DNR Lands Commissioner on artificial reefs on the radio

[airsix]

Late!, but good answer nonetheless.

[whatevah]

it baffles me that NOAA has to prove the obvious, that Orca abundance is link to Chinook numbers (duh)

Perhaps the situation is more complicated than one might assume.

[CaptnJack]

it baffles me that NOAA has to prove the obvious, that Orca abundance is link to Chinook numbers (duh)

Perhaps the situation is more complicated than one might assume.

See I don't think "proof" is necessary to act in a conservationist manner. The burden of proof should lie with the resource extractor. But I'll listen to your complicated theory on why big fat 60lb morsels which give a much higher return on energy invested to catch one vs. comparatively dinky Cohos or Chum are somehow not key to Orca survival.

[4ster]

Moving a little more back on topic, pick up a copy of the Feb. 2011 National Geographic. There is an excellent article on artificial reefs. The good and the bad - mostly good.

[whatevah]

it baffles me that NOAA has to prove the obvious, that Orca abundance is link to Chinook numbers (duh)

Perhaps the situation is more complicated than one might assume.

See I don't think "proof" is necessary to act in a conservationist manner.

Proof is not really the goal - it's understanding. Without a clear scientific picture of what's going on it is difficult to know whether one's actions are conservative or not. The predator-prey relationship of killer whales and chinook salmon is clear, but that's one small part of a bigger picture. History shows that a pretty good proportion of the time, when we're sure we see the obvious when it comes to managing wild animal populations we screw it up big time. If we want to apply limited resources towards shifting the balance for whales, I would hope that we'd do it in the most efficacious manner possible. The easy explanation is not necessarily the place where we can make the most positive impact for our conservation effort, and I'd hate to see us screw up some other species incidentally. To be honest, making this simple connection between the whales and their favorite food species might just as easily cause some to conclude that we should throttle up hatchery production. Nope... these days, I do expect decisions like this to be based on the most sound science available. When changes are made we should have some way to independently quantify the effect, otherwise we learn nothing.

The burden of proof should lie with the resource extractor.

Wouldn't that be nice? Here on planet reality though, that has not been the case. If it were, we probably wouldn't have evolved to be as successful as we have been. We have to learn to adapt along the way and I think that as we bring more science into this process we'll see better results.

But I'll listen to your complicated theory on why big fat 60lb morsels which give a much higher return on energy invested to catch one vs. comparatively dinky Cohos or Chum are somehow not key to Orca survival.

Sounds like an imaginary discussion.

[airsix]

We observe. We study. Our collective knowledge expands. But our self discipline has not evolved with our understanding. We will knowingly self destruct as we debate issues such as this until there are no opportunities left. In the end we'll look back and say "Now that we're properly educated we know what we should have done while there was still time."

[whatevah]

We observe. We study. Our collective knowledge expands. But our self discipline has not evolved with our understanding. We will knowingly self destruct as we debate issues such as this until there are no opportunities left. In the end we'll look back and say "Now that we're properly educated we know what we should have done while there was still time."

I think our self discipline has remained a constant, so in that sense I agree. We're actually pretty good about limiting impact when we have the luxury of doing so (in many places it really does come down to putting food on the family table when there are no practical alternatives). There are a lot of success stories in this regard. The problem is that we have to understand and _believe_ that there's a need. Changing long-held perceptions is not easy - it can take a generation. Good science and open discussion with a willingness to compromise can help bring about real progress - emotionally charged outcries and blind assumptions about blame and easy fixes do nothing at best.

Don't get me wrong - I wish many changes were made sooner. But only the right changes. I've known of a number of situations where the "obvious" correction was made (at considerable cost), and everybody sat back to await the expected improvement - only when it failed to eventuate did anyone invest in the science to identify the true root cause.

[Gooch]

Artificial Reefs from ex-navy ships or ferries is a no-brainer IMHO. If they were allowed by the powers that be, I'd be happy to run a non-profit (not for profit?) group to clean them for sinking like the ARSBC. I realize we have a lot of natural beauty here- I just dove Flagpole for the first time and was blown-blown away at the cool critters. And I know from guys like Scott Boyd and Jeff Carr that we DO have a lot of natural (and unnatural) wrecks to explore here. I'm just agreeing with guys like Dusty that there is room to do more and by doing that, it would enhance the region both from a naturalist standpoint and from a "Marketing Washington Scuba" standpoint. I think it is hard to stand against arguments that it makes sense in a lot of ways. I will continue to lobby in anyway I can for the reefs...

[H20doctor]

we need to get a plane from an airplane grave yard and stick it at eup...

[whatevah]

we need to get a plane from an airplane grave yard and stick it at eup...

Too much current. You wouldn't get the silt collecting like the Nanaimo wrecks, and there'd be too many critters :p