Greetings from North Dakota

[riverbee]

been there, done that on the remodeling thing..........we took a break from it last year, will start again soon. 

nice walleye!

i caught about a 40-45 pound king salmon on a fly rod in alaska last summer!  what an awesome experience!

[Chip Euliss]

Kings are strong fish.  Caught a few when I was in school in Oregon.  They jump all the time except when you get a hook in their mouth!

[riverbee]

yes, they are strong fish chip, broke a few off in ak, but sure was treated to that nice big one. what a thrill though.  used to fish for salmon in nw montana in the rivers and flathead lake, long before the fish and game made a decision and everything changed after that........now no salmon.

fishing is just plain fun!

[Chip Euliss]

Yep and a good thing to teach kids.  Both mine fish as does my 8-year-old granddaughter. 

[apisbees]

It wasn't all fish and game. Dams for power production, flood control down river, and to save water for irrigation during the summer. the salmon can not get back to their original spawning beds. Not to mention the miles of spawning rivers destroyed due to now being bottoms of lakes.

[Chip Euliss]

It wasn't all fish and game. Dams for power production, flood control down river, and to save water for irrigation during the summer. the salmon can not get back to their original spawning beds. Not to mention the miles of spawning rivers destroyed due to now being bottoms of lakes.

Very true and they are filling with sediment so also have finite lifespans.  A few dams have been removed in places and the results for migratory fish, like salmon, have been positive.  The natural process of transporting sediment downstream has also been compromised due a lack of sediment for critical deltaic processes like wetland development, etc.  The area we fish in Louisiana looses a significant area of wetland areas that provide nursery habitats for fish each year.  We've changed the world and won't know the full consequences for some time. 

[riverbee]

"It wasn't all fish and game. "

yes it was keith..........montana fish and game decided they wanted more, and more tourist money so they introduced mysis shrimp to boost salmon population into flathead lake and whatever rivers (flathead watershed and other) the salmon were running in the late 60', early 70's i think, i don't remember now.

it backfired. flathead lake had a great population of lake trout, and other species. mysis shrimp also competed with and took over zooplankton (salmon's preferred food. it's complicated to describe but in short the introduction of mysis shrimp decimated the salmon population that we had and other native species, besides the salmon; the bull trout population.  you can find many articles about this subject, and it has nothing do with dams or flood control.
just one of those things where montana thought they could expand the salmon population and by doing so, decimated it.  or just one of those things where the fed/state gov thought they could 'fix' or 'improve'..........

i remember the last time i saw a salmon run in glacier park in the early 80's on a river.......very cool, eagles lined up in the trees, bears wandering around and kokeenee salmon running thick.  i remember fishing for salmon in flathead lake and other rivers.............no more.........
sad but true. 

[apisbees]

You are right it was in the 1920's  & 30"s that they screwed up the Columbia with dams. They also introduced the shrimp in to valley bottom lakes in the Okanagan and found the same thing happening. Now there is a commercial shrimp harvest to keep them in check the fish for about a month in January the shrimp are froze and sold to pet stores and aquariums for fish food. A few years ago I heard the shrimp are worth 1.4 million annually.

[Chip Euliss]

Humans have made lots of changes that have altered the way our contemporary ecosystems work and most have had unintended outcomes.  There seem to be 2 basic schools of thought in the conservation community: 1) the group that wants to revert to pristine, and 2) the group that wants to maximize some outcome of some service like a fishery, flood control, etc.  I don't fall in either since the first isn't achievable because you can never get rid of all the things that we've introduced or changed, plus things change all the time and restoring something to what it once was doesn't account for natural change.  The second school of thought generally isn't sustainable (like dams, etc) because they eventually lead to an endpoint where it either takes tons of money to fix them or it is all but impossible to fix.  I would like to see more focus on how best to sustain our contemporary ecosystems given the disturbances (physical and biological) we've introduced.  I think the next generation of natural resource science and management will focus more on using natural processes to sustain ecosystems.  Hope so anyway!

[brooksbeefarm]

There in lays the problem, the more people the more that will be taken away from nature to make life easy for those in the big cities. Most of us on this forum could live without elec, cars, trucks, tractors, indoor pluming,running water, ect. Take that away from city folk and? Well it would bed a night mare. The earth can only support so many living things. Jack

[Bee Commander]

Welcome Chip!

[lazy shooter]

Chip:

You are one of those people that just brings fresh air to the forum.  We are fortunate to have your knowledge of life science and your beekeeping expertise on our forum.  Your presence elevates us as a whole.  Thanks for your ever courteous and knowledgeable posts on our forum.

[iddee]

AMEN

[Chip Euliss]

Thanks Lazy and Iddee!  I'd also like to say that I've really enjoyed this site.  I found it looking for someone with experience with a commercial size oxalic acid vaporizer and found a great bunch of folks instead--I've been enjoying the site ever since!  I do tend to be frank at times, but try not to be Jesse or James!!!

[riverbee]

exellent post chip, so very true!

"Humans have made lots of changes that have altered the way our contemporary ecosystems work and most have had unintended outcomes.  There seem to be 2 basic schools of thought in the conservation community: 1) the group that wants to revert to pristine, and 2) the group that wants to maximize some outcome of some service like a fishery, flood control, etc.  I don't fall in either since the first isn't achievable because you can never get rid of all the things that we've introduced or changed, plus things change all the time and restoring something to what it once was doesn't account for natural change.  The second school of thought generally isn't sustainable (like dams, etc) because they eventually lead to an endpoint where it either takes tons of money to fix them or it is all but impossible to fix.  I would like to see more focus on how best to sustain our contemporary ecosystems given the disturbances (physical and biological) we've introduced.  I think the next generation of natural resource science and management will focus more on using natural processes to sustain ecosystems.  Hope so anyway!"