Jim

I did this a couple years ago and don't remember any problem. Seemed like the hardest moves were 10 feet off the ground - otherwise no more than Class III if that. But don't fall.

More power to them if they can increase the efficiencies. I did see an article on some interesting aquaculture going on in Baltimore using bio-digester for the waste. Again I would say that all aqua-culture is not bad. Particularly some of the species you mentioned - they have done wonders for supplying protien to many third world areas. But with the salmon farming in the NW there was a rush for the bucks without contemplation of the ecological effects. And we're paying for it in a number of ways. Having worked as a fisheries ecologist I have some experience with the fish/water issues. And I like to catch 'em now and then. IMO - don't think the farmed salmon is good, or a good thing.

Well at least that's a partial reply. But it doesen't address the major issues such as increased parasite infestations of native runs, viral diseases that have wiped out net stocks, the addition of waste products in a concentrated area, the antibiotics used, higher PCBs in farmed fish. Oh yea - the fact that you need 2.5 lbs of ground up fish to feed the critters to make 1 lb of farmed salmon. And what started the thread - the piles of escapees. No thanks - I'll stick to the wild ones.

But more important what do you think of farmed salmon?

Oh - I thought this was a joke. It's good!!! http://www.idontcareaboutair.com/bumpers/create.shtml

Or there's no way to refute the facts. Have a good day non-climber bob

Nice photos - I like it up there.

Ok, I'll do this dance again. I post a few facts - you revert to name calling and mouth foaming with out addressing any issues brought up in the link. And I think my quote above says "properly managed". Which many times they are not. Canada is taking a harder line these days because they're worried about sea lice infections of native runs and extensive waste products laying on the seafloor under pens. Sure there's an economic issue with the farmers vs the fishers, but there's some large ecological issues also. Ya gotta relax a bit Bob, maybe try climbing some time.

Hmm. After some more reading I changed my mine. Farmed salmon sucks for a number of reasons. I never buy it anyway. Very good summary of the farming issue including an article from the liberal Wall Steet Journal: http://www.sectionz.info/issue_1/Facts_Footnotes.html

Oh I don't think anyone here is saying aquaculture is inherently bad, if properly managed - but escaped exotics are not good. And the private fish farmers causing the problem don't have to deal with the effects - the public will pick up the tab.

It is a drag. Private profit off the public resource - water - and guess who has to deal with the mess. Up in BC they have verified Atlantic Salmon in native salmon runs.

Someone asked about Atlantic Salmon in Puget Sound recently. Here you go: http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20030810/frontpage/72453.shtml

It's too bad that everything is so politicized these days. Nixon for instance, actually did some decent environmental actions and hired folks to run the agencies according to their knowledge - not their right wing politics. Regan started it with James Watt, Bushie I was not great but he would look for compromises. Bushie II and boys are the worst.

Depends on which species you're talking about. Snake River sockeye are hurtin' so bad that biologists named the 2 fish that showed up a couple years ago. Chinook and coho have been doing well lately due to management actions and excellent ocean conditions - el nino stuff. Don't know the burger guy.

Intersting article in the Wall Street Journal about fish and politics: Oregon Water Saga Illuminates Rove's Methods With Agencies By TOM HAMBURGER Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON -- In a darkened conference room, White House political strategist Karl Rove was making an unusual address to 50 top managers at the U.S. Interior Department. Flashing color slides, he spoke of poll results, critical constituencies -- and water levels in the Klamath River basin. At the time of the meeting, in January 2002, Mr. Rove had just returned from accompanying President Bush on a trip to Oregon, where they visited with a Republican senator facing re-election. Republican leaders there wanted to support their agricultural base by diverting water from the river basin to nearby farms, and Mr. Rove signaled that the administration did, too. Three months later, Interior Secretary Gale Norton stood with Sen. Gordon Smith in Klamath Falls and opened the irrigation-system head gates that increased the water supply to 220,000 acres of farmland -- a policy shift that continues to stir bitter criticism from environmentalists and Indian tribes. Though Mr. Rove's clout within the administration often is celebrated, this episode offers a rare window into how he works behind the scenes to get things done. One of them is with periodic visits to cabinet departments. Over the past two years Mr. Rove or his top aide, Kenneth Mehlman -- now manager of Mr. Bush's re-election campaign -- have visited nearly every agency to outline White House campaign priorities, review polling data and, on occasion, call attention to tight House, Senate and gubernatorial races that could be affected by regulatory action. Every administration has used cabinet resources to promote its election interests. But some presidential scholars and former federal and White House officials say the systematic presentation of polling data and campaign strategy goes beyond what Mr. Rove's predecessors have done. "We met together and talked a lot about issues of the day, but never in relation to polling results, specific campaigns or the president's popularity," says Lisa Guide, a political appointee at Interior during the Clinton administration. Frank Donatelli, political director in the Reagan White House, says "we were circumspect about discussing specific administration rulings that had yet to be made." Mr. Rove declined to comment. White House spokeswoman Ashley Snee says the agency visits simply were designed to keep political appointees apprised of the president's accomplishments and priorities. Klamath River water levels were an issue at least as far back as the 2000 presidential campaign. During the unusually dry summer of 2001, angry farmers stormed the head gates to forcibly release water, but the Bush administration generally resisted their demands. In 2002, the issue continued to loom large as Mr. Smith faced a potentially difficult re-election challenge. On Jan. 5, Mr. Rove accompanied the president to an appearance in Portland with Mr. Smith. The president signaled his desire to accommodate agricultural interests, saying "We'll do everything we can to make sure water is available for those who farm." The next day, Mr. Rove made sure that commitment didn't fall through the cracks. He visited the 50 Interior managers attending a department retreat at a Fish and Wildlife Service conference center in Shepherdstown, W.Va. In a PowerPoint presentation Mr. Rove also uses when soliciting Republican donors, he brought up the Klamath and made clear that the administration was siding with agricultural interests. IN OREGON . . . In Quest for Steady Work, a Man Traces State's Decline His remarks weren't entirely welcome -- especially by officials grappling with the competing arguments made by environmentalists, who wanted river levels high to protect endangered salmon, and Indian tribes, who depend on the salmon for their livelihoods. Neil McCaleb, then an assistant Interior secretary, recalls the "chilling effect" of Mr. Rove's remarks. Wayne Smith, then with the department's Bureau of Indian Affairs, says Mr. Rove reminded the managers of the need to "support our base." Both men since have left the department. An Interior spokesman, Mark Pfeifle, says Mr. Rove spoke in general terms about the Klamath conflict in the course of a broader discussion. Without directing a policy outcome, Mr. Pfeifle says, Mr. Rove simply "indicated the need to help the basin's farmers." In the end, that is what happened when Interior reversed its previous stance and released more water. Mr. Rove's intervention wasn't the only reason. Mr. McCaleb himself says the biggest factor was a report from the independent National Research Council, which questioned the basis on which Interior scientists had made earlier Klamath flow decisions. But Mr. Rove didn't let the matter drop after the Shepherdstown meeting. Weeks later, he returned to Oregon and met with a half-dozen or so farmers and ranchers. Thereafter, the White House formed a cabinet-level task force on Klamath issues. The results became clear on March 29, when the water was released to parched farms. That hasn't ended the controversy. Environmentalists blame the change in water levels for the subsequent death of more than 30,000 salmon, calling it the largest fish kill in the history of the West. A National Marine Fisheries Service biologist, Michael Kelly, has asked for protection under federal "whistle-blower" laws, saying he was subjected to political pressure to go along with the low-water plan and ordered to ignore scientific evidence casting doubt on the plan. This month, a federal judge ruled the administration violated the Endangered Species Act in the way it justified the water diversion. Administration officials note that the judge found fault only with a narrow portion of the biological opinion, and didn't order changes in water flow. Interior is investigating the cause of the fish kill, Mr. Pfeifle says. Oregon farmers point to other factors in the salmon kill, including water temperature and the presence of an infectious disease during salmon-spawning season. And they haven't stopped pressing to keep the irrigation water coming. A few weeks ago, the federal Bureau of Reclamation in Klamath Falls warned farmers that the department would curtail the irrigation flow. Irate, Republican Rep. Greg Walden began making calls to protest. His first one went to Mr. Rove's office. Within hours, the idea was dropped. Interior officials say managers from two cabinet departments agreed on a way to avoid it. Write to Tom Hamburger at tom.hamburger@wsj.com

I worked a summer on a Japanese troller in the Gulf of Alaska collecting fisheries/sea mammal data. A collegue was on another when they caught a Steller's sea lion (male - big guy) in the net. Rather than dump it in the hatch below and cause havoc they released it on deck - and created havoc. The 1.5 ton animal chased everyone up toward the bridge, and even up the steps. While they closed the door behind them the critter kept banging away at the door while they braced it. It gave up in 20 minutes, waddled across the deck, and slid off the stern.

Great little place recently opened on Lake City Way across from Coopers Ale House, north of 75th. Run by a Mexican family - but avoid the margaritias. Santa Fe Cafe for good southwest food on Phinney Ridge - go for the margaritias.

These folks are wacko. They're the ones that torched the Center for Urban Horticulture (for genetics work) and the USDA office in Olympia for rounding up Canada geese (non-native subspecies, big rats with wings).

And that's worked well

Again, you don't have the facts correct. If you're still talking about Iran - the Majlis party nationalized the oil fields in 1951. Pressure had been building for a couple years, in part due to the reluctance of the AIOC, the British oil group, to cut a fair deal. Most of the other Persian Gulf nations were getting a 50/50 split of oil revenue. The AIOC offered some crumbs, which lead to the nationalists gaining in the 1949 elections. When Iran nationalized the oil fields the British technicians pulled out and England siezed Iranian assets in British banks. Iran went to the Court of International Justice at The Hague - and won. A fact often misplaced. Under US pressure the AIOC improved their offer but the political climate was too hot now. Under fear of the Soviets and the oil game the Brits and the US (Eisenhower admin) set in motion Operation Ajax to overthrow Mosaddeq and institute the Shah. So you could argue it was the British who were too greedy. And so we put a dictator in place and that's OK? The ends justifies the means is a slippery slope.

Ouch! Bad hair day? I think most reasonable people would agree that the US is a great place, based on solid democratic values. If your advice is to just sit on your hands and shut up, it's unenlightened. If you don't work at it, speak up, nothing will change. Not clear on what the nationalization of the oil fields has to do with it. I guess you think that the British should still run the show there. And so the US putting the Shah in power as a dictator and him brutalizing his own people was justified? You're not making any clear arguments here.

Good summary of the Somlia debacle, "Road to Hell" is a good read about the mess. This may be an example of a number of entities, NGOs, and the US trying to do good in a bad place, and entropy just took over. However, our interventions throughout the world have often been, and continue to be (mid east) driven by "national interests". Be careful of that phrase. It was the reason to institute the Shah in Iran and the Bath Party and Saddam in Iraq. The people in those countries have suffered because we felt inclined to "fix" things according to our "national interest". And now we're spending billons "re-fixing" a mess for which we're greatly responsible.

Exactly what I needed to hear. Thanks dude.