water exports

Over the last however any years, British Columbia has been debating water exports with any number of people who applied for permits to fill tankers and send then off to a thirsty world. Most of these proposals involve parking the tanker near an ocean terminating river, hooking up a pipe to the supply and driving away when the tanker is full. When the tanker shows up where thirst guys are, the water is traded for money and off they go for another load.
I always thought of these schemes as a license to print money and well worth pursuing, but lo-and-behold was I in for a surprise. A cacophony of voices howled in protest, the loudest belonging to Maude Barlow. All sorts of reasons have been aired to prevent the export of water, and to me none of them make any real sense as we're talking about water that simply flows into the ocean. Does it make any difference to the ocean if the water makes a trip to California before it finally reaches the oceans? The water still makes it into the ocean sometime.
However, after some serious discussion over a couple of beer, we did figured out what the problem was - pollution. Think of this from a 'green' perspective. Here we have a product being shipped on the open ocean and, heaven forbid, the loaded tanker strikes an empty returning tanker and we now have an enormous spill. The true environmentalist recognizes the near impossibility of cleaning up the polluting spill. Now a normal human being might say water is water, what's the big deal, but that isn't how the environmental mind works. In their minds the water in the tanker has become a pollutant - the reason - its' been tainted with the profit motive.
Now you might think this is far-fetched and I'm seeing double ogres, but hear me out. As a example, think of Yellowstone National Park. Day after day, thousands of gallons of sulfur laden water bubble up out of the earth and, doing what gravity tells it top do, flows over the earth, into the Missouri river then the Mississippi and on to the gulf of Mexico.
Now if you had a business and dropped a tablespoon of sulfuric acid into the same river system the EPA would have a conniption. The local Sierra Club would write letters of condemnation and launch a lawsuit to get loot to cover everybody's perceived damages. The school teachers would get the eight years olds 'go public' with their newly learned anxieties. The television crew will be out in force filming geriatricly expired fish and claiming sulfur poisoning.
All it took was a couple of beer to finally see that to the goofy green environmentalist, profit = pollution. And Ben Franklin was right when he said, "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy".

fishing

Open letter to the Sierra Legal Defense Fund:

Thank you for bringing to my attention the Department of Fisheries and Oceans study that claims to prove silt is at the root of the disappearing salmon problem and that in particular, logging road construction produces the silt that is causing the devastation experienced by the fishing industry.

I personally do not believe this to be true. Logging roads, not to mention an number of other roads, have been around far longer than the fish have been missing. For many years, when no consideration was given to silting or erosion at all, we saw some of the largest returns of fish. As well, the mighty, muddy Fraser river has enticed significant numbers of returning salmon over the last ever so many centuries. No, I think there is a different cause for the fish loss.

Some people say that the El Nino overheated water is the problem - that predatory fish that follow the warmer water north are enjoying juvenile salmon for breakfast, lunch and diner.
However, I disagree with that as well. I think the DFO’s “environmentally friendly” catch and release policies are the cause and definitely warrant much more research.

Consider the experience from a fishy perspective, of being hooked - the sensation of total shock when that insignificant meal turns out to be attached to your lower lip and it is now controlling you. And regardless of how hard you fight the excruciating pain you aren’t powerful enough to resist the relentless pull in a direction you don’t want to go. As you weaken, you’re being dragged away from all of your acquaintances and in the periphery of your senses you detect this huge plastic object with a bunch of yelling and waving humans in it. With the last feeble shwish of your tail, in the last desperate effort to escape, you experience the final indignity - the net.

Now, totally trapped, you are dragged from the net, some contaminating fingers are inserted in your gills and while you’re held in the most degrading position you’ve ever been in, a flash of light blinds you. All your dreams of spawning and leaving a million descendants to carry on for you come to an end.

But such is not yet the case, for you’ve been caught by a fisherperson who, by law, must follow the practice of “catch and release” for all salmon caught. Terrified, in pain, blind and disoriented, this individual drops you back in the water.

As a human being, consider the psychological damage incurred by a four year old cold blooded creature that has spent it’s entire life gulping down things that don’t do it any harm - suddenly to have a bait fish return such a horrific bite.

But it doesn’t end there. After this fish fully comprehends that he/she is once more free, a second psychological blow truly destroys the fish’s ego. Now waves of self doubt and inadequacy overwhelm this rejected fish. Yes, this fish now concludes that he/she was judged not worthy of retention, not even fit to be eaten, for while you may be able to see life from a fishy perspective, no fish has the ability to see life from a human perspective. This fish doesn’t view being released as an act of benevolent consideration; it simply feels rejected.

I’m sure that this fish, surviving such a traumatic experience, will, after a time of reflection, decide not to reproduce. A fish having knowledge of being caught and then rejected would want to spare their offspring a similar fate.

I’m convinced that the “catch and release” survivors have become sterile, probably by choice, or from psychological damage - something only further research could tell us. Quite possibly these fish are even presenting a convincing argument to their “in school” peers in favor of celibacy.

My theory also explains why the Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials do such an abysmal job of predicting numbers of returning salmon accurately. These celibate fish are counted and expected to reproduce by DFO officialdom but when reaching the spawning grounds they don’t deliver the goods - their eggs don’t hatch , so no fingerlings and four years later, no adults.

However, I’m sure the DFO is doing its best to protect the fish from the fish’s greatest source of predation - humans. Fisherpersons are in fact, disappearing faster than are the fish and to the DFO’s credit, though it took a few years longer on the west coast, they’ve managed both sides of Canada equally well.

I regret that my presentation lacks the polish of the study by the DFO , but I happen to be a taxpayer rather than a tax spender and can only afford a simple letter to the editor. If the public were to contribute as generously to me as they do to the DFO, I would be able to hire the appropriate help and conduct a thorough study. My thesis could then have at least as much credibility as theirs.