CFM,

The linked document is from a congressman. It's nigh on impossible to avoid politics in the subsequent discussion, but I'd rather have been more diplomatic since name-calling doesn't really bring out the best in me.

As for the Cowlitz agreement, I don't think ESA matters much. Chinook and steelhead are listed as threatened species, but if they were unlisted Tacoma is still on the hook (no pun intended). The settlement agreement requires that for the period of the license, the Cowlitz River produce as many, or more, salmon and steelhead as there would be if Tacoma had never built the dams in the first place. The agreement allows and intends a mix of natural and hatchery produced fish, with an emphasis on restoring as much natural production as is reasonably possible. But if chinook and steelhead were delisted tomorrow, Tacoma's responsibility would in no way be diminished.

I'm not happy that anyone would lose their job, whether because of ESA or obsolesence - like buffalo hunters, buggy whip makers, and maybe soon, lower Columbia River gillnetters. But I accept that times change, and society's needs change, and some jobs no longer are a good fit in the marketplace. ESA may be a small culprit in that way, but not nearly to the extent as changes in technology or society's preferences cause job losses. Personally, I think job losses due to ESA, or environmental measures in general, are over-stated by interests that benefit economically (in the short term) from environmental degradation.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.