Ithaca 37
New member
"Tens of thousands of anglers, from American Indians with gaffs and dip nets to jet boaters with graphite fishing rods, have integrated salmon season into their lives from April until September. They travel to small, rural towns like Riggins, Orofino and Cascade, spending up to $38 million with the hope of landing fish that are as prized by anglers as bull elk are by hunters.
They camp on roadsides in blue-tarp shanties and luxury motor homes with satellite dishes.
They stand on riverbanks or sit in boats for hours, casting with metronomic precision while waiting for a salmon to bite.........."
http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040613/NEWS01/406130332
Remember, this is with a salmon return of about two percent. What do you think the impact would be if the return was twenty percent of the smolts released by the hatcheries?
Suppose the wild fish production increased due to improved habitat?
Breaching the dams and eliminating fish habitat destruction by logging and grazing would increase wild fish production. Keep in mind that public land logging and grazing and dam maintenance are all heavily subsidized and lose money every year for the taxpayers.
So we lose money to sustain industries that continue to destroy fish habitat and fish returns when we can see the economic impact of an industry (fishing) that doesn't destroy anything, doesn't need expensive infrastructure to sustain it, and provides healthy recreation for thousands of people.
True, hatcheries are paid for with federal funds, but we wouldn't need hatcheries if the spawning habitat hadn't been destroyed by logging and grazing and dams weren't causing the death of 95% of the smolts before they can reach the ocean.
[ 06-13-2004, 04:41: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]
They camp on roadsides in blue-tarp shanties and luxury motor homes with satellite dishes.
They stand on riverbanks or sit in boats for hours, casting with metronomic precision while waiting for a salmon to bite.........."
http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040613/NEWS01/406130332
Remember, this is with a salmon return of about two percent. What do you think the impact would be if the return was twenty percent of the smolts released by the hatcheries?
Suppose the wild fish production increased due to improved habitat?
Breaching the dams and eliminating fish habitat destruction by logging and grazing would increase wild fish production. Keep in mind that public land logging and grazing and dam maintenance are all heavily subsidized and lose money every year for the taxpayers.
So we lose money to sustain industries that continue to destroy fish habitat and fish returns when we can see the economic impact of an industry (fishing) that doesn't destroy anything, doesn't need expensive infrastructure to sustain it, and provides healthy recreation for thousands of people.
True, hatcheries are paid for with federal funds, but we wouldn't need hatcheries if the spawning habitat hadn't been destroyed by logging and grazing and dams weren't causing the death of 95% of the smolts before they can reach the ocean.
[ 06-13-2004, 04:41: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]
