Salmon collapse could force fishing restrictions

Bug,now I know why wild Salmon is $27/lb at Wegmans.
 
How's it going?We're getting ice/rain here and it's coming down heavy,good day to stay inside and work on taxes.

U can't go wrong w tying and flies and taking a nap!  I'm gonna do the same!!

.

"Some environmentalists blamed the troubles on water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, headwaters of the giant aqueducts that funnel water to Southern California"
 
My guess it that this is a pretty good bet as to the cause of the collapse of the fishery.  Put on top of that sea lice, over fishing and perhaps global climate change to some degree.  Most environmental problems are usually more complicated than we usually believe.

Gentlemen,
     It simply amazes me that an area facing severe water shortages would allow the "development" that is going on to continue.  If water is in such short supply, WHY are they still allowing golf course communities to be built?  If you have ever flown in over certain parts of Cali. and looked down it is golf course after course. and rampant development.  Of course since the housing crash maybe that has slowed down.  But I still can't see the short-sightedness that would allow such development to occur.  It's a freeking desert!  They suck so much out of the Colorado that there is almost none reaching the ocean and what WAS a beautiful delta area 100 years ago is now an alkaline wastland.   But thats OK I guess cause it's in Mexico.

Everyone knows the INTERNET is ruining it...or is that video....not sure...confused now...you know...gps coordinates - pictures - reports - yeah INTERNET -hope they do not post fishing spots up there....
 
Chaos Theory Rules the day.
 
Doc

Resource depletion, over development, overpopulation and man made climate change....we are in trouble. Something IS going to give if we continue business as usual.
 
When the Earth shakes off a few billion of us by famine, disease and war over resources, the Earth will return to a more balanced environment.  Thats what is so disturbing WE will pay the price, yet are resistant to do something about it, and very few care or realize the implications of our actions.
 
These kind of stories will increase in the coming years....
 
 

It's the speed of the warming that has me concerned, its not taking 10, 000, 5,000 or even 1,000 years..this is gonna happen in the span of one human lifetime.
 
Mcluvin, you talk like we have nothing to do with it, and that is wrong. As I said before we are going to be the ones to pay the price.
 
Oh, and explain to me how "Global Warming" is anti-religious????  Scientist are blaming man, you are the one blaming God....

" Oh, and explain to me how "Global Warming" is anti-religious????  Scientist are blaming man, you are the one blaming God...."

What I said specifically was this: "The problem with the current usage of "Global Warming" is that it is loaded with anti-religious, anti-human sentiment."

There are regular environmental reports blaming ecological problems not on the misuse of resources, but on the very presence of humanity. To be anit-human is to be anti-God since God created people and loves humanity.

Most people of faith view the world as God's creation.  It is then our job to be good stewards of God's creation and not exploit it.  At one point in history we depended on wood as our sole source of fuel to burn for warmth, and cooking.  Later we discovered coal and eventually oil.  We also decided we could industrialize our enterprises and with the industrial revolution we needed even more fuel.  Little care was given to the environment and the consequences of our actions.  Pollution and environmental degradation was seen as part of progress; a price to pay to modernize the world.  We almost drown in our own waste, but with time it became apparent things needed to change.  We are still correcting the mistakes our parents and grandparents made and our children will have to deal with the mess we leave behind.
 
Today we have the technology to conserve energy, and to exploit a variety of renewable energy sources that do much less damage to the environment.  There is little need to continue using oil or coal as energy sources.  It may cost more, but the environment will suffer less and in the long run we will be passing onto our children a better world.
 
For me as a person of faith, respect and love for the planet earth is no different than the respect we should show to one another.
 
As for the impact of human activities on the climate, only a person who does not understand the basics of biology, geology, chemistry, physics and meteorology would say human activity has no effect on the climate.  The evidence for human activity altering the climate is overwhelming.  To say human activity is responsible for all of the changes we are seeing in the climate is equally naive.  The debate among serious scientists is not whether humans have a hand in the global climate change, but it is to what extent.  There is also debate as to whether there is anything we can do about it.
 
The one thing that is certain is the climate is changing and unless we start to realize that and prepare ourselves for the anticipated changes, we will be in a world of hurt.

Well put Bug.
 
 
"There is also debate as to whether there is anything we can do about it."
 
I think the debate is more about are we willing to do anything about it.... 

 
 

Toe-
 
It's a shame leaders of this country dump money into wars and agencies like NASA.  NASA seems to be trying to find a planet to run to when we finish soiling this one.
 
Any chance all those fires have denuded areas that are now eroading soil into west coast streams?  I wonder.
 
The next leader should refocus all the scientists at NASA on finding a "Zero" emmission engine for transportation and otherwise prepare to cloan the last king salmon to someday return to California waters. 
 
The Pacific Ocean has had a dramatic increase in CO2 adsorbed.  This has adjusted the waters pH and plankton productivity.  I would not be supprised if this has something to do with the aquatic foodchain out there.
 
We have blamed forest regeneration on overpopulation of deer in Pennsylvana's big woods for years.  There are much less deer now then ever, so I'm sure the walrus, seals, and whales are to be blamed out west, cause it would never be our fault. 
 
PA's soils are acidifing as a result of NOX and Sulfur emissions, killing adult trees, and limiting regrowth to acid tollerant species.  It's not the deer, there are not enough animials.
 
Somewhere in the good book in Isaah it notes something on the order of "Woe unto the who places house to house and field to field until there be no place left". 
 
Woe 
 
Go well, do well.
 

Keney,
 
Due to the very nature of the challenges it faces in it's missions, many of the solutions WILL come from NASA. Safer more effective use of hydrgen, solar power, and other energy sources, are integral parts of their efforts.

ORIGINAL: tippy-toe

Interesting, I never heard any scientist blame the mere presence of the human animal as a cause of global warming. I have only heard theories based on scientific data regarding the emission of greenhouse gasses by man as the cause for the recent global climate change.

If you would post some of those regular reports blaming the existence of man on the planet for the current change in climate, I'd like to read them...Thanks

I didn't actually say in my response that scientists were saying this, but if memory serves, there have been many scientists whose personal opinion was that humans should be limited in their spread in order to stop the human effect on earth, rather than develop solutions involving people.

Most scientific studies which I've seen that actually give facts and figures researched over centuries deny the phenomena which many today are calling Global Warming.

Here is one of the troubling stories that has come out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/24/scigwarming124.xml

Here is an interesting debate with some good links.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070125114234AAxhwWE

I'm not on my home computer and am a bit pressed for time so I regret only offering these two. I want to thank you for the civil debate though. I respect that. A lot of people get pretty hyped when someone disagrees with them, but I'm open to being proven wrong by a civil person with better evidence than mine! :)