Johnson must be stopped
- Thread starter Ragman
- Start date
Ripping people off is a major industry in Detroit, the ONLY major industry left. Even the politicians are in on it!!!
LOTS of nuke plants. Take out all the power dams and restore the rivers. Use our coal to make diesel fuel. Make methane where we can. Get rid of those stupid windmills, they look foolish. They screw up the scenery.
Nope, no longer needed. The economic benefits of free running rivers far outweigh the electricity produced. EVERY form of power production has adverse envinronmental impacts. Dams have some of the worst with the ability to have major impact on world food supplies. Nukes can do far better than hydro. The main impacts are easier to control. Nothing works with dams. We are loosing far too many food source and bait fish species to dams. It is starting to show up in ocean food chains. Not as bad in Michigan but all our dams are obsolete here as well. No longer producing enough to offset the losses.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Food fish?
Do we commercially fish rivers?
Where?
SO why do we have to worry about food production here?
If we use the land we already have, with the farming techniques, we can produce more food than anyone can ever imagine. We are not starving, but the opposite - we are a glutenous country.
The environmental benefits of producing electricity by dam outstrip the benefits of tapping into grids where power loses amount to lost energy that the power source has to make up. Using an almost 'free' and almost completely nonpolluting source of power reduces emissions across the board. Some of these dams provide electricity for some small towns and cities without the hassles of cutting into miles of woods or damaging surface area.
Case in Point some river was dammed in 1920 in northern California - it was done by a private individual who owned a large amount of land that the river cut through. Until 2005 the nearby town was afforded most of its power by this dam at cost plus a small fee to maintain it. The state came in and told them no more dam because there was a fish that was affected by the dam. Not one shred of evidence has yet to be found that this fish was even in the river but some scientist did a study in a similar river in Colorado and used that for their assumption. So the state started proceedings to take it, took it and started to dismantle it. Now the environmental cost exceeded expectation because the town needed to have another power system installed, which meant cutting trees, having trucks trample land that was virgin and so on. The town itself has seen an increase in the cost of electricity, 10 times the amount it used to cost and the state has paid millions to 'restore' a fish that no one knows if it ever was there. THIS IS STUPID.
Do we commercially fish rivers?
Where?
SO why do we have to worry about food production here?
If we use the land we already have, with the farming techniques, we can produce more food than anyone can ever imagine. We are not starving, but the opposite - we are a glutenous country.
The environmental benefits of producing electricity by dam outstrip the benefits of tapping into grids where power loses amount to lost energy that the power source has to make up. Using an almost 'free' and almost completely nonpolluting source of power reduces emissions across the board. Some of these dams provide electricity for some small towns and cities without the hassles of cutting into miles of woods or damaging surface area.
Case in Point some river was dammed in 1920 in northern California - it was done by a private individual who owned a large amount of land that the river cut through. Until 2005 the nearby town was afforded most of its power by this dam at cost plus a small fee to maintain it. The state came in and told them no more dam because there was a fish that was affected by the dam. Not one shred of evidence has yet to be found that this fish was even in the river but some scientist did a study in a similar river in Colorado and used that for their assumption. So the state started proceedings to take it, took it and started to dismantle it. Now the environmental cost exceeded expectation because the town needed to have another power system installed, which meant cutting trees, having trucks trample land that was virgin and so on. The town itself has seen an increase in the cost of electricity, 10 times the amount it used to cost and the state has paid millions to 'restore' a fish that no one knows if it ever was there. THIS IS STUPID.
The first thing to be affected by a dam is the flow of sediment, which is usually picked up along banks and stream beds and carried downstream. Sediment collects behind dams, rather than continuing to flow out with the river, and as a result, the water bed below the dam eventually becomes rocky and scoured clean of sediment. Aquatic plants are unable to thrive, and the nutrients in the sediment that nourish fish and other aquatic life are no longer available, sometimes causing extinction in large numbers.
The most obvious impact that a dam has on fish is that it obstructs migration. For some fish species, such as salmon, which which spawn in rivers and then swim out to sea, this can be devastating. For others, being unable to pass dams means that there is not as much species diversity. Many dams in the latter part of the 20th century were built with fish ladders and other modifications designed to allow the passage of fish, but many fish are unable to use the ladders or die in the machinery of the dam. This has a profound impact on fish populations.
Dams also decrease the rate of migration, exposing sensitive fish species to predators that may lurk in slower flowing water.
Water quality directly behind dams is also affected, because dams tend to collect pollutants along with sediment, which must be released and controlled in some way. When released, concentrated pollutants and sediment rush down below the dam causing all sorts of problems.
In all dams, but especially in the case of deep dams, thermal stratification develops because there is no current to mix the water. As a result, the deeper water is very cold and has poor oxygen circulation, while the surface water is warmer than usual. When colder deep water is released from dams, it can cause serious problems downstream for fish and other aquatic life due to its poor oxygenation and the toxins it may carry.
Dams are pretty nifty, and has been an important part of life for humans for more than 2000 years, with nearly half of he world's rivers having at least one dam in it somewhere. But for all the reservoir and hydroelectric and lock & dam benefits of dams, there is a price that gets paid for diverting that water.
The most obvious impact that a dam has on fish is that it obstructs migration. For some fish species, such as salmon, which which spawn in rivers and then swim out to sea, this can be devastating. For others, being unable to pass dams means that there is not as much species diversity. Many dams in the latter part of the 20th century were built with fish ladders and other modifications designed to allow the passage of fish, but many fish are unable to use the ladders or die in the machinery of the dam. This has a profound impact on fish populations.
Dams also decrease the rate of migration, exposing sensitive fish species to predators that may lurk in slower flowing water.
Water quality directly behind dams is also affected, because dams tend to collect pollutants along with sediment, which must be released and controlled in some way. When released, concentrated pollutants and sediment rush down below the dam causing all sorts of problems.
In all dams, but especially in the case of deep dams, thermal stratification develops because there is no current to mix the water. As a result, the deeper water is very cold and has poor oxygen circulation, while the surface water is warmer than usual. When colder deep water is released from dams, it can cause serious problems downstream for fish and other aquatic life due to its poor oxygenation and the toxins it may carry.
Dams are pretty nifty, and has been an important part of life for humans for more than 2000 years, with nearly half of he world's rivers having at least one dam in it somewhere. But for all the reservoir and hydroelectric and lock & dam benefits of dams, there is a price that gets paid for diverting that water.
We stand to lose all food stock fish in the ocean if we are NOT careful. We are on the verge of losing all shad and herring runs on the east coast. Runs that just 50 years ago numbered in the thousands of tons are, on some rivers, down to 15-20 fish per years. Those rivers are no longer viable. These fish are MAJOR food sources on the open ocean AND in the rivers as they move up to spawn. MANY species depend on these kinds of bait fish for their very existence.
Only a few native tribes fish commercially in Michigan. What can be and is being affected is the sport fishing industry and the overall health of the Great Lakes. There is the potential to lose millions a year in this state alone in lost revenue from sport fishing. You just have to look to the East Coast to see the effect. Dams, overfishing and loss of bait fish, like shad, etc have caused major declines in the Stripped Bass population. As their population declines so does revenue at all levels.
Dams not only block passage of spawning fish they also destroy spawning habitat by cause silt to cover needed gravel beds and they lower oxygen contents on the rivers.
There is no point in my trying to convince you. You often seem to believe that there are few if any problems out there. That is not even close to true but I doubt if you would believe anything or any source I could put up here. You are dead wrong on this issue. The loses and impacts are well documented. Dams, uncontrolled commercial fishing and poor water quality are all taking their toll. Most people won't believe it until they can no longer buy a can of tuna. The low end of the chain IS being broken. You can look it up if you choose. Once a species is gone, it can never be replaced. Just try to go out on Lake Erie today and catch a "Blue Pike" You can't, they are GONE!! They dissapeared in OUR life time. Uncontrolled commercial fishing, pollution AND loss of spawning habitat was the causes. The last succesfull spawn was in 1954. Mankind should be ashamed. There is just NO reason for this to happen.
Only a few native tribes fish commercially in Michigan. What can be and is being affected is the sport fishing industry and the overall health of the Great Lakes. There is the potential to lose millions a year in this state alone in lost revenue from sport fishing. You just have to look to the East Coast to see the effect. Dams, overfishing and loss of bait fish, like shad, etc have caused major declines in the Stripped Bass population. As their population declines so does revenue at all levels.
Dams not only block passage of spawning fish they also destroy spawning habitat by cause silt to cover needed gravel beds and they lower oxygen contents on the rivers.
There is no point in my trying to convince you. You often seem to believe that there are few if any problems out there. That is not even close to true but I doubt if you would believe anything or any source I could put up here. You are dead wrong on this issue. The loses and impacts are well documented. Dams, uncontrolled commercial fishing and poor water quality are all taking their toll. Most people won't believe it until they can no longer buy a can of tuna. The low end of the chain IS being broken. You can look it up if you choose. Once a species is gone, it can never be replaced. Just try to go out on Lake Erie today and catch a "Blue Pike" You can't, they are GONE!! They dissapeared in OUR life time. Uncontrolled commercial fishing, pollution AND loss of spawning habitat was the causes. The last succesfull spawn was in 1954. Mankind should be ashamed. There is just NO reason for this to happen.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Maybe I'm looking at it this way.
Man can't destroy the earth.
Man isn't nature.
Man may dam up rivers but life goes on.
When things were worst for one species or another, they adapted. If they didn't, they die off and something replaces them - always something.
Humans can eat all kinds of food, we are not short of food by any means.
The most important thing is, we have been on this earth for a short time, we have no clue what came before or actually during our stay, what was pristine or what nature intended for one species or another. We may have just by our existence in some little village thousands of years ago altered the entire planet's species list by killing the very last what ever but then again, something has done that before and will again.
Salmon may spawn up river, OK I can understand some of that but not all rivers have salmon spawning in them, I don't see salmon in the rouge river or did I miss something?
The point is that even though we are all for the environment, there has to be limits on what we want to keep at all costs and what we want to restore at all costs. If restoring a river for some odd fish isn't cost effective or actually impacts humans in a negative way (including rights), then it shouldn't be done if this fish has been gone out of the eco system for a while or never was there in the first place and I am not saying an inconvenience either. We already live in a messed up country where we are more concern for a fish/birds/insects than we are with people and our entire lifestyles, our basic means of life have been altered not because we have so damaged the econ system but because the few are running roughshod over the many.
I don't buy into the idea that we are endangered of losing this type of food or another because it is more complex than what simplistic position the environmentalist and others take.
If this was the case, over fishing, interruption in the food chain by hunting predators who are in competition with us, pollution and so on have more of an effect on nature than does damming one or two rivers for power. The same goes for drilling for Oil.
Man can't destroy the earth.
Man isn't nature.
Man may dam up rivers but life goes on.
When things were worst for one species or another, they adapted. If they didn't, they die off and something replaces them - always something.
Humans can eat all kinds of food, we are not short of food by any means.
The most important thing is, we have been on this earth for a short time, we have no clue what came before or actually during our stay, what was pristine or what nature intended for one species or another. We may have just by our existence in some little village thousands of years ago altered the entire planet's species list by killing the very last what ever but then again, something has done that before and will again.
Salmon may spawn up river, OK I can understand some of that but not all rivers have salmon spawning in them, I don't see salmon in the rouge river or did I miss something?
The point is that even though we are all for the environment, there has to be limits on what we want to keep at all costs and what we want to restore at all costs. If restoring a river for some odd fish isn't cost effective or actually impacts humans in a negative way (including rights), then it shouldn't be done if this fish has been gone out of the eco system for a while or never was there in the first place and I am not saying an inconvenience either. We already live in a messed up country where we are more concern for a fish/birds/insects than we are with people and our entire lifestyles, our basic means of life have been altered not because we have so damaged the econ system but because the few are running roughshod over the many.
I don't buy into the idea that we are endangered of losing this type of food or another because it is more complex than what simplistic position the environmentalist and others take.
If this was the case, over fishing, interruption in the food chain by hunting predators who are in competition with us, pollution and so on have more of an effect on nature than does damming one or two rivers for power. The same goes for drilling for Oil.
You can believe what ever you wish no matter how wrong it is. I have spent the last hour reading report after report on East Coast shad and their decline. ALL say the exact same thing, dams, pollution and over commercial fishing. ALL have the same outlook on what the loss of that fish will cause.
No, the Rouge has no salmon run, it never did. It no longer has the walleye run, pike run, perch run, muskie run, sturgeon runs that it DID once have. Why? Dams and pollution.
Just because you chose not to see the problem does not mean that it does not exist. It is NOT only "enviro wackos" EVERY state fish department is saying the same thing.
Yes, we can afford to lose a species here and there. The problem we are facing now is that we are taking out "foundation" species, like the shad and other bait fish. THAT WILL, sooner or later, takes it's toll.
The sad part is that it is NOT needed to do this. We KNOW the reasons for the declines, we KNOW how to fix it. In every place that it has been fixed state revenues have gone UP. More jobs, more business. People just think too short sighted, and think only of themselves. ONLY their job or their concerts or whatever are important.
You believe want you wish and I will continue to try to do what is right.
No, the Rouge has no salmon run, it never did. It no longer has the walleye run, pike run, perch run, muskie run, sturgeon runs that it DID once have. Why? Dams and pollution.
Just because you chose not to see the problem does not mean that it does not exist. It is NOT only "enviro wackos" EVERY state fish department is saying the same thing.
Yes, we can afford to lose a species here and there. The problem we are facing now is that we are taking out "foundation" species, like the shad and other bait fish. THAT WILL, sooner or later, takes it's toll.
The sad part is that it is NOT needed to do this. We KNOW the reasons for the declines, we KNOW how to fix it. In every place that it has been fixed state revenues have gone UP. More jobs, more business. People just think too short sighted, and think only of themselves. ONLY their job or their concerts or whatever are important.
You believe want you wish and I will continue to try to do what is right.
Not heard that one. I would love to see all net commercial fishing off of the Great Lakes. Perch farms could provide that resource
They are still pretty plentiful on Lake Erie. We get "jumbos" when we are out layout hunting. It is the time of year. All the commercial fishing takes place in Canadian waters around here. Natives fish Lake Huron, Michigan and Superior.
Dams are wiping out fish stocks world wide. FACT. Is it doing it faster than other problems? Not known. I don't think you have done much study on the dam problem or just chose to ignore the true depth of the problem and the proven evidence. No matter. We can disagree without gouging eyes out.
The dams do damage to other things than just fish. The dams on the Huron River are the primary reason that the marshes at Pointe Mouillie are gone. They have stopped the silt from re-building them after high water cycles. Contributing factors also include the man-made "hard banks" on the Detroit River (the Straights of Detroit) and the draining of in excess of 99% of SE Michigan's other wetlands. All of this is having MAJOR effects on waterfowl migration, anphibian loses and interference with major native fish spawning, like Great Lakes Sturgeon.
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
BUT layout, we have had dams on rivers for centuries, before man beavers made dams. It seems that some of these issues have manifest itself in the last 40 years or less than that.
Overfishing is the biggest issue, the second has to be pollution.
If this was just one cause, then it would be an agreeable solution but it isn't. In many cases we depend on people who don't understand nature, even though they claim to be educated or we depend on people who are overly emotional.
Were there salmon 150 years ago may not need to have them now. The same goes for other species, but the thing I can see is that if we don't stop over fishing, find solutions for pollution and move towards a cleaner way of living but not at a cost to our society, it won't matter if there is a dam on a river anywhere.
Overfishing is the biggest issue, the second has to be pollution.
If this was just one cause, then it would be an agreeable solution but it isn't. In many cases we depend on people who don't understand nature, even though they claim to be educated or we depend on people who are overly emotional.
Were there salmon 150 years ago may not need to have them now. The same goes for other species, but the thing I can see is that if we don't stop over fishing, find solutions for pollution and move towards a cleaner way of living but not at a cost to our society, it won't matter if there is a dam on a river anywhere.
I am not going to argue, Greg. You have it very wrong.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
My frick'n god like attitude?
WTF?
You both don't get what I am getting at so I will put in another way
Our country is faltering and if we continue to worry about things that are driven by special interest, it will fail to exist beyond recognition.
Without the ability of the INDIVIDUAL to prosper, TO PRODUCE, what government and society has become used to getting in capital in order to 'right wrongs' will no longer be possible and things will be worst off.
Maybe you don't see the correlation between taxes, debt and the environment but I do. I am nervous about how can we as individual families produce capital through our labor that will continue to support things that the government has decided to deal with that is truly beyond the scope of the government job.
Do we have a food problem?
D*mn right we do, you are only talking about one issue that can be fixed with a stop on commercial fishing for two years and more research. But there are BIGGER and more serious issues we are facing. Aquaculture, cage fisheries and so on were not inventions thought out by government research or university research but it was the need to make a living that put people to task to find solutions.
DO we have an environmental issue?
YEP but we are still doing a lot better than most of the world. We clean things that don't need to be clean, but we also put in preventive measures to ensure things are clean.
CAN we fix everything?
NOT a chance, we are not Gods.
IT is just like the people b*thcing about how the country is going to H*ll because all these jobs are being exported. Well that's true, we are exporting jobs but here is the thing no one seems to mention - our efficiency keeps rising. 50 years ago it took ten men to build one thing on an assembly line, now it takes one. 50 years ago some things took a week to build but now it can be built in a day. For what it's worth, there is a BIG movement to make manufacturing more efficient, we now have desktop manufacturing that can be done in basements and garages. It is just frickn' amazing that with $3000, you can setup a small shop and make parts with consistent and good results and not have to go to school or apprentice for 4 years.
It's funny, most of us agree with the individial rights and how government screws all of us up but then we have these discussions where some what government to stop things from happening. You can't have it both ways, either government is there to be in our lives as an intrusive entity or it needs to be out. The environment movement is underway, and many individuals will side with the fish and birds to make conscience efforts to ensure things are done right and really doesn't need the EPA or DNR or who ever telling people what to do.
It still comes down to this - things change, the earth is not static and we are only here for a short time. What we perceive as right, maybe wrong. If global warming is a disaster, then it may not be for the people in some areas of the earth who will get rain and grow crops. Our job is to do the best we can with what we have but not ruin it for ourselves.
WTF?
You both don't get what I am getting at so I will put in another way
Our country is faltering and if we continue to worry about things that are driven by special interest, it will fail to exist beyond recognition.
Without the ability of the INDIVIDUAL to prosper, TO PRODUCE, what government and society has become used to getting in capital in order to 'right wrongs' will no longer be possible and things will be worst off.
Maybe you don't see the correlation between taxes, debt and the environment but I do. I am nervous about how can we as individual families produce capital through our labor that will continue to support things that the government has decided to deal with that is truly beyond the scope of the government job.
Do we have a food problem?
D*mn right we do, you are only talking about one issue that can be fixed with a stop on commercial fishing for two years and more research. But there are BIGGER and more serious issues we are facing. Aquaculture, cage fisheries and so on were not inventions thought out by government research or university research but it was the need to make a living that put people to task to find solutions.
DO we have an environmental issue?
YEP but we are still doing a lot better than most of the world. We clean things that don't need to be clean, but we also put in preventive measures to ensure things are clean.
CAN we fix everything?
NOT a chance, we are not Gods.
IT is just like the people b*thcing about how the country is going to H*ll because all these jobs are being exported. Well that's true, we are exporting jobs but here is the thing no one seems to mention - our efficiency keeps rising. 50 years ago it took ten men to build one thing on an assembly line, now it takes one. 50 years ago some things took a week to build but now it can be built in a day. For what it's worth, there is a BIG movement to make manufacturing more efficient, we now have desktop manufacturing that can be done in basements and garages. It is just frickn' amazing that with $3000, you can setup a small shop and make parts with consistent and good results and not have to go to school or apprentice for 4 years.
It's funny, most of us agree with the individial rights and how government screws all of us up but then we have these discussions where some what government to stop things from happening. You can't have it both ways, either government is there to be in our lives as an intrusive entity or it needs to be out. The environment movement is underway, and many individuals will side with the fish and birds to make conscience efforts to ensure things are done right and really doesn't need the EPA or DNR or who ever telling people what to do.
It still comes down to this - things change, the earth is not static and we are only here for a short time. What we perceive as right, maybe wrong. If global warming is a disaster, then it may not be for the people in some areas of the earth who will get rain and grow crops. Our job is to do the best we can with what we have but not ruin it for ourselves.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Actually no! IT is the opposite.
Screw the developers, they took the land from individuals through different means to build and make a profit.
The cities got on this kick that they need to expand revenue by expanding the city. A lot of smart cities refused to develop open land and kept a grip on their attitude that the city needs all this tax revenue and now they are in good shape because of self-imposed restrictions.
It is the people who want to have 10 acres and a house without a HOA or deed restrictions that actually does more good than the city putting a park in.
What I say when I say proseper is to get government out of the way. If someone wants to drill for oil in Lake Huron, they should be able to without permission from the government - not saying no safety regulations but permission.
This also goes for people who want to setup a shop or sell food or the guy who is paying $300k in taxes who would rather hire 15 people. Government in environment and in our lives is screwing it all up in the long run.
See OVM, it is important to have some balance, without people making money and being able to push things forward, tpeoplehings don't happen they are forced. It is a lot like educating people that it is better to do this instead of that, then people catch on and positive things happen. Sure there will be a bunch who will buck the system and do what they want but overall, things improve.
As for the salmon, my point is this; things are changing with the fish and alway will. They adapt to thier enviorment and always will. IF there has been a Dam in place on a river for 60 years, then the impact of that dam is nil on the population. BUT if they just dammed up a river, that's a different issue altogether.
We need and can find what is actually happening to some of the fish stock in the world but we can't if we start blaming things that have been in place for decades. I think over fishing and pollution has caught up with the gene pool and that needs to be taken seriously. We can at this time expand our aquaculture system to produce sustainable food source until some of these issues are worked out with the wild game. Maybe even banning sport fishing for a while along with commercial fishing could help.
What's so wrong with Tilapia?
Screw the developers, they took the land from individuals through different means to build and make a profit.
The cities got on this kick that they need to expand revenue by expanding the city. A lot of smart cities refused to develop open land and kept a grip on their attitude that the city needs all this tax revenue and now they are in good shape because of self-imposed restrictions.
It is the people who want to have 10 acres and a house without a HOA or deed restrictions that actually does more good than the city putting a park in.
What I say when I say proseper is to get government out of the way. If someone wants to drill for oil in Lake Huron, they should be able to without permission from the government - not saying no safety regulations but permission.
This also goes for people who want to setup a shop or sell food or the guy who is paying $300k in taxes who would rather hire 15 people. Government in environment and in our lives is screwing it all up in the long run.
See OVM, it is important to have some balance, without people making money and being able to push things forward, tpeoplehings don't happen they are forced. It is a lot like educating people that it is better to do this instead of that, then people catch on and positive things happen. Sure there will be a bunch who will buck the system and do what they want but overall, things improve.
As for the salmon, my point is this; things are changing with the fish and alway will. They adapt to thier enviorment and always will. IF there has been a Dam in place on a river for 60 years, then the impact of that dam is nil on the population. BUT if they just dammed up a river, that's a different issue altogether.
We need and can find what is actually happening to some of the fish stock in the world but we can't if we start blaming things that have been in place for decades. I think over fishing and pollution has caught up with the gene pool and that needs to be taken seriously. We can at this time expand our aquaculture system to produce sustainable food source until some of these issues are worked out with the wild game. Maybe even banning sport fishing for a while along with commercial fishing could help.
What's so wrong with Tilapia?
Last edited: