The new dust bowl - California farmers put out of work to "save fish"

[Timstuff]

This is probably the most despicable single act of radical environmentalism I have seen in my whole life, so I'm surprised we don't have a thread about it. Basically, the feds have shut down the irrigation pipes off in California's Central Valley because some tree-hugging loonies believe the pumps are endangering a species of smelt fish. So basically, millions of farm families are currently getting their food from food banks, for a fish small enough to fit in the palm of your hand. I could say a fish the size of a sardine is responsible for that region's 40% unemployment rate, but frankly, it's not the fish's fault-- it's the people who care more about the fish's survival of than they do their fellow human beings.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/newswax/2009/08/12/feds-shut-off-water-to-california-farms-in-controversial-effort-to-help-threatened-species/

I look forward to seeing your discussions.

 

[SuperFerret]

Well, we can look at this three ways. One would look at it in the small scale and say screw the fish and help the people. The second would look at it in the large scale and say "Hey, look! China!" and determine that we can afford to lose a few humans. The third would be wise and work something out so everyone's happy (and thus nobody is).

Personally, my opinion works out to be a mix of all three.

 

[Timstuff]

Speaking of China, if all the farming in this region gets shut down, it will pave the way for more food to be imported from foreign countries, most of whom have far lower environmental standards than the US. My personal opinion is screw the fish, because people have to come first. Only in a country as ******ed as America do we allow people to starve to save a 2 inch fish.

 

[Carcharodon]

This is probably the most despicable single act of radical environmentalism I have seen in my whole life, so I'm surprised we don't have a thread about it.

This isn't anything new. It's something that's happened in Oregon over the past decade.

Basically, the feds have shut down the irrigation pipes off in California's Central Valley because some tree-hugging loonies believe the pumps are endangering a species of smelt fish.

Yes, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service are tree-hugging loonies. It's not like they have legions of research scientists working on these problems, and even if they DID, it's not like said scientists actually know what they're talking about with respect to ecosystem stability.

They must pull this from their asses.

So basically, millions of farm families are currently getting their food from food banks, for a fish small enough to fit in the palm of your hand.

Size is suddenly a major determinant of ecological significance? Let's just kill all the phytoplankton in the world. They're tiny.

Oops. Now we're all dead. Silly me.

I could say a fish the size of a sardine is responsible for that region's 40% unemployment rate, but frankly, it's not the fish's fault-- it's the people who care more about the fish's survival of than they do their fellow human beings.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/newswax/2009/08/12/feds-shut-off-water-to-california-farms-in-controversial-effort-to-help-threatened-species/

I look forward to seeing your discussions.

My other comments aside, this IS a problem. Even when this occurred in Oregon, and while I understood the ecological significance of such a preservation effort, I couldn't help but wonder whether there was some compromise that could be reached. Then again, we also had right-wing loonies who had NO concept of the economic importance of ecological stability, and were set on this idea of might-makes-right human superiority (which is, by the way, the tone I get from Timstuff's post). It made it a little difficult to take them seriously.

I would HOPE that a compromise could be reached. "We are ready to work with our federal and state partners, farmers and residents to find solutions that benefit the economy, environment and Central Valley families." Seems like that is the goal.

 

[gap5ewl]

I live there right now and it's getting bad. Sean Hannity came in for a rally yesterday.

 

[Addendum]

And what does this have to do with a dust bowl?

 

[VampElvis]

Ummmmm, lack of irrigation leads to drying of lands leads to crop failure leads to no roots to hold down the soil leads to dust? Bust that's just a guess, I could be wrong.

 

[Addendum]

But the dust bowl was caused by years of drought and not rotating crops.

This situation will not lead to duststorms blowing across the US

 

[VampElvis]

But this is a new dust bowl. The thread name says so. Such comparisons to the old dust bowl are invalid.

 

[Addendum]

Part of the thread name is exaggeration. This situation will get resolved. Neither side may get everything they want, but then that's what compromises are

 

[wiegeabo]

Let's start farming the fish!

Seriously. The most effective way to preserve a species is usually to farm them for food or other uses (like food for other animals we actually want to eat). Just look at the buffalo. They've made a significant come back from the brink of extinction in large part due to ranching for food and fur, as well as legal protections.

Assuming there is a use for the fish the people can exploit besides their place in the ecosystem, by farming them, we'll also have replacement fish in case irrigating the farm land does threaten them.

 

[Carcharodon]

Let's start farming the fish!

Seriously. The most effective way to preserve a species is usually to farm them for food or other uses (like food for other animals we actually want to eat). Just look at the buffalo. They've made a significant come back from the brink of extinction in large part due to ranching for food and fur, as well as legal protections.

Assuming there is a use for the fish the people can exploit besides their place in the ecosystem, by farming them, we'll also have replacement fish in case irrigating the farm land does threaten them.

The problem is that aquaculture in its current form is extremely inefficient and is in many ways ecologically unfriendly. That aside, I'm not aware of any farming efforts to date of fish this small, though that doesn't mean there haven't been any.

 

[SuperFerret]

Farming could also lead to what happened with chinchillas, where there's no wild population anymore. But seriously, I don't care about the people, and it wouldn't make a difference if the fish went extinct.

 

[Carcharodon]

...and it wouldn't make a difference if the fish went extinct.

You're basing this on...?

 

[SuperFerret]

The fact that 99.9% of all species that ever existed on Earth are now extinct, and the world is no worse for wear.

 

[Carcharodon]

The fact that 99.9% of all species that ever existed on Earth are now extinct, and the world is no worse for wear.

Then let's just kill everything.

Seriously. Let's keep facilitating extinctions. We're already in the midst of the sixth great extinction event in life's known history. What's one more species?

Spoiler

 

[SuperFerret]

I'm just saying that extinctions are going to happen anyway, and it hasn't affected the planet at all. I'm not advocating massive worldwide extinctions, but the behaviour of one species on another has lead to extinctions before. Humans causing species to die out isn't a new thing.

 

[Carcharodon]

I'm just saying that extinctions are going to happen anyway, and it hasn't affected the planet at all. I'm not advocating massive worldwide extinctions, but the behaviour of one species on another has lead to extinctions before. Humans causing species to die out isn't a new thing.

Shouldn't it be troubling, though?

From an ecological perspective, to say that an extinction will have no effect is absurd. The fish doesn't live in a vacuum. It acts as both a consumer and as a food source for other creatures. It interacts with creatures it doesn't consume or consider predators both directly and indirectly.

The reason all of these "loonies" are suddenly making a big deal about it is because we've learned that our negative effects on biodiversity have implications not only for ecosystems, but for humanity as well. A push is being made for a look at the bigger picture, and what people like Timstuff seem unable to understand is that, in reality, these types of actions and protections are meant to protect humanity in the long-term. Stable ecosystems help stabilize economies, though I'll admit that sometimes the two concerns can become very, very conflicted.

...but no effect? Really? I just don't think so. Perhaps not in the long-term, though I can't bring myself to think that past extinctions haven't had an immense impact on life today. Things might have been very different....

 

[SuperFerret]

Of course past extinctions have had impact on life today. The extinction of the dinosaurs pretty much paved the way for mammalian dominance across the globe, but that just goes to show that extinctions pave the way for future "progress" (it's in quotations because it's questionable if it is indeed progress).

It is troubling, but in the long term, it'll allow another species to come in and fill that niche (or not, but even then, the vacancy will promote change).

 

[Carcharodon]

Of course past extinctions have had impact on life today. The extinction of the dinosaurs pretty much paved the way for mammalian dominance across the globe, but that just goes to show that extinctions pave the way for future "progress" (it's in quotations because it's questionable if it is indeed progress).

It is troubling, but in the long term, it'll allow another species to come in and fill that niche (or not, but even then, the vacancy will promote change).

Of course this is all true, well and good, but only so long as we ignore the potential impact on humanity. Which is really the whole point of these efforts: don't **** where you eat.

 

[Kelly]

I understand all the sides of this issue....

The farmers needing water....

The little fishy having a right to live (which really isn't the issue)....

The Salmon Fisherman up North that need the Salmon that feed on these little Fishy's.....so really the little Fishy is dead either way......too bad for him.


BUT, there has to be a more logical solution to this than to TOTALLY cut off the water to the farmers, which is what has happened.....That is what is ridiculously stupid in my mind.....there is a solution......but both sides are just as stubborn and stupid as the Israelis and Palestinians....


So, IMO, "stupidity" seems to be the only constant here....

 

[wiegeabo]

Agreed. Stupidity is the problem. People have to start finding better ways.

The fault's not with the fish. They've just been doing what they've been doing, probably since before people ever came to California.

The fault's not with the environmentalists because they understand that the more diverse an ecosystem is, the more stable it it. Who knows, maybe these little fish eat mosquito larva, which curbs the mosquito population, and prevents widespread outbreaks of Lyme Disease, West Nile, and what ever else those buggers spread to humans.

If anyone is at fault, it's the farmers for using antiquated technologies that are harmful to the ecosystem. But it's not even really their fault because they can only upgrade if it's financially viable to do so.


Yes, a compromise should be sought out, which is probably what's being worked on (the government's not going to like all the money these farmers are losing). But, in the long run, people are going to have to find better ways to work with the environment rather than dominate over it. The population's growing at almost 1 billion per decade, and estimates say the planet can't support more than around 10 billion with current technologies. If we don't start changing the way things are done, situations like this are just going to become more frequent.

I wish there was an easy answer. But unless we either start stabilizing our population (already happened in most of Europe), changing the way we interact with our environments, or both, things are not going to get better.

 

[Kelly]

I disagree, I think the fault lies with the people that turned the water off COMPLETELY, without looking for another solution.....and there is another solution, I'm sure.

 

[Carcharodon]

I disagree, I think the fault lies with the people that turned the water off COMPLETELY, without looking for another solution.....and there is another solution, I'm sure.

Well, taken for what it's worth, it sounded from the article as though the agencies at work here are willing to look for some type of compromise. Of course, they could have been talking out of their asses.

I agree that this course of action is a non-solution.

 

[Kelly]

Well, my hope is that they are looking for a solution......some kind of compromise has to be found....and I cannot believe that there isn't one out there.