Trout vs. People?

September 14, 2010 § 9 Comments

Click image to link to news video

Not exactly breaking news at this point, but here’s a link to local creekfreaks Mark Abramson and Rosi Dagit on Fox’s Sean Hannity show.

Yes, Hannity. He’s gotten them interviewed so he can trash restoration of steelhead runs during our state’s financial hard times – but he couldn’t do it to their faces. Let’s put Mark and Rosi in the room with Hannity and see who comes out sounding like the rational one.

(and for the fellow who thinks restoration would be a waste cuz he’s not seen any trout swim up the concrete channel by his property…that’s actually the point)

Tagged: , , ,

§ 9 Responses to Trout vs. People?

  • Joe Linton says:

    It seems disingenuous that conservatives are saying that, in tight budget time, the environmental spending is taking away from welfare, child care, mental health … when the conservatives generally don’t support spending on these social services (or the environment) even in flush budget times.

    It is an excellent video, though, and an illustration of how small projects that restore connectivity can make big differences for endangered species including the Southern Steelhead Trout.

  • Jessica Hall says:

    A crocodile feels more when it cries

  • Mike Letteriello says:

    Ah, me. The Hannitys of the world are numerous while the Steelheads go begging. Where’s the justice?

  • Brent says:

    Joe, what’s disingenuous is conflating a bond issue with the state’s budget deficit and unemployment. It’s not too far a reach to say that the common ground between the two types of money (voted indebtedness and state budget) is only that they are both measured in dollars.

    The show goes to great length to add mathematical confusion as well, hoping that the concept of $20B dollar of budget shortfall will seem like it can be partially addressed by alternate uses of $1M in fish ladder funds. Of course discerning high school students know that $1M/$20B is 0.00005 or 5 one thousandths of one percent. So even if you believed that bond money and state budget money were the same you’d realize that the $1M cost is really a small fraction of a drop in the budget bucket.

    I’m sure Mark is also quoted somewhat out of context when he states that a fish ladder is the last resort and that he’d prefer to see a bridge. His point probably was that a bridge costs real money, making $1M seem cheap, but the editing makes it seem like there’s dissent in the ranks of the eco-fringe. I don’t see anyone throwing themselves on the tracks to prevent the fish ladder in hopes that the bridge will be built instead.

    • Joe Linton says:

      yep… that’s a lot of zeros in .00005! In the order of magnitude of overall state govt spending, a million dollars sounds like very little.

    • Dick Trickle says:

      That’s exactly the point. Fish ladders are single purpose and don’t always work. Bridges over streams always work, and will provide many more benefits than passage for fish that may never show up – and they don’t ruin the beach.

  • Jessica Hall says:

    There is dissent. PCH is a major barrier to fish migration along the coast of the Santa Monica Mountains. Fish ladders are not robustly successful and are often prone to structural failure. I don’t think it’s a fringe issue among restorationists, although political realities make alternatives to fish ladders (ie bridges or dam removals in most cases) unviable. Removing the manmade obstruction is a way more straightforward solution, and one that in the long run requires less management, than building around it.

    That said, I doubt Hannity was even remotely interested in a discussion of the mechanics of successful fish migration, but was merely using it to serve his own agenda.

    • Brent says:

      I think it’s just like you say, Jessica: Surely nearly everyone acknowledges that a bridge is a better solution in every way but $ cost. Given the $ constraint, a majority take the pragmatic position that between a fish ladder or nothing that a fish ladder is better.

      By the way, I would consider the $1M a worthwhile investment even if the fish ladder only lasted 5 to 10 years.

      • Dick Trickle says:

        Nothing is better. They want to put rock across the beach and place even more concrete in the stream. Save the money until you can build a bridge. Spend it on education, environmental education for engineers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Trout vs. People? at L.A. Creek Freak.

meta

%d bloggers like this: