Salmon spawning in the upper Columbia River, first in 80 years(spokesman.com)
spokesman.com
Salmon spawning in the upper Columbia River, first in 80 years
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/dec/17/for-the-first-time-in-more-than-80-years-salmon-sp/
71 comments
BC claims to be extremely environmental but they have a really poor track record with polluting waterway.
The Columbia river is one instance. The strait of Juan de Fuca is another [0]. The citizens of Victoria only stopped dumping raw untreated sewage in it earlier this year!
[0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/victoria-crd...
The Columbia river is one instance. The strait of Juan de Fuca is another [0]. The citizens of Victoria only stopped dumping raw untreated sewage in it earlier this year!
[0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/victoria-crd...
How nuclear waste leaves power plant? I always was under impression the core is heavily isolated and water is just cooling or used for turbines.
Cleaning Up the Cold War’s Nuclear Legacy at Hanford
https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/military/a-glass-nightma...
"During Hanford’s plutonium-production heyday, workers discharged some 1.7 trillion liters of waste liquids into soil disposal sites, which developed into vast underground plumes of toxic chemicals, including the carcinogens hexavalent chromium and carbon tetrachloride [PDF], that infiltrated aquifers."
"During Hanford’s plutonium-production heyday, workers discharged some 1.7 trillion liters of waste liquids into soil disposal sites, which developed into vast underground plumes of toxic chemicals, including the carcinogens hexavalent chromium and carbon tetrachloride [PDF], that infiltrated aquifers."
Interesting that the two chemicals mentioned in that quote aren't radioactive. Carbon tetrachloride apparently was once used as a household spot cleaner, [1] so I think it's fair to say folks who dealt with nuclear waste would have been relatively unconcerned with carbon tetrachloride.
Of course, knowing what we do now, they absolutely are dangerous. It's horrible they've leaked into the aquifer. Reminds me of the trichloroethylene plumes in Silicon Valley. Also a solvent once considered pretty benign, now known to be a carcinogen. (And actually linked to quite a few cancer cases I believe, unlike many chemicals "known to the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.")
[1] https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=194&tid=35#:~:text=....
Of course, knowing what we do now, they absolutely are dangerous. It's horrible they've leaked into the aquifer. Reminds me of the trichloroethylene plumes in Silicon Valley. Also a solvent once considered pretty benign, now known to be a carcinogen. (And actually linked to quite a few cancer cases I believe, unlike many chemicals "known to the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.")
[1] https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=194&tid=35#:~:text=....
No active reactor but 53 million US gallons (200,000 m3) of high-level radioactive waste stored within 177 storage tanks, an additional 25 million cubic feet (710,000 m3) of solid radioactive waste, and areas of heavy Technetium-99 and uranium contaminated groundwater beneath three tank farms.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
Federal government promised to clean up but failed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
Federal government promised to clean up but failed.
Hanford predates commercial nuclear power this is manhatten project era site. they made the plutonium for trinnity Nagasaki and they really didn't know much about how to handle radio active materials back in the early 40's. Hanford the idea was hey this stuff is dangerous lets through it in the vat of other dangerous stuff* we need to get rid of.
* other dangerous stuff being fun things like mustard gas and nerve agents
This was supposed to be cleaned up purified put into safe modern radioactive waste containment vessels and stored deep in Yucca mountain until the NIMBY folks got involved.
* other dangerous stuff being fun things like mustard gas and nerve agents
This was supposed to be cleaned up purified put into safe modern radioactive waste containment vessels and stored deep in Yucca mountain until the NIMBY folks got involved.
That's how it should work, but there have been ~15 or so reactors built there, with many of them in the 40s and 50s before there was adequate safety.
There was also the issue of "waste" being removed from those reactors for processing into more than 60,000 weapons.
There was also the issue of "waste" being removed from those reactors for processing into more than 60,000 weapons.
The waste is leftover from cold-war-era plutonium production for nuclear weapons.
I grew up in a small town in the PNW that has a yearly salmon festival, and it wasn't until a post from HN[1] that I learned/realized that the whole system of "fish hatcheries" that my town celebrated is kind of a horrible bandaid over the ecological disaster we perpetrated.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21298472 , definitely worth a read if you care about salmon
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21298472 , definitely worth a read if you care about salmon
There is a documentary about this as well (https://youtu.be/XdNJ0JAwT7I), which I thought was fascinating. I learned from this and one other (I’ve forgotten the name) that the salmon likely suffer far less from overfishing than most people believe. Perhaps what happened is the primary population pressures occurred until fishing pressure became noticeable. At that point people pointed their fingers to the most obvious cause of salmon deaths and missed the ones we’re only recently becoming more broadly aware of.
Not to say fishing doesn’t make a difference. It’s just not the only problem. Fish farm research was suppressed by the Canadian government which showed that the farms were spreading vast amounts of disease very consistently, for example. One disease acted so quickly that the fish would die before they could spawn. Fortunately the research surfaced eventually and farms are largely being shut down, but these farms have been operating for decades.
It’s a very complex and frightening problem. I’m glad we’re making progress in understanding it better.
Not to say fishing doesn’t make a difference. It’s just not the only problem. Fish farm research was suppressed by the Canadian government which showed that the farms were spreading vast amounts of disease very consistently, for example. One disease acted so quickly that the fish would die before they could spawn. Fortunately the research surfaced eventually and farms are largely being shut down, but these farms have been operating for decades.
It’s a very complex and frightening problem. I’m glad we’re making progress in understanding it better.
Leavenworth?
Also cool work history/projects from your website
I know Issaquah has 'Salmon Days'
Readers may also find this review of methods of building salmon-friendly dams interesting:
https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/pdf-content/mf...
https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/pdf-content/mf...
We must learn to live with hydro power and dams. It’s such an incredible and clean source of energy. It’s low maintenance and has a high duty cycle, with only nuclear being a more consistent. Dams are also how many parts of the US irrigate crops for our food.
There are different kinds of hydropower. At the risk of oversimplifying, "big" hydro (such as conventional dams) inflicts massive environmental damage, while "little" hydro doesn't.
A number of the big hydro dams in the West are very much a mixed bag. Glen Canyon should probably never have been built and fortunately the Redwall dam in the Grand Canyon was never built. Quite a few dams in New England have come down in recent years.
Dams may become less reliable in coming years as climate change makes droughts more frequent and with worse severity.
In Idaho we have Red Fish Lake, named after the sockeye salmon that would congregate there, often turning the lake red due to their numbers.
In 2019, only 18 salmon returned to the lake.
Further 4 dams in the Snake River are not used for hydro power, nor are they for flood control. They were used to try to make Idaho a major sea port -- despite the fact that Idaho is several hundred files from the ocean.
https://discoversawtooth.org/what-happened-to-the-red-fish-o...
In 2019, only 18 salmon returned to the lake.
Further 4 dams in the Snake River are not used for hydro power, nor are they for flood control. They were used to try to make Idaho a major sea port -- despite the fact that Idaho is several hundred files from the ocean.
https://discoversawtooth.org/what-happened-to-the-red-fish-o...
Chop down 98% of american indigenous forests to make room for homes, drain all the wetlands in socal for gold miners. But all no we can't have clean power cus of some fishis that my tribe that originally owned that land didn't even care about.
There is more forest cover now in the US than in 1900 [1]. While a lot of "old growth" is indeed gone, the idea that the US has been deforested is not really correct. Moreover, vast areas of the east coast has been returned to forest from what was farmland in the late 1800's and early 1900's.
Overall, generally speaking, the ecological condition of the continental US is probably better today than at any time in the past century.
[1] https://mff.forest.mtu.edu/TreeBasics/PICs/Trends03.jpg
Overall, generally speaking, the ecological condition of the continental US is probably better today than at any time in the past century.
[1] https://mff.forest.mtu.edu/TreeBasics/PICs/Trends03.jpg
We have programs for both reforestation and for wetland preservation. With any conservation proposal, one must weigh the pros and cons.
In this case it is true that hydropower is cheap and clean. However, the negative externality of destroying the salmon run is much more than "some fishis" that some Indian tribes cared about.
Aboriginal annual salmon catches have been estimated at over 10 million pounds for year. On top of that, the migration of pacific salmon upriver represents an enormous transfer of nutrients upstream. Salmon are a keystone species and are vitally important for the health of forests.
Unfortunately, the salmon run cannot easily coexist with the dams. Yes, there is value in the hydropower. Yes, it is cheap, clean energy. But it is certainly not without cost. We could be reaping the benefits of one of the largest animal migrations on our planet in a sustainable way. Even disregarding the cultural importance to native peoples there is still enormous economic and ecological value in having a healthy salmon run.
In this case it is true that hydropower is cheap and clean. However, the negative externality of destroying the salmon run is much more than "some fishis" that some Indian tribes cared about.
Aboriginal annual salmon catches have been estimated at over 10 million pounds for year. On top of that, the migration of pacific salmon upriver represents an enormous transfer of nutrients upstream. Salmon are a keystone species and are vitally important for the health of forests.
Unfortunately, the salmon run cannot easily coexist with the dams. Yes, there is value in the hydropower. Yes, it is cheap, clean energy. But it is certainly not without cost. We could be reaping the benefits of one of the largest animal migrations on our planet in a sustainable way. Even disregarding the cultural importance to native peoples there is still enormous economic and ecological value in having a healthy salmon run.
10 mil pounds of salmon is about $30mil worth of salmon a year at today's retail prices. And more salmon would depress those prices. Economically speaking, the entire aboriginal catch is a drop in the bucket and not worth the benefit of a single dam.
For comparison, the US alone currently harvests 100's of mil pounds of salmon a year. Alaska alone produces 500mil pounds last year (and this was the lowest in decades). Norway harvests around 3 BILLION pounds of salmon a year.
For comparison, the US alone currently harvests 100's of mil pounds of salmon a year. Alaska alone produces 500mil pounds last year (and this was the lowest in decades). Norway harvests around 3 BILLION pounds of salmon a year.
It's not necessarily clean either. Depending on what was flooded, if there's any forest involved it can be much worse in terms of GHGs than the equivalent coal plant because of decaying plant matter.
I was raised in a small german village near the rhine. which also has a big project to reintroduce salmon: https://www.salmoncomeback.org/ and https://www.iksr.org/en/icpr/rhine-2020/salmon-2020 as far as I know salmon was back since 2016 in these regions which was a huge breaktrough.
That means those salmon have to make there way thru about 10 or 11 dams!
Dams provide so many good things (clean energy, passable water, flood protection, ...). If the salmon can spawn that would be ideal!
Dams provide so many good things (clean energy, passable water, flood protection, ...). If the salmon can spawn that would be ideal!
Hydro is a double edged sword. Washington produces 70% of its energy from clean hydro, and supplies almost a quarter of the nation’s hydro power. Nothing is free.
Also provides a fantastic balancing reserve for all the wind and solar generation in the region.
Downstream survival rates for juvenile fish are in the high 90s for all the dams on the lower Columbia. [1] Grand Coulee produces more energy than any hydro project in North America so I expect it's worth keeping around even if we have to make some modifications to improve survival rates on the upper Columbia.
[1] https://www.bpa.gov/news/pubs/FactSheets/fs-201306-Columbia-...
Downstream survival rates for juvenile fish are in the high 90s for all the dams on the lower Columbia. [1] Grand Coulee produces more energy than any hydro project in North America so I expect it's worth keeping around even if we have to make some modifications to improve survival rates on the upper Columbia.
[1] https://www.bpa.gov/news/pubs/FactSheets/fs-201306-Columbia-...
Survival rates are high going downstream, can the salmon get back upstream or are there no fish ladders past some point?
The big dams on the upper Columbia do not have fish ladders. Although Grand Coulee did have one during construction. I've been looking for data on survival rates for upstream fish... but a brief search hasn't turned up the data I was looking for.
Pretty sure this is the first time I've seen my hometown newspaper on HN. Neat. My brother works in Bellingham WA doing Salmon related research stuff.
Was going to say the same - can’t remember seeing spokesman.com here before.
If you click on the URL in parentheses next to the title you'll see previous submissions for that site
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=spokesman.com
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=spokesman.com
It's nice and all, but it is unlikely to lead to a returning salmon population.
Even if the spawn make it through the dams, they won't be able to come back when they reach spawning age.
They need to invest tons of money in salmon ladders and naturalization, for example, like we are doing in BC. That would be quite the project for the Grand Coulee dam, as I remember it being quite large.
Hopefully this is the first step in the massive commitment that will be needed to restore the salmon population there. The salmon run is such an important part of the ecosystem.
Even if the spawn make it through the dams, they won't be able to come back when they reach spawning age.
They need to invest tons of money in salmon ladders and naturalization, for example, like we are doing in BC. That would be quite the project for the Grand Coulee dam, as I remember it being quite large.
Hopefully this is the first step in the massive commitment that will be needed to restore the salmon population there. The salmon run is such an important part of the ecosystem.
If native populations are going to come back and be sustainable we have to tear down the damns.
I realize that causes other political issues but that's the only way we're going to have native populations.
I'm an avid fisherman and really LOVE fish. They're amazing animals. Fisherman have a connection to nature that just can't be appreciated unless you have spent significant time on the water.
Fish are SMART, they're capable of amazing things I wouldn't have even considered possible.
I once had a large trout swim UP a (short, about 4') waterfall with my lure in his mouth and I could SEE him swimming up it as if it were just normal water.
When we let nature die a part of us dies with it..
I realize that causes other political issues but that's the only way we're going to have native populations.
I'm an avid fisherman and really LOVE fish. They're amazing animals. Fisherman have a connection to nature that just can't be appreciated unless you have spent significant time on the water.
Fish are SMART, they're capable of amazing things I wouldn't have even considered possible.
I once had a large trout swim UP a (short, about 4') waterfall with my lure in his mouth and I could SEE him swimming up it as if it were just normal water.
When we let nature die a part of us dies with it..
> I once had a large trout swim UP a (short, about 4') waterfall with my lure in his mouth and I could SEE him swimming up it as if it were just normal water.
This would be much like the scene in The Hobbit with Legolas successfully gaining elevation by climbing up free-falling rubble.
This would be much like the scene in The Hobbit with Legolas successfully gaining elevation by climbing up free-falling rubble.
>“We have to tear down the dams”
Surely there must be another possible solution that more Closely mimics the river before the dams were built ?
Surely there must be another possible solution that more Closely mimics the river before the dams were built ?
Fish are amazing, but do you really think they are SMART? In my experience, fish are incredibly stupid and wholly reliant on instinct. I suppose instincts can seem like intelligence sometimes, but if put into the wrong situation, fish will make the same mistake over and over and over again.
By that standard the monarch butterfly is stupid too. That said they are smart enough to follow only a portion of their full migratory route which takes 4 generations to complete.
Squirrels remember where they bury their nuts. Octopuses can solve puzzles.
So what about fish? Salmon remember where they were spawned before they head out to the ocean, and come back to the exact same pool to spawn before dying.
https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2013/02/13/mystery-solve...
So sure, they're not "SMART" but there is a lot of "intelligence" they have acquired over many generations of evolutionary cycles.
Squirrels remember where they bury their nuts. Octopuses can solve puzzles.
So what about fish? Salmon remember where they were spawned before they head out to the ocean, and come back to the exact same pool to spawn before dying.
https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2013/02/13/mystery-solve...
So sure, they're not "SMART" but there is a lot of "intelligence" they have acquired over many generations of evolutionary cycles.
Squirrel do not remember much though. They fill the ground with nuts. Then they dig the ground seemingly at random. Most of theis caches are forgotten. Which often leads to nuts trees sprouting all over the place during spring.
https://www.livescience.com/64104-how-do-squirrels-find-buri...
This article seems to suggest otherwise.
This article seems to suggest otherwise.
I'll settle this;
Salmon, butterflies and squirrels are all dumb as hell.
What they are is incredibly well adapted to reproduce and survive on this crazy planet!
Salmon, butterflies and squirrels are all dumb as hell.
What they are is incredibly well adapted to reproduce and survive on this crazy planet!
[deleted]
People say this about many beings, and even about other humans. What they all have in common is a lack of exposure to those they denigrate and reduce in their mind to dumb automatons. I don't think you are smart to say that about anyone you haven't spent much time around or bonded with in any significant way.
Many large dams play a major role in flood mitigation so removing them can be a significant risk. IMO, traditional fish ladders are often a poor solution as they don’t divert enough water down them, but scale things to 10+% of average flow rates, and dams can coexist with large native fish populations. Notably discharge rates that high significantly reduce the amount of hydropower generated, but don’t need to be maintained year round.
However, most small and mid sized dams should be removed as they harm wildlife and are often a safety issue for the general public.
PS: In terms of supporting evidence. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092585741...
However, most small and mid sized dams should be removed as they harm wildlife and are often a safety issue for the general public.
PS: In terms of supporting evidence. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092585741...
Honestly, if the choice is removing the dams and moving to more polluting energy forms, or letting the fish go extinct, I think letting the fish go extinct is the best choice at this time. Maybe we freeze their fertilized eggs and reintroduce them at some point in the future when climate change has been reversed.
Salmon are used as food sources for humans and for wildlife. The stronger the salmon are, the stronger the ecology of the PNW will be.
Not all dams that are blocking salmon runs in the PNW are used for hydro power, or for flood control for that matter.
Not all dams that are blocking salmon runs in the PNW are used for hydro power, or for flood control for that matter.
Ok, I'll bite. If a dam isn't being used for hydro power, nor for flood control, what is it being used for? I'm assuming a dam that creates a reservoir for water storage is considered flood control but perhaps you are not.
"run-of-river" dams to provide easier access for barges.
See this comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25540540
So the question is are we okay with converting barge traffic to rail traffic? Probably. That's the way things are transported across the rest of the country.
See this comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25540540
So the question is are we okay with converting barge traffic to rail traffic? Probably. That's the way things are transported across the rest of the country.
You realize in 600ad the temp was a 1 hotter than today. There is no maybe we reintroduce at a later time because whatever you think needs to happen with climate change never will.
I would rather you pay more and pay the full costs of your electrical use. Use solar, wind or invest in a nuclear plant if removing carbon is imported.
Causing extinction in the name of climate change when really it's about cheaper prices is a non-starter.
I would rather you pay more and pay the full costs of your electrical use. Use solar, wind or invest in a nuclear plant if removing carbon is imported.
Causing extinction in the name of climate change when really it's about cheaper prices is a non-starter.
> You realize in 600ad the temp was a 1 hotter than today. There is no maybe we reintroduce at a later time because whatever you think needs to happen with climate change never will.
Interesting. Do you have a source for this?
Interesting. Do you have a source for this?
Got it. They may have gotten their figures wrong - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
> You realize in 600ad the temp was a 1 hotter than today.
No, I've done a fair amount of research into the historical climate of the PNW and I've never heard that before! Do you have any journal articles so I can read more about it?
No, I've done a fair amount of research into the historical climate of the PNW and I've never heard that before! Do you have any journal articles so I can read more about it?
By “the temp” do you mean the global temp? Here’s a paper about this:
https://boris.unibe.ch/132301/7/333323_4_merged_1557735881.p...
The phenomenon you’re referring to seems to be regional, in contrast to global warming. Global warming has plenty of regional variation, but the average temperature of the whole planet is, in fact, increasing quite a bit.
https://boris.unibe.ch/132301/7/333323_4_merged_1557735881.p...
The phenomenon you’re referring to seems to be regional, in contrast to global warming. Global warming has plenty of regional variation, but the average temperature of the whole planet is, in fact, increasing quite a bit.
Your source is a "Reference guide for primary", it clearly states "Europe's average temperature", and grapes have been grown in Britain continually from the Roman occupation up until WW2.
Global temperatures were not warmer in the past, because there was less energy retained due to lesser amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Global temperatures were not warmer in the past, because there was less energy retained due to lesser amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
They can if they have supporting Salmon Cannons![1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z3ZyGlqUkA
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z3ZyGlqUkA
[deleted]
We don't need to make such a large investment. I, for one, am satisfied with the ecology today and would rather have lower electricity rates and get people into electric cars and off gas heat.
Well maybe someone would like a salmon-related job, and the project would pay for itself - it is one of those infrastructure cases where those that build the improvement createna benefit for someone else
Start investing in nuclear and you can have both.
Salmon by Mark Kurlansky is a fantastic read on the historical + ecological history of of this.
I don't really care. Environmentalists will never happy until the world's population is so low that they feel like 'nature' is unaffected by humans. In reality that means they want the world to themselves and anyone with any other interests to be plant fertilizer. There haven't been a specific kind of fish there for _eighty_ years and it hasn't impacted human life so why do we need to spend tax dollars to have them there now? It is complete lunacy based on a fetish for a 'natural' state that isn't real. News flash, humans are natural and I don't loathe them like some environmentalists do. People are starving and dying of viruses (both 'natural' states I'll add) but we need to spend our time and money building a fucking ladder for a fish? I speak truth even though I will be downvoted into oblivion. Worth it.
We are biological creatures, and part of the biome.
All of the artificial things we've created do nothing to sustain our existence, only to facilitate our connection with the biome.
If, in the process of facilitating this connection, we eliminate the biome's ability to sustain itself, most of us will be dead very quickly.
That's one of the reasons people care so much.
Another reason, if you suspend your human-centric worldview, is seeing other creatures as our relatives on the biological tree of live, admitting their ability to have feelings and desires and suffering, and caring for their plight and happiness alongside ours.
We don't have to kill the biome to sustain ourselves. In fact, the opposite is true.
All of the artificial things we've created do nothing to sustain our existence, only to facilitate our connection with the biome.
If, in the process of facilitating this connection, we eliminate the biome's ability to sustain itself, most of us will be dead very quickly.
That's one of the reasons people care so much.
Another reason, if you suspend your human-centric worldview, is seeing other creatures as our relatives on the biological tree of live, admitting their ability to have feelings and desires and suffering, and caring for their plight and happiness alongside ours.
We don't have to kill the biome to sustain ourselves. In fact, the opposite is true.
Who are you responding to? Nobody in the article or the comments is advocating for reducing the human population.
Besides that, it's obviously not zero sum. Increasing the salmon population does not decrease the human population. Arguably, in the long run, what is good for the salmon is also good for the human.
Besides that, it's obviously not zero sum. Increasing the salmon population does not decrease the human population. Arguably, in the long run, what is good for the salmon is also good for the human.
Take a look at this: https://imgur.com/gallery/9v4HV2p
There are nearly 8 billion humans on Earth.
Can you see the disparity?
And here is a slice of the result: https://xkcd.com/1338/
If you feel like learning more about „The Great Forgetting“, read this: The Once and Future World, by J B MacKinnon (http://jbmackinnon.com/books.html). Contact me if you want the ebook.
There are nearly 8 billion humans on Earth.
Can you see the disparity?
And here is a slice of the result: https://xkcd.com/1338/
If you feel like learning more about „The Great Forgetting“, read this: The Once and Future World, by J B MacKinnon (http://jbmackinnon.com/books.html). Contact me if you want the ebook.
> There are nearly 8 billion humans on Earth.
Yes, and there's roughly a quadrillion Cyclothone on Earth, a vertebrate fish with 13 species. [0]
That's 1,000,000 billion fish vs. 8 billion humans: the fish are winning the population game, and it's not even close.
Furthermore, human population projections cap us out around 15 billion in the next century because birth rates go down as population increases—we are naturally self-limiting, like every other species on earth.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclothone
Yes, and there's roughly a quadrillion Cyclothone on Earth, a vertebrate fish with 13 species. [0]
That's 1,000,000 billion fish vs. 8 billion humans: the fish are winning the population game, and it's not even close.
Furthermore, human population projections cap us out around 15 billion in the next century because birth rates go down as population increases—we are naturally self-limiting, like every other species on earth.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclothone
I'm curious why someone would downvote this. Care to write a proper reply instead? I'm stating facts - why do you disagree?
I suspect it's being downvoted because the pixel resolution on the various species included have little to do with how healthy their populations are or are not. For example, it's simply impossible for large predators like tigers to exist by the billions. In short, the presentation is a pure play to emotions with little regard to any actual facts.
Thanks, but I disagree! Most of the pixelized animals number in the hundreds or thousands - horrifyingly low. What diversity and ‚culture‘ can exist within those numbers? There can be a ‚healthy‘ population of 1, but it's still extinction for the species.
I wish the downvoters would have the courage to speak up.
I wish the downvoters would have the courage to speak up.
It's good that salmon can come into this area but smelter from Trail, BC has been polluting upper Columbia river for about hundred years. With chemicals and smelter sludge. Fish is not edible, sand is black from sludge.
Salmon may have reached upper Columbia river, but water in that part of the river is heavily polluted.
And south of Coulee Dam, there is storage of nuclear waste, just north of Richmond, WA - Hanford site. Nuclear waste already leaks into Columbia river, north of Tri-Cities area.
So in my opinion, human created disasters in the Columbia river, rank in this order: nuclear waste at Hanford site > smelter at Trail, BC > Dams without passage for fish.
Sorry for typos, typing from phone.