They brag about shutting down Schumacher Furs.
They announce Ungar Furs is next.
Where are the organizers now? Why aren't they chaining themselves to docks and boats near Bonnneville? Why aren't they throwing blood and painting Animal Rights lingo all over Bonneville Dam and State Boats?
The Columbian: The Sea Lion Dilemma: Feast or Salmon?.
Agency OKs the killing of sea lions at Bonneville Dam
People are complaining that Sea Lions have been "condemned to Death," but no interference with the State Employees seems announced?
Where are all of you "Animal Activists?"
Or, do they only organize against what they see as "easy targets?"
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Where Are The Protesters?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
These animal rights types are like schoolyard bullies who only beat up the nerds but run like whipped puppies when someone comes along who can roast their tailfeathers. Maybe Ungar will succesfully file legal action against them and steal their lunch money for once. One can only hope.
If you recall, Keith, teh best way to stop a bully on the playground was for the entire class to stand up to him, together.
In the Army, we just relied on the old fashioned blanket party.
Still, I'm amazed that they haven't seen fit to go after those who will shoot the sea lions. They proteest everything else, why not armed agents? ;-)
Oh, really? I'd always heard that if you give a bullying kid a bloody nose, he decides that bullying isn't fun anymore.
Forgive my 24-year-old only-read-history-books-about-the-Army ignorance but what's a "blanket party"?
I suspect it has something to do with the fact that these armed agents thinning the sea lions have some sort of legal recourse that the protestors don't want to run afoul of. You can either view them like wolves or bullies... either they're too wise to go after something stronger than them or they're too cowardly. I favor the second.
Either method has been shown to be pretty effective, Keith.
A blanket paty was when there was a screw off, or bully, ar any single individual in your platoon that was causing trouble for all, had a blanket thrown over him, holding him still and blocking his view, while the rest pummeled him with a sock that held a bar of soap.
It was enough to send the message that he had better straighten up.
The soap must have hit you in the head several times.
You Army gents always have the best ideas. Sounds like a very effective way to get your point across.
Hwey, Lew, Maybe iago should bwe a recipient of a blanket party.
Truth be known, I imagine iago couldn't hack the first week of Basic Training.
I am not in favor of shooting sea lions.
But if the Salmon is considered a crop, is it much different than a farmer shooting the coyotes who come after the chickens?
I don't know the right answer.
Nature is cruel.
But I am not in favor of wasting the sea lions, after shooting them.
If they are going to be killed anyway, should their fur be wasted?
What about their meat?
Eileen, no wonder you are so confused, as you put it. Stellar sea lions have no fur! Their hides can be used for building boats. Otherwise, they are just large salmon eating machines.....sheesh.
Bear, what class do sea lions belong to? Are they reptiles? Birds? Umm... crustaceans? No, fool... they're MAMMALS. Marine mammals, of the family Otariidae or "eared seals". So what's this hogwash you're saying about them not having fur? And this business of them only being used to build boats... where'd you get that?
Kieth: The Eskimos have been using seal skin as a covering shell for their kayaks for centuries. And, I imagine they have been using other animal skins, such as sea lions, for that purpose as well.
FYI: "The Humane Society of the United States, Wild Fish Conservancy and two citizens have filed suit in U.S. District Court to halt the authorized killing of sea lions at the base of Bonneville Dam in the Columbia River". Theres your answer Victoria.
Whats more I find it verrry interesting that you compare animal rights activists to bullies. Regardless of weather you agree with them or not; you must acknowledge that they are doing it based on priciple (ie not harming animals for clothing), and not out of malice. I mean they may in fact be malicious toward the furriers, but they have a reason for doing so.
It just a wierd analogy, thats all. It seems to me that schoolyard bullies are just mean for the sake of being mean.
Personally I bet they will find homes for them in Zoos and the like.
Does anyone know how many sea lions it is anyway?
Which proves what? You can use an animal skin for a drum. Or it can be used for clothes. They have fur and they have more use than eating salmon. The fact that one of their uses is boat-making is irrelevant.
I used the comparison because the animal rights types tend to go after weaker targets--just like schoolyard bullies. They're not so good against someone who can fight back.
i don't see how beating sea lions with a bar of soap in a sock is going to resolve the problem.
So the same humane society that approves of killing surplus dogs and cats does not approve of killing surplus sea lions?
Or is it the method? (or has the method even been determined?)
Keith, please google stellar sea lions, as I did, and explore for fur. They have coarse hair, with no commercial value. Just "boat" hides.
Your shall learn that the libs don't have to have a "reason" to destroy an industry, just their normal malice towards humans, and America.
In this case, the "protected" seals are eating "protected" salmon. In their minds, the sport and commercial fishing industries have no reason to exist, so no dead seals. Bingo, LAWSUIT! In addition, the greenies want to destroy the remaining dams to protect the salmon. It matters not that these dams provide inexpensive, renewable, clean energy. People are the problem, you see.
Fool? Hogwash? My, my.....Apology accepted.
So humans are the problem.
I suspected that.
Eileen, many, if not most, Humane Society facilities are now "no kill". Those systems rely on animal foster homes and adoptions.
If I am correct, the HSUS is NOT affiliated with any local Humane Society. They stand alone as political lawyers, whose only goal is to sue non-communists. (I'll google 'em.)
Yep, the HSUS runs no shelters, is unaffiliated with actual Humane Societies, and has $113 Million for lawsuits against actual Americans.
They don't go after "furriers" because they are weak targets- they go after them because, well, they sell fur. Its really very obvious, kieth. And in the schumacher case, he did fight back. Your hatred of protesters shines through, and you fail to realize that just because you don't agree with these people doesn't mean they aren't good hearted people. But if you want to know why they are not out "protesting" against the sea lions it is because going down the columbia and holding signs on the riverbanks is pointless. Trust me knobody thinks the fish and wildlife people are going to shoot them or hurt them in any way. (Please remember that protesting is protected speech and is LEGAL) But really the point of protesting is to be visible and make a point to the public. So without the audience it would be pointless. Another point is that it is a different issue than killing animals for fur. One might be against the former, but agree that something must be done about the sea lions to save the salmon. But I think most people who are against this issue would side with the Humane society and like to see this settled in the courts. It will be interesting to see how the courts see this.
The Columbia River was once the largest salmon producing river system in the world. Prior to the dams, the Columbia produced escapements of between 10 and 16 million adults annually. Today, of course, the Columbia produces less than 2.5 million adult fish, more than 90% hatchery fish. Wild chinook in the river are down to less than 2% of their historic numbers. Snake River Sockeye, Snake River fall, Snake River spring/summer chinook and now Upper Columbia steelhead are so near extinction that they are now listed under the ESA. Wild coho runs, once numbering an estimated 1.2 million, are now officially extinct throughout the basin.
A recently published study by the Institute for Fisheries Resources documented what these losses have meat to salmon fishermen -- and the numbers are staggering. Hydropower and dam mismanagement in the Columbia has cost the region's fishery economy as much as 25,000 family wage jobs, and $500 million/year for each and every year these declines are allowed to continue.
What people forget, however, is that these dams were never intended to be a permanent fixture in the first place. All were designed for a specific lifespan. Many are now nearing their intended retirement age. The facts simply show that the four lower Snake River dams are good candidates for early retirement.
Dams are built to provide four benefits: (1) hydropower; (2) flood control; (3) irrigation water, and; (4) river navigation for commerce. We know the four lower Snake River federal dams kill a disproportionate number of fish. How do they stack up in providing social benefits?
(1) Hydropower -- Surprise! These four dams combined provide only about 4.13% of the region's total hydropower supply. Their retirement would thus make very little difference to BPA or to electricity rates. The Northwest Power Planning Council has in fact already concluded that BPA could economically survive if these dams were retired.
(2) Flood Control -- Surprise again! None of these dams provide any flood control benefits. Human safety, therefore, is simply not going to be an issue if these dams are retired.
(3) Irrigation -- Of the four, only Ice Harbor supplies irrigation water for farming, for a mere 36,000 acres of land (about 7.5 square miles, an area much smaller than Portland). In fact this same water could be supplied for a fraction of the cost of the dam by modern pumps.
(4) Navigation -- These four dams do provide a significant stretch of navigable water from Lewiston, ID, mostly for grain transport. But this transport is heavily subsidized by taxpayers -- and its cost to taxpayers is actually far more than its net economic benefit. Transport by road and rail would only be slightly more expensive. Right now BPA and the Army Corps of Engineers spend roughly $150 million/year maintaining these dams and on boondoggle programs to barge fish around the dams. Retiring these dams eliminates this huge financial burden. If even a fraction of this huge savings went directly to Lewiston, it could more than compensate for any economic losses -- and be a lot cheaper for taxpayers.
Dam removal also has increasingly strong scientific support. A blue ribbon panel of scientists hand selected by the Northwest Power Planning Council recently recommended that the Columbia River be returned more toward a functioning river system. Their report, "Return to the River" (1996) is the strongest condemnation yet of failed programs to barge fish around the dams, and a strong argument for the removal of at least the worst four of the eight salmon killing mainstem federal dams, those in the lower Snake River. Even the recent National Research Council report commissioned by Congress, "Upstream" (1996), noted that in spite of the problems involved, "Where dams are a significant contributor to the decline of salmon runs, dam removal is an obvious rehabilitative alternative."
Its just one thing to keep in mind while looking at this, regardless what the descision is.
The sea lions are just being sea lions. The problem is caused by the dams.
We seem to need dams, at least for the moment. But is it ethical to "solve" the problem by killing the sea lions given that it is man that "created" the problem by building the dams.
Lastly there is a good case for removing the four lower snake river dams. It seems that will save much much more salmon than the sea lions eat.
jonny, you think that the sea lions doing what is natural to them is why shooting them is a last resort?
But, the point I tried to make isn't about the sea lions themselves, but why no organized protests from animal rights activists that congregate to save animals from Schumachers and Ungars?
Where are their antics in saving the sea lions?
The courts will see it through an emotional rather than legal lens. This is simply how law works in this case which is unfortunate.
The problem with dam removal, however, is the entire lack of need. The dams provide, if nothing else, some electrical benefit without any cost save to the poor little fishies.
"Of the three pathways examined, the dam breaching alternative has the major hydropower impacts. The plans that maintain the existing dams and improve fish bypass facilities have minor benefits (reduced economic costs) of about $7 to $10 million annually. The total hydropower costs with the dam breaching alternative (as compared to the base condition) are estimated at $251 to $291 million under the medium forecast scenario, and consist of the following elements:
*Increased costs to replace lost hydropower - $221 to $255 million annually.
*Costs to reinforce the transmission system and ensure system reliability - $22 to $28 million per year.
*Lost in ancillary benefits - $8 million yearly.
These economic costs to the power system would likely be passed on to the consumers of electricity. However, because of several uncertainties, the analysis is unable to predict exactly who would pay for these costs. As such, the analysis examines a wide range of possible scenarios on rate impacts, depending on how dam removal costs are assigned to hydropower and PNW ratepayers."
- From US Army Corp of Engineers (Walla Walla District) analysis.
(http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/lsr/NEWS/info5.htm)
Doesn't sound like the hydropower loss would be a minor as you claim. Of course, that doesn't really matter, does it?
Lew, thanks for responding. I explained in my above comments why the protesters see this differently.
Keith, Yes it does matter. I am interested in the cost- benefit analysis. Do your figures only look at the lower snake river dams? As I said before these four dams combined provide only about 4.13% of the region's total hydropower supply. Their retirement would thus make very little difference to BPA or to electricity rates. Whats more, these dams have already completed their life span, and they need to be replaced or need expensive repairs. I think the biggest concern is that the salmon problem goes way beyond the sea lions... and that killing them is just a band-aid. And any money you say is being saved from utility rates and the like will be lost in the fishing industry from dry salmon runs.
Kieth, its interesting that you cite one of the reasons you say not to remove the dams (and I am assuming you are reffering to the four lower snake river dams) is lack of need to do so. As I demonstrated above, the dams don't really have much benefit in a number of ways and cost money to run. Since you say "theres no need for dam removal I will repeat this, just for you:
"A recently published study by the Institute for Fisheries Resources documented what these losses have meat to salmon fishermen -- and the numbers are staggering. Hydropower and dam mismanagement in the Columbia has cost the region's fishery economy as much as 25,000 family wage jobs, and $500 million/year for each and every year these declines are allowed to continue". So even if your statistics are accurate, it simply does not solve the problem to keep those old dams running; especially as the salmon die off progressively.
So, once again the lefties try to change the subject. Just how many sealions are hanging around the snake river dams? How about ZERO!
For you to claim or imply that the only dams targeted by the anti-capitalists are those four dams is a lie.
The protestors' lawsuits are not about salmon or sealions. The lefties have proven my point that it's about destroying the fishing and inexpensive energy industries in this region.
The figures were for the 4 lower Snake dams you were talking about. The Army Corp of Engineers' evaluation was that maintaining the dams was vastly less expensive than trying to compensate for them. Already, they had to nudge the output of the Grand Coulee upwards in response to the brownouts in California and while GC isn't operating at full throttle, all we need is reducing the net power output of the Pacific Northwest MORE than it already is. They took Trojan offline, albeit a while ago. Hanford was never meant to produce much power. So where else does it come from? The LNG terminal that Oregon is screaming bloody murder over? Coal? Oil? Natural gas? Crossing our fingers and praying that covering vast acres of Oregon with renewable power plants will fix the problem? The solution, if you're do bound and determined to bust the hydroelectric dams, is nuclear fission power plants but everyone is mindlessly scared to death of them. Sure, nuke plants aren't renewable but instead of dozens of power plants taking up previously-wild acres, you've only got to worry about one. The cost-benefit analysis favors this... it will cost less to maintain a single powerplant than many of them, it will take less effort to construct a single powerplant than many of them, they can give the poor widdle salmon their runs back, and (and this is the best part by far to my eyes) it allows people like me to tell the NIMBY folks "tough luck, buddies" Everyone wins! :D
The salmon is the big issue. And it seems to be in most peoples best interest to help the salmon runs. Of course the most ideal scenario for the salmon is to remove all the dams, BUT for obvious reasons that is NOT a practical solution, at least at the present time. Theres a pretty good case for removing the four snake river dams- and it would improve the salmon runs all the way up the Columbia and to the Ocean. For that, I'd be willing to pay a little more for my energy use-if it came to that. I also bet there are ways to make up the (reletively marginal) power that is lost. They have already nding wind turbines throuout the gorge, and perhaps solar paneling could work too. Keith mentioned nuclear fission. Hmmm, really I'm not completely opposed to that idea. It does concern me. Doesn't it produce nuclear waste that has a halflife of 10,000 years? If we were to start investing in nuclear power, what do you suggest we do with that?
Doth my eyes decieve me? You actually responded to one of my posts without mockery? I can see the Four Horseman! The Apocalypse has come! *lol*
Thanks for being slightly pleasant for once.
I'm personally opposed to paying extra so salmon can swim free but I've got an inordinate interest in having enough money to pay for school and medical insurance; It's an entirely ignoble motivation, really. But I don't mind if you pay extra, jonny. That's entirely up to you.
Wind and solar aren't so bad, really... the windmills are sorta a nice landscape feature and solar panels are odd enough to look kinda cool but in the end, it requires more physical space per megawatt produced and it seems to me that the general environmentalist movement is dedicated to saving as much natural space as humanly possible so it seems like advocating a solution that takes up more untamed land defeats the purpose of it all.
My thing about nuclear fission has many sides:
1. It's probably the only power source that people are irrationally afraid of. Coal plants belching clouds of soot into the air doesn't evoke even a fraction of the raw terror that people seem to experience whenever you talk about nuclear power.
2. As far as land use, there's probably no more efficient source of power. All told, even when you factor in the amount of land required to dispose of the resulting waste, it produces more power per square mile of land used than anything in my knowledge.
3. It's the only nonrenewable energy that can be recycled. Old fuel rods can be reprocessed in a power-producing breeder reactor into plutonium that can be used for yet another round of fission.
4. Frankly, it's extremely safe. There's been 1 meltdown in history (Chernobyl) and a couple near-misses (Three Mile Island, Brown River) but as of 10 years ago, reactor designs had reached the point where you could literally have the coolant system blow a fuse (which is what conventionally causes meltdowns), go home, have lunch, and come back to deal with it. Their only serious safety concern is someone carting off fuel rods or waste for use in a radiological weapon ("dirty bomb") which is real enough since the DOE has proven that a half-wit can walk out the front door with a few hundred pounds of nuclear material in a cart without being noticed.
Finally, the waste problem. This one is politically sticky but has found a viable engineering and scientific solution. A team at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in the Tri-Cities area of Washington state came up with the idea of glassifying and encapsulating the waste in seismically-stable basalt nearby. I've some personal knowledge of this since my grandfather was one of the engineers involved with the project (he was a nuclear and ceramic engineer before retirement). It's scientifically viable and safe but the politics of the matter are brutal. But the big point is that there is a solution to the problem if anyone would take advantage.
To me, nuclear fission power generation is the perfect solution to our power troubles barring development of a similarly megawatt-productive process using renewable energy or something that is dirt-cheap and inconcievably abundant. Yes, uranium mining produces pollution but so does eveyr other kind of mining so that's not a real issue. The process itself is nonpolluting, safe, and land-efficient. It doesn't involve blocking salmon runs, bleching toxic chemicals into the admosphere, stripping the land of minerals, or doing any of those other scary nasty things that are currently byproducts of a modern industrial economy. I want nuclear fusion as much as the next person but until we get that, the best solution to the energy crunch that doesn't involve turning hundreds of square miles into sun and wind farms is nuclear fission.
Anyone remember "FISH CLUBBING ON THE ALSEA Oregon River say 2000-2001, Endangered Species Act Etc.
Read the fllowing paragraph and just substitute Hatchery workers with Sea Lions. Maybe I'm Wrong. But Maybe I'm Not.
November issue of The Loggers World
"The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife intends to have hatchery workers use clubs and electricity to euthanize tens of thousands of surplus hatchery salmon. It was the videotaping of fish clubbing on the Alsea River that ultimately led to filing the lawsuit that Judge Hogan recently decided. The Oregon State Legislature attempted to address this issue and passed a bill that would have made fish clubbing illegal but Governor Kitzhaber vetoed it. A lawsuit was also filed in state court challenging the clubbing, but a state judge upheld the department's right to club fish.
Victoria: So its alright to Club Fish in Oregon circa 2008 but if a sea lion trys to eat one it must be shot. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Protected Fish, Protected Sea lions as "bear" says? This Picture is starting to come together.
Ps: Victoria, Former State Rep. LIZ VAN LEEUWEN from Halsey had a Video of that Fish Clubbing in Alsea Oregon. Try to contact her. I bet there's a connection. And concluding what "Bear" said the sport and commercial fishing industries have no reason to exist.
Sounds abit like the what happened to the timber industry don't cut down those trees, don't eat those Salmon.
Post a Comment