#665660 - 02/24/11 02:31 PM
Nature Conservancy
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 12/09/03
Posts: 399
Loc: Seattle
|
They just bought 3,088 acres from Rayonier on the Clearwater. Part of the purpose is to restore habitat for salmon and steelhead. Whether you like the Nature Conservancy or not, this seems to be a good deal for fish. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014314229_clearwater24m.html
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#665674 - 02/24/11 03:00 PM
Re: Nature Conservancy
[Re: Driftfishnw]
|
The Tide changed
Registered: 08/31/00
Posts: 7083
Loc: Everett
|
Bravo!
_________________________
You know something bad is going to happen when you hear..."Hey, hold my beer and watch this"
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#665926 - 02/25/11 12:01 AM
Re: Nature Conservancy
[Re: Doctor Rick]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 03/07/99
Posts: 1440
Loc: Wherever I can swing for wild ...
|
We can all send our appreciation by making a donation the Conservancy and thank them. http://my.nature.org/donate/donate-online.html?src=l2
_________________________
Decisions and changes seldom occur by posting on Internet bulletin boards.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#665946 - 02/25/11 12:31 AM
Re: Nature Conservancy
[Re: Brant]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 06/28/00
Posts: 442
Loc: Rocky Mountain High
|
kudos to the conservancy. wonder how they'll feel when they realize that not many fish will be able to access that improved habitat with the current fishery on the lower queets. could be a good thing to have more people in the conservation world become aware of what is going on.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#666016 - 02/25/11 10:31 AM
Re: Nature Conservancy
[Re: topwater]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 08/20/08
Posts: 293
Loc: Lewis Co via Bham
|
Purchasing and securing land in the watershed is arguably the best use of resourses, even if fish can't access it.
_________________________
If we ignore the environment it will just go away
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#666021 - 02/25/11 11:16 AM
Re: Nature Conservancy
[Re: fshwithnoeyes]
|
WINNER
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 10363
Loc: Olypen
|
I think the State should pick up the tab for lost revenue to the affected Counties, if the purchase is to become tax exempt. What's good for the fish is good for all.....if all pay for it.
_________________________
Agendas kill truth. If it's a crop, plant it.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#666027 - 02/25/11 11:36 AM
Re: Nature Conservancy
[Re: ParaLeaks]
|
Spawner
Registered: 01/22/06
Posts: 917
Loc: tacoma
|
Purchasing land or securing development rights is a very good idea when there is a clear and iminent threat to losing the habitat value it provides. Conversion of forestland to a housing development, for example. Purchase of riparian corridors along mainstem rivers already protected by Forest Practices regulations and state shoreline rules, maybe some benefit there. Buying up forestland "in the watershed even if fish can't access it" would be a pretty low priority for expenditire of scarce restoration dollars.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#666054 - 02/25/11 01:22 PM
Re: Nature Conservancy
[Re: milt roe]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13394
|
Purchasing land or securing development rights is a very good idea when there is a clear and iminent threat to losing the habitat value it provides. Conversion of forestland to a housing development, for example. Purchase of riparian corridors along mainstem rivers already protected by Forest Practices regulations and state shoreline rules, maybe some benefit there. Buying up forestland "in the watershed even if fish can't access it" would be a pretty low priority for expenditire of scarce restoration dollars. +1
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#666110 - 02/25/11 04:51 PM
Re: Nature Conservancy
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 01/05/07
Posts: 1551
Loc: Bremerton, Wa.
|
They won't be cutting that timber along the river so maybe we will get over the 40 year cycle of clearcuts on one river........cost, if you have the money.......cheap compared to 40 years from now. I can go along with this sort of thing, kudo's to the conservancy but I will still question MPA's unless it can be shown to me that anglers are the cause of the problem....prefer use of proper seasons or limits that will actually allow stocks to rebuild
_________________________
A little common sense is good, more is better. Kitsap Chapter CCA
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#666124 - 02/25/11 06:21 PM
Re: Nature Conservancy
[Re: N W Panhandler]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 08/20/08
Posts: 293
Loc: Lewis Co via Bham
|
Classified as "critical" habitat for spring Chinook on the Dept of Ecology's WRIA map, I would think that quanity and quality of water in the stream during critical migration timing would be positive benefit of reforestation, and continual forestation for springers...whether within stream protection corridor or not. Especially in a non-glacially fed stream.
I'm surprised Salmo.
I think we spend our scarse restoration dollars on some pretty stupid things, especially in urbanized, well degraded areas.
_________________________
If we ignore the environment it will just go away
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#666134 - 02/25/11 07:11 PM
Re: Nature Conservancy
[Re: fshwithnoeyes]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 12/09/03
Posts: 399
Loc: Seattle
|
Speaking of scarce restoration dollars, I read something a while back that basically said we should give up on salmon restoration on many urban rivers like the Sky, Snoqulamie and Puyallup. The habitat is too degraded and the costs are too much given all the development that has occurred and would need to be compensated for to make the places truly work for fish. This article advocated spending money solely in places like the Peninsula or Skagit. Property is cheaper there. Development/problems are less there. There are fewer landowner's to compensate when you force them to change things. All around, the money is better spent on salmon restoration in these areas. It was an interesting point of view.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#666137 - 02/25/11 07:25 PM
Re: Nature Conservancy
[Re: Brant]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 08/20/08
Posts: 293
Loc: Lewis Co via Bham
|
Sounds like Salmon 2100.
_________________________
If we ignore the environment it will just go away
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#666160 - 02/25/11 08:31 PM
Re: Nature Conservancy
[Re: digdeep]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13394
|
Fshwithnoeyes,
I agreed with Milt's post because the CW is good habitat in the sense that already logged and actively managed forestland can be good fish habitat. I don't know that NC won't also log the land, although I expect that if they do, it will be kinder, gentler logging. And if NC didn't manage the land, Rayonier has to comply with today's much stricter Forest Practices Act (as amended) than previous logging. All but a small parcel of old growth in the CW watershed has been logged, so the habitat is anything but pristine. The state managed land (DNR), which is much if not most of it, will continue to be managed as active forestland, with continued logging, but as I said, under today's regulations, which are pretty good, if you're going to allow logging.
If there are spring chinook in the CW, that is news to me. There are springs, summers, and falls in the Queets, but I think there are only fall chinook in the CW. Someone will correct this if I'm wrong.
Water quality and temperature will improve under current forest practice regulations.
I'm not saying the purchase is stupid. I think there are higher priority habitat conservation and improvement opportunities than this purchase however, that would yield more results for the dollars spent.
Sg
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#666169 - 02/25/11 09:37 PM
Re: Nature Conservancy
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 12/30/07
Posts: 3116
|
I havent dug into the purchase, but it would not surprise me if some of the money came from the State or Federal govt. Last year, a 77 million dollar parcel of land on the Stilly was bought and is being managed by the local tribe. They cannot sell it. I am curious in another matter whether that becomes part of the "reservation"
The dept that delt with that purchase has not seen budget cuts. Apparently CG has a major interest in it. A 77 million dollar piece of land on the Stillaguamish under the Governors program, is not more valuable than the Commission/WDFW structure, when you consider that any recovery of fish, is subject to surviving the tribal gill nets.
If Nature Conservancy has to buy the land to protect it, then WE need to change some laws. There is no way these organizations can own enough land along the rivers to protect fish on a state wide basis. When they do, they have more leverage over the access than we do.
Edited by Lead Bouncer (02/25/11 09:38 PM)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#666173 - 02/25/11 10:01 PM
Re: Nature Conservancy
[Re: Fast and Furious]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 05/22/05
Posts: 3771
|
The Nature Conservancy allows both hunting and fishing on many of their parcels.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#666175 - 02/25/11 10:11 PM
Re: Nature Conservancy
[Re: Illahee]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 12/30/07
Posts: 3116
|
Good.
It would benefit anglers and hunter to have an open dialogue with NC simply because a few bad apples can ruin it for all of us.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
807
Guests and
3
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63786 Topics
645450 Posts
Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM
|
|
|