It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Almost extinct fish helps keep California parched

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I ran across this story again today and thought I'd ask ATS what they thought about the situation.



Endangered since 1993, the plankton-eating silver minnow is blamed by farmers, lawmakers and water officials up and down the Golden State for locking down billions of gallons of water that otherwise would go to them.

The numbers suggest the delta smelt, indeed, could be wiped out soon anyway.

In a March 2012 trawl survey, wildlife officials found 296 fish. An identical sampling a month later found 143. But in April 2015, officials found a single fish, not enough to propagate the species.

Dr. Peter Moyle, an expert at UC Davis, predicts the smelt will likely be gone for good in about two years.


I guess my opinion is that if they are going to be extinct in a few years anyway, why not divert the water now when it's needed. Had the smelt been in a recovery, then maybe not but their extinction seems to be inevitable.


www.foxnews.com...




posted on May, 6 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Hmmm millions of Californians with not enough water v. 100 or so fish with billions of gallons of water.... Anchovies anyone?????



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Im a Californian, this isnt about the fish. Its about owning water rights in California. This is about Agenda 21.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
I ran across this story again today and thought I'd ask ATS what they thought about the situation.



Endangered since 1993, the plankton-eating silver minnow is blamed by farmers, lawmakers and water officials up and down the Golden State for locking down billions of gallons of water that otherwise would go to them.

The numbers suggest the delta smelt, indeed, could be wiped out soon anyway.

In a March 2012 trawl survey, wildlife officials found 296 fish. An identical sampling a month later found 143. But in April 2015, officials found a single fish, not enough to propagate the species.

Dr. Peter Moyle, an expert at UC Davis, predicts the smelt will likely be gone for good in about two years.


I guess my opinion is that if they are going to be extinct in a few years anyway, why not divert the water now when it's needed. Had the smelt been in a recovery, then maybe not but their extinction seems to be inevitable.


www.foxnews.com...


Well if you look at it like that. Then we might as well get WW3 going and kill everyone on earth since it seems that we are heading there anyway. ...



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
If we're told that if we all would agree to not eat crabs for only one season that there would be enough crabs for everyone for the next 100 years ...what do you think would happen? .....people would probably have big crab feasts to say that they had some of the last crabs on earth. ..



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: JHumm

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
I ran across this story again today and thought I'd ask ATS what they thought about the situation.



Endangered since 1993, the plankton-eating silver minnow is blamed by farmers, lawmakers and water officials up and down the Golden State for locking down billions of gallons of water that otherwise would go to them.

The numbers suggest the delta smelt, indeed, could be wiped out soon anyway.

In a March 2012 trawl survey, wildlife officials found 296 fish. An identical sampling a month later found 143. But in April 2015, officials found a single fish, not enough to propagate the species.

Dr. Peter Moyle, an expert at UC Davis, predicts the smelt will likely be gone for good in about two years.


I guess my opinion is that if they are going to be extinct in a few years anyway, why not divert the water now when it's needed. Had the smelt been in a recovery, then maybe not but their extinction seems to be inevitable.


www.foxnews.com...


Well if you look at it like that. Then we might as well get WW3 going and kill everyone on earth since it seems that we are heading there anyway. ...



Well considering that the effort to save the fish has failed, why continue the effort?



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: misskat1
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Im a Californian, this isnt about the fish. Its about owning water rights in California. This is about Agenda 21.


Imma Tell You a Little Secret...Anyone Who Claims Agenda 21 will not Have Another Comment on Their Post...UNLESS, the Individual Replying is Also Aware of the Agenda 21 Movement....lol
edit on th50Wed, 06 May 2015 11:50:32 -0500K201553231am5 by SirKonstantin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I lived in California before I moved. (thank GOD I did!!!)

What they've done to the farm land and farmers there is despicable. I literally watched, year after year, as the crops turned more and more brown, and fewer and fewer fields of them remained. Every year, it got worse. All because of the Feds turning off the water to San Joaquin valley and having it regulated and diverted, away from where most of the world's crops (fruits and vegetables) grow. California used to have one of the largest economies in the world when it came to supplying the world with food. Now, the land has turned to dust and not because of over-farming or fertilizers, but because of the water being shut off that provides the farms with what they need.

The entire drought in California is man-made. It could be fixed, but they don't want to. Even Arnold tried to plead with the Feds to stop what they were doing, and that was in 2009! The bills that were passed after did nothing to solve the problem, it was all lip service and posturing.


This is the third year of below-average precipitation and snowpack in California. The situation has been compounded by court-ordered pumping cutbacks in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta to protect crashing fish populations.


Source

It sucks for the fish, but Darwin usually wins. Natural selection. In this case, the fish are the ones being selected. It happens all the time and will continue to with or without human intervention.

If it were up to me, I would go find and capture or kill the rest of the fish, and turn the freaking water on for those farmers. It will bring food prices back down, increase employment, increase municipal taxes.... that's why this whole move by the Feds makes no sense unless you put your conspiracy hat on and look at it as being intentional.

However... The circle of life hasn't changed... the sacrifice of the few always outweighs the many, and in this case, the fish are the few. Many thousands of people are hurting in California because of this. It is impacting the rest of the country and the world at large. There's no good reason for it anymore. Get rid of the fish and turn the water back on.

Utopian thoughts of mine would love to find a way to save those fish and repopulate their species, but if we tried to do that for every species of creature, it would be tampering with things in a way that could tip the scales in the opposite direction. Rather than saving a species from extinction, you could cause others to go extinct in the process by throwing food chains out of balance.

If this continues, expect food prices to explode as soon as any major demand increases, and whatever crops fail, expect to pay through the nose for them.

Sad state of affairs for the farmers. They keep us fed. Imagine if they all went on strike? Nobody could do a damn thing about it and people would starve. Rightfully so... the farmers should hold more power since they control our sustenance, NOT the Federal Government, which creates and provides absolutely nothing tangible or of value.

~Namaste



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
I guess my opinion is that if they are going to be extinct in a few years anyway, why not divert the water now when it's needed. Had the smelt been in a recovery, then maybe not but their extinction seems to be inevitable.

Has it crossed your mind that it need not necessarily be about the smelt? That it is an indicator species for larger stuff going on? So when you say "# the Fish", you're really saying "Bring it on"...without entirely knowing what 'it' is?
Seeing as the hydrology has already been pissed away, it might be worthwhile to look at the bigger picture.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
They did a lot of crazy things in California, like infilling of the bay in the SF Bay Area. They were so short of land that it seemed a good idea to reclaim land using compacted trash, let that mulch a bit, then build on top of that area, with the only hazard being ground liquifaction during an earthquake.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
I guess my opinion is that if they are going to be extinct in a few years anyway, why not divert the water now when it's needed. Had the smelt been in a recovery, then maybe not but their extinction seems to be inevitable.

Has it crossed your mind that it need not necessarily be about the smelt? That it is an indicator species for larger stuff going on? So when you say "# the Fish", you're really saying "Bring it on"...without entirely knowing what 'it' is?
Seeing as the hydrology has already been pissed away, it might be worthwhile to look at the bigger picture.



Why would you assume I have not looked at the big picture?
99% of the species that ever existed on earth are now extinct. You can't blame humans for that.
Everything will eventually die if history is an indicator.
Could this fish be a sign of things to come? Yeah maybe.
Will saving it stop the things to come? Not likely.
This fish is already screwed.

www.endangeredspeciesinternational.org...

edit on 6-5-2015 by Hoosierdaddy71 because: Added link



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
I ran across this story again today and thought I'd ask ATS what they thought about the situation.

Endangered since 1993, the plankton-eating silver minnow is blamed by farmers, lawmakers and water officials up and down the Golden State for locking down billions of gallons of water that otherwise would go to them.

The numbers suggest the delta smelt, indeed, could be wiped out soon anyway.

In a March 2012 trawl survey, wildlife officials found 296 fish. An identical sampling a month later found 143. But in April 2015, officials found a single fish, not enough to propagate the species.

Dr. Peter Moyle, an expert at UC Davis, predicts the smelt will likely be gone for good in about two years.


I guess my opinion is that if they are going to be extinct in a few years anyway, why not divert the water now when it's needed. Had the smelt been in a recovery, then maybe not but their extinction seems to be inevitable.


www.foxnews.com...


I don't mind exposing my lack of knowledge in this area however a few questions come to mind:

When the fish was endangered 22 years ago, why didn't they catch a few for a fish farm and restock the place?
With extinction rates at about 10,000~15,000 per year (scientists estimate), why does this one matter more that the human inhabitants?
…and…

With discovery rates of new species being about 15,000~20,000 per year (scientists estimate), What might be taking their place or killing them off?

Now, I am not an environmentalist nor am I pro/anti business development when kept in reasonable check. I do wonder how and why we can allow our resources to be kept from the humans that may need them. In addition, if a particular resource is scarce, why do we not limit the amount of humans that can occupy and utilize those resources?

I take offense to the human arrogance that we know anything about the evolving and ever changing nature of this planet; we need to stop thinking we know everything.
edit on 6-5-2015 by notmyrealname because: errant 'e'



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: misskat1
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Im a Californian, this isnt about the fish. Its about owning water rights in California. This is about Agenda 21.


So...the State is now asserting that they own all water rights and they just rent it out to people? I heard something to that effect on C2C two nights ago. Agenda 21 is creepy, its insidious and its the future. Thankfully, I won't live long enough to be victimized by it.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

California should be allowed to fail.....It is destiny. They built a civilization in the desert and cry and complain about not having enough water all the while wasting what water they do have.



I find it so ironic that California the state that cries about this and that when it comes to the planet changes it's tune really quick when it comes to water.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
The reason is actually a conspiracy. The fish you speak of are secretly known as babble fish. And there is an effort to save them because of a future alien invasion that is going to occur during Jade Helm. The aliens will land on Walmarts throughout the nation. And take the interconnecting tunnels linking Walmarts throughout the nation to complete their invasion. We need to be able to understand them so we can hear their announcement when they reveal Alex Jones and David Wilcox are our reptilian overlords.





In the meantime I have a solution for California. They should change their state song from I love California to............





My apologies in advance I'm feeling a little grouchy and overtly sarcastic today.



edit on 6-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

This has been a thorn in my side for a while. I intelligently left California, but I have family still choosing to stay there (mainly for familial purposes), and I can't understand why a tiny fish is more important that the livelihood of humans. Also, I've seen conflicting reports as to whether or not the fish is even native to that area of California.

Regardless, if they're near extinction, yet other fish populations are not suffering, something tells me it's okay to let them go. I have not read up on the health of other predatory fish that feed on them, though, so that's just an off-the-cuff comment.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

You potentially caused me to kill my keyboard with coffee poisoning!!

Thank you for that and I hope it dries without any sticky keys….



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

California should be allowed to fail.....It is destiny. They built a civilization in the desert and cry and complain about not having enough water all the while wasting what water they do have.



I find it so ironic that California the state that cries about this and that when it comes to the planet changes it's tune really quick when it comes to water.


So many people think the whole state is desert good thing it is not. Ca is very mountainous with many rivers and forests and lakes.



Approximately 90 percent of California’s water supply is used for agriculture.




California has about 37 million acres of farmland, but more than one-half of this is open range and less then one-third is cropland.

That cattle land is very wasteful.
This is the problem:



Within the State more than 70 percent of the streamflow is generated in the area north of the latitude of Sacramento, while about 80 percent of the water requirements lie south of this line. Thus, distribution of water is a major concern within the State.

www.wrcc.dri.edu...




California is a $2 trillion economy. As many have pointed out, all the calls for urban water conservation seem puzzling. Is it worth squeezing the cities when farms consume 80 percent of the water that people use in California, while they generate only 2 percent of its economic activity?

www.washingtonpost.com... ack/




posted on May, 6 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

California should be allowed to fail.....It is destiny. They built a civilization in the desert and cry and complain about not having enough water all the while wasting what water they do have.



I find it so ironic that California the state that cries about this and that when it comes to the planet changes it's tune really quick when it comes to water.


Really... and this would not affect the USA as a whole? This is the strange ideas that people get. We all are connected if some fail it hurts us all! Foolishness.
As of 2013, California's gross state product (GSP) is about $2.2 trillion



Central Valley, one of the world's most productive agricultural areas. Virtually all of the almonds, artichokes, lemons, pistachios, and processed tomatoes grown in the United States originate from the valley, whose productive soil is unmatched elsewhere in the country. California's spinach yield, for example is 60 percent more per acre than in the rest of the United States. The state's marine climate allows it to grow crops like broccoli that wilt in humid climates. California is the world's fifth-largest supplier of food, a big reason why the state would, if an independent country, be the 7th largest economy in the world.

www.theatlantic.com...



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Char-Lee

So by your reasoning Cali should have plenty of water.....RIGHT. What they are doing is not sustainable and will fail in the future.


They planned wrong and now are crying.....demanding.....stealing......destroying to keep it afloat.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join