If Oregon is doing it.... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/o...ve-fish-population/ar-BBS5mqD?ocid=spartanntp according to the article (the way it reads), the way to get support for culling a population is it's ok as long as you're doing it for the direct financial and/or otherwise benefit of humans
Interesting article which again shows human misunderstanding of science, even the scientist. They say years ago, before the seal population came back in some number, steelheads returning from sea were counted at 15000, at one specific counting station. Weren't the seal depleted in numbers then?? So now that seals are back to more normal population, the fish population migrating is lower, at 500? So that migrating fish number is now NORMAL. Isn't that what Marine Acts are supposed to look for....NORMAL populations?? And killing EXACTLY 93 seals is the solution?? Why not 91? Or 92?? To accomplish what?? Super normal fish counts?? Politics (Federal Government) at work trying to manipulate science. Fe, fi, fo, fum, I smell the blood of an Oregon scum!!!
So Whitey runs out of food, and migrates north to *my* hood. Fkn fantastic If you ask me, the fisherman's lobbyists got their stinky hands all over this. Fishermen run the coastal economy out here, to the tune of billions of dollars. And there's a lot more $$$ in salmon than seals. And Oregon is putting a lib spin on it to make it appear as if the state is actually preserving an endangered species. ROTFLMAO
In my school we ask students to re-frame the issue... Instead of deciding which species to save, think of it in terms of which species do we decide to kill? The answer will be in terms of "value"... and is that value monetary or non-monetary? What drives the answer... moral/ethical forces? Political/economic forces? The answers to these questions depend upon geographic location, scarcity of resources... and then there's the "cute factor." Rarely do we make these decisions based upon the natural order and balance in ecosystems. Here's an example... Sandy Hook is overrun with deer. They're decimating many plant species very rapidly... plant species other animals rely on. Deer hunting is banned on Sandy Hook, which is a National Park. This is an irresponsible decision, based upon the fact that people from the city come here in droves, and LOVE to see deer. Up close. With no fear of humans. Soon, famine and disease will cause the deer population on Sandy Hook to plummet. There's gonna be dead deer carcasses all over the place. Hopefully, the plants will come back... but maybe not.
I'm in the heart of Spotted Owl country, abuelito. Multi-billion dollar lumber industries like Weyerhaeuser got shut down almost completely over a species nobody seemed to know about and provides no economic or natural benefit. Thriving PNW communities have been turned into the poorest counties in the state, with no assistance from the capitol nor its politicians. Because they support the status quo. But let's be real, this wasn't about an owl. The lumber industry was raping out here, had some fantastic attorneys and were regularly spanking environmental lobbyists. But the states changed politically, and the industry got burned. Too bad, because the only people that got hurt were blue collar middle class taxpayers, when a real compromise could have been made between the grieving parties. Meanwhile, Weyerhaeuser and other lumber barons still own millions and millions of tree-covered acreage, worth billions or trillions of $$$. And the waiting game begins
If we worried about seal populations and their hierarchy in the food chain around here, nobody would surf. This area is crawling with them. I sure miss Sharkhumper, we could really use his expert opinion right about now
Coda is on point. Plus, Gov studies are not subject to the same peer review of normal scientific research. Think about. It. People say "gov scientists research says....." and everyone believes them (for some unknown reason). One or two studies devoid of full peer review amounts to basically an opinion - not fact
There's also the funding factor. In govmt funded studies/research such as on global warming, it's to the scientists' advantage to magnify and expand the problem in order to continue getting govmt funding. Not sure what these studies over the many years have actually accomplished other than maintaining a steady stream of funding from the govmt. Of course, oil companies fund similar studies which tend to downplay the effect of man's activities on global warming. Again, it's "follow the money". It all has become so agenda-driven and politicized that the distinction between fact and fantasy has become blurred. ...Sorry for getting off on a tangent here.
Knock knock: surf rider foundation. Just saw a bill they are pushing. To “stop private citizens taking away public beach access” but the real verbiage in the bill dictates creating more public parking (metered more than likely so the state lines their pocket), public facilities and handicap access. I’m sure there’s money set aside where the SRF can do “coastal impact” studies to... Stop screwing up nature. Handicap people aren’t strolling in the sand and we don’t need a parking spot in every beach Town. Go to their website, click their “team” button and you’ll see where your donation monies really go.
