The word "Science" is quickly becoming a junk term. What should be the result of careful study and peer-reviewed scrutiny and the very basis for policy, is now nothing more than colorfully packaged ideology nearly always with a pre-determined solution that often drives radical policy or foolish government spending. In times of huge gains in productivity, it's easy to overlook bad policy.

Possibly the best example of this is the supposed "decline" of salmon. Real data exists. Science is possible, but actual science might get in the way of highly impactful dam removal or massive government spending.

For instance, an OPB report on the failure of hatcheries and the supposed decline in salmon over the decades contains many personal stories and bleak reports but few facts and no actual presentation of data.

The hatcheries were supposed to stop the decline of salmon. They haven’t. The numbers of each of the six salmon species native to the Columbia basin have dropped to a fraction of what they once were, and 13 distinct populations are now considered threatened or endangered. Nearly 250 million young salmon, most of them from hatcheries, head to the ocean each year — roughly three times as many as before any dams were built. But the return rate today is less than one-fifth of what it was decades ago. Out of the million salmon eggs fertilized at Carson, only a few thousand will survive their journey to the ocean and return upriver as adults, where they can provide food and income for fishermen or give birth to a new generation.

OPB offers no data to back up their dire reports. There are no counts, no numbers, no trend data. Just alarming reports and bleak predictions. They even admit that there are more salmon. Data be damned -- they have police objectives to achieve.

"Each passing year of poor returns worsens the outlook for salmon. While salmon runs fluctuate from year to year and this year’s returns have been higher than those of the past few years, human-caused climate change continues to warm the ocean and rivers, and the failure to improve salmon survival rates has left the region’s tribes facing a future without either wild or hatchery fish. Federal scientists project that salmon survival will decline by as much as 90% over the next 40 years."

How much higher? It would be nice to see some numbers, or maybe a chart of fish counts over time.

Johanna Chao Kreilick is the president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which -- just by virtue of their name -- should be expected to produce science. Their report on Climate Hot Map: Global Warming Effects Around the World falls short on science. The data is available. Fish counts have been collected on the Columbia river since the early 1960s. Yet, these supposedly scientific papers have little data. Only hyperbole and dire predictions.

Human activities such as dam building, logging, pollution, and overfishing have already depressed salmon populations in the Northwest to historically low levels. Many salmon species are classified as threatened or endangered. Salmon populations in the Columbia River system are down more than 90 percent, and most wild Pacific salmon are either extinct or imperiled in more than half the range they once occupied in the Northwest and California. Climate change imposes stresses on salmon throughout their lifecycle."

The data in the chart below is simple. The conclusions are clear and obvious. There is no need for complex analysis. Fish counts at Bonneville dam fluctuate over the decades, but there is no negative trend. In fact, the total quantity of fish seems to have increased around the turn of the century. Is there no scientist that can recognize this? Conclusions and causes fly off the page. Data is slim or threadbare. It's frightening to think that this is how policy gets made. Again, the data is available to do the science.


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2022-05-29 12:07:56

Last Update: 2022-05-29 13:54:08