Our Klamath Basin
Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
Klamath Fish Management
by Larry Toelle, Ft Jones 4/12/08 Hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, have been spent on west coast salmon production with annual expenditures skyrocketing to levels exceeding many nation's entire budget. We recently estimated that “hoped for” improvements in Klamath stocks would cost over $6,500 per fish, a real bargain according to the fish managers and their environmental and tribal friends.
Most of the dollars spent, come
from federal coffers. Another significant portion from state
budgets. Yet another portion comes from our electric bills.
Bonneville Power Authority energy is dinged about 24% in direct
fish expense. We all pay through the nose for these critters,
either in the form of taxes or through more direct forms, such
as our power bills. Let's also not forget the expenses born by
county and local governments in various fish mitigation
programs.
Also, let's not forget the costs of
regulation. City folks aren't likely to consider these costs,
but those of us who ranch and farm, or work in the woods, know
all too well what these costs are. Some of the costs are offset
by generous subsidies in the form of agency grants to create
habitat, maximize water usage, screen streams, and other less
obvious projects, all to help improve the lives of these
critters, many times at the expense of other critters. The
regulations are tangled, conflicting and often confusing.
So, really, how valuable are these
critters? About three bucks a pound at Raley's Supermarket, and
thats for the “WILD” variety, presumed better than the farmed
variety. Not bad actually, considering a pound of hamburger
costs us about two and half bucks.
We really haven't computed the tax
and energy costs of beef, but presumably it's something less
than $6,500 per head, or we should hope so. Consider too, an
animal weighing in at a thousand pounds versus a fish weighing
in at twenty pounds.
This week, the fish managers
announced that there will be no more fishing until they can
figure out what is happening to these wild fish. This year's
catch will go to zero, perhaps next year's as well. These fish
managers are also scrambling to ask for yet more dollars, now to
fund more research, and of course, to subsidize the now
out-of-business commercial fishing fleets and tribes. Now, let's
re-compute the costs per fish again ... staggering, isn't it?
Does shutting down fishing mean
that we won't be able to buy these fish at Raley's? Of course
not. Salmon will still be found where we always find them,
between the cod and flounder. They may not be marked “wild” but
you will still have salmon for dinner. Salmon farmers will
continue raising and offering salmon to America's consumers,
perhaps at a higher price because they don't have to compete
against the federal/state fish managers, but salmon will remain
a part of our diet.
Consider, if you will, the lunatic
nature of the western salmon industry. Annually, we spend
hundreds of millions on a fish that merely stock the
supermarkets with fresh meat. The salmon has no other real
purpose, they're food. They can be produced in marketable
quantities by private producers at costs competitive to
hamburger. It just doesn't make sense, unless of course, you're
a fish manager.
It's time for us to set aside our
emotional attachments to this critter, and begin asking some
tough questions about fish management. First question: Who's in
charge? Who is going to take responsibility for spending the
billions, and then produce nothing?
Larry Toelle
Fort Jones
|
Page Updated: Thursday May 07, 2009 09:14 AM Pacific
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2008, All Rights Reserved