The project has started….and at the same time the actual removal project has been delayed until next year (at the earliest).
It’s incredibly frustrating to watch the snails pace and foot dragging that has delayed this project so long that many salmon species are no longer found in the river. As I’ve said before, I think that’s the intent, and I expect the obstinate morons who oppose it because removing dams is woke or something to try to delay it again by saying the protected species dam removal is supposed to help are gone, so there’s no point in removal anymore.



This project made sense 20+ years ago when the movement began and should have been completed then. Hundreds of millions of salmon (so billions in economic losses), a world class fishing river, and a few entire species could have been saved, and absolutely nothing has been gained by the delay except much higher costs to remove them and disastrous fish kills and toxic algae blooms killing dogs and wildlife.

I see….they have a much different definition of “solved” than I do.
I think that word indicates the completion of a solution to a problem.
They mean simply beginning to address the problem, sometimes just agreeing there IS a problem.
Don’t get me wrong, all these are *quality steps in the right direction, but very few were actually solutions by any stretch.

For instance….#18 is a local concern.
This is far from the first time Klamath River dam removal has been scheduled for “next summer” only to be delayed time and time again. This has stretched out for so long that a few species of salmon the removal was supposed to save are no longer detected in the river. Multiple drought years and heat waves paired with mismanagement and neglect have spawned multiple full river toxic algae blooms making the water poisonous even for swimming, lots of dead dogs, lots of dead and sick wildlife, millions of dead fish.
It wouldn’t surprise anyone if new challenges to removal are started based on that alone, further delaying removal until all strains are gone.
20 years ago the Klamath was a world class salmon river, today it’s often closed to fishing even for native tribes that subsistence fish to survive.
I hardly consider another new projected project START date for the multi year 4 stage removal project to be “problem solved”. After that part is finished, massive river long restoration STARTS. If that can be successful at all, it takes decades and mountains of cash.

Sorry to be a Debby Downer.

"If you don't cough up some salmon, I will fuck you with a rake!"
(ibid)

I can’t wait for the dams on the Klamath to be removed next year. It should improve the water quality and the salmon runs.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by w1ndex.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by newtboy. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=https://videosift.com/video/John-West-Salmon-Bear-Fight-Advert

That's ridiculous. Salmon can't read!

the town should install a "salmon crossing" sign. (just because how many of those would you ever see?)

BTW here's why the salmon are crossing the road.

The salmon are crossing the road because the restaurant they just left doesn't serve salmon.

Why did the salmon cross the road?
Still trying to think of a funny answer.
Maybe something involving Salman Rushdie?

Your video, Skokomish River salmon cross the road, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

A good, even *quality idea....for 40+ years ago.

It took 100+ years to mortally wound the ocean by 1000 cuts. A bandaid on one wound is not going to turn it around, and we almost certainly aren't going to do it anyway. Countries that don't buy into the plan will simply harvest most of the fish left by those who do. This only works in small scale preserves that are guarded against poaching, often by a military.

Fish stocks are disappearing at an alarming rate, many going extinct. For those species, it's too late, and they are numerous, and they are largely the fish humans prefer. Many others are in such decline fishing for them is already off limits or severely curtailed, like commercial salmon, abalone, and crab fishing in California. Even those actions have failed to revive their populations year after year.

Diatoms, phytoplankton, and other similar biotas are at the limit of acidity and temperature they can tolerate, and they are the base of the ocean food web, feeding most fish when they are fry or larvae. The gasses in the atmosphere today will push diatoms over that precipice with a massive ocean extinction following soon afterwards, and we continue to add more greenhouse gases than we added yesterday every day.

Then there's habitat loss, coral reefs and kelp forests are both being decimated by temperature rise and acidification. Together they are food and habitat for 25%-50% of all ocean fish and shellfish.

Less over harvesting of the ocean is a good idea, but pretending it alone can save the oceans is pure fantasy. The ocean has absorbed as much as 90+% of the excess heat from global warming, causing oceanic heat waves that destroy habitats both directly and indirectly. There is NO plan that solves that problem, it's well beyond our capabilities under the best conditions with worldwide maximum efforts.

Just sayin'.

Eating fish and poultry at least twice a week is conspicuously left off the Mediterranean Diet list here.

Fatty fish — such as mackerel, lake trout, herring, sardines, albacore tuna and salmon — are rich sources of omega-3 fatty acids. Fish is eaten on a regular basis in the Mediterranean diet.

Seems from everything I see, seafood seems to be pretty predominant in Japanese diet intake, the other diet he mentioned in comparison.

So, I figured, let me look up some info on the Dr. presenting here. Neal Barnard is a well known Vegan and founding president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Intriguing, no? Then I looked up the PCRM he is the founding president of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_Committee_for_Responsible_Medicine). OMG, they just happen to be a non-profit research and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., which promotes a vegan diet, preventive medicine, and alternatives to animal research, and encourages what it describes as "higher standards of ethics and effectiveness in research." Its tax filing shows its activities as "prevention of cruelty to animals."

So it is a combination of a Vegan diet promotional group AND PETA. It also seems that they don't mind omitting parts of 'competing' diets to promote their own. Basically this is the equivalent of a organization like Atkins having a doctor like Iris Shai, RD, PhD, show that a low-carbohydrate diet like Atkins had a more favorable effect on blood lipid levels than both the Mediterranean diet or a low–fat diet.

Obviously she must be right, she is a doctor and other doctors support her. So this must mean all the other doctors and diets are wrong, including this one, right?

I'm calling this *propaganda, sorry.