Asian Carp Vs. the Delta Smelt

[jgoose71 0]

I'm a little late with this post since this stuff isn't in the fore front of the news any more, but to me it's still an example of how government keeps screwing things up.

The Delta smelt, out in california, may perish because of the pumps used to move water to the farm lands. After the pumps were shut off, thousands of jobs were lost (10 to 40 thousand depending on your source), billions of dollars of crops were ruined and an entire section of California lost its livelihood.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/20/its-farmers-vs-fish-for-california-water/

On the flip side, the asian carp, which is not an indigenous species, is on the verge of escaping the eco system, destroying the balance in the great lakes, which they say will decimate the fishing industry, loosing billions of dollars a year, not to mention the environmental impact. The only logical expanation I can find for not closing the locks to prevent this is to save a few union workers jobs on the docks.
Some info on the Asian Carp:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-30-asian-carp_N.htm

So what I am trying to understand is how one industry can be saved while the other is destroyed. How the Delta Smelt is more important than the entire Lake michigan ecosystem. And when the low voltage electric fences don't work, what's next?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The only logical expanation I can find for not closing the locks to prevent this is to save a few union workers jobs on the docks.

How do you propose to get all that boat traffic through there if they can't navigate through the locks?

[billvon 3,118]

What would that story have read if they had shut down the canal?

==============
People are terrified of the Asian carp, basically a big goldfish. Because of their fear that fishermen might have to catch a few of these things instead of trout, they have shut down one of the biggest ship-transport canals in the Great Lakes region, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. This is the only link between the Mississippi and the Great Lakes, and it carried millions of tons of iron ore, coal, and grain. Billions were lost, as well as tens of thousands of jobs in shipping, warehousing and mining.
==============

So the short answer is that you can't always just "save the industry." Save shipping and you damage fishing. Save farming and you kill off the salmon. It's always going to be a tradeoff, and damaging the environment that provides us with water, food and oxygen is often not worth it even if you save a bunch of jobs in a meat packing plant.

Here in CA, we may actually have to learn to live with less water - it's not always reasonable to have catfish farms, ski ponds and barley fields in a desert. Will it mean jobs are lost? Probably. But that's the price you pay for taking the risk that the government would give you free water in the Anza-Borrego desert to grow your cotton.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

The only logical expanation I can find for not closing the locks to prevent this is to save a few union workers jobs on the docks.

How do you propose to get all that boat traffic through there if they can't navigate through the locks?

I'm pretty sure there are ways to get stuff off of boats in the Mississippi river and on to boats on lake Michigan.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

What would that story have read if they had shut down the canal?

==============
People are terrified of the Asian carp, basically a big goldfish. Because of their fear that fishermen might have to catch a few of these things instead of trout, they have shut down one of the biggest ship-transport canals in the Great Lakes region, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. This is the only link between the Mississippi and the Great Lakes, and it carried millions of tons of iron ore, coal, and grain. Billions were lost, as well as tens of thousands of jobs in shipping, warehousing and mining.
==============

So the short answer is that you can't always just "save the industry." Save shipping and you damage fishing. Save farming and you kill off the salmon. It's always going to be a tradeoff, and damaging the environment that provides us with water, food and oxygen is often not worth it even if you save a bunch of jobs in a meat packing plant.

Here in CA, we may actually have to learn to live with less water - it's not always reasonable to have catfish farms, ski ponds and barley fields in a desert. Will it mean jobs are lost? Probably. But that's the price you pay for taking the risk that the government would give you free water in the Anza-Borrego desert to grow your cotton.

Environmentalists would say something different about the Asian carp. They might say that the Great lakes ecosystem will be decimated.

The farmers in california are singing a different tune also. You quote "millions" and "billions" in lost revenues for the shut down on the locks. however, the farmers are claiming "billions" in lost revenue also for the shut down of the pumps.

I don't have all the answers. But on the outside looking in the problems look similar. Industry or the environment? And the kicker is there is no consistency.

I'm a mud throwing pessimist so all I can say is "Chicago is Obama's home town. Long live the unions!"
I just had to throw that in there for ya Bill

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,118]

> You quote "millions" and "billions" in lost revenues for the shut down on
>the locks. however, the farmers are claiming "billions" in lost revenue also
>for the shut down of the pumps.

Exactly. Which is my point; there's no free lunch and there's no easy answer. Someone is going to lose no matter what you do.

>But on the outside looking in the problems look similar. Industry or the
>environment? And the kicker is there is no consistency.

There never will be, because we have to protect both. If every decision went the way of industry we'd soon perish in our own waste. If every decision went the way of the environment, no matter how small the impact, we wouldn't be able to support our numbers.

>I'm a mud throwing pessimist so all I can say is "Chicago is Obama's
>home town. Long live the unions!"

Make that a Muslim union worker in a gun plant in Chicago, forced to listen to Bill O'Reilly's "war on christmas" series. Just to cover all the bases.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

There never will be, because we have to protect both. If every decision went the way of industry we'd soon perish in our own waste. If every decision went the way of the environment, no matter how small the impact, we wouldn't be able to support our numbers.

Unless I am mistaken, you seem to be leaning towards "leave the locks open and shut down the pumps".

What makes the Delta Smelt more important than the Lake michigan ecosystem? Also what makes the shipping industry through the locks more important than feeding the west coast?

The only reason I ask is because of the inconsistencies. I know to replace the lost food from the farm lands more food can be shipped in from china and mexico (keeping americans safe and employed). I also know that moving goods through the locks is a lot easier than going around. I'm just trying to figure out why the policies that were set are considered "fair".

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,118]

>Unless I am mistaken, you seem to be leaning towards "leave the locks
>open and shut down the pumps".

I'd lean towards "close the locks until the fish barriers are repaired then reopen them" and "reduce water flows from the Sacramento Delta until additional canals can be built."

Both are stopgap solutions that avoid the bigger problems, and we really need to do more work on the underlying problems. But in the short term we have to balance both our need for more stuff and our responsibility to not destroy the systems that keep us alive.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

I'd lean towards "close the locks until the fish barriers are repaired then reopen them" and "reduce water flows from the Sacramento Delta until additional canals can be built."

That sounds fair. Why couldn't the government come up with a solution like that?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[PhreeZone 20]

Issue at least on the pumps is that the industries in California all would fight over the restriction that its almost better to punish everyone then it is to pick and choose who gets water restricted more. When you have major corporations and mom and pop farms going head to head who do you think will get their water reduced less?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 3,118]

> Why couldn't the government come up with a solution like that?

Because neither side can compromise. That's seen as a sign of weakness nowadays.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Issue at least on the pumps is that the industries in California all would fight over the restriction that its almost better to punish everyone then it is to pick and choose who gets water restricted more. When you have major corporations and mom and pop farms going head to head who do you think will get their water reduced less?

Depends really. Who has the better lawyers? How big of a bleeding heart does the judge have? Very few courts are impartial any more. The impending court battles should not effect the starting point for policies. There will always be court battles for everything, thanks to the lawyers that need to get paid, but that shouldn't stop you from trying to fix problems in a fair matter.

Either way, Bill came up with a workable solution (at least a starting point) that balanced the environment and industry. Why is the government unable to do that now a days?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

> Why couldn't the government come up with a solution like that?

Because neither side can compromise. That's seen as a sign of weakness nowadays.

Agreed. It's why a lot of people believe that government is the problem and not the solution. As stated in line one of the original post, the government screwed it up.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

How do you propose to get all that boat traffic through there if they can't navigate through the locks?

I'm pretty sure there are ways to get stuff off of boats in the Mississippi river and on to boats on lake Michigan.

Let's see, instead of a boat just going straight on through...

You'll need each boat to unload their goods onto trucks or trains, transport them to the other body of water, and then load them back onto another boat. How much is all that going to delay the delivery, and increase the cost of those goods?

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How do you propose to get all that boat traffic through there if they can't navigate through the locks?

I'm pretty sure there are ways to get stuff off of boats in the Mississippi river and on to boats on lake Michigan.

Let's see, instead of a boat just going straight on through...

You'll need each boat to unload their goods onto trucks or trains, transport them to the other body of water, and then load them back onto another boat. How much is all that going to delay the delivery, and increase the cost of those goods?

Just playing devil's advocate. The point of the thread is how can the government be so on one side on one issue, and on the polar opposite side of a similar issue? Where is the consistency? Where is the compromise? Where is the change we can believe in? And why in the hell would anybody want more of this?

Inquiring minds want to know. And why in the National Inquirer a more trusted news source than many main stream media outlets?

I could go on, but I think it's time for me to be quite now

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

I'm a mud throwing pessimist so all I can say is "Chicago is Obama's home town. Long live the unions!"
I just had to throw that in there for ya Bill

Last time I checked, the Supreme Court, which ruled on the issue, had a majority who were not Obama fans, nor from Chicago.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm a mud throwing pessimist so all I can say is "Chicago is Obama's home town. Long live the unions!"
I just had to throw that in there for ya Bill

Last time I checked, the Supreme Court, which ruled on the issue, had a majority who were not Obama fans, nor from Chicago.

Great!! Now where is the supreme courts ruling on the water pumps? Is it consistent?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything