They're both wrong. The habitat won't recover until massive, ecosystem levels of salmon escapement occur annually. The 1-2 kg/sq m for each species of salmon will significantly raise the productivity of the streams. The massive number of spawners will clean the gravel, thereby increasing egg-fry survival.
I do support, though, that when habitat projects are proposed an funded, and this includes dam rivals, barrier removals and such, that they are accompanied by a minimum defined benefit. For example, take out X dam in 10 years there will be a Chinook, B coho, and C chum spawning above the dam site. If those numbers aren't met at 10 years, the proponents pay the funders 25% of the cost of the project. Similar goalposts are set every succeeding 5 years (all set before the project starts) with a 25% payback until either we get the benefits or the project is paid back. Consequences.
Agreed with everything but the last part.
Why would anyone want to make habitat restoration PUNITIVE? Makes NO SENSE.
What does make sense is that a habitat project (esp an access/fish passage project) once approved, should have a well defined benefit attached to its completion.
Example: The habitat folks take out barrier X freeing up more habitat for Y number of coho... and then hang the obligation of increasing the escapement by Y coho on the harvest managers.
This is the path to meaningful recovery.
Right now we do these multi-million dollar habitat projects to open up blockages for the fish to gain access to new spawning/rearing habitats, or improve degraded habitats with LWD to make them better for rearing juveniles.... but make ZERO provision for more fish to use the new/improved habitat. The often-ancient escapement goal remains the same despite the increased capacity for natural production.
Any increases in production are just snarfed up by the harvesters when the fish come back home, resulting in NO NET GAIN for that particular reach of spawning or rearing habitat.
ALL pain with no gain is simply unfair to the locals shouldering the burden of conservation. Say for example the 14 million dollar Wildcat Creek bridge project... to get more salmon up that trib. Lets say completing it should have opened up access to allow an additional 250 coho. The escapement goal should immediately be raised by 250 fish, and the harvest folks would have to hold up their end to make sure the creek gets its 250 coho.
But no... the e-goal was NOT adjusted.... which really beg the question, "What was the point of doing the project in the first place?"
Previous Topic
Index
