Covering that human-driven mess in 1800 words means taking a few shortcuts, but overall, I’m happy with the article, which each and every one of you should run out and buy this instant.

Outside of the check I received for writing CA Fly Fisher’s “The Good Fight” section, it’s clear I benefited from the article in other ways; Little M recently used a word that raised the L&T’s eyebrows, and I only escaped punishment through clever use of reasonable doubt:

“She must have learned it during my many discussions of Klamath “dam” removal. Yeah, that’s the ticket.”

See? Fly fishing’s not just good for your soul. It’s good for your health as well.

See you practicing not saying the wrong things, Tom Chandler

A recent video attacking Klamath River dam removal in Siskiyou County trotted out all the usual falsehoods (the dams protect salmon, the removal will “devastate” Siskiyou County ranchers, coho aren’t native to the Klamath, yadda yadda…).

Frankly, that’s about par for the course up here.

What is remarkable about the (professionally produced) video can be summed up in two bullet points:

• At one point, County Supervisor Grace Bennett actually invokes the United Nations (Agenda 21) as one of the reasons the government’s trying to remove the dams
• Oil billionaire money is now making an appearance in the Klamath dam removal fight

Big Money (And Black Helicopters) Come To Siskiyou County

You can’t help but notice this video was produced by Americans For Prosperity, which turns out not to be a grassroots organization, but a front group for the Koch Brothers.

If you don’t know who the Koch Brothers are, they’re oil company billionaires (Koch Industries is the second-largest privately owned company in the USA), and they’re slowly (and reluctantly) becoming famous for secretly funding disinformation campaigns about climate change. (The New Yorker published an excellent article on the Koch Brothers here.)

In thinly populated Siskiyou County — where campaign signs are often hand-stenciled affairs created in the candidate’s garage — it’s hard to fathom the impact of billionaire oil money on the fight to remove the Klamath Dams

The whole affair has already morphed from a decision about relicensing privately owned dams which will begin losing $20 million year and are extincting salmon populations into a fight against socialist government black helicopter oppression.

It would all make more sense if there wasn’t all this peer-reviewed science suggesting the dams do a lot of damage and very little actual good.

At several points in the video ranchers repeat the claim that they’re the best stewards of the river and the area, yet their plan for preventing coho salmon extinction is to pretend the coho don’t actually exist.

Stellar work, guys.

As a resident of Siskiyou County, I’ve grown used to watching the county drag itself into one bad fight after another while the supervisors generally act like fools, and I can say with some certainty the disinformation that characterizes this fight will flow as freely as before.

It’s just that suddenly, that disinformation is being funded by billionaires with a long history of doing exactly that sort of thing.

See you watching the game change seemingly overnight, Tom Chandler.

Art doesn’t pull a lot of punches about the Pit’s fishability, though he does think it’s a shame so many people are staying away — and that things could be a lot better this year if PG&E can get the flows down where they’re supposed to be (they were way too high last year).

In any case, the Pit River hydro relicensing remains a hot topic with California’s fly fishermen. Here are a couple excerpts from the interview (note his thoughts about the specific reaches):

Interview Excerpts

Q: As a guide, have you found new spots? How have you adapted?

No, I’ve mostly found different ways to fish the same areas.

Really, you’re only looking at a difference in depth of 6″-12″, which doesn’t sound like much, but you need to be three times as careful.

We’re seeing a lot of fish moving out of the middle of the channel to the margins. These days, the fish can be anywhere from one bank to the other. I carry a staff in one hand and a shortline rod in the other and fish the water in the margins.

You’d be amazed when you throw into a spot that looks like it has 6″ of water — boom! Out comes a big fish. Too many people just charge right out to that good-looking seam, missing all the secondary lies.

Also what I’ll do is get down there early and see who is there, who’s parked where. So I’m trying to see where people are wading — often you’ll see them wading where the fish have moved to, and your odds of catching them are pretty low.

Once again, you’re looking at that secondary water.

Basically, it is what is, and we just need to go down there and have fun. Last year we caught a lot of fish and we still caught the bigger fish the Pit is famous for. You just have to approach it with a bit more caution.

It’s a shame that so many people are staying away.

Q: How are you handling potential client inquiries about the Pit?

Before, I had a little fear about some of the different age groups I took down there. The Pit has never been a good river for someone who had trouble walking. Now I have to be a little more careful.

Interestingly, the guys that are getting in trouble aren’t really the first-timers; the people that are having problems with it are the people who have fished it a lot, and rely on those memories to tell us where we can wade or not.

A while back, I went across the river at a spot I’d fished a hundred times; it took me almost 1.5 hours to get back. You can’t make those old assumptions about a new Pit.

Q: How did the individual reaches fare?

The river in Pit #3 was able to spread out — it had room. But Pit #4 became really difficult — all of the biologists hired to do the bug and fish surveys said they couldn’t get to the middle of the river to gather data.

That’s because Pit #4 is more canyon-like — it doesn’t have the room to spread out like Pit #3, so it’s become challenging.

The worst was Pit #5 — there really were no spots I could cross at all.

It’s hard to say how bad it will be when flows are lower like they’re supposed to be.

To read the interview in its entirety, click here.

Special Bonus Video

I didn’t know Teter was also a movie star; he appeared in one of those California Tourism commercials, and you can’t miss him.

He’s the only person holding a fly rod (about 10 seconds in), and pretty much everyone else in the commercial is a hot babe. Teter’s a lot of things, but ‘hot babe’ isn’t one of them.

Some of these are useful and some — particularly those blocking access to anadromous fish — are pretty damned harmful (as Singlebarbed would say, the only way to be sure is to nuke ‘em from orbit).

For those who don’t fish around here, the Pit River recently underwent a FERC hydropower relicensing, which saw flows increased to benefit the fishery, but maybe not the fishermen. Last year was the first for the new flows, and fishermen — who had heard some pretty hard stories about what was going to happen — stayed away in droves.

For example, Art Teter usually books somewhere between 60-75 guide days a year on the Pit.

Last year he booked only 18.

No Easy Answers

It’s a complicated issue — one that defies easy answers. For example, last year’s flows were condemned by many fly fishermen as being unfishable (even dangerous in the case of Pit #5), yet it turns out they were consistently 50 cfs – 150 cfs above the target flows.

In addition, campground construction made access to some reaches very difficult, further eroding angler satisfaction.

This is an issue that CalTrout and the California TU Chapter have taken a lot of heat over, and it’s an excellent example of the bind conservation organizations sometimes find themselves in when the needs of fish and fishermen collide.

Expect to hear more about this one.

Adaptability

One bright spot is that CalTrout and TU insisted on an adaptive management process, so if the new flow regime’s goals aren’t being met, there’s a chance things could change.

For example, fly fishermen apparently comprise better than 90% of the recreational use of the Pit River, and if the new flows significantly erode that number, than it’s just possible they might be altered.

And the reason for increased flows in Pit #4 and Pit #5 was too-high water temperatures, which left Pit #4 supporting half the biomass of Pit #3, and Pit #5 another 50% less. If the increased flows don’t result in lower temperatures, adjustments could be made.

If it only seems confusing to you, then rest assured it’s actually worse than you think. Fortunately, Teter does a good job of stating his perspective in the interview, which I hope will go up relatively soon on the CalTrout site.

Anyone who knows Art Teter knows he’s not one to pull punches, and his perspective as someone who fishes the Pit as much as anyone is sometimes surprising (and yes, I did manage to wheedle a couple of fly fishing tips out of him).

See you doing that whole keyboardy writerish thing, Tom Chandler.

Unfortunately, this one needs your attention this morning. So buck up Undergrounders — it will only take a minute (I just did both in one minute — email addresses and sample text included below).

Stop California From Misusing Your Fishing License Dollars

This from Alert Underground Reader Kevin:

Tomorrow, the State Senate’s Budget Subcommittee 2 will move to take at least $1.5 million (maybe as much as $4 million) in fishing license revenues away from fishery programs and use it for Timber Harvest Plan review. This will be the second year that the Senate has tried to do this.

I know that some of you will think that improved timber practices will improve fishing. I don’t disagree, but that’s not the point. THP review should be funded by timber companies, not anglers. If more money is needed for logging oversight, it’s the timber companies that should pay for it.

State fishery programs are already underfunded – the Heritage and Wild Trout Program, for example, doesn’t even have the number of staff that are required by law, we have far fewer wardens than we need and our hatcheries are in pretty dire shape. You name the fishery program – striper research, Lahontan restoration, steelhead habitat improvement – and it will be negatively impacted by the loss of this funding.

Please contact the Subcommittee members and let them know that anglers’ license money is paid to support our fisheries, not subsidize logging companies.

Unfortunately, the hearing is at 2:30 PM today (Wednesday). At this late date, calling their offices is best, but emails are appreciated too.

Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), the chair, supported it before and will likely argue in favor of it. His office line is (916) 651-4011; click here for email.

Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), supported it last year but is more likely to be swayed than Simitian. His office line is (916) 651-4027; click here for email.

It won’t hurt to contact the Dept. of Fish and Game, as they’ll be testifying at this hearing. Last year, DFG didn’t fight this move. You can call the Director’s office at (916) 653-4633.

Sample Email

Dear XXX:

I’m writing in opposition to the Senate’s Budget Subcommittee’s attempt to take at least $1.5 million in fishing license revenues away from fishery programs and use it for Timber Harvest Plan review.

While I’m all for improved timber harvest practices and better Timber Harvest Plan reviews, it’s common sense they should be paid for by timber companies, not funded by fishing license revenues.

State fishery programs are already underfunded, and this makes that worse.

For example, The Heritage and Wild Trout Program does not support the number of staff that are required by law. We also have far fewer wardens than we need and our hatcheries are in pretty dire shape. Every fishery program will be negatively impacted by the loss of this funding.

Make timber companies pay for their own impacts; leave our fishery money alone.

Respectfully,
XXXX

A Little Good News

There’s also a little good news too; a bill that makes it easier to improve habitat for Coho salmon (it eases restrictions on improvement projects for landowners and others) cleared committee yesterday without comment. A big hurdle cleared.

See, it’s not all slogging…

See you catching up, Tom Chandler.

A lot of the commonly accepted “facts” in the bizarro world of Siskiyou County politics aren’t facts at all, but that hasn’t prevented their spread.

In the fight to remove the four lower Klamath River dams and restore the Klamath’s fast-dwindling coho salmon populations, we’ve been told that “dams are good for salmon.” It’s all the Native Americans’ fault. And that the UN wants to seize our lands and create a wildlife preserve.

Then there’s my personal favorite: the Klamath’s coho salmon are not native to the Klamath watershed, so their ESA listing is illegal — as is removing the Klamath River dams to protect them.

This, Undergrounders, should prove entertaining.

Your Junk Smells

It’s common for dam removal opponents to label any science supporting dam removal as “junk science,” despite the fact it’s peer reviewed(by several groups) and widely available for public scrutiny.

In other words, when a group like the Siskiyou County Water Users Association (SCWUA) files a petition to remove the Klamath coho salmon from the ESA endangered roster, they’re pretty clearly pushing a boulder uphill — unless they’re willing to manufacture evidence.

Which, it turns out, is what they did.

First Things First

Let’s look at one of the key bits of evidence supporting the “coho aren’t native to the Klamath River” claim: this apparently damming quote from a 1913 California Fish & Game commission report (screenshot taken from the SCWUA Petition):

Quote from SCWUA coho delisting petition

Using this quote as a foundation, a “Dr. Richard Gierak” (a chiropractor who is listed as “Science Advisor” on the SCWUA petition) had this to say in a blog post on the Defend Rural America website:

Coho were first planted in 1895 and according to a 1913 California Fish & Game Commission report it indicated there were no run of either kind of Salmon in the Trinity River even after Coho were planted in 1895 and 1899.

Unfortunately for the SCWUA and Dr. Gierak, I found a scanned copy of the 1913 Fish & Game Commission Report (you can find the book on Google books).

After reading it, I couldn’t find the quote.

Odd. Let’s see if the original quote was in another 1913 report, or if it could be found elsewhere.

Turns out I did find it.

Which is when the rain really started to fall.

Instead of coming from 1913 California Fish & Game Commission report, the quote is found in an 1895 U.S. Fish Commission Report (click here, look at pg 41 of the .pdf file).

And they didn’t just get the date and authorship wrong. The un-modified quote actually means the polar opposite of what the SCWUA petition says it does.

To refresh your memory, here’s the quote from the SCWUA delisting petition:

“Most of the salmon and steelhead eggs were taken at the [Redwood Creek] substation, as there was no run of either kind of Salmon in the Trinity River.”

Now here’s the original, unmodified wording (emphasis mine to note differences):

“Most of the salmon and steelhead eggs were taken at the [Redwood Creek] substation, as there was no run of either kind in the Trinity, all the fish having been taken at the cannery at the mouth of Klamath River.”

Night and day, Undergrounders. Night and day.

• The original quote wasn’t uttered by Shebley in 1913, but was found in an 1895 report
• Somebody (gasp) truncated the original quote to reverse its meaning
• The words “of Salmon” were added, apparently to mislead the reader (the quote was about Chinook salmon and steelhead)

Was the quote deliberately transplanted from 1895 to 1913 to give the 1895 plantings more impact, truncated to flip its meaning, and the words “of Salmon” added in an attempt to change its meaning?

Given the chain of alterations (one error is a mistake; several is likely a deception), I’d suggest the answer is “yes.”

As it stands, the quote confirms the presence of steelhead and Chinook salmon in the Trinity River, not their absence (which never made any sense; the existence of Chinook in the Klamath system has never been in question).

And while it doesn’t conclusively confirm the existence of coho salmon in the Trinity or Klamath Rivers, it certainly places the veracity of those making the claims (and presumably lying about the quote) in question.

While We’re On The Subject…

Further torpedoing the SCWUA’s assertion that the relatively small 1895 coho plant on the Trinity River is the genesis of all the coho salmon on the Trinity and Klamath is a Fish & Game report on the odds a single 1895 coho plant in the Trinity River could have populated the entire Klamath watershed.

Although it cannot be determined with absolute certainty that the 1895 stocking [*ED: on the Trinity, a tributary of the Klamath] did not result in a portion of the runs observed 15 years later in the Klamath River, this initial stocking was likely too small and in the wrong area to have had much chance of establishing a new, self-reproducing population in the upper Klamath River and tributaries. At least some portion of the eggs reared and released in the Trinity system in 1895 originated from Redwood Creek; a much smaller system. Redwood Creek coho salmon are specifically adapted to swimming relatively short distances (<60 miles) to reach their customary spawning areas. It seems unlikely these fish could have strayed the additional 150 river-miles necessary to reach the upper Klamath River to successfully establish a new run. Further, the eggs hatched and reared at Fort Gaston had opportunity to imprint to the Trinity River, and this also would have reduced the chances of straying to the upper portions of the Klamath. Finally, as reported by the Klamath River Basin Fishery Task Force (1991), Withler (1982) found that no introduction of Pacific anadromous salmonids using non-native broodstock has been successful in producing new, self-reproducing populations anywhere on the West Coast.

OK. History, science and common sense are not on the SCWUA’s side, but what about the actual numbers (at least those pertaining to the coho)?

The great majority of coho salmon returning to spawn are three-year-old fish (although a small portion of each brood year returns as two-year-old fish, these primarily consist of precocious males). Therefore, run size in any given year is strongly influenced by the number of fish produced three years prior. Hatchery records indicate both coho salmon fry and yearlings were planted in 1895. It is not clear from the records if the fry and yearlings originated from the same brood year or were from two separate brood years. Regardless, because of their three-year life cycle, coho salmon returns from the 1895 plant would have appeared at the Klamathon Racks in only one or two of every three consecutive years. Egg take records from the Klamathon Racks show that this is not the case: coho salmon eggs were taken in substantial numbers in consecutive years beginning with the 1912-1913 season ( Appendix Table D-1). This would not have been possible if all the adult fish had been descendants of fry and yearling plants made in 1895.

With the Coho’s three-year life cycle in mind, one wonders how the SCWUA document asserts:

“After each subsequent planting (Ed: coho plantings in the 60s and 70s) there was a rise in returning Coho for the following three years…”

Given the three-year life cycle of coho, there would only be a “rise in returning coho” for one of the three years.

Let’s Look At More

So we’ve established the “fact” the SCWUA petition contains at least one outright fabrication, and a couple of statements that defy logic. What’s still in store for us?

It isn’t pretty.

For example, the authors use a single, out-of-context passage from the minutes of a 2001 Karuk tribal meeting — not exactly a gathering of scientists nor a peer reviewed publication — as “proof” coho aren’t native to the Klamath.

They neglect to mention the Karuk language uses a separate word for coho salmon, and that it’s been in the lexicon for thousands of years:

The Karuk word for coho is achvuun. Coho appear in ancient Karuk stories and were managed for traditionally long before non-natives arrived.

Oops.

Other Amazing Facts

• Dams are good for salmon
• “There is no Salmon problem in the Pacific Northwest”
• There are no differences between hatchery and wild salmon
• Coho salmon don’t range south of Oregon (relying on that bastion of peer-reviewed science Wikipedia, which mistakenly relied only on a report written only about Canadian coho stocks.)
• A statement from California’s leading expert on salmonids (Dr. Peter Moyle) should be ignored because he “is not an expert on salmonids but is instead a freshwater species expert.”

It goes on.

Much of the document relates to Chinook salmon (who are not in question), or offers alternative reasons why coho salmon numbers are dwindling (ocean warming due to Pacific Rim volcanic activity is a favorite) — neither of which address the presence of coho salmon in the Klamath Watershed.

In fact, even a cursory glance at the rest of the SCWUA’s coho delisting petition reflects a level of “integrity” similar to that displayed with the “1913″ quote manipulation.

Now For Something Completely Sane

The coho myth last gained traction in Siskiyou County in 2001, and while it mercifully disappeared for a while, like a zombie, it has risen from the dead and in an attempt to eat the brains of the living.

Back then, California Fish & Game crafted a document (excerpted above, but also below) that scientifically, rationally and calmly makes the case that Coho are native to the Klamath watershed:

The fact that the upper Klamath River and tributaries are: 1) contiguous with documented historical coho salmon distribution in the lower reaches of the Klamath River system and historical coho salmon streams both north and south of the Klamath River; 2) contain no natural barriers that would prevent their migration into the upper reaches and tributaries such as the Scott and Shasta rivers; 3) have physical attributes that would have produced suitable coho salmon habitat in the past (e.g. gradient, morphology, and, in some cases like the Shasta River, spring sources that provide perennial flow); and 4) still contain suitable coho salmon habitat, provides substantial evidence that coho salmon likely inhabited the upper Klamath River and tributaries prior to hatchery stocking. It is evident from the coho salmon’s persistent presence, and field observations made by the Department and other biologists, that sufficient habitat still exists in the Shasta and Scott rivers to support sustainable populations of coho salmon.

…

Substantial coho salmon populations appear to have been present in the upper Klamath River in 1910 as evidenced by the egg collections made at the Klamathon racks during the initial year of operation. The relatively large number of females required to produce the number of eggs collected that year and in subsequent years suggests that native coho salmon were well established in the Klamath River upstream of Iron Gate Dam’s location. For the reasons described above, it is unlikely that these runs could have originated from the plants made in the Trinity River in 1895. Coho salmon were well documented in the Shasta and Scott rivers long before the construction of Iron Gate and Trinity River hatcheries and the subsequent introductions of large numbers of non-native coho salmon at the hatcheries. Based on the above discussions, the Department believes that coho salmon are native to the upper Klamath River system, including the Scott and Shasta Rivers, and historically occurred in these streams prior to any hatchery stocking.

Junk Is As Junk Does

In only one sense are dam removal opponents correct; a photograph of a coho salmon lying on top of a pre-1895 newspaper featuring the headline “I’m a native coho from the Klamath” does not exist.

Yet the Klamath offers excellent coho habitat (this is more important to coho than Chinook salmon; coho spend a year in freshwater before migrating to the ocean while Chinook do not), and coho are found in streams both to the north and south.

The lack of references prior to 1895 are easy to explain; the coho salmon runs were largely ignored or lumped in with Chinook salmon runs, which were larger and contained bigger fish, and were therefore more commercially interesting.

Simply put, every bit of “real” evidence says coho were extant in the Klamath watershed, yet like the birther and moon landing “conspiracies,” real evidence simply becomes proof a conspiracy exists (yes, a conspiracy is alleged by the SCWUA petition).

Simply by participating, Siskiyou County could have come out of the dam removal negotiations smelling like a rose. Instead, many in the county — including the Board of Supervisors — have chosen to try and force a private company to retain privately owned, salmon-eradicating dams that will lose $20 million annually if relicensed.

To do so, they’re relying increasingly on wacky “facts” that — in at least one case — appear to have been fabricated.

See you chipping away at the four Klamath River dams, Tom Chandler.

UPDATE: Amusingly, the “science advisor” for the discredited SCWUA petition to delist the salmon (Dr. Richard Gierak) apparently can’t tell the difference between a juvenile coho salmon and a yellow perch… seriously (read the editorial and the comments).

(click to see it online)

He tells us why few people fish it, why that’s a shame (hint: it’s great for swinging flies and two-handers), and how much better he thinks it could be — if we can get the Klamath River dams out.

It’s a short-but-interesting interview (he opened my eyes to a few things), and worth a few minutes.

If you don’t know why the Klamath River dams should come down, here’s a CalTrout article making a case for dam removal — and also a recent update on the status of dam removal (and the KBRA).

Despite the quality of the Klamath’s fishery — and its potential — the Klamath isn’t really on the radars of a lot of California and Oregon’s steelhead fishermen, but it probably should be.

It’s going to be a big year in California on so many fronts; the Klamath thing might be decided, we’ll see if moves to raise Shasta Dam acquire any momentum, we’re supposed to see good salmon returns, and, oh yeah — because of the drought, the water wars should prove especially interesting.

I still owe the Undergrounders a pair of posts about those wacky Sisikiyou Board of Supervisors, including a look at their attempts to “prove” the coho salmon isn’t native to the Klamath Watershed.

It’s like a satirical TV sitcom, only they mean it.

See you hammering the bad guys, Tom Chandler.

Like these  on the insanity of California’s fragmented salmon & water management:

The past 60 years of Central Valley hatchery production to support fisheries has resulted in replacement of multiple natural populations with one hatchery population, thereby greatly increasing extinction risk.

The situation is similar to managing financial investments for long-term yields, where a well-diversified investment portfolio (i.e., multiple runs with multiple independent populations) will fluctuate less in response to volatile market conditions (i.e., environmental variation) than will one concentrated in just one or two stocks (i.e., just hatchery fish).

Today, the management portfolio of Central Valley salmon is overwhelmingly concentrated in hatchery production. This all-eggs-in-one-basket strategy is an underlying cause of the recent collapse of salmon numbers (Lindley et al. 2009). Recovery of self-sustaining runs of Central Valley salmon will be impossible if we do not stop interbreeding between hatchery and naturally spawning populations (Katz et al. 2012).

There it is. Plain as day.

Biologists are often reluctant to make statements that will play in the political arena; it’s far safer to simply state the hatchery salmon aren’t as productive as wild salmon, and that releasing vast numbers of them suppresses wild populations.

Here, Moyle and Katz lay it all out for us; recovery will be impossible as long as rubber trout (and habitat loss, and massive delta pumping, and whatever else) continue to gum up the works.

But that would be a commercial disaster, right? All those fish that commercial salmon fishermen couldn’t catch?

Well, don’t look to closely, but commercial salmon fishermen haven’t been doing too good since about 2006 or so.

What’s needed to get California’s salmon populations back on track? Lots of things, starting with:

Because of the fragmented nature of the current system of salmon management, we spend tens of millions of dollars annually to produce salmon in inland hatcheries, and then spend hundreds of millions more to deal with the environmental, regulatory and legal consequences of having produced those same fish.

As was suggested for water management in the previous blog, this piecemeal approach to fisheries resource management is not economically viable. Nor is this strategy viable for avoiding extinction. Accordingly, a comprehensive re-thinking of hatchery management must be undertaken in California and where adverse impacts to natural spawning populations outweigh benefits, hatcheries should be closed.

See you eating all the hatchery fish I can catch, Tom Chandler.

If you’re into salmon in river-packing quantities,  then go here and register to learn more about the Tongass — and why it needs protecting.

The Tongass: America's salmon forest website (click to visit)

Or, read this:

“The Tongass is America’s salmon forest and one of the few places in the world where wild salmon and trout still thrive. Some 65 percent of Tongass salmon and trout habitat is not Congressionally protected at the watershed scale, and is currently open to development activities that could harm fish. It’s time for Congress to better protect the richest resource of the Tongass: wild salmon.”

-Tim Bristol
-Trout Unlimited, Alaska Program Director

If you’re still wondering why we should bother protecting the Tongass, consider this:

Many of the same things that have decimated California’s (and the West Coast’s) salmon runs are being proposed for the Tongass, including hydropower dams, habitat decimation via resource extraction, and more.

Simply put, they’re intent on making the same mistakes that have already been made, which is a passable definition of insanity (repeating the same behavior and expecting a different outcome).

This from the “The Tongass: America’s Salmon Forest” website:

While Tongass wild salmon and trout are currently healthy and abundant, there are a variety of threats that could harm the future productivity of these fish. These threats include several initiatives that would privatize large swathes of the Tongass for development and resource extraction, as well as dozens of hydroelectric dam proposals and new mining activity. Climate change impacts and funding cuts for research programs that guide conservation and restoration efforts are also threats.

The troubling history of the Pacific Northwest and California, where salmon and trout runs have disappeared or face serious declines, foreshadow the types of problems that could be repeated in Southeast Alaska unless government agencies, lawmakers and the public act to make fish habitat conservation and restoration top priorities. In the Tongass, the opportunity still exists to ensure salmon and trout, and the people who depend on them, enjoy a healthier and more stable future than their Pacific Northwest and California kin.

Once again, that link (operators are standing by). Plenty more to come on issues like this (sadly).

Plus some interesting travel plans in store for the Underground. More tomorrow, Tom Chandler.