• Re: 25 Classic Books That Have Been Banned

    From Don@3:633/280.2 to All on Wed Aug 27 12:42:15 2025
    The Horny Goat wrote:
    Scott Lurndal wrote:

    Some Gazans may, indeed support Hamas. You'll need to support
    your assertion that "all" Gazans do.

    Obviously ALL Gazans aren't going to do anything but the whole reason
    for the current angst is that when it comes to food aid to Gaza there
    are two groups: (1) the UNRRA/UN group which delivers their food aid
    to HAMAS who then sells it to Gazans (it's claimed at inflated prices
    which I can't verify) but uses the proceeds to pay their troops etc
    for what was SUPPOSED to (by donors) to be for FREE distribution to
    Gazans, and the pro-Israeli group which refuses to deal with HAMAS and refuses to sell anything - it's strictly given away.

    The problem is NOT lack of food - the Israelis say they are currently delivering to Gaza roughly twice what they gave before 7 Oct 2023 -
    but rather distribution.

    And the fact that HAMAS is selling food that is supposed to be freely
    given is utterly shameful.

    Bottom line is why is Israel giving ANYTHING? In WW2 America, Britain
    and the other Allied countries were very generous to Germans but NOT
    until after the Germans had surrendered. HAMAS is still fighting and
    holding hostages so why is Israel giving them anything? Gaza can have
    peace any time HAMAS wants it - thus far they DON'T - and it's NOT
    "genocide" for the Israelis to withhold food aid before there's a
    ceasefire. It seems to me all the Israelis giving them food now is
    extending the war not shortening it.

    On July 17, 2025 the Jews massacred Palestinian-Catholics at the Holy
    Family Church in Gaza:

    <https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/265389/latin-patriarchate-confirms-holy-family-church-in-gaza-hit-damage-and-injuries-reported>

    On August 18, 2025 the Jews ordered Palestinian-Catholic survivors at
    the Holy Family Church in Gaza on a death march:

    <https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/266179/patriarchates-of-jerusalem-forced-evacuation-of-gaza-city-is-a-death-sentence>

    --
    Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. veritas _|_ telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. liberabit |
    tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' vos |


    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The Horny Goat@3:633/280.2 to All on Mon Sep 1 14:15:38 2025
    On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 08:57:04 -0700, Paul S Person
    <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    As has Washington <>

    "Hatcheries have operated in Washington State for more than a century, >beginning with a facility on the Kalama River in 1895."

    I should know the answer to this given my father and grandfather were
    in the fishing industry but how far south does the Pacific Salmon go?
    I know it exists in Puget Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca but
    does it go as far south as the mouth of the Columbia River? (Which for non-"northwesters" is the WA/OR boundary between Portland and the sea)

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Easynews - www.easynews.com (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Robert Woodward@3:633/280.2 to All on Mon Sep 1 15:01:28 2025
    In article <hb7abk1il9c8n7761r3ihoa4l68kvvcc0p@4ax.com>,
    The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

    On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 08:57:04 -0700, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    As has Washington <>

    "Hatcheries have operated in Washington State for more than a century, >beginning with a facility on the Kalama River in 1895."

    I should know the answer to this given my father and grandfather were
    in the fishing industry but how far south does the Pacific Salmon go?
    I know it exists in Puget Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca but
    does it go as far south as the mouth of the Columbia River? (Which for non-"northwesters" is the WA/OR boundary between Portland and the sea)

    IIRC, the Columbia (before the dams) was THE salmon fishery on the west
    coast. My brief research in Wikipedia articles indicate that the
    Sacramento River (which empties into San Francisco Bay) and other rivers between it and the Columbia have (or had) salmon fisheries.

    --
    "We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
    Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_. -------------------------------------------------------
    Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: home user (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Paul S Person@3:633/280.2 to All on Tue Sep 2 01:34:24 2025
    On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 21:15:38 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
    wrote:

    On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 08:57:04 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    As has Washington <>

    "Hatcheries have operated in Washington State for more than a century, >>beginning with a facility on the Kalama River in 1895."

    I should know the answer to this given my father and grandfather were
    in the fishing industry but how far south does the Pacific Salmon go?
    I know it exists in Puget Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca but
    does it go as far south as the mouth of the Columbia River? (Which for >non-"northwesters" is the WA/OR boundary between Portland and the sea)

    My understanding has always been that the "fish ladders" around the
    dams on the Columbia were put in for the salmon.

    This wasn't sentimentality: the salmon fishery is a /major/ part of
    the economy. Keeping the runs going was vital.
    --=20
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The Horny Goat@3:633/10 to All on Tue Sep 2 13:20:00 2025
    On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 22:01:28 -0700, Robert Woodward
    <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

    IIRC, the Columbia (before the dams) was THE salmon fishery on the west >coast. My brief research in Wikipedia articles indicate that the
    Sacramento River (which empties into San Francisco Bay) and other rivers >between it and the Columbia have (or had) salmon fisheries.

    My grandfather was fishing the Fraser and Vancouver Island coast as
    early as 1930 - and it was a pretty large fishery at least until Judge
    Boldt essentially single-handedly killed the West Coast salmon fishery
    by his ruling that ash-canned the Canada-US salmon treaty (which was
    about dividing the salmon fishery) by ruling that since Washington
    state native tribes had failed to catch "their share" of the catch for
    that year could go on fishing (even though the US share of the catch
    had ALREADY been caught in full that year) until they had caught the
    percentage of the US catch meaning that in that particular year his
    ruling meant the US was fishing 20-25% more than they were allowed to
    by treaty - which started the salmon on a death spiral in terms of
    numbers.

    There's a reason why most Canadians who have been involved in the
    salmon fishery feel the same way about Boldt the way extreme Kamala
    Harris supporters feel about Trump.

    (A big part of the problem is the ocean currents around WA / BC / AK
    where salmon who spawn in Canadian rivers get their via either the
    Straits of Juan de Fuca (which is the straight between Washington
    state and Vancouver Island) and further north in the waters between
    the Alaska panhandle and the Queen Charlotte Islands to reach their
    spawning grounds in British Columbia)

    Bottom line is the best way to exterminate a fishery is to over-fish
    it for 10-20 years at a rate of 20-25% above a sustainable rate.

    === Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
    --- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux
    * Origin: ---:- FTN<->UseNet Gate -:--- (3:633/10)
  • From The Horny Goat@3:633/10 to All on Tue Sep 2 13:21:43 2025
    On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 14:41:28 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
    wrote:

    Pacific salmon runs reach central california. The Klamath, near
    the Oregon/California border, is noted for salmon. The Sacramento river, >(Golden Gate) has four annual chinook runs. Further south, the Pajaro river has
    mainly steelhead, although there are historic records of Chinook
    being caught (Pajaro is at the center of Monterey Bay).

    Given I spent my first 5 years in the Bay Area I'm astonished by
    maternal grandfather (who fished off BC for 30+ years before running a
    cannery / frozen fish operation) didn't discuss this with me

    === Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
    --- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux
    * Origin: ---:- FTN<->UseNet Gate -:--- (3:633/10)
  • From The Horny Goat@3:633/10 to All on Tue Sep 2 13:22:46 2025
    On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 08:34:24 -0700, Paul S Person
    <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    My understanding has always been that the "fish ladders" around the
    dams on the Columbia were put in for the salmon.

    This wasn't sentimentality: the salmon fishery is a /major/ part of
    the economy. Keeping the runs going was vital.

    Absolutely - which is why I've said Judge Boldt is so hated for what
    may or may not have been a legal decision but was environmentally
    catastrophic.

    === Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
    --- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux
    * Origin: ---:- FTN<->UseNet Gate -:--- (3:633/10)
  • From scott@3:633/10 to All on Tue Sep 2 21:11:59 2025
    The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
    On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 08:34:24 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    My understanding has always been that the "fish ladders" around the
    dams on the Columbia were put in for the salmon.

    This wasn't sentimentality: the salmon fishery is a /major/ part of
    the economy. Keeping the runs going was vital.

    Absolutely - which is why I've said Judge Boldt is so hated for what
    may or may not have been a legal decision but was environmentally >catastrophic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Washington

    It appears that Judge Boldt simply upheld the treaties. Hard to hate
    a man for doing the correct thing.

    "Furthermore, the court also held the state could regulate
    the Indian tribes' exercise of their treaty rights but only
    to ensure the "perpetuation of a run or of a species of fish."[74]

    To regulate the tribes, the state must be able to show that
    conservation could not be achieved by regulating only the non-Indians,
    must not discriminate against the tribes, and must use appropriate due process.[75]

    It's not clear to me how that decision was "environmentally catastrophic".

    === Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
    --- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux
    * Origin: ---:- FTN<->UseNet Gate -:--- (3:633/10)
  • From Paul S Person@3:633/10 to All on Wed Sep 3 08:00:53 2025
    On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 13:20:00 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
    wrote:
    On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 22:01:28 -0700, Robert Woodward
    <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

    IIRC, the Columbia (before the dams) was THE salmon fishery on the west >>coast. My brief research in Wikipedia articles indicate that the >>Sacramento River (which empties into San Francisco Bay) and other rivers >>between it and the Columbia have (or had) salmon fisheries.

    My grandfather was fishing the Fraser and Vancouver Island coast as
    early as 1930 - and it was a pretty large fishery at least until Judge
    Boldt essentially single-handedly killed the West Coast salmon fishery
    by his ruling that ash-canned the Canada-US salmon treaty (which was
    about dividing the salmon fishery) by ruling that since Washington
    state native tribes had failed to catch "their share" of the catch for
    that year could go on fishing (even though the US share of the catch
    had ALREADY been caught in full that year) until they had caught the >percentage of the US catch meaning that in that particular year his
    ruling meant the US was fishing 20-25% more than they were allowed to
    by treaty - which started the salmon on a death spiral in terms of
    numbers.

    There's a reason why most Canadians who have been involved in the
    salmon fishery feel the same way about Boldt the way extreme Kamala
    Harris supporters feel about Trump.

    (A big part of the problem is the ocean currents around WA / BC / AK
    where salmon who spawn in Canadian rivers get their via either the
    Straits of Juan de Fuca (which is the straight between Washington
    state and Vancouver Island) and further north in the waters between
    the Alaska panhandle and the Queen Charlotte Islands to reach their
    spawning grounds in British Columbia)

    Bottom line is the best way to exterminate a fishery is to over-fish
    it for 10-20 years at a rate of 20-25% above a sustainable rate.
    Sounds like the treaty should have included a few more parties than
    just two.
    This is, of course, a common error, and not just in the past.
    --
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

    === Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
    --- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux
    * Origin: ---:- FTN<->UseNet Gate -:--- (3:633/10)
  • From Paul S Person@3:633/10 to All on Wed Sep 3 08:06:53 2025
    On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 21:11:59 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
    wrote:
    The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
    On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 08:34:24 -0700, Paul S Person >><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    My understanding has always been that the "fish ladders" around the
    dams on the Columbia were put in for the salmon.

    This wasn't sentimentality: the salmon fishery is a /major/ part of
    the economy. Keeping the runs going was vital.

    Absolutely - which is why I've said Judge Boldt is so hated for what
    may or may not have been a legal decision but was environmentally >>catastrophic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Washington

    It appears that Judge Boldt simply upheld the treaties. Hard to hate
    a man for doing the correct thing.

    "Furthermore, the court also held the state could regulate
    the Indian tribes' exercise of their treaty rights but only
    to ensure the "perpetuation of a run or of a species of fish."[74]

    To regulate the tribes, the state must be able to show that
    conservation could not be achieved by regulating only the non-Indians,
    must not discriminate against the tribes, and must use appropriate due process.[75]

    It's not clear to me how that decision was "environmentally catastrophic".
    The devil, I suppose, is, as always, in the details.
    This whole topic reeks of the "everything was find until someone
    decided those non-white people had rights" syndrome.
    I suppose it could also have been viewed as shock at the very concept
    that treaties made with the First Nations were actually enforceable in
    court against white people.
    --
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

    === Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
    --- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux
    * Origin: ---:- FTN<->UseNet Gate -:--- (3:633/10)
  • From kludge@3:633/10 to All on Wed Sep 3 12:36:41 2025
    Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
    The devil, I suppose, is, as always, in the details.

    This whole topic reeks of the "everything was find until someone
    decided those non-white people had rights" syndrome.

    I suppose it could also have been viewed as shock at the very concept
    that treaties made with the First Nations were actually enforceable in
    court against white people.


    "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and
    six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure
    twenty pounds ought and six, result misery"
    -- Charles Dickens, David Copperfield


    The difference between sustainable fishing and unsustainable fishing is
    only a very few fish.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

    === Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
    --- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux
    * Origin: ---:- FTN<->UseNet Gate -:--- (3:633/10)
  • From Paul S Person@3:633/10 to All on Thu Sep 4 07:56:38 2025
    On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 12:36:41 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
    Dorsey) wrote:
    Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
    The devil, I suppose, is, as always, in the details.

    This whole topic reeks of the "everything was find until someone
    decided those non-white people had rights" syndrome.

    I suppose it could also have been viewed as shock at the very concept
    that treaties made with the First Nations were actually enforceable in >>court against white people.


    "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and
    six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery"
    -- Charles Dickens, David Copperfield


    The difference between sustainable fishing and unsustainable fishing is
    only a very few fish.
    And, if we (USA) were smart, the non-tribal take allowed in subsequent
    years would have been (or, perhaps, actually was) reduced so that the
    total take remained the same.
    Result: no overfishing. At least, none from the Boldt decision.
    Which means that blaming Boldt for overfishing is just more squealing
    from the piggies.
    And, while Dickens is correct, the applicability of the statement here
    is ... unclear.
    --
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

    === Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
    --- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux
    * Origin: ---:- FTN<->UseNet Gate -:--- (3:633/10)
  • From The Horny Goat@3:633/10 to All on Tue Sep 9 19:20:03 2025
    From: lcraver@home.ca

    On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 21:11:59 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
    wrote:

    The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
    On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 08:34:24 -0700, Paul S Person >><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    My understanding has always been that the "fish ladders" around the
    dams on the Columbia were put in for the salmon.

    This wasn't sentimentality: the salmon fishery is a /major/ part of
    the economy. Keeping the runs going was vital.

    Absolutely - which is why I've said Judge Boldt is so hated for what
    may or may not have been a legal decision but was environmentally >>catastrophic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Washington

    It appears that Judge Boldt simply upheld the treaties. Hard to hate
    a man for doing the correct thing.

    "Furthermore, the court also held the state could regulate
    the Indian tribes' exercise of their treaty rights but only
    to ensure the "perpetuation of a run or of a species of fish."[74]

    To regulate the tribes, the state must be able to show that
    conservation could not be achieved by regulating only the non-Indians,
    must not discriminate against the tribes, and must use appropriate due process.[75]

    It's not clear to me how that decision was "environmentally catastrophic".

    Had Judge Boldt made his ruling to take effect with the beginning of
    the NEXT salmon run he would have allowed the fishery to continue
    long-term. But no question the argument WAS made before the judge that
    the maximum number of fish for that season had already been caught and
    that giving an order allowing / encouraging more the the maximum fish
    catch that was sustainable without destroying the fishery long term
    would be the result of allowing fishing of more than that.

    He WAS advised of the practical effect of the latter option yet he
    went ahead and chose that alternative for his order - and given the
    majority of the fish he allowed to be caught spawned in Canadian
    rivers after swimming through US waters he not only saved the American
    share of the salmon fishery but the Canadian share as well.

    I stand by my original claim that at least in Canada few people who
    remember what Boldt did (i.e. destroying 80-90% of what used to be a
    thriving fishery) remember him with any fondness nor respect.

    --- SoupGate-Linux v1.05
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair ---:- FidoNet<>Usenet Gateway -:--- (3:633/10)
  • From The Horny Goat@3:633/10 to psperson@old.netcom.invalid on Tue Sep 9 19:23:25 2025
    From: lcraver@home.ca

    On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 08:00:53 -0700, Paul S Person
    <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    Bottom line is the best way to exterminate a fishery is to over-fish
    it for 10-20 years at a rate of 20-25% above a sustainable rate.

    Sounds like the treaty should have included a few more parties than
    just two.

    International treaties are usually made with 2 or more nations
    involved. In this case the fish predominantly (that's an exaggeration
    but 40-50% anyhow) spawned in Canadian territory having swum through
    US waters.

    However BC issues tend to get ignored in Ottawa and there's an old
    joke that Ottawa is 3000 miles from Vancouver but Vancouver is 30000
    miles from Ottawa. And in terms of perception that's if anything an understatement.

    --- SoupGate-Linux v1.05
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair ---:- FidoNet<>Usenet Gateway -:--- (3:633/10)
  • From The Horny Goat@3:633/10 to psperson@old.netcom.invalid on Tue Sep 9 19:25:01 2025
    From: lcraver@home.ca

    On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 08:06:53 -0700, Paul S Person
    <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    The devil, I suppose, is, as always, in the details.

    This whole topic reeks of the "everything was find until someone
    decided those non-white people had rights" syndrome.

    I suppose it could also have been viewed as shock at the very concept
    that treaties made with the First Nations were actually enforceable in
    court against white people.

    My whole point is that if Boldt had made his order effective with the
    start of the next fishing season we would still have a commercial
    fishery. What he DID do had the practical effect of destroying 80-90%
    of a commercially important industry.

    --- SoupGate-Linux v1.05
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair ---:- FidoNet<>Usenet Gateway -:--- (3:633/10)
  • From The Horny Goat@3:633/10 to psperson@old.netcom.invalid on Tue Sep 9 19:26:49 2025
    From: lcraver@home.ca

    On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 07:56:38 -0700, Paul S Person
    <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    And, if we (USA) were smart, the non-tribal take allowed in subsequent
    years would have been (or, perhaps, actually was) reduced so that the
    total take remained the same.

    Result: no overfishing. At least, none from the Boldt decision.

    That was my whole point and I've been wondering when somebody would
    point that out.

    Incidentally tribal fisheries have been a factor in the Canadian share
    of the fishery as well - but legally Canadian and American Indian
    communities are totally different in law.

    --- SoupGate-Linux v1.05
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair ---:- FidoNet<>Usenet Gateway -:--- (3:633/10)
  • From Paul S Person@3:633/10 to All on Wed Sep 10 07:56:58 2025
    From: psperson@old.netcom.invalid

    On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 19:23:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
    wrote:

    On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 08:00:53 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    Bottom line is the best way to exterminate a fishery is to over-fish
    it for 10-20 years at a rate of 20-25% above a sustainable rate.

    Sounds like the treaty should have included a few more parties than
    just two.

    International treaties are usually made with 2 or more nations
    involved. In this case the fish predominantly (that's an exaggeration
    but 40-50% anyhow) spawned in Canadian territory having swum through
    US waters.

    So the Indian Nations were ignored?
    --
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

    --- SoupGate-Linux v1.05
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair ---:- FidoNet<>Usenet Gateway -:--- (3:633/10)
  • From Paul S Person@3:633/10 to All on Wed Sep 10 08:09:49 2025
    From: psperson@old.netcom.invalid

    On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 19:20:03 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
    wrote:

    On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 21:11:59 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
    wrote:

    The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
    On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 08:34:24 -0700, Paul S Person >>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    My understanding has always been that the "fish ladders" around the >>>>dams on the Columbia were put in for the salmon.

    This wasn't sentimentality: the salmon fishery is a /major/ part of
    the economy. Keeping the runs going was vital.

    Absolutely - which is why I've said Judge Boldt is so hated for what
    may or may not have been a legal decision but was environmentally >>>catastrophic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Washington

    It appears that Judge Boldt simply upheld the treaties. Hard to hate
    a man for doing the correct thing.

    "Furthermore, the court also held the state could regulate
    the Indian tribes' exercise of their treaty rights but only
    to ensure the "perpetuation of a run or of a species of fish."[74]

    To regulate the tribes, the state must be able to show that
    conservation could not be achieved by regulating only the non-Indians,
    must not discriminate against the tribes, and must use appropriate due process.[75]

    It's not clear to me how that decision was "environmentally catastrophic".

    Had Judge Boldt made his ruling to take effect with the beginning of
    the NEXT salmon run he would have allowed the fishery to continue
    long-term. But no question the argument WAS made before the judge that
    the maximum number of fish for that season had already been caught and
    that giving an order allowing / encouraging more the the maximum fish
    catch that was sustainable without destroying the fishery long term
    would be the result of allowing fishing of more than that.

    He WAS advised of the practical effect of the latter option yet he
    went ahead and chose that alternative for his order - and given the
    majority of the fish he allowed to be caught spawned in Canadian
    rivers after swimming through US waters he not only saved the American
    share of the salmon fishery but the Canadian share as well.

    I stand by my original claim that at least in Canada few people who
    remember what Boldt did (i.e. destroying 80-90% of what used to be a
    thriving fishery) remember him with any fondness nor respect.

    Sadly, I my incompetence at search engines prevents me from finding
    anything like, say, a chart showing salmon industry takes over the
    past 50 years.

    "Collapse" brings up various disasters such as an Atlantic salmon
    fishery failing to retain its fish. "Boldt decision" mostly brings up
    articles about the fishing wars that preceded it.

    And I find it hard to believe that just one season would do this.

    From <https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/the-salmon-life-cycle.htm>

    "While some salmon remain in coastal water, others migrate northward
    to feedings grounds. Salmon may spend one to seven years in the ocean.
    Certain species have more flexible life history strategies, while
    others are more rigid. Chum may spend up to seven years at sea, but
    typically four. Pink salmon, on the other hand, spend a fixed 18
    months at sea. Sockeye typically spend two years at sea, coho spend
    about 18 months, and chinook can spend up to 8 years before journeying
    back to their natal streams to spawn."

    I would expect to see some reduction over the next up-to-seven years,
    depending on exactly /what/ was overfished. Total disappearance of all
    fish seems unlikely.
    --
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

    --- SoupGate-Linux v1.05
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair ---:- FidoNet<>Usenet Gateway -:--- (3:633/10)
  • From The Horny Goat@3:633/10 to psperson@old.netcom.invalid on Mon Sep 15 14:25:49 2025
    From: lcraver@home.ca

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 07:56:58 -0700, Paul S Person
    <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 19:23:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
    wrote:

    On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 08:00:53 -0700, Paul S Person >><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    Bottom line is the best way to exterminate a fishery is to over-fish
    it for 10-20 years at a rate of 20-25% above a sustainable rate.

    Sounds like the treaty should have included a few more parties than
    just two.

    International treaties are usually made with 2 or more nations
    involved. In this case the fish predominantly (that's an exaggeration
    but 40-50% anyhow) spawned in Canadian territory having swum through
    US waters.

    So the Indian Nations were ignored?

    At least in Canada native 'nations' deal with the federal government.

    No they do NOT deal with foreign nations - and there would definitely
    be national security issues if they attempted to deal directly with
    Putin or Xi.

    --- SoupGate-Linux v1.05
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair ---:- FidoNet<>Usenet Gateway -:--- (3:633/10)
  • From The Horny Goat@3:633/10 to psperson@old.netcom.invalid on Mon Sep 15 14:33:04 2025
    From: lcraver@home.ca

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:09:49 -0700, Paul S Person
    <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    Sadly, I my incompetence at search engines prevents me from finding
    anything like, say, a chart showing salmon industry takes over the
    past 50 years.

    "Collapse" brings up various disasters such as an Atlantic salmon
    fishery failing to retain its fish. "Boldt decision" mostly brings up >articles about the fishing wars that preceded it.

    I got a flier from my Member of Parliament today triumphantly
    announcing Canadian salmon catches were at record levels and praising
    open net "farms" for turning the tide.

    My concern is that previously fish farms have been using Atlantic
    salmon on closed containment "farms" on the west coast, the issue
    being that while "farmed" Pacific salmon are indistinguishable from
    "wild" (ie you can't tell the difference when they're in the open
    ocean as opposed to net containment) allowing open net "farming" of
    Atlantic salmon in west coast waters is dangerous as the Atlantic and
    Pacific species are quite distinct but definitely inter-fertile - and
    given the different west coast species have distinct "salmon runs"
    (e.g. when they return from the ocean to spawn) all kinds of bad
    things can happen with hybrid Atlantic / Pacific fish.

    I understand the economic case for fish farms of the Atlantic type on
    the west coast but biologically it's sketchy at best.

    That's my last comment on the west coast fishery unless there's a
    specific question. Note that there is "closed containment farming"
    where the ponds are inland with no access to the open sea. That's a
    horse of a totally different color since there's no risk of
    inter-breeding.

    --- SoupGate-Linux v1.05
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair ---:- FidoNet<>Usenet Gateway -:--- (3:633/10)
  • From Paul S Person@3:633/10 to All on Tue Sep 16 10:46:56 2025
    From: psperson@old.netcom.invalid

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 14:25:49 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
    wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 07:56:58 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 19:23:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
    wrote:

    On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 08:00:53 -0700, Paul S Person >>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    Bottom line is the best way to exterminate a fishery is to over-fish >>>>>it for 10-20 years at a rate of 20-25% above a sustainable rate.

    Sounds like the treaty should have included a few more parties than >>>>just two.

    International treaties are usually made with 2 or more nations
    involved. In this case the fish predominantly (that's an exaggeration
    but 40-50% anyhow) spawned in Canadian territory having swum through
    US waters.

    So the Indian Nations were ignored?

    At least in Canada native 'nations' deal with the federal government.

    No they do NOT deal with foreign nations - and there would definitely
    be national security issues if they attempted to deal directly with
    Putin or Xi.

    They don't here, either, but they are clearly involved in the fishing
    industry.

    My point was that the treaty did not include all the people affected.
    It only included all the /white/ people affected.

    And Boldt may have acted as he did in response to the US Government's
    failure to recognize the Indian Nations' treaty rights for some time
    in the past. He may have felt that delaying the implementation would
    encourage future abuses while having to do it at once despite the
    consequences would make the US Government take it's treaty obligations seriously for a change.

    Unravelling the multifaceted world of institutional racism was and is
    an effort fraught with difficulty.
    --
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

    --- SoupGate-Linux v1.05
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair ---:- FidoNet<>Usenet Gateway -:--- (3:633/10)
  • From Paul S Person@3:633/10 to All on Tue Sep 16 10:53:38 2025
    From: psperson@old.netcom.invalid

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 14:33:04 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
    wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:09:49 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    Sadly, I my incompetence at search engines prevents me from finding >>anything like, say, a chart showing salmon industry takes over the
    past 50 years.

    "Collapse" brings up various disasters such as an Atlantic salmon
    fishery failing to retain its fish. "Boldt decision" mostly brings up >>articles about the fishing wars that preceded it.

    I got a flier from my Member of Parliament today triumphantly
    announcing Canadian salmon catches were at record levels and praising
    open net "farms" for turning the tide.

    My concern is that previously fish farms have been using Atlantic
    salmon on closed containment "farms" on the west coast, the issue
    being that while "farmed" Pacific salmon are indistinguishable from
    "wild" (ie you can't tell the difference when they're in the open
    ocean as opposed to net containment) allowing open net "farming" of
    Atlantic salmon in west coast waters is dangerous as the Atlantic and
    Pacific species are quite distinct but definitely inter-fertile - and
    given the different west coast species have distinct "salmon runs"
    (e.g. when they return from the ocean to spawn) all kinds of bad
    things can happen with hybrid Atlantic / Pacific fish.

    I understand the economic case for fish farms of the Atlantic type on
    the west coast but biologically it's sketchy at best.

    The articles on the "collapse" of an Atlantic salmon fish-farm
    reflected the same concerns. It is possible that those running the
    farms are in for a bumpy ride, administratively speaking, if this was
    recent enough.

    Well, unless the relevant regulators were all DOGEd, of course.

    That's my last comment on the west coast fishery unless there's a
    specific question. Note that there is "closed containment farming"
    where the ponds are inland with no access to the open sea. That's a
    horse of a totally different color since there's no risk of
    inter-breeding.

    No need to reply to the above. It actually supports your position on
    the Atlantic/Pacific problem.

    IIRC, Northern Pacific pollack are facing a similar problem
    (Atlantic/Pacific mixing), but this has more to do with the melting of
    the Polar Ice Cap, which has apparently opened the Northwest Passage
    some early explorers died trying to find.

    No need to reply to that either. It merely amplifies your point to
    another sort of fish.
    --
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

    --- SoupGate-Linux v1.05
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair ---:- FidoNet<>Usenet Gateway -:--- (3:633/10)
  • From The Horny Goat@3:633/10 to psperson@old.netcom.invalid on Thu Sep 18 17:56:11 2025
    From: lcraver@home.ca

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 10:46:56 -0700, Paul S Person
    <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 14:25:49 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
    wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 07:56:58 -0700, Paul S Person >><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 19:23:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> >>>wrote:

    On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 08:00:53 -0700, Paul S Person >>>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    Bottom line is the best way to exterminate a fishery is to over-fish >>>>>>it for 10-20 years at a rate of 20-25% above a sustainable rate.

    Sounds like the treaty should have included a few more parties than >>>>>just two.

    International treaties are usually made with 2 or more nations >>>>involved. In this case the fish predominantly (that's an exaggeration >>>>but 40-50% anyhow) spawned in Canadian territory having swum through
    US waters.

    So the Indian Nations were ignored?

    At least in Canada native 'nations' deal with the federal government.

    No they do NOT deal with foreign nations - and there would definitely
    be national security issues if they attempted to deal directly with
    Putin or Xi.

    They don't here, either, but they are clearly involved in the fishing >industry.

    No argument there

    My point was that the treaty did not include all the people affected.
    It only included all the /white/ people affected.

    Here I very strongly disagree - the net result of the Boldt decision
    was to reduce Salmon stocks on both sides of the border by more than
    50%. That impacts both native and non-native fishermen. Absolutely no
    question about it.

    And Boldt may have acted as he did in response to the US Government's
    failure to recognize the Indian Nations' treaty rights for some time
    in the past. He may have felt that delaying the implementation would >encourage future abuses while having to do it at once despite the >consequences would make the US Government take it's treaty obligations >seriously for a change.

    Unravelling the multifaceted world of institutional racism was and is
    an effort fraught with difficulty.

    As I say had he simply made the implementation date of his order the
    start of the following fishing season rather than immediately there
    would still be a commercial salmon fishery in Washington state and
    British Columbia.

    There are few people in this world who have singlehanded reduced a
    species dramatically but that judge is one.

    Anyhow I appreciate this is off the topic of science fiction so will
    get back to the subject.

    For instance I've just found that Spider Robinson has moved fairly
    close to where I grew up and still live. Unfortunately he and I share
    our marital status though Jeannie Robinson has been gone 15 years,
    mine only three.

    --- SoupGate-Linux v1.05
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair ---:- FidoNet<>Usenet Gateway -:--- (3:633/10)