Fast Track Completion of the Columbia Basin Project by 2022 - Save Our Salmon & Dams / FFFA
                   GLEN R STOCKWELL  PROMOTER OF  - Fast Track Completion of the Columbia Basin Project by 2022
   The Washington State Democratic Party
                    The People's Party of;
         "Great New Ideas"  &  "ACTION"!
                         New FFFA Project
   New National Drift Net Legislation Laws
                            Introduced by
      Congressman Elect Glen R. Stockwell
              Rogue River Dam Removal
Elwah River Dam Removal
                  Due 2012
                 (A GREAT NEW DEMOCRATIC IDEA)
                           BY GLEN R. STOCKWELL      
                         (A ROOSEVELT DEMOCRAT)
New Proposed FFFA 
(Future Fish Farmers of America) Project.
    Glen discussed a new program while he was with
Governor Gregoire's Senior Adviser on January 14, 2009. 
Due to the 8.9 Billion Dollar budget deficit, the
Department of fisheries was suppose to close 8 State
     Glen explained he had a new usage for the site's if they
were available, and if they weren't he had other locations
for a new program he was asking Governor Gregoire to
help support (FFFA).
     While Glen was in Washington DC delivering his
"Columbia Basin Phased Completion Proposal" to
President Obama, Senator Murray, Congressman
Doc Hastings, Congressman Adam Smith, and others. 
     He learned Senator Murray and Congressman Doc
Hastings had acquired 80 million dollars for Salmon
Restoration projects. 
     He is currently discussing this project with Representa-
tives in Washington DC, Olympia, and also other project
     Glen has commercial fished from Northern Oregon to
Southeast Alaska! 
     He will be trying to join forces with Salmon advocates to
refocus on the real problem causing Salmon shortages
"Ocean Drift Nets", not Our Dams!  Ocean Drift Nets are
placed in open Oceans, and have grown from 2 to 3 mile
long nets to 40 mile long and 50 miles wide today.   There
are additional Reports of 100 mile long nets currently in
use today.
Earth TalkDestructive Driftnet Fishing
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk:
Is it true that some commercial fishing nets are 40 miles
long? I heard a TV commentator accuse fishing fleets of
"strip-mining the oceans." If their nets are really that large,
it certainly sounds like that's what is happening!
-- B. Johnson, Port Chester, NY
Considered the most destructive fishing technology ever devised, commercial
"drift netting" involves vertically suspending near-transparent nylon nets in ocean waters with floats attached to the top and weights fixed to the bottom. Some are known to be as much as 50 miles wide, with a vertical height of about 50 feet deep.
Once set, the nets are allowed to drift with the wind and currents (hence the term "drift net") and to snag just about everything in their paths. Drift
netting is considered to be the most efficient way to catch large amounts of
the ocean's biggest fish, including tuna, swordfish, marlin and salmon.
The problem with these gigantic nets is that they don't discriminate between
fish that can be sold for dinner tables and so-called "by-catch"--marine life
not intended for food but which get hauled up anyway and then subsequently
discarded dead back into the ocean. Drift netting is responsible not only for
killing fish that will never be sold commercially, but also for the unnecessary
death of hundreds of thousands of dolphins, seals, whales and sea turtles
every year, despite international agreements outlawing the practice.
Driftnets also sometimes break loose, sailing through the oceans unattended,
"ghost fishing" until they sink to the bottom under the weight of their victims or wash up onshore where they snag seabirds, seals and other unsuspecting wildlife.
First developed by Japan in the 1970s, drift netting quickly caught on
elsewhere and within just a decade scientists began to notice that the practice
was taking a severe toll on marine biodiversity.
Various experiments were conducted that bore out these concerns. A 1989
test using driftnets to catch tuna, for example, killed an average of four and
a half marine mammals in every "set"--one whale or dolphin for every 10
tuna caught. Meanwhile, analysts observed a Japanese boat kill 59 dolphins
and small whales in just 30 sets--a rate of almost two per set.
With commercial fishing fleets legally deploying some 30,000
miles of driftnets around the world daily during the 1980s, the
toll on marine life was no doubt staggering.
The first major effort to stop drift netting was the Wellington Convention,
which was signed in New Zealand in 1989 and put into place a driftnet ban
in the South Pacific. Four years later, the United Nations called for an
international moratorium on the practice.
Meanwhile, in 1992 Russia, Japan and the United States created the
Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific,
banning all driftnets more than 1 1/2 miles in length ("anadromous" refers to
fish like salmon that live in salt water but spawn in fresh water). South Korea
signed on but China did not, though it agreed to let the U.S. Coast Guard help
police its fleet. In 2002, the European Union banned drift netting by its
member countries.
According to Earthtrust, a U.S. nonprofit committed to ending drift netting,
despite such commitments commercial fishing fleets around the world still
deploy tens of thousands of miles of driftnets on a daily basis. While efforts to
stop the practice have no doubt had some effect, drift netting remains one of
the biggest drivers of over-fishing today. As long as demand for tuna, salmon
and other big fish continues, drift netting--illegal or otherwise--is likely to
continue to wreak havoc on the world's marine ecosystems.
Tuesday, August 14, 1990
Huge, super-efficient drift nets of the kind that ignited a storm of international protest in the Pacific Ocean have been spotted for the first time in the Atlantic near the Caribbean, raising fears that Atlantic marine life could be threatened and that commercial and sport fisheries important to the eastern United States could be devastated.The big nets, made of lightweight filament that is largely invisible underwater, are typically released to drift at night on the high seas. They can stretch up to 40 miles, hanging vertically to a depth of about 30 feet, catching fish by their gill covers and trapping marine mammals who are then unable to get to air.Asian fishermen who use them in the Pacific have come under increasing international pressure from critics in many nations who charge that the nets seriously deplete stocks of sought-after commercial fish and indiscriminately trap and kill porpoises, seabirds and a wide variety of fish not sought by the fishermen.  Now Taiwanese using drift nets appear to have moved into the Atlantic, possibly in response to the pressure elsewhere, and the critics fear the nets will threaten populations of large migratory fish like tuna, swordfish, sharks, marlin and sailfish that move through United States waters. A resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly last December called for a worldwide moratorium on high-seas use of drift nets after June 30, 1992, and said that further expansion of the practice should ''cease immediately.''  Damage Could Come in 2 YearsTaiwan is not a United Nations member. Its government reportedly has said it will comply with the U.N. resolution, but this could not be immediately confirmed.. In any event, conservationists say, large-scale use of the nets, could cause much damage in the Atlantic in the next two years.  Jeff Yao, a spokesman for the Coordination Council for North American Affairs, which represents the Taiwanese Government in Washington, said he had no knowledge of any Taiwanese drift net operations in the Atlantic. He said Taiwan's goal was to phase out use of the nets, but that this would take time. Taiwanese fishermen ''understand the importance of the protection of ocean life and also the ocean resource,'' Mr. Yao said. He said he did not know what his country's stance on the U.N. resolution was. ''If those fellows eat up the Atlantic, we've had it,'' said Sid Johnson, the secretary of the Trinidad and Tobago Game Fishing Association, who said he has observed and photographed 15 Taiwanese vessels at the dock in Port of Spain, where he lives.   His report is believed to be the first evidence of the nets in the Western Atlantic-Caribbean region, and it has raised loud alarms among marine conservationists.  The State Department, expressing concern, has asked the Taiwanese government for answers. But Larry Snead, the director of fisheries affairs for the department, said none has so far been forthcoming. Taiwanese using drift nets have also been reported in Atlantic waters off some African nations in the last six months, Mr. Snead said, and still other reports have placed fishermen using the nets in the Indian Ocean.  Fishing Boats From Taiwan  But Mr. Snead said the State Department had been unaware of the reported movement into the western Atlantic until recently.
Photographs provided by Mr. Johnson clearly show fishing boats at the dock whose
markings identify their home port as Kaohsiung, a Taiwanese coastal city. He said he
made the photographs in Port of Spain. American experts who have inspected the
photographs have identified drift nets and other equipment associated with them aboard the boats. ''There's no question about it -that's drift nets'', said David Withrow, a research biologist at the National Marine Mammal Laboratory in Seattle, a branch of the National Marine Fisheries Service, who examined the photographs.   Mr. Withrow has been aboard a number of vessels using drift nets in the Pacific as part of a research project. Mr. Johnson said the Taiwanese vessels were seen in Port of Spain at least twice in the last two months, including the time when he photographed the fleet of 15 boats.  Complaints of Dumping Sharks
Glen will be asking Local FFA chapters, school kids and
Seniors to join in this project. 
If you have a interest in joining please contact Glen at
Insert of letter to Senator Murray's office;
Hello Sarah,
     On the Salmon issue I would like to initiate a new program, and
 work with Senator Murray & Doc Hastings;       
     A new program called "FFFA Future Fish Farmers of America"
for raising Salmon and other endangered species, sponsored by
the FFA.   Also to include other school kids, Indian tribes, and
Senior citizens.       
     I proposed this years ago in the Northwest Council of
Governments, and again January 2009 in Olympia.  I have three
locations with camping facilities adjacent to fish processing
locations.  I will be proposing this again in Spokane this week at a Gonzaga meeting.      
     When I was in Olympia in January of 09, Keith Phillips told me
8 Washington State Hatcheries were scheduled for closure due to
funding problems (I have his email covering this discussions) and
when I was at Senator Murray's coffee in March it was mentioned
she and Doc Hastings worked together and succeeded in obtaining
80 million dollars in Salmon funding.   
New Questions about Grant Monies 
1.  Where were the 80 million dollars sent? 
2.  Are there any monies available for a new project that will
actually raise endangered species, and will save our Dams?     
     At the meeting at Gonzaga last week on the 27th, Sam Mace
from Save Our Wild Salmonsaid "they would consider
withdrawing their request for removing the Snake River Dams",
and working with any new program that would help raise the
Wild Salmon Stocks (genetically we know they are the same). 
     I will include my web page to give you some background on my
proposal to President Obama  Please
discuss my request with Senator Murray, I will also be contacting
and forwarding my request to Doc Hastings also because they
seem to work well together on these issues.
     As Senator Murrays web site says;      Senator Murray believes
that making meaningful reform happen this year will take more
than members of Congress – or even President Obama – calling
for change.  It will take Americans across Washington state and
the nation standing up and demanding it.               
     Sarah, I am looking forward to your responses to my questions. 
I maybe coming back to DC in the near future.  Thank you for
serving OUR country!  
Respectfully Submitted,  
Glen R. Stockwell    
 A Roosevelt Democrat                                         
  President Obama's pannel of advisors has made a Wise 
   Decision and Correct Leadership move in Saving the 
  Dams, and the Salmon!
Habitat plan safeguards dams as well as salmon 
     An agreement between Washington state and three federal agencies to enhance the fish
habitat in the Columbia River estuary cornes at a good time. 
     The $40.5 miliion restoration project signed this week follows Tuesday's news that the
latest plan for restoring endangered wild salmon in the Columbia River drainage includes a
last-resort contingency of breaching dams on the Lower Snake River
     Even tentative conjecture about removing dams touches off jitters inthe Pacific Northwest,
and with good reason. The dams that have been built on the Columbia and Snake rivers over
the past 75 years are essential to our way of life: economy, agriculture, transportation,
recreation, flood control and, above all, electricity.  Renewable, reliable, clean and relatively
cheap electricity.
     Stacked against all those assets, however, the federal Endangered Species Act mandates
that effective steps be taken to restore endangered and threatened species,including the
Northwests revered salmon, whose habitat was largely sacrificed to those dams. 
     Then to save the salmon is to remove dams, but the federal judge in whose, hands .these
decisions likely rest is looking for certainfy that other approaches will succeed. If they don't,
a plan B must be ready."I hope it's never done,', U.S.District Judge James Redden said in
March about dam breaching. ,'I think we can resolve this. But if we can't, that's the last
     Which is exactly the way breaching was described *then the latest plan was unveiled
this week.
     Numerous other strategies are in play first, from managing the region's hydroelectric
facilities for favorable stream flows, to dealing with predators such as sea lions and
lcormorants, to using hatcheries in a safety-net capacity, to restoring fish habitat along the
lower Columbia asa means of improving survival rates during migration. But a plan that
ignores Redden's concerns won't go ,far, so breaching is plan B.
     Which brings us back to the estuary deal signed Wednesday.
     Redden has called habitat,especially estuary habitat, ,,the mostserious flaw,, in the
previous salmon recovery plan. The more that concern is alleviated, the further into the
background the breaching alternative is pushed. 
     Eastern Washington's two Republican House members, Cathy McMorris Rodgers and
Doc Hastings, both focused foremost, however, on dam breaching as if it were being
     Yet Northwest River partners, an Oregon-based alliance of utilities, ports and other river
users that oppose dam breaching said the latest recovery plan ,,holds the most promise for
the region to move forward collectively to do things that actually benefit fish.
     It was American Rivers, an environmentalist organization that insists on removing four
Lower Snake dams, that trashed the new plan most harshly.
     Removing this region's dams would be a serious-mistake. The best way to avoid it is to
get the work of salmon recovery out of the court and back to the river, where the efficancy of
other, less-costly methods can be demonstrated.
                     Glen R. Stockwell  
We hope to see you again! Check back later for new
updates to our website. There's much more to come
Website Builder provided by  Vistaprint