http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3700 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3700&cpage=1#comment-2730 tsanford Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:03:14 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3700#comment-2730 Though the Niners ma have been right in a very technical sense regarding Conference Committee language, all agencies tend to follow the guidlines of allocators to get their yearly allocations. So as a functional matter agencies always balance directives from the exec, leg. and judicial branches. It seems to me that teh decision was biased however in the presumption in the first paragraph that hydro projects are solely responsible for declines in the adadronoms fish. Judge Gould notes nowhere that the first government reports on declining runs came in the 1880's well before contstruction of the dams. Even among "fish-lovers" there is widespread agreement that habitat, harvesting and hydro and oceanic conditions all play a role in the survival of the species. So there needs to be another angle to your triangle (which would of course change the geometry) that is the fish processing industry who have been harvesting beyond sustainability for more than a century, the farmers for a like amount of time have refused simple measures like fish wiers to keep spawners from getting caught in irrigation ditches, the logging companies and the affiliated industries that rely on their products who wreak evironmental havoc deystroying stream beds, and the big unknowable: to what extent do conditions in the ocean effect fish runs (that these conditions are certainly an impact of global warming, e.g. ocean acidification, makes caclulating all of interests very difficult indeed. It seems to me however that only hydro gets attacked for supposed decimation of the runs and only hydro is expected to clean everything up. You could breach every dam on the Columbia and Snake rivers and still could not be assured of salmon runs, not with international fishing treaties allowing massive hauls, not with ever spreading residential development in watersheds and not with mysteries of the fishy deep eluding our scientists. Though the Niners ma have been right in a very technical sense regarding Conference Committee language, all agencies tend to follow the guidlines of allocators to get their yearly allocations. So as a functional matter agencies always balance directives from the exec, leg. and judicial branches. It seems to me that teh decision was biased however in the presumption in the first paragraph that hydro projects are solely responsible for declines in the adadronoms fish. Judge Gould notes nowhere that the first government reports on declining runs came in the 1880’s well before contstruction of the dams. Even among “fish-lovers” there is widespread agreement that habitat, harvesting and hydro and oceanic conditions all play a role in the survival of the species. So there needs to be another angle to your triangle (which would of course change the geometry) that is the fish processing industry who have been harvesting beyond sustainability for more than a century, the farmers for a like amount of time have refused simple measures like fish wiers to keep spawners from getting caught in irrigation ditches, the logging companies and the affiliated industries that rely on their products who wreak evironmental havoc deystroying stream beds, and the big unknowable: to what extent do conditions in the ocean effect fish runs (that these conditions are certainly an impact of global warming, e.g. ocean acidification, makes caclulating all of interests very difficult indeed. It seems to me however that only hydro gets attacked for supposed decimation of the runs and only hydro is expected to clean everything up. You could breach every dam on the Columbia and Snake rivers and still could not be assured of salmon runs, not with international fishing treaties allowing massive hauls, not with ever spreading residential development in watersheds and not with mysteries of the fishy deep eluding our scientists.

]]>