look, as I said before I'm not quite sure why there is so much push back on this thread. All that needs to happen is that at a grass roots level every person who supports our Chinook fishery should mention to every friend of theirs they see wearing a patagonia jacket that they are supporting a company, that through their support of Raincoast Conservancy, advocates for the end of our fishery. Read the Raincoast SRKW stuff. They are advocating for an end to our fishery!
Never mind. I deleted my post. Patagonia it is!alright then, how do Teck Resources operations affect upper Fraser Chinook?
alright then, how do Teck Resources operations affect upper Fraser Chinook?
No argument there. Teck ( formerly Inco) has been polluting the Columbia for half a century or more, and mostly getting away with it. However, our original conversation was about the upper Fraser, and I don't think there is a lot of industrial development there, more like agricultural water extraction issues, deforestation due to accelerated cut of spruce budworm harvest, resulting in much less forest cover and resulting rapid snowmelt.Not Fraser, but...... Another important river.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...polluting-bcs-columbia-river/article28962151/
You do no that a lot of hatcherys are on streams that never had natural salmon production or the type of salmon that is being produced by the hatchery.
So removing the hatchery May result in things you don’t realize.
I volunteer at a hatchery and stream that never had natural coho or chum production, in fact in the early 1900 the only thing it was known to have was a small run of steelhead and pinks.
A lot of the big natural producers have damned. For drinking water or hydro both are berry important if we plan on switching of of fossil fuels.
The demand for wild fish is only growing after years of anti farm fish campaigns .
Even if we went back to only have a million First Nations living in the pacific north west pre contact, yes there were stories where you could walk across the backs of alamanon bla bla but there was also stories of famine.
I think I read somewhere that scientists think right now in the Pacific Ocean there is more salmon production there ever was in the past.
Perhaps if there was only a million people on this coast salmon would look like it’s booming right now. You could probably fish as much as you like.
Yes, there may be some ocean survival issues, but upper Fraser Chinook are, for the most part, stream type Chinook, spending up to two years in freshwater. Their survival depends on adequate water flow and cool temperatures. They then migrate great distances to feed before returning to their natal streams. One of the reasons that Strait of Georgia Chinook are doing well is that they are mostly ocean type Chinook, spending less than a year in freshwater, and then often never getting more than 200 km from their natal stream. Herring populations have recovered quite well in the past few years, possibly the reason why fishing has been so good latelyThe problem is ocean survival not freshwater.
Footnote here, I get everybody's point about boycotts not working, mostly. There have been a few times when they have. I get pretty fired up sometimes over issues that pertain to our right to fish. Pretty sure I haven't hurt anybody's feelings. I know the patagonia fishing rep well and after discussing this with a local guide who is a mutual acquaintance, it turns out that the rep has already been in conversations with patagonia about their perceived support of a fishing ban. I know they do a lot for wild salmon but if we were only depending on wild salmon for our fishery, there wouldn't be one at this point. Next time I see the rep, who we buy quite a bit of stuff from, just not patagonia, I'll be sure to have a discussion about this. Pressure can be applied in a variety of ways. It is not unheard of that if a company sees too much negative feedback over a group they are supporting, that they will cut ties with that group. One way to fight back against groups that advocate for an end to salmon fishing is to de-fund them.
When you buy things from a company that supports these ENGOs you are literally supporting the ENGOs financially. Will it make a difference if I never but Patagonia again? Probably not, but I have before and can't stomach 1 penny of my money supporting groups that are working against my interests.
Well I sure won’t be buying any Patagonia stuff.
I actually believe in boycotting and do it all the time. My choice
As in Sea Lice infested, Disease and Virus spewing Fish Farms?The problem is ocean survival not freshwater.
Not sure if boycotts really work, but interestingly enough I just read where the President of Brazil was due to visit New York to receive an award. The Public outcry was so great that a number of venues cancelled his appearance due to pressure from those who disapprove of his policies. Consequently his visit has been cancelled! How often have we seen similar incidents happen?Again very noble thoughts and idealistic way of thinking. But lets do some math - again using Patagonia as an example. (Remember I don't work for them.)
You tell and beg 20 of your friends to not purchase from Patagonia. Of those 20, how many are going to swear they will never purchase and also spread your boycott crusade to their friends? To be generous, lets say 10% of the 20 = 2 people. Of those 2, how many of their each 20 friends are they really, really going to convince to also join your crusade?
Statistics show that the further away from the source person advancing a cause, the odds drop sharply after the first or second group of friends. So using the above example numbers, you may be very lucky to have 3-5 people willing to never purchase from the company again. Even if you extrapolate that over a hundred people who believe in the same crusade as you and they try and convince their 20 friends and end up with maybe a few people each, the true final number of people boycotting the company is not even close to being a measurable statistic on the company's balance sheet.
Interestingly enough, in the time I took to write this, the company has gained those same number of customers (and more) of those 3-5 loyal (and perhaps naive) friends and friends of friends who joined your crusade - that will ultimately fail to achieve your noble thoughts and ideas of a boycott.
The irony to this is that Patagonia's true goal is inline with what we all want. They want wild fish to sustain themselves. That is what we all should want.
Ideal world is that we have a managed wild fishery that doesn't need enhancement.
Thats the elephant in the room. The planet is not infinate and there are too many people in it to keep a natural balance. As long as there is another buck to be made that reality always gets pushed to the backburner. We are the modern day dinasaurs.We have to move past this whole wild fish natural world bs. There are simply too many humans having too much impact. We cannot take the path of trying to restore a natural balance and expect things to work out. Humans have to take an active role in managing the environment and try to do the best we can with the outcome...