Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tyc:> who wrote (41802)	6/4/2007 3:04:30 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 78419

I had read that. The hovercraft does create waves to an extent. Not as much as a boat traveling thru water, as its area per lb is greater, but there is an indent in the water, and there are shoreline breakers created. Probably as much as it may 'pool' young salmon, wave action also stirs up sediment and enriches the river. An increase in fish population near the outlet of sluice boxes over time, has long been noted by operators on the Yukon-Pelly and in Washington State. All the while government workers were complaining about declining fish populations, mine workers were noticing more and more fish showing up around their workings. It appears that much of the DFO case is based on theory and their projections about fish decline have a noticeable lack of statistical back up or clear causation. At certain times of the season, excess silt along the banks in pools may disturb the breeding grounds. The extent of this has not been well documented. It is hard to say if the intermittent passage of the large craft is sufficient to cause disturbance of a significant kind. It is not clear from the environmentalist's complaints, outside of the occasional observed stranding of fry in pools, what the modus of the alleged damage really is. At any rate, it is clear if there were seasonal speed and load restrictions, and passage restrictions during breeding season, and hatching, that it could mitigate the damage markedly. This has been the observation of fish farmers at the river mouths and seem to have an obvious connection with other habitat areas. It is disturbing to that no mention is made of the increasing encroachment of native fishing. While we heard about native nets abandoned in rivers for years (a problem in the Great Lakes as well), and their effect on fish populations 2 decades ago, I notice a distinct silence from government and conservation groups about the matter. Do they fear increase reprisals from native "protests" or do they feel that this is a way to buy off the indian concerns about their economic viability? It is apparent that despite the native claims that they fished the area without decline for 10,000 years, their access to upper reaches of the Stikine and Taku were limited. They travelled by coastal waters, not thru vast regions of the mountains and not up 100 km of impassable white water areas. Now we can see they can get around with 4 wheel drives on white man's roads, they use trail bikes and johnson sea horse 50HP boats and poly nets to take a few more salmon than did their ancestors. If they only had their ancestor's access and methods and died off every 7 years like they used to, then it might be different. The salmon would have no problem with that. The waning animal cycles and the resultant lack of food starved the tribe regularly, (and believe me the Nahanni have documented this), so the natural limitation on salmon harvesting was always there. I would estimate the indian's ability to harvest salmon and get illegal fly-in markets has increased over his ancestral capability by about 1000 times. If the fish are disappearing there is no use looking at outside sources. I would think the first place to look is at who is catching them. And one of the most troubling groups are the people who live right there. It is a case of Physician heal thyself. EC<:-}