching the dams will cost 47,000 jobs and require 26,000 semi trucks to replace the barge traffic for grain.

1) Who paid for that study?
2) So if each truck requires at least one driver and one loader, isn't that 52,000 replacement jobs? And there are already CDL drivers working every farm on the Palouse. No re-training required.

Agriculture in Washington and Idaho is a billion dollar industry.

1) That replaced a fishing industry worth trillions in today's money.
2) That replaced Washington and Idaho's native landscape with a highly erosive, single crop farming practice.

Same pig, different nipple.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ochenski is an interesting fellow. Sometimes right(ish) while simultaneously usually doing nothing to solve the problem and in fact making it worse with his rhetoric.

I am being purposefully vague, but I have engaged with certain watershed efforts, and the irrigators willfully involved. In some instances, irrigators have reduced their water use – both volume and period of use- below their legally entitled usage for the sake of a river. I got the sense that a lot of em genuinely cared about those rivers, and though I know not all are like them, I don't think they are alone in terms of similar sentiments in other watersheds.

One could say it's insufficient, and they might be right, but the kind of wholesale villification of an industry or even demographic that ol' George engages in is simply preaching to a choir and I don't think he persuades anyone. The hard work, which is often unsatisfying and comes in dinks and dunks and takes into consideration things like human interests, historic use, and a long game, is much harder than writing an op-ed. I believe this way of thinking - which by the way is nearly always void of a practical solution to the problem - speaking about a wide array of environmental and land management issues is a net-negative. Is this article about fisheries, or a wholesale dunk on an administration? One would be more interesting to me than the other. He could stay on topic about rivers, leave things such as unrelated hyperbole about wolves out of the equation, and still wouldn't have to work too hard to convince folks on the fence that Gianforte is incredibly suspect as a steward of the public trust.

I'm old enough to remember our rivers being in peril for a variety of reasons many times over the last 20+ years.

George lives in a place that's not that much different than other pundits with no real skin in the game. He used to be a significant factor in conservation in 90's, but hasn't for a long time outside of the heavy liberal enclaves, and people who want to fight instead of solve issues (AWR, CBD, et al). 100% correct that it's easy to be an absolutist from a position of privilege and comfort.

TU/MTTU's work on water infrastructure, storage and how to work with landowners to increase stream flow while protecting the bottom line is some of the best work out there that I've seen. The future fisheries projects have done amazing work in the Clark Fork system to increase water quality and reconnect streams for fish passage. That funding is pretty stable at the moment. Given the issues around instream flows and the chore that it was to get it reauthorized in 23, I can see why the agency would be reluctant to call on their rights ahead of other users whom are suffering from drought as well. While I'd like to see the agency be a bit more aggressive on that end, I'm also not so naive as to think that FWP will put a call in that bankrupts ranchers and farmers downstream.

Ultimately, it's a water quantity issue and we're not seeing the kind of snowpack that helps with late season water temps, etc. Until we can figure out how to make it snow more in the winter and rain more in the spring, we're looking at how to manage competing interests and livelihoods. I can't think of a rancher I know that doesn't want plenty of water in the river for fish and for irrigating. It's a case of rising tides lifting all boats, literally.

Conifer encroachment takes water out of the system, as does juniper and noxious weeds. Increased storage in the high country can help with timed releases of cool water later in the season and improve fishing while simultaneously increasing water available for agriculture.

Ladies & Gentlemen,

Beaver. We need more beaver.

 

[TheTone]

My favorite is that breaching the dams will cost 47,000 jobs and require 26,000 semi trucks to replace the barge traffic for grain.

1) Who paid for that study?
2) So if each truck requires at least one driver and one loader, isn't that 52,000 replacement jobs? And there are already CDL drivers working every farm on the Palouse. No re-training required.

amazing how they forget about all the rail lines run all over farm country all the way to Portland when it comes to talking about barges and semi’s

 

[Handlebar]

George lives in a place that's not that much different than other pundits with no real skin in the game. He used to be a significant factor in conservation in 90's, but hasn't for a long time outside of the heavy liberal enclaves, and people who want to fight instead of solve issues (AWR, CBD, et al). 100% correct that it's easy to be an absolutist from a position of privilege and comfort.

TU/MTTU's work on water infrastructure, storage and how to work with landowners to increase stream flow while protecting the bottom line is some of the best work out there that I've seen. The future fisheries projects have done amazing work in the Clark Fork system to increase water quality and reconnect streams for fish passage. That funding is pretty stable at the moment. Given the issues around instream flows and the chore that it was to get it reauthorized in 23, I can see why the agency would be reluctant to call on their rights ahead of other users whom are suffering from drought as well. While I'd like to see the agency be a bit more aggressive on that end, I'm also not so naive as to think that FWP will put a call in that bankrupts ranchers and farmers downstream.

Ultimately, it's a water quantity issue and we're not seeing the kind of snowpack that helps with late season water temps, etc. Until we can figure out how to make it snow more in the winter and rain more in the spring, we're looking at how to manage competing interests and livelihoods. I can't think of a rancher I know that doesn't want plenty of water in the river for fish and for irrigating. It's a case of rising tides lifting all boats, literally.

Conifer encroachment takes water out of the system, as does juniper and noxious weeds. Increased storage in the high country can help with timed releases of cool water later in the season and improve fishing while simultaneously increasing water available for agriculture.

Ladies & Gentlemen,

Beaver. We need more beaver.

This is the way
The decimation of beaver IMO was the single greatest disaster.

 

[Rie Bread]

Look at the east Gallatin. Ag draw get the river so low it hardly flows until a creek recharges it

 

[Ben Lamb]

Look at the east Gallatin. Ag draw get the river so low it hardly flows until a creek recharges it

Gotta wonder how much surface water all those subdivisions and new business parks are soaking up with their wells, as well. The fight between developers and Ag/conservation on the exempt well issue is coming to the session again in 25.

 

[Rie Bread]

big hole drought plan

 

[Rie Bread]

Gotta wonder how much surface water all those subdivisions and new business parks are soaking up with their wells, as well. The fight between developers and Ag/conservation on the exempt well issue is coming to the session again in 25.

As someone in the industry it certainly needs to be addressed