Mud is pollution

[constructeur]

I agree in principle with all 5 'reasons' you suggest.
Item #1 goes w/o saying and is somewhat moot because it was before our time - however, I think we all agree mankind should do better now. Mankind is learning from previous mistakes of earlier generations - although not consistently.

I wish it were moot, unfortunately you've seen the pages before me of people that haven't spent 15 seconds looking at any of the science behind it all, yet posting here and offering their .2 cents. Based on what I ask? IMHO the general public either doesn't care, or doesn't like that the facts get in the way of their financial interests and want to look the other way. It's how we get into distracted arguments, name calling, all that unproductive jazz.

I'll, in part, continue to keep up my end by watching the commercial harvesters and regulators diligently. I'm only in my early 30's and have seen runs (summer steelhead) go from harvestable to functionally extinct (Cedar River, Renton,wa) and have watched the local stocks of Chum salmon go from overbundant to so low we weren't even allowsed a catch and release season on them on the Skykomish river (5 fish back to the south fork counting station) just as two examples, both coming from within the last five years.

Eastern cultures and the American Indian cultures have always practiced man existing in concert with nature. They also seem to be more respectful in utilizing resources.

Unfortunately I've seen too much to the contrary. All I'm going to say is that allowing FN's to net over fish (mostly steelhead in my state) that don't meet/make the escapement goal, and allowing them to self audit on their catch allotment is in the long term interest of no one. I recon they'll figure it out someday though, or they'll be allowed to net 50% of nothing. :Wow1:

So I'd say while we aren't at the point of gross imbalance like we were in the old days when we never even thought about these topics...

We've matched our previous ignorance with a growth in population, and as I've previously stated a large group/majority in society that simply don't give a hoot so long as they've a flat screen, big auto, a week in Hawaii, and a chance to eat some colour died farmed salmon (gag.)

 

[JPK]

Eastern Cultures... As a whole, the epitome of disregard for the environment. As bad or worse than western european culture ever was, and worse. See eg, Philipino fishing, Japanese fishing (and maybe whaling,) Thai fishing... Indian deforestation, etc., stc., ...

The difference between the worst of western disregard for the environment is that western abuse, while it continues, reached its zenith before the long term costs and consequences of the abuse were known, whereas eastern abuse of the environment has reached or is reaching its zenith despite full knowlege of the long term costs and long term consequences of abuse.

Mud is as much polution as carbon dioxide, which is to say it isn't pollution. But that doesn't mean that it can be utterly ignored either, where carbon dioxide ought to be, or that is my current read of the actual science.

God, or whatever/whoever put us here, left us in a position to untilize natural resources more or less as we see fit. We need resources, natural and derived from natural, that is just inescapable fact. Sustainable, or as sustainable as reasonably practical, is the only solution, imo. Hopefully technology will overcome what appear to be inevitable shortfalls. Sustainable use requires reasonable regulation, including perhaps reducing silt deposits in spawning rivers.

I don't know where the real science is on the salmon issue, but don't ignore overfishing, it is easy to overfish even what seems to be the most vast resource. Morevoer, today's technology makes it ever easier to so. A hundred years ago giant bluefin tuna were a nusance to commercial fishermen, now they are all but endangered.

But there is hope, for example severly depleted rockfish (striped bass) stocks blosomed after a five year closure in the Chesapeake Bay; ridiculously depleted stocks of mullet, redfish, kingfish (king mackerel) rebounded after Florida's constiitutional amendment banning most net fishing; Atlantic bight and Florida Straight swordfish stock bloomed with a commercial fishing closure....

An interesting study is the case of the public common. I tried a google search and couldn't find what I was looking for but a summary would read that there is an inherent conflict in commonly owned (or publicly owned) land, and this extends to resources as well. In the case of the public common, yoemen and some cottage holders of an English town would have the right to graze sheep or cattle on the public common. Where a good resources manager would limit the number of grazing animals to produce the maximum sustainable yeild from his privately owned or long term held (life estate, lease for a long term or for life...) fields, he would not limit the number of sheep or cattle, etc, that he grazed on the common since what his sheep, etc, didn't graze someone elses' would. His fellow yoeman or holder would do likewise, and so the common would become and remain overgrazed. No different with natural resources. The case of the passenger pidgeon is a clear example, driven from seemingly endless abundance to extinction through market hunting for feathers and meat, all in some thirty years, iirc. Even today, on MD's Eastern Shore I encounter commercial fishermen and crabbers who voice the opinion that they will take what they can, be damned the regulations, because if they don't take what they can someone else will.... Private property partially solves the problem, but not entirely since not all ground or all resources can or ought to be privately owned...

So we move to regulation, with its own inherent conflicts.

Here's a Q: If people are too selfish or dumb to manage properly their own and common issues, and government is made up of people, how in the hell can government manage better people's or common issues?

JPK

 

[Rando]

I really don't understand this hangup about whether something is or is not called 'pollution'. It seems that argument is that mud, or more precisely silt in streams, occurs naturally at some point in time and at some level therefore it is not pollution. However that same argument could be made about just about any form of pollution, with the exception of a few specifics such as CFCs. Most all the chemicals found in urban smog are also found naturally, however not in the same concentrations or same mixtures. Same thing can be said about lead, mercury and most heavy metals. The claim that mud and CO2 are not pollution seems a bit disingenuous, by the same standard LA smog is not pollution (it is primarily VOCs, ozone, nitrogen oxides and sulfate aerosols, all of which also have natural sources).

 

[john101477]

Wow this one popped up again, cool.
Unfortunately, It seems that many of the "scientist" doing the studies are on a witch hunt. and may times if someone wants to find something bad enough they generally will. Not saying that there should not be rules and regulations to commercial fishing/logging/etc, but there needs to be a bit of common sense here to. What chaps my hide is that many of the people doing the studies have very limited experience with the outdoors besides what they read in a text book or in the lab. Specially when the text book was written by the same type of guy. As for the Native Americans "right" to commercial fish areas that need time to repair such as the Klamath River, I think that they should be required to follow the same rules as everyone else. Catching salmon for your family to eat is a lot different than what is going on in the Klamath and many rivers going north along the pacific coast.
I hunt, fish, camp, hike etc. I believe you should always leave an area better off than when you got there if possible. I do not believe in over hunting/fishing an area and often will just not hunt/fish an area just because the count was down the previous year. Years ago guys like myself were considered conservationist. Today the term conservation has become more of an environmental extremist word and even Wikipedia has linked it to the term environmentalist. What really gets me is that for every outdoor job there is there is a group of people ready to stop it. Special Interest groups have become a plague on both sides of the fence in this country.

 

[Streakerfreak]

Unfortunately, It seems that many of the "scientist" doing the studies are on a witch hunt. and may times if someone wants to find something bad enough they generally will.

What chaps my hide is that many of the people doing the studies have very limited experience with the outdoors besides what they read in a text book or in the lab.

Then you don't know too many scientists. Environmental research requires vast amounts of time out in the field and can be dangerous and physically demanding. If your image of all scientists are old guys in white lab coats than you are very mistaken. It requires a love of the outdoors just to even think about devoting butt loads of your own money and years of your life just to start out as a bottom feeding intern. Most scientists struggle to make ends meet too.

Just for my wife to get her Bachelors in Marine Science and then her Masters in Coastal Zone Management, required more time wading hip deep in marsh lands than it did class room and lab time.

 

[Rando]

As an Earth Scientist, I take offense to this. Why do you put "scientist" in quotes? Are you suggesting that scientists you disagree with are not real scientists?

I have been outside making measurements in places that 99.9% of outdoor enthusiasts will never go, in conditions you would not believe - as have most of my colleagues. Claiming that scientists are not on the ground in the areas they study is absurd.

Wow this one popped up again, cool.
Unfortunately, It seems that many of the "scientist" doing the studies are on a witch hunt. and may times if someone wants to find something bad enough they generally will.

What chaps my hide is that many of the people doing the studies have very limited experience with the outdoors besides what they read in a text book or in the lab. Specially when the text book was written by the same type of guy.

 

[JPK]

I really don't understand this hangup about whether something is or is not called 'pollution'. It seems that argument is that mud, or more precisely silt in streams, occurs naturally at some point in time and at some level therefore it is not pollution. However that same argument could be made about just about any form of pollution, with the exception of a few specifics such as CFCs. Most all the chemicals found in urban smog are also found naturally, however not in the same concentrations or same mixtures. Same thing can be said about lead, mercury and most heavy metals. The claim that mud and CO2 are not pollution seems a bit disingenuous, by the same standard LA smog is not pollution (it is primarily VOCs, ozone, nitrogen oxides and sulfate aerosols, all of which also have natural sources).

I would venture that a start to the differentiation between pollution and not is whether the material was created by or has gone through a process invented by mankind AND whether it is harmful (maybe simply unwanted?) in the resulting concentration and form whether immeadiately or upon discard.

LA smog meets this intitial suggested definition, CO2 and mud do not. Ash from a volcano isn't pollution but ash from a factory could be, plastic bags are, upon dicard if not earlier, paper bags no if composted or recycled, yes if dumped...

JPK

 

[john101477]

As an Earth Scientist, I take offense to this. Why do you put "scientist" in quotes? Are you suggesting that scientists you disagree with are not real scientists?

I have been outside making measurements in places that 99.9% of outdoor enthusiasts will never go, in conditions you would not believe - as have most of my colleagues. Claiming that scientists are not on the ground in the areas they study is absurd.

Earth Science huh? What parameters to you specialize in cause earth science is a very broad spectrum. And no I am not necessarily jumping on scientist that i disagree with. What I am saying is that many of the so called scientists that seem to be getting heard these days are putting together fly by night hypotheses that neither make sense or are even real. You can not tell me this does not happen and happen often in these days. Believe it or not I started out my college career with animal science as my main goal but money fell out in my third year and I made a tough choice.

. Most scientists struggle to make ends meet too.

Just for my wife to get her Bachelors in Marine Science and then her Masters in Coastal Zone Management, required more time wading hip deep in marsh lands than it did class room and lab time.

Marsh land can suck, spent a lot of time doing wetland research as a high school project which was the second time getting to work with Fish and Game Biologist
Not exactly my view on all scientists either man and I do know the money end of it unless your lucky enough to drag a sponsor. IMO though having your work sponsored can taint the idea behind the science.

I am sorry I offended either of you but I do see a lot of theories that get spread like wildfire that never get proven but because a scientist said it, it must be so.

 

[PirateMcGee]

here: http://www.krisweb.com/stream/sediment.htm, http://www.krisweb.com/biblio/gen_wadoe_mchenryetal_1994.pdf
http://www.krisweb.com/biblio/gen_cdfg_cordoneetal_1961.pdf

if the scientists here agree that sediment can lead to decreased salmon success I would probably agree with them. Start reading, do some research, this is a problem and just because you don't "think" it shouldn't be does not mean it doesn't exist.

Also scientists (environmental related) spend way more time in the field than the vast majority of people.

People are wary of science because it generally effects them in ways that are not economically positive. Therefore, they will constantly be trying to discredit scientists but not through their own research. Regardless shoudn't we try to error using the precautionary principle?

 

[Rando]

I would think that mud and CO2 would also meet this definition. Some fraction of the mud was put in to the stream by man, and it appears that it can have a negative effect on fish reproduction. Similarly excess CO2 is added to the atmosphere by man and has an unwanted effect on climate and ocean acidification.

That being said, I don't think he semantics are that critical to the issue. Call it what you will, pollution, by-product etc, but adress mitigating the unwante consequences.

I would venture that a start to the differentiation between pollution and not is whether the material was created by or has gone through a process invented by mankind AND whether it is harmful (maybe simply unwanted?) in the resulting concentration and form whether immeadiately or upon discard.

LA smog meets this intitial suggested definition, CO2 and mud do not. Ash from a volcano isn't pollution but ash from a factory could be, plastic bags are, upon dicard if not earlier, paper bags no if composted or recycled, yes if dumped...

JPK

 

[Rando]

Atmospheric science and space physics. Can you elaborate on who you mean by "so called scientists" and "scientists", if not it really does seem that you are casting aspersions on those you happen do disagree with. And what are some of these "fly by night hypothesis"? I would have thought the impact of reduced water quality on fish habitats would be a fairly well supported and accepted hypothesis. I know that within the science community things are not accepted through an appeal to authority, but through experimentation analysis and publication.

Earth Science huh? What parameters to you specialize in cause earth science is a very broad spectrum. And no I am not necessarily jumping on scientist that i disagree with. What I am saying is that many of the so called scientists that seem to be getting heard these days are putting together fly by night hypotheses that neither make sense or are even real. You can not tell me this does not happen and happen often in these days. Believe it or not I started out my college career with animal science as my main goal but money fell out in my third year and I made a tough choice.

I am sorry I offended either of you but I do see a lot of theories that get spread like wildfire that never get proven but because a scientist said it, it must be so.

 

[JPK]

I would think that mud and CO2 would also meet this definition. Some fraction of the mud was put in to the stream by man, and it appears that it can have a negative effect on fish reproduction. Similarly excess CO2 is added to the atmosphere by man and has an unwanted effect on climate and ocean acidification.

That being said, I don't think he semantics are that critical to the issue. Call it what you will, pollution, by-product etc, but adress mitigating the unwante consequences.

You miss the point and, imo, semantics are important.

Nature put the mud into the stream, through rain, errosion... Yes, man's actions may be the precursor, here cutting in a road, but the mud isn't the result of any invented human process and it isn't in itself harmful. So regulate the human invented proccess - cutting in the road, not the mud. That may mean in this example regulation requiring sediment catch ponds or some other means of mitigating the effects of human actions.

In the example of CO2, its harmless without the addition of the byproducts of human invented processes (notwithstanding naturally occuring combinations,) or alternatively, for those who may not agree with the harmlessness of CO2, any undue concentration caused by man ought to be addressed by the regulation of human invented proccesses and not of CO2. Why are semantics important? Because the regulation of CO2 itself, directly, puts us on the slippery slope of regulating the existence of humans, since each and everyone of us is a "point source" of CO2 emmissions.

In addition, the ridiculous notion of regulating elements and compounds rather than human invented processes and so their byproducts cannot be better illustrated than in the example of the volcano. Ash, sulphur, CO2.... Try regulating those emmissions from that volcano.

For a bevy of examples of "so called scientists" try each and every so called scientist who has an agenda that overpowers his or her ability to review data objectively, who begin with a hypothesis they set out to prove rather than begin with a hypothesis they wish to test, letting data prove or disprove, and in particular take a look at the so called scientist who alter data, destroy data, falsify data. Some recent examples which made the headlines are the long list of so called scientist on the global warming front caught destroying, altering and obscurring data, the so called scientist who created and publicized the falsehood, now disproven, that game animals shot with lead core bullets if eaten would lead to lead poisoning, and the so called scientist who about annually try to prove that legal gun ownership causes unlawful use of a gun (a position the CDC of all institutions advances.)

Examples of "so called" scientists are EVERYWHERE. So are the real scientists, but you don't read so much of that vast crowd since their research and hypotheses aren't intended to be so sensational.

BTW, the abuse of common resources I described earlier is best discussed in the original work by Garrett Hardin and derivatives. There is actually a Gerrett Hardin Society and fellowship. Google "Tragedy of the Common."

JPK

 

[john101477]

Atmospheric science and space physics. Can you elaborate on who you mean by "so called scientists" and "scientists", if not it really does seem that you are casting aspersions on those you happen do disagree with. And what are some of these "fly by night hypothesis"? I would have thought the impact of reduced water quality on fish habitats would be a fairly well supported and accepted hypothesis. I know that within the science community things are not accepted through an appeal to authority, but through experimentation analysis and publication.

So I am probably wrong here but you spend a ton of time behind a big telescope.
When I talk about the "So called scientists" I am referring to the scientists that fit into this realm
Three forms of outright scientific dishonesty with regard to observation:

(1) Trimming: the smoothing of irregularities to make the data look extremely accurate and precise.

(2) Cooking: retaining only those results that fit the theory while discarding others that do not.

(3) Forging: inventing some or all of the research data that are reported, and even reporting experiments or procedures to obtain those data that were never performed.

This happens a lot specially with sponsored scientists. also you mention something as being accepted if it is published... I suppose you believe everything that is said in the newspapers to huh?

Now I do not think I ever said I do not believe that the fish or any population was not effected by excessive silt or destruction of habitat. I thought I covered that when this thread was first started. What I am saying is finding adequate non bias, not for profit PEOPLE to do the testing is far and few in between.

 

[craig333]

My issue is the way the results are interpreted.

Siltation is bad. Roads can cause siltation therefore we should not build roads.

Instead of:

We need a road. It can possibly cause siltation therefore we need to address construction so as to forgo that possibility.


If you come to the conclusion that the construction can't be mitigated therefore the road should not be built, thats fine.

 

[john101477]

My issue is the way the results are interpreted.

Siltation is bad. Roads can cause siltation therefore we should not build roads.

Instead of:

We need a road. It can possibly cause siltation therefore we need to address construction so as to forgo that possibility.


If you come to the conclusion that the construction can't be mitigated therefore the road should not be built, thats fine.

That does seem to be the common thought process lol. At the beginning of the thread some mentioned the need to use waddle or straw bails to help stop further erosion and i agree with this to some degree but once the public property is logged the road stays. Who do you suppose should pay to keep that road maintained and creek crossings lined with bails or waddles? There is a good amount of $$$ there. not that i would not do the job if you all pay me but someone has to pay. That generally comes down to higher taxes, which i am generally against. I also do not feel that the people as a whole should have to pay for dirt roads to be kept open for me to enjoy. SO where does that leave us? maybe since we already know that these crossings can cause problems for fish, maybe a scientist should come up with an eco-friendly, economical solution that does not keep me and thousands like me out of the woods, instead of going to the biggest environmental extremists that will listen and crying foul.
Thats how these things get shut down. you get one area that local people like to frequent. they pick up after themselves and do what they can as a small group to keep the area up. then comes along an extremist on a witch hunt, finds the green livered purple headed salamander that he/she has never seen before and runs off to the Sierra Club/PETA/Earth First and of course they have the backing of thousands of people that will never see the area and would care less about the purple headed salamander, but they vote against the small group of locals and the places gets shut down to "clear their conscience" even though it probably will not effect them in the least.

Many popular areas have started organizations such as Friends of the Rubicon or Friends of the High Lakes that do general maintenance 2-3 times a year to keep their favorite trails open. Including hauling in rocks and gravel to lessen the effects they have on the area. This only covers that area though and usually not the Public roads going into the area so there is still a need for a better solution.