Campbell

Campbell and the other minions who worship the gilded neo-con false god, GDP, don't care about the salmon. The salmon only get in the way of turning every river into a privately owned generator of electricity. They love net-penned salmon. They are short term thinkers and planners. It's like the health care P3s etc., they will let the next gereration worry about the costs: Campbell and his buds have secured their futures with golden handshakes (and quite possibly directorships) that they legislated for themselves.

If this is true....

Quote:

"Campbell and the other minions who worship the gilded neo-con false god, GDP, don't care about the salmon. The salmon only get in the way of turning every river into a privately owned generator of electricity."

Then explain why Plutonic Power gave up on Rainy River.

Hint - it had something to do with salmon

rainy river

Happy,
Below is a link to the press release for the Plutonic sale of the Rainy River RoR rights to a TILMA-"protected" Alberta company.

As there is no real substance to the environmental concerns clause under TILMA, I believe it will be very hard to keep the Albertans from exploiting the River and the Salmon. The company merely sold the rights, the river can still be exploited.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ccn/080213/200802130441918001.html?.v=1

But SIG

Simple question. Is BC part of Tilma? If the answer is yes, then why would Plutonic sell, if the enviromental concerns "hold no water' so to speak.

Want to try a different tack?

But Happy

Why would AltaGas Income Trust buy, if they couldn't make money? A cursory look at their company profile shows that they are a player that makes millions in the energy biz.
http://www.investcom.com/cgi-bin/sredir.cgi?url=http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/incomeStatement?symbol=ALA_U.TO&frame=frame/reuters.html

Did you go to the link I provided in my last post? Plutonic gave their reason for selling in the article. If that is not the reason, then Plutonic is lying. If Plutonic is run by liars, who wants them dealing with the River anyway? You were the one who asked why they would sell; one would assume you did your own research.

Personally, I think your information is based upon hearsay or you have been attempting to develop a straw-dog. If you have other information with which the company was not forthcoming in the sale, then AltaGas Income Trust has a viable position that it could use in a lawsuit against Plutonic.

Just the facts SIG

Quote:
"Personally, I think your information is based upon hearsay or you have been attempting to develop a straw-dog."

And

"You were the one who asked why they would sell; one would assume you did your own research."

I did SIG. You didn't.

From Plutonics own web site.

"A significant issue arising in the environmental permitting process has been the discovery of several fish species including salmon and steelhead, above the project site. The presence of these in addition to resident species in the projects proposed diversion reach were not anticipated and have made obtaining permits exceedingly more difficult.

"Any future actions on Rainy River will take into account the need to address these new complexities. Plutonic is currently reviewing a full range of options for this project," added McInnes.

Actually SIG, you were part right on the heresay, I live in the immediate area and this has been in our local paper (relax,not Canwest) Heres some more heresay - the number of fish that caused Plutonic to back away numbered in the single digits. Thats less rhan ten. This was after three years of jumpimg through regulatory hoops and studies and spending Big bucks to get to that point. You would think Gordo's land rapers should be able to just sweep that minor inconvenience under the rug. Why didn't they?

I see you gave up on the Tilma connection - not that there was one.

but happy

perhaps you have some insider info. You should have come clean with all available info that you have in relation to the story before you ask others to comment upon what you ask. You attempted to set me up, to look foolish. In so doing, you have proven to be a time-waster.

I found the info that Plutonic power published in relation to the sale; either they covering up info with respect to the sale, or they were lying with respect to your info - neither is forthright.

If the fish were as big an issue as you say, then I don't see how the Aberta Company would purchase the RoR rights unless they thought they had TILMA in their court. As Alberta has none of these salmon hurdles to jump and the Albertans are willing to kill the Athabasca River, any fish worry that BC would have is something they can quite probably argue over and win in the courts. If they are not permitted to produce power here like they can in Alberta, then they can likely apply for financial remedy (money they would have been able to make had they been permitted to develop the river). The language dog of TILMA in regards to the environment has no teeth - it doesn't even have a bark. The Alberta company may be able to get remuneration without having to turn on a backhoe.

No insider info SIG, all public

You're the one who made the blanket statement - "The salmon only get in the way of turning every river into a privately owned generator of electricity"

I proved that to be false and you accuse me of wasting your time. Nice!

Not to be content with that, you then accuse Plutonic of lying, because they had the gall to admit that the Regulations regarding fish stocks made Rainy River uneconomical to proceed-which goes completely against what you WANT to believe.

And again, the Tilma angle. I repeat - Plutonic is a BC company. BC is partners with Alberta in Tilma. So how could selling the rights to an Alta company let it skirt around the BC and Federal regulations, when Plutonic itself couldn't. Its the same playing field, right? You're not making any sense.

As for AltaGas, as you pointed out, they are major players. I "speculate" they bought the rights cheap and will sit on them for the long run, seeing what develops with the fish stocks. In the future it "may" be possible to develop the project while protecting the resource. Or maybe not. In which case they're SOL

I can think of a major player that bought three floaty things for pennies on the dollar too, thinking they would sit on them and wait for opportunities to avail themselves. SOL

I speculate, Happy,

it is not the Campbell government holding up the RoR. It isn't often Campbell has caved on anything he wants to go through -even if it is counter to an election promise. Selling the Railway, allowing for the sale of TFL forest Land, selling off most of BC Hydro come to mind and outsourcing companies from outside the province to take care of medical and school records comes to mind. The uproar was too much regarding the Coquihalla or he would have sold that too. His government removed the moratorium on net pen salmon against expert advice and he has allowed the farms to continue in places where they have proven to kill off wild stocks. Also under his government there was the extraction of 400,000 tons of gravel resulting in the loss of up to 1,000,000 salmon eggs. To me, this shows a disregard for salmon. This shows that Campbelll really doesn't care about salmon.

If a local Min. of the Environment office is making people jump hoops, then it is most unusual, and they must be facing extreme public pressure. That Ministry was severely cut back when Campbell took office and they have made changes as to how streams are able to be modified. The Ministry hardly ever does site inspections for "changes in and about a stream (culvert) applications". The applications can be made online and if nobody from the Ministry contacts the applicant within a relatively short period of time, the applicant is allowed to proceed. It is my understanding that it is most unusual for anyone from the Ministry offices to leave the offices to make an inspection. The persons making the changes are supposed to be self-regulating.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/04/19/SalmonKillsMining/

TILMA

Campbell is a privatizer and deregulator. He makes no bones about that. He may as well place a GOP logo beside the BC Liberal logo.

I repeat, under TILMA, an Alberta company is allowed to have use of the environment in BC as though it is Alberta. Companies are not to be hampered by having more regulations when working in the other province. TILMA makes that clear.

The Council of Canadians link (below) will help you understand TILMA. A couple of years back, I personally read everything about the environment included in TILMA and found that environmental protection does not exist in the fine print. I say that BC's environmental laws carry no weight unless they are equal to or less strict than Alberta's. TILMA doesn't come into effect until next year. It will not be until after the election that people start to see how evil the Campbell/Klein accord is.

In the end, under NAFTA, it will mean that whatever a US company can do in Alberta, it can do here - and Campbell wants the entire country to sign on to TILMA! He was recently singing praises about it at the annual Premier's meeting. We could have Saskatchewan laws on Unranium mining, Alberta standards on oil sands oil extraction, and a private electric company monopoly (like Nova Scotia Power) being owned by a US corporation. Anything that has to do with energy under NAFTA takes 20 years to remove unless both countries agree.

http://www.canadians.org/DI/issues/TILMA/factsheet.html

SIG

Thank you for doing your homework, SIG. It is because of comments like yours that the Tyee is such a worthwhile read.

Grade "F"

Back to the books SIG. You don't grasp the fact that provinces, no matter what trade agreements they may negotiate between themselves, CANNOT overide Ottawa. Thats LAW. Thats where your argument comes up short -
Quote: "Also under his government there was the extraction of 400,000 tons of gravel resulting in the loss of up to 1,000,000 salmon eggs."

But from the link you provided -

Quote: "It was pressure over the need for flood control that motivated the DFO to sign a 2004 agreement with Land and Water BC to drastically increase the rate of gravel extraction from the Fraser River"

See. The DFO is the Final Authority in these situations. And many others. Like Rainy river. You can alledge hidden agenda all you want, and try to scare people with Tilma, you can't change the written-in-stone fact Federal Regulations will overide Tilma, just like the Canadian Labour Code overides anything the Provincial Code has in it. No difference. If anything could arouse an Ottawa bureaucrat from their slumber it would be a Prov trying to intrude on their territory.
I'm sure you'd agree with me on that, if nothing else

ME2

Your acknowledgement is greatly appreciated and held in high esteem.

Stay on topic please

I'm not disputing that the DFO fails in their mandate. I never did. But that wasn't the topic.
The topic was Tilma regulations overiding Federal regs, which you alledge is part of the hidden agenda to allow AltaGas to kill fish stocks - not now maybe, but soon.

Nothing you have provided backs this up. So never mind fish farms and the Athabaska river. You say Tilma will allow AltaGas to do whatever they please. I say bull. Show us where in the Coucil of Canadian report Tilma overides Federal regulations. Even if the DFO drops the ball, that doesn't stop ANYONE from lodging a complaint or suing. In my neighborhood the town council tried to block a logging company from legally cutting some wood in the watershed. They lost, and wasted a ton of taxpayer money in the effort, but I think you see my point.

Its a bit much to blame fish stock declines on Gordo. IMO the salmon habitat was wrecked mainly by past logging practices starting in the 1800's and continuing for a hundred years. The NDP, to their credit, in the Forest Practices Code protected rivers from being abused in this fashion. Where it got away from them was creating far too many new regulations, to the point where there were more Ministry employees running around the woods putting coloured ribbons on trees and bushes than there were loggers. If they had kept it simple, which they could have, they wouldn't have driven so many small busniness' to give up

Happy you prove my point

Quote:
"The NDP, to their credit, in the Forest Practices Code protected rivers from being abused in this fashion."

The province can take actions and write legislation that protect fish in BC waters and in BC streams! If the DFO ain't doing it, it is the provinces responsibility! Of course, it is much easier for neocon provincial Liberals to their hands in the air and abrogate their own responsibility to our rivers and ocean while they collect huge political donations from big business. The province can always add good legislation to protect itself, it just can't take away power from the Feds.

And you agree with me too!

"The province can always add good legislation to protect itself, it just can't take away power from the Feds."

Thats what I've been trying to say. That Tilma does not supercede Fed regulations. You insinuated otherwise re AltaGas.

So it all comes back to - why did Plutonic walk from what is supposed to be a licence to print money? You claimed fish have no bearing, all the known evidence, in this case, shows that isn't true.

How about this then - can you show any evidence where any ROR project has been detrimental to native fish stock? If you have objective data I'm all eyes and willing to reconsider my position.

But if all you have is name calling and rants about Gordo and the neocons, don't bother.

"You insinuated otherwise re

"You insinuated otherwise re AltaGas."
I'm sorry, Happy, but you are mistagen, you read into my words information that wasn't there - I wasn't attempting to insinuate anything.

What I have been saying is that as the feds do practically nothing to protect fish and fish habitat, AltaGas can use TILMA to over-ride any BC Legislation in regards to the environment. After all, they are and have been killing the Athabasca River with no intervention by the DFO. It is my belief that unless the DFO is doing the stopping, AltaGas should be able to use TILMA to run roughshod over BC like companies do in Alberta. Since the BC Min. of the Environment (or whatever they call it this week) does not enforce DFO laws, and BC does not often police its own regulations, it is up to citizens and citizen groups to be vigilant. If no one complains the paperwork gets processed and changes are made in and about a stream.

I have studied hydro-electricity production and (objectively) I know that there are many variables involved in the RoR process that can cause damage to fish and fish habitat.

Often as much as 3/4 of a st4reams flow may be diverted through a turbine. Possible problems that may and do occur:
Raise the temperature of the water by seemingly small amounts to unaccepatable levels.
Less oxygen found in the outflow water than would have occured in the stream.
Leaks of oil etc. into the water.
Weir and screen problems that cause juvenile fish to be sucked up into the works.
Pre-intake holding Ponds/channels that allow for many unnatural occurances: warming of water, predator fish, reptiles, amphibians and mammals gain ecosystem advantage.
Deforestation in area of penstock, generator outflow, and powerlines, thus reducing natural ecosystem habitat.
Scour along penstock channels increasing turbidity of the water.
Road-building into remote areas increasing erosion etc.

Personally, I like helical in-stream turbines the best. They can be developed in ways that provide much power. The Lower Fraser can support great numbers of these that (if properly laid) will produce great gobs of power for where it is needed most, the lower mainland. Thaey aren't as efficient as RoR, but they do not damage the environment as much either.

In some cases RoR makes sense. I am not against everything to do with generating hydro-electric power.

Sharing...

I appreciate your reasoned response.

Many of the problems you identify are valid, but that doesn't mean they are happening. You didn't provide a single thing to show they are. On the other hand we have Plutonic Power, after spending three years on development, then finding, and I repeat, less then ten fish, in a river where it was thought the run had been destroyed many, many years ago by the Port Mellon pulp mull - longest operating pulp mill in BC. That says to me the system is working. You stated "The salmon only get in the way of turning every river into a privately owned generator"
I took exception to that with some data that showed that was not true.

Thats all.

All this arguing about Tilma and AltaGas has nothing to do with why Plutonic abandoned Rainy River. If they are so evil and unconcerned about Fed or Provincial regulations how could ten measly fish stop them in their tracks.

Especially when everbody thought there were no fish to sart with.

Happy

When I look at the the effect of the DFO and the Campbell government over the last 7.5 years, I see declining wild fish stocks. This is hugely problematic, as wild fish are one of the healthiest and most efficient ways for humans and wild creatures to get proteins. Pacific salmon are integral to the survival of the Pacific Northwest and Interior ecosystems. They are a key species that bring nitrogen and protein to the forests.

Net pen raised fish are inferior in that they are harmful to wild stocks, require large amounts of antibiotics and they pollute the seabed. Smaller fish that could also be eaten by humans are rapidly being over-fished/depleted in some places to serve as food fish for the net-pen salmon. The net-pen salmon require several pounds of these wild "food" fish to produce one pound of farmed salmon.

We need to do all we can to help wild stocks recover. It would be far wiser for us to eat a smaller amount of the smaller wild "food" fish though we may not find it quite as beautiful and tasty. One other thing that we can do is farm fish in tanks and ponds on land. Talapia, actic char, and some species of perch have proven to be able to be farmed on land quite successfully and more healthily than salmon. Talapia can live on vegetable matter, though they can also eat protein. One good source of protein for Talapia is earthworms, a very easily grown creature that can be part of a good aquaponics operation.

There are a lot more productive ways to save this planet than charging people a gas tax. To save the planet, we need to save as much natural habitat as is possible. Nothing humans make is more beautiful not perfect than nature. Whenever we build anything, over time, nature will destroy and take it back. If that is the case, it is far better to work with nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaponics

SIG

Happy is correct in stating that there are lots of Federal laws to protect citizens re environmental, labour, and trade considerations. There are also plenty of similar Provincial laws as well.

The only problem THERE, as SIG points out, is that we have sitting Federal and Provincial gov'ts which place their priorities upon deregulation and the favouring of business interests over everything else. So,unless the laws are enforced, there may as well be no laws.

SIG gives DFO as an example of this, and surely there isn't a better one (with the sure exception of BC's Ministry of Forests) and Happy reluctantly agrees. But without missing a beat, he then proudly gives us the case where a lousy ten fish prevented a Plutonics RoR project.

Well hoop de doo! Does he then think that if those ten fish may indicate a possibility of the river recovering from the forest industry's depredations, we should feel sorry for Plutonic and its "loss"?

Rather, we should feel grateful to those technicians who honestly reported the presence of the fish, and the ever decreasing few in DFO still willing to push such issues. A few more regimes like Harper and Campbell's, and they'll all have been quietly weeded out - gone.

We have seen this in operation with Campbell's placing of biostitutes on a salmon-farming advisory board, and have read the recent Tyee story detailng how it is possible to get ALR land freed up by using selected professionals.

So Happy can rest assured that if it wasn't for a few ethical professionals, who are backed up by the presence of too many citizens like SIG who are willing to study the regulations and are ready to scream like hell when they see them broken or abused, his so costly ten fish would never have been counted.

The only bright spot that I can see is that it appears that finally the corrosive pursuit of deregulation is being seen for its failures and is rapidly falling into disfavour.

ME2

I'm trying to keep this as simple as possible. This assesment is incorrect -

"Well hoop de doo! Does he then think that if those ten fish may indicate a possibility of the river recovering from the forest industry's depredations, we should feel sorry for Plutonic and its "loss"?"

My POINT, and this is my final post on this - is that when a tiny amount of fish were discovered in a river where there had been none for over 80 years - the ROR project was halted in its tracks.
What does that tell you. It tells me the regulations are being followed. I don't see how you can put it any other way.

Plutonic followed all the rules. They weren't "forced" by "ethical professionals" or "concerned citizens who screamed like hell" ME2. You don't live in the area and you don't know what you're talking about. But don't let that stop you.

I think what really pisses you off is that this doesn't fit into what you WANT to believe. Am I close?

The following was take from:

The following was take from: Plutonic Power, Written by snakesinthegrass.net, 17 July 2008 and published on the Council of Canadians website:

""Let's be clear: this is not green power," said Joe Foy of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee. "When you build 18 dams, as well as roads, bridges, and transmission lines in salmon country and grizzly habitat without adequate public environmental oversight, you have no right to cloak yourself in a green veneer," said Foy.

"If the government was prepared to rule that the Upper Pitt private power projects were not in the public interest, how can they possibly claim that a project that is three times bigger is?" asked Foy.

"Plutonic Power and the BC government need to make sure that the people of British Columbia have their say, and this includes holding public meetings and community consultations in surrounding communities, and also in population centres like Vancouver," said Andy Ross, President of the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union Local 378 (COPE 378).

"This is a province-wide issue, facilitated by a faulty and politicized Energy Plan, and the government needs to impose an immediate moratorium so that British Columbians can determine if these privately owned megaprojects are actually in the public interest," added Ross.

Plutonic Power is planning a total of 40 dams and weirs in the region, which includes Bute Inlet and the Toba Inlet, north of Powell River. The projects will involve a 360 kV transmission line possibly through old growth management areas, and will also involve numerous roads and bridges in the area."

http://www.victoriacouncilofcanadians.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=139&Itemid=96

I note that General Electric has become a partner with Plutonic Power. This is the privatization and control of our rivers given over to international corporations as warned would happen by Rafe Mair and others at the Tyee.
http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/18082008/2/biz-finance-plutonic-power-says-ge-partnership-gives-clout-bc.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2007_Nov_8/ai_n27439803?tag=content;col1

Happy

You are entirely correct in noting :

"I think what really pisses you off is that this doesn't fit into what you WANT to believe. Am I close?"

Excepting that it isn't what I "WANT" to believe, it is the result of well over 30 years of watching neocon environental policy in action, including that influence in NDP forest policy through union influence. I expressed this perspective when I noted :

"So,unless the laws are enforced, there may as well be no laws."

At fault are traditionally conservative attitudes which hold that unless a resource is being used by us, it is being "wasted". Compounding that insult is the shifting of the purported benefits of development of publicly-owned resources from the public sector to the private sector.

The hypocrisy entrained in this policy is seen when loan guarantees for RoRs are effected through the Government contracting for power at fixed prices which

Happy

Computer glitch. Post continues below

.....which do not rely upon future market prices but rather, set them. So once again we see that the hated "government interference" becomes loved assistence when it suits them, the banks, and Campbell's investor friends.

What irritates me equally as much as the privatising of our rivers and streams, is the Gold Rush attitude which developed following Campbell's cleverly-hidden offering of them, including the releasing of BC Hydro's prior studies to selected parties.

This is precisely the path WAC Bennet followed when he licenced out our forests, and in the hands of following neocon gov'ts, the results will be exactly the same as what we now see in that industry - and no different, I might add, from what has happened to our Fisheries resource as well.

Hot air doesn't count

OK, you've both had your soapbox time, now back to the real world. I gave you an opportunity to sway my position-

"How about this then - can you show any evidence where any ROR project has been detrimental to native fish stock? If you have objective data I'm all eyes and willing to reconsider my position."

I see nothing from you but the same regurgitation of scare tactics from the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Council of Canadians and the union front Citizens for Pulic Power. Surely these organizations must have hard evidence to prove the projects are harming fish runs AS YOU AND THEY CLAIM. So lets see it please. Which rivers, when, and to what effect.

How hard can that be.

Happy's demand

As I own property adgacent to a salmon-bearing stream, I investigated installing a 5 KW RoR micro-hydro turbine and generator fro suppying my own power needs. I discovered that (on my land) there would be no way to generate power without potentially harming the fish or their habitat. For that reason, I decided against installing a generator - I never even made application for an installation.

I have corresponded with a number of people who have installed RoR generators much to the dismay of fish they have killed.

I give you the DFO's list of activities which damage fish habitat. As nearly all of those activities may be undertaken while building RoR power plants, I will leave it up to you to inspect the installation of RoR dams, ponds, penstocks, turbines and out flows. Please note that RoR installers have no interest in admitting/publishing that what they do is harmful to fish. I have not provided you with a specific site, but RoR falls specifically under "hydroelectric power facilities".

"3. What activities damage habitat?
Unfortunately, fish habitat can be destroyed without much visible evidence. For example, the eggs of salmon and trout cannot survive just anywhere; they must be laid in streams where there is a bed of gravel. Take away the gravel and the stream will flow as before, but it will not be a spawning stream. Any project that upsets the physical, chemical and biological balance of fish habitat may permanently damage it, causing social and economic loss to fisheries. Common threats to fish habitat are associated with:

Removing streamside vegetation
Removing sand or gravel from beaches, riverbanks or streambeds
Diverting, diking and channelizing streams
Dredging tidal flats, marshland or for deep-sea ports
Filling foreshore, marshes and floodplains
Clearing land for agriculture or urban development
Building causeways, wharves, marinas and reservoirs
Polluting with sediment, pesticides, oil and other contaminants
Discharging industrial and municipal waste
Logging and log storage
Constructing buildings, pipelines, transmission lines, roads and railways
Constructing and operating hydroelectric power facilities
Mining and discharging mine effluent
Mining the seabed and accidents at offshore oil and gas extraction facilities"

http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat_policy/hab_law_article/hablaw_parta_e.htm

Still soapboxing

"Please note that RoR installers have no interest in admitting/publishing that what they do is harmful to fish."

Then why did Plutonic?

Hard evidence

The following link
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/science/papers/hydropower_flow_fluctuations_salmonids.pdf

Gives a government report that talks about specific effects of hydropower flow fluctuations caused by Run of River Hydroplants. Please note the last 2 paragraphs on page 24 (of 55). Rivers are parts of ecosystems. Like the engine of a car, of which there are many things that upset the ability for that engine to run at peak performance levels, there are many variables which cause a river to be a less viable ecosystem.

You will have to do your own research if you want more specific proof than you have been given by me.

This ain't rocket science, but I leave you with some rocket reasoning:

Just because nobody has ever witnessed an astronaut dying in space because he or she has opened the outer hatch without first donning a spacesuit does not mean that we don't believe it will be harmful to him. We know that changes in and about a stream always have the potential to harm fish. If a bulldozer were to run through your neighbourhood without a thought to people living in the houses and being in their yards there is always the huge potential to cause harm. Antagonistically, RoR power generation facilities are often placed where the fish have the steepest swims, the most difficult times in their journeys. Changes in these areas are the most dangerous to make (for the fish).

Think of how reduced flow could impact a fish's life:
more susecptable to predators,
more likely to be damaged on the rocks, less oxygen in the water,
greater silt build-up,
increased water temperature.

Reduced flow is only one variable. For fish, the river is their rocket ship. Any number of things can go wrong when one lives in a rocket ship, a simple leak, a malfunctioning filter or a broken heatshield can kill the crew. When you mess with the river and the forest around it, you mess with the fishes' temperature control, their ability to avoid predators, their water supply, their air supply, and their food supply.

RE: Plutonic, Happy

Idon't know, you tell me. What's the deal with you and Plutonic, anyway? Whay all the interest in them? Have you or someone meaningful to you invested in Plutonic?

Plutonic (cont)

Happy if the installer, Plutonic, admitted that what they do is harmful to fish why are you pulling my chain to give you the information. Geeeze, what a waste of time you have proven to be! You already have the answers for which you ask questions. I'm done with you!

You didn't read

I already told you how I know about Plutonic.
I live in the area. It was in our local newspaper.
I have no investments or interst in them other than to show that obviously the ROR Regulations regarding protecting the species have teeth.
You keep going on about all the possible issues that COULD affect the species. We now that. Lets go WAY back up the thread:

"The presence of these in addition to resident species in the projects proposed diversion reach were not anticipated and have made obtaining permits exceedingly more difficult."

See that now. Obtaining Permits exceedingly more difficult. So how can you keep repeating that Regulations mean absolutely nothing and in your own words "RoR installers have no interest in admitting/publishing that what they do is harmful to fish."
The facts appear to say otherwise.

I guess I'm not done.

You said:
"How about this then - can you show any evidence where any ROR project has been detrimental to native fish stock? If you have objective data I'm all eyes and willing to reconsider my position."

Then you asked/said:
"Then why did Plutonic?"

So this company with which you are seemingly very familiar already showed you that it can be harmful.

I made my blanket statement about RoR companies not wanting to say they are harmful to fish as that would be politically foolish; certainly they know they harm fish. The DFO even allows for some harming of fish and fish habitat, at times. You read about it, yourself, in the DFO regs.

From my viewpoint, the DFO is very passive in policing its mandate to protect fish stocks. They have had limited budgets they have received over the last 30 years or so. If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or the BC Ministry of the Environment and all the parties with power truly wanted to protect the stocks, we wouldn't have BC fish farms killing off the wild salmon and the feeder fish. We wouldn't have Plutonic placing 18 dams, power transmission lines, roads, bridges, culverts, channels, and penstocks in the Butte Inlet area.

It is only my hunch that there must be a vocal community or technician wishing to save the few fish at the site to which you refer. You seem to know everything about what is happening there. It is my further hunch that as Butte Inlet is quite remote, there aren't many activists living in the area to question or to be heard questioning the digging of channels and the building of damns etc.

Anyone with a lick of common sense should be able to ascertain that my statements in regards to the DFO, Campbell and RoR generating facilities are to be taken as general statements of truth. I, like most people, don't go about my life as if I am speaking as carefully a prosecutor in a court of law nor as a student in a graduate level philosophy class. Your Socratic line of arguing is not really people-friendly; that's why they made Socrates drink hemlock! There are few who doubt that OJ killed his wife, but he got off because his Socratically-minded attorneys were able to twist law in his favour. He wasn't so lucky with civil law. The general truth and logic of my statements is easy to ascertain for a person with a reasonable understanding of how both, nature and government, work. So please be civil in your pursuit of truth. Don't go about your life trying to prove kind-hearted, civic-minded people, like myself, to be fools. The neo-con game is not a civil one - it is a competitive one that ends with very few winners and many losers.

Good question; excellent article.

Don't expect any answers from me; I just count the damned fish. Whether we are improving fish stocks or not, only time will tell.

Here is one off-the-wall observation. It may have nothing to do with the question, but it says something about our attitudes.

In November I took my family to see the miracle of the returning salmon, to a local hatchery where there is an underground viewing room with a glass wall. There were dozens of fish in the raceway, but we could not see them. The windows was so overgrown with algae that we couldn't see a damned thing. It was sad. The thought struck me that it was dirty because no one had been told to clean it. No wonder we were the only visitors there that day. A million-dollar viewing facility with a dirty window. Maybe it will be cleaner next year.

Quite often when I talk about being a fisheries biologist, working with high school students, the response is often, "Great. So you work with academically-challenged kids and kids from juvenile court. That is terrific".

Well, not exactly. I do work with teenagers but they tend to be in the upper percentiles of academic performance. They are usually in grades 10-12, and trying to make a career decision. Many study fisheries or wildlife biology in college, but very few are able to make a living once they graduate. I know two high-calibre students who both independently elected to study law instead of their heart's desire; one was heading towards fisheries and the other towards ornithology.

Sad to say, it hard to make a living doing biology. There is a bit of a stigma to it in fact. It is not surprising we are running out of salmon. We need to bring our finest skills to the field, not designating it as a make-work for the disadvantaged.

By the way, all the students who volunteer who work with me these days are girls. Why is that?

Goodnight SIG

Where do I start.
Rainy River is in Howe Sound, not Bute Inlet so never mind your "hunches"
You're all mixed up. Two different projects.

I have to leave soon so I'll make it brief and you can write another novel on this after I'm gone.
You keep insinuating I have a hidden agenda Re Plutonic. How many times do I have to say I live in the area. Sunshine Coast. And how many times do I have to say I read it in the newspaper. Public knowledge SIG. The article basically said the same thing as I reprinted from the Plutonic website. Fish were found where none were supposed to be. Project full stop. You should be happy that the system is appearing to work but you can't seem to accept that, and obviously nothing I say will change your mind.

Love the stereotyping friend. You're a kind hearted civil person and I'm a....well, I guess you're saying I'm not.
At least my dog likes me