Recently, a political lobbying group based out of Vermont called "American Rivers" released a list of what they called the 10 "endangered" rivers in the nation, including the Skykomish River in Snohomish County. This resulted in over 600 emails to the County Council, and a front page, top of the fold article in the Everett Herald entitled "Skykomish River 'at risk'."
Of course, there are a few problems with this. First, American Rivers doesn't apply any scientific criteria to their "endangered" designation--it's entirely political. In fact, Skykomish is among the most healthy rivers in the region. Second, the vast majority of those emails were from out of state--and many of them were about out of state rivers! Get the whole story over at the Snohomish County GOP site.
Cross posted at The Flag of the World.
Posted by Timothy Goddard at April 15, 2005 06:32 PM | Email ThisThe KEY for these groups, of course, is to have the facts on the table before you go to press.
But to simply write off all "grassroots" organizations because of this faux pas by American Rivers is a tad on the knee-jerk side, methinks...
Posted by: Dan on April 15, 2005 10:28 PMPolitics aside, I fish this river routinely with my kids. The Sky is anything buy healthy. They need to close the river for a few years to let it recover naturally.
Posted by: Bryan on April 15, 2005 10:32 PMSalmon and steelhead runs are absolutely NOT getting worse every year. Last year saw some of the biggest returns in history on the Columbia River. Even NOAA concedes that most runs are healthy. While some runs are down this year, population levels are inherently cyclical.
While a SCANT FEW salmon runs are in trouble, the regional crisis becried by many is a farce perpetuated by radical environmentalists.
Groups like American Rivers, the Sierra Club, and Trout Unlimited are more about using the Endangered Species Act to restrict private property rights and stifle development than about "saving" healthy rivers and concomitant salmon runs.
These fish are incredibly resilient and are in no danger of extinction.
You're right on the mark, Tim. Nice work.
Posted by: Harris on April 16, 2005 07:52 AMSo, the Skykomish is safe. Maybe that's because in 1978 some Democrats insisted that it was NOT OK to dump raw sewage into it-- like the local Republicans were.
Posted by: headless lucy on April 16, 2005 09:08 AMYou've proven my point -- taking a snapshot at any point in time and responding with a knee-jerk reaction ignores the cyclical nature of salmon returns. Salmon and steelhead on the Sky and the Columbia are the same species and are similarly affected by ocean conditions. Run numbers go up and down throughout the entire region, as they have for centuries.
A quick google search reveals that the Tulalip Tribe and sport fishers report abundant salmon returns on the Sky in recent years.
The salmon "crisis" is a politically-driven hoax.
Posted by: Harris on April 16, 2005 09:10 AMYou forgot to blame Tom Delay.
Posted by: jimg on April 16, 2005 09:32 AMThe writer of this article is typically scientifically illiterate. He has fish breathing, for example! But the fact is high nutrient loads from septic and other runoff, increased sediment loads from development that reduces the area of percolating soils near streams, increased water temperature from lack of shade trees, among other things that come with development, all combine to dramatically lower a rivers oxygen carrying capacity. Which I guess if you are a moron journalist with a low regard for reader IQ you might just say means fish can't breathe. So okay he is a moron (ie typical MSM journalist). And so okay a lot of these enviro groups are one very small step up the reasonableness scale from the delightfully (and aptly!) named headless lucy. So what? They have a point.
("They" most definitely does not include luce, who's never made a point of any kind, let alone a valid one. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but only here on earth not her alternate world!)
Also in this case I don't see any property rights being taken away without compensation. Sure, some people may have bought on the gamble development rights would change in their favor. Well, they took the risk and can be expected to pressure politics their way just as we can expect the enviro's to pressure politics the other way.
Frankly a little slower growth in this area will probably help a lot more than the river. Traffic on Hwy2 is already a dangerous mess, for example.
Anyway, it's not a question of growth or no growth but just the rate of growth. Even the American Rivers folks are merely hoping to avoid the fastest growth rate plan, not stifle growth completely. Sounds surprisingly reasonable to me.
Posted by: Chuck Miller on April 16, 2005 10:38 AMIts public face is reasonable and focused on fuzzy cute emotion-based issues like saving salmon, while its lawyers use administrative channels and threats of litigation (regardless of merit) to pursue its real agenda of forcing us back to the stone age.
An interesting side issue in recent years coming from the global warming debate is that the NW snow-pack, which supports late summer flows in our streams, will diminish or even dissappear over the next 50 years.
If this happens, then the solution may be to create more dams to both trap water for summer supply and to support stream flows (i.e. for both people and fish) and to ensure that future energy needs are met using clean hydroelecticity (as oposed to dirty coal or messy nuke power).
American Rivers, along with the Sierra Club and other allies, are dead set against developing new hydroelectric or storage dams even though many of the healthiest salmon streams are supported times releases of water from dams for fish passage and habitat.
I expect this issue will gain more public awareness if we continue to see evidence of a warming trend as we have seen over the last 15 or so years. I also expect American Rivers and their allies will be perfecting their propaganda to convince us that, like mining, and "BIG" oil, dams are BAD.
I could go on for days about this, but I want to make one more point. If we continue to allow the left to frame the debate on environmental issues, we will continue to see regulatory action that is focused restricting growth and property rights rather than on solutions that work to accomodate growth and preserve environmental values. We must be pro-active - not re-active.
Posted by: DeadWood on April 16, 2005 10:41 AMWho funds American Rivers? What criteria was used to decide this list? Do they have a background in adovocacy? I'm sure American Rivers is just loving it that they release a study with a local river in it, and the story gets prominent placement. Easy fund raising.
Posted by: Janet S on April 16, 2005 10:48 AMAs an avid outdoorsman and fisherman I have more concern for the environment than any 1000 city dwelling liberal twits who call themselves advocates for the environment. If any of them had any honest regard for the environment, they would start by cleaning up the cities where they live. My concern for the changes that are legitimately taking place are not influenced by the likes of "American Rivers," until I am assured that they are legitimate, and so far it doesn't look too good.
If you want reliable information about Washington Rivers including the Skykomish, go to Trout Unlimited.http://www.tu.org/site/pp.asp?c=7dJEKTNuFmG&b=275410
Otherwise, be wary of any group that would come here from out-of-state, and pretend that the Skykomish River is high on a list of endangered rivers that includes numerous Eastern U.S. rivers. If you have been back East, you'll know what I am talking about.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 16, 2005 12:58 PMWhile you are questioning the use of this tactic by the environmentalist whacko wing of the Democratic party, you should also be doing the same thing about the radical feminist whacko wing of the Democratic Party.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on April 16, 2005 01:36 PMhttp://www.rep.org/
Posted by: Dan on April 16, 2005 02:34 PMAgreed and then some.
Dan,
Thanks for the link--good one.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 16, 2005 03:16 PMI have doing exactly that for the past four years. I was trained as a professional in the mineral exploration field. Since the Dem's outlawed mining (there's no better way to frame that) I began working in the lion's den. I am not alone, but it still pretty lonely.
Posted by: DeadWood on April 16, 2005 05:48 PMChecked out the REP site. Their site is not framing any debate. They are either caving to the leftist environmetal agenda or are part of it masquerading as republicans.
They oppose the opening of the Arctic reserve on spurious grounds. They propose using tax dollars to fund keeping logging out of Nation Forests. They claims these are "pragmatic" and "conservative". I don't agree.
Posted by: DeadWood on April 16, 2005 05:57 PMI'm Republican, and yes, I DO give a crap about the environment. I've been fighting Republicans (and Democrats) for years on a number of issues.
In some circles that wins me nothing but enmity. In others, it raises eyebrows. I figure I can live with that.
Posted by: Dan on April 16, 2005 09:45 PMI would clean it up before it gets into groundwater, and if that is too late, before it gets into the river itself.
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on April 17, 2005 04:57 PMAlso, anyone who's interested in this sort of thing should check out my recent post on Green Republicanism.
Posted by: Timothy on April 17, 2005 10:19 PMI read your piece earlier at flags. While not a member of any party (I call myself an indepedant), my own environemental positions are pretty close to those you seem to be advocating.
I remember what it was like before the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. I spent a few years in the late 60's and early 70's living in the DC area and remember how filthy the C&O canal had become right in govermnet's own back yard. I visited Buffalo and Erie in the late 60's and remember the stench of the industrial heartland.
I raised money and marched for the environment in the early 1970's. I saw the turn around in the environment that came from the legislation of that era and while still supporting some of those organizations, I pretty much was happy about what had been acomplished.
Like Paul Watson, one of the founders of Greenpeace, and like Doug Wheeler, the former Seirra Club exec who now is on the board of CREA, I found that the "leaders" of the environmental movement were decieving us with their lies and scare tactics so that they could continue with their real objective - to have and maintain polictical power.
The fringe left that now dominates the "Environmental Establishment" are no friends of the environment.
I work in the environmental field and advocate an approach that seeks to accommodate our goals as Americans to have both opportunity and a clean environment. To achieve this requires that Americans understand that we must sacrifice AND compromise.
Finally, we have to end this madness of assigning blame to industry for something which all of our ancestors share guilt. Litigation gobbles up far more money than mitigation in today's enviromental landscape. And it has also sent too much of our capital offshore where it is safe from environmental liability.
Posted by: DeadWood on April 17, 2005 11:53 PMI reserve the right to agree or disagree with the issues based on my beliefs, not whether I have an "R" next to my name. When people start praising the "good work" of the Bush folks in environmental policy and bemoaning the "hostility" of folks opposed to those works, I tend to start mumbling and sweating profusely, along with my hands trembling violently.
Bottom line? Us Repubs could stand a slap across the face for some very questionable environmental policies and ethics. All IMHO, of course. While I reserve the right to disagree, I also respect others' differing points of view.
Posted by: Dan on April 18, 2005 06:58 AMAlso, please list the forests that have recently been logged that have recently created these problems.
Also, please put in context the drought conditions we have had the past twenty years.
I think you will find that there hasn't been a huge increase in logging and will find there is about 1/2 of what has been done. You will also find that Monroe is on the Snohomish River. In other words, this nasty development occurs in the delta and Snohomish basin and not on the river.
I don't think quoting the standard talking points apples on the Skykomish. And definitely not enough to call it one of the 10 most endangered rivers.
Posted by: swatter on April 18, 2005 07:29 AMAnd for you fishers, until they start to control the nets, why do I have to make up for those lost 'spawning' fish?
But, why again does the Sky need to be some list? Sounds like some nightmare group from Atlas Shrugged.
Posted by: swatter on April 18, 2005 09:24 AMAmused, I looked on the Trout website, After a cursory search, I couldn't find anything on the Skykomish. Do you have to be a member?
Posted by: CandrewB on April 18, 2005 09:51 AMWhen St. Helen's blew, the oil companies were drilling in the Ellensburg area.
I don't know if it is the Puget Sound, but the expectation is there is oil in the area. Probably too expensive with today's oil prices, but...
Posted by: swatter on April 18, 2005 12:34 PMI forgot the you must be a member of Trout Unlimited.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 18, 2005 12:46 PMI know but why let facts get in the way. Any one that has floated the river too will tell you how the river really in only a few places can change channels like a healthy river does because of channelizing.
The whole town of Skykomish is a mess as has been mentioned earlier.
I am a conservative and as others have stated earlier I fight a lot of people (Republicans and Demsocrats a like)on environmental issues.
JJ
Nothing wrong with that. In fact, wear it as a badge of honor!
Posted by: Dan on April 18, 2005 01:12 PMI encourage folks to visit www.americanrivers.org/skykomish2005 to check out the report and supporting information.
Just to clear up a couple of misconceptions:
First, this isn't a list of the most polluted or degraded rivers. Our report highlights rivers facing large, imminent threats. In the Sky's case, the threat is runaway development.
Second, the report does not criticize Snohomish County or the Snohomish Basin salmon recovery plan. We commend the County, as well as all of the farmers and other individuals who have invested in various measures to protect and restore clean water and salmon and steelhead habitat. What the Endangered Rivers report focuses on are two upcoming decisions the Snohomish County Council will be making about growth and development.
Third, American Rivers has been active in the Snohomish Basin salmon recovery planning process for the past year and a half. It is a strong plan and we applaud everyone who has worked so hard on it.
The truth is though, the Snohomish recovery plan is a set of recommendations. And good recommendations are not enough -- we need to make sure they are implemented. Many of the threats to salmon, steelhead, and clean water will be addressed only if the Snohomish County Council adopts and implements those recommendations through its Comprehensive Plan and Critical Areas Ordinance.
The Endangered Rivers report is intended to help by providing relevant information that will enable the County Council make fully informed decisions.
Bottom line -- we all have a stake in protecting clean water, salmon and steelhead, and the special way of life we enjoy here in the Northwest.
Posted by: Amy Kober on April 20, 2005 09:08 AM