Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Terrible Salmon Return Numbers For Klamath River System

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-17-06 01:52 PM
Original message
Terrible Salmon Return Numbers For Klamath River System
This year's salmon fishing season seems certain to be somber, as estimates of Klamath River fish runs paint a picture that may be darker than any in 15 years.

What that may mean for tribal, commercial and recreational fishermen on the North Coast will begin to be hashed out next week, but very limited or no fishing is a possibility. Only 111,000 Klamath fish are projected to be swimming in the Pacific Ocean -- 74,000 fewer than last year and only 16,000 more than were estimated for 1992, the lowest on record. ”This year's abundance looks very low,” said California Department of Fish and Game biologist Neil Manji.

The report by the Pacific Fishery Management Council released Thursday reads that even with no fishing, the number of wild chinook salmon anticipated to spawn in the river would be 29,200. That's far fewer than the 35,000 benchmark fishery managers must meet through regulation. If last year's regulations were applied, the report reads, only 18,700 wild fish would make it to spawn a new generation.

In 2004, commercial fishermen caught four times as many Klamath fish as expected. Last year ocean anglers got to keep two fish per day, but had a much-shortened season. River fishermen had low quotas and the Yurok and Hoopa Valley tribes -- which are allotted half the available fish -- brought in less than their subsistence needs. ”It's going to be real devastating to tribal members,” said Dave Hillemeier, biologist for the Yurok Tribe.

EDIT

http://www.times-standard.com/local/ci_3519620
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-17-06 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. The early poll numbers are wrong.
;-)

Bush science. What can I say?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-17-06 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. "this year's abundance looks very low."
I like that, in an Orwell sort of way. I should strive for that kind of mellow:

This century's survivability looks very low.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC