|
|
|
| Click here to download this recommendation. (22 K) | Click to comment on this recommendation. |
Jim G. Likes
2326 Vista Ave. S.E.
Olympia, WA 98501
360-352-5971
Statement read over the telephone and transcribed by John Harrison, Feb. 8, 2000:
First, about this form you sent out [Document 2000-1]. It’s not clear. You need clarity when you send something out like this. You need to clarify the vague places. There are too many generalizations in this document, especially if you are going to send it to someone like myself who is not working directly on these issues.
As for biological objectives, there is nothing in your request for recommendations about wild fish. According to one of your publications, quote, "Congress has asked the Northwest Power Planning Council to clarify how artificial production should be used." I think it should be used to rebuild seriously depleted fish populations in the Columbia River Basin while also continuing to produce fish for harvest. This is a very difficult balance to achieve, but the best available scientific knowledge is clear: fish hatcheries must go beyond their traditional role of producing fish for people to catch. They should adopt an additional role of assisting in the restoration of fish that spawn naturally from prehistorically and historically indigenous populations. This means to use good guesswork. These are not incompatible roles. In fact, the closer these two purposes are tied together, the greater long-term benefit that fish hatcheries will provide for everyone. The primary emphasis of fish hatcheries should be an experimental and research one in regard to wild fish.
Whether you like it or not, you are going to be drug into Washington’s salmon recovery program. The counties are being given money. They are slavering for it. I have a vision, which may be true or untrue, that there are many people in local governments out there who are salivating at the jowls to get in on the action -- i.e., get a big chunk of the money. I fear there are plenty of people out there who have heavy equipment and are just waiting to line the stream banks of many Columbia River tributaries with riprap. Riprap is inimical to good habitat management. If you want more on this, please call me. This is but one example.
Insofar as, quote, "saving the salmon," the best rule of thumb is to reverse everything that humans have done to impinge on streams. For example, you are not only right on target in recommending that the lower Snake dams be breached, but you hit the bullseye. I think that is the answer. Possibly someday, through the use of good physics, quantum mechanics, we will no longer need dams for electricity. But until that time comes, the federal acts should be rewritten to give priority to the natural environment, including fish and wildlife resources, and to place on a much lower level the production of electricity, irrigation water and riverine transportation.
And a final point under, quote, "vision," the following relates to your section on vision, about a future of the river or province or subbasin. My point is that with the view towards long-term considerations for the environment, I would suggest that you address the human population problem. As far as I am concerned, we are producing too many people without thought to the future for future generations of humans. If you do not address this in detail, such as a Paul Erlich might do, you will probably never achieve your stated goals. I would be willing to help you develop some thoughts and language that might be somewhat acceptable to the general public. I’m sorry if I have upset anyone by what I have said, but this is a free country and I have been asked to give my input into your plan. I have done my best to give you reasonable input.