BajaNomad

Oro de Cortez

capn.sharky - 11-28-2009 at 11:54 AM

Thanks to Pam Bolles, I just saw the Oro de Cortez---parts I, 2 and 3. It made me sick to see what is happening in the Sea of Cortez. This is a must see for all of you that have not seen it. I am now going to report any violations I witness when fishing in Loreto. Thank God there are people like Pam who care about this wonderful natural fishery. I have been going to the Sea of Cortez for over 50 years now and it is obvious that the fishery has been depleted over the years. We all need to get involved in perserving this fishery for our children and grandchildren. Yes, I understand the politicos are corrupt in Mexico. But, I am seeing more honest officials in Mexico than ever before. Please help by reporting any commercial illegal fishing in the Sea of Cortez and arm yourself with facts and a camera when fishing. If we all pull together, we might be able to slow this horrible thing down. If we don't get invloved, it will continue until the Cortez is known as the dead sea.

David K - 11-29-2009 at 07:07 PM

See it where? Online? Links? I was off line for 3 days for family visitors and missed this from Pam.

U-Tube

capn.sharky - 11-30-2009 at 09:57 PM

nobaddays - 12-2-2009 at 08:50 AM

look what happened to San Felipe fishing......destroyed.

Really?

Dave - 12-2-2009 at 02:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by nobaddays
look what happened to San Felipe fishing......destroyed.


Have a friend who just brought back delicious clams and monster shrimp. Said he got 'em in San Felipe.

David K - 12-2-2009 at 06:15 PM

Clams and shrimp are not 'fished' for (sportfishing)... and it is terrible compared to 'The Old days' (but so is everything else)!

We caught all the corbina we wanted, plus croaker, totuava, bass, even a roosterfish once from the beach south of San Felipe! That was in the 1960's.

Gill nets and dynamite fishing plus increasing amounts of people along the coast really did a number on the fish population.

[Edited on 12-3-2009 by David K]

CaboDreamer - 12-3-2009 at 03:09 PM

If you really want to point a finger at the biggest culprit concerning environmental affects on the fishery of the Mar de Cortez I would think that the daming of the Colorado River would have to be one...especially concerning the northern part of the gulf.

PabloS - 12-3-2009 at 04:28 PM

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vN_g2-JU_E

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXp0U8yXsoY&feature=relat...

Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0__kyyAXSUU&feature=relat...

[Edited on 12-3-2009 by PabloS]

[Edited on 12-3-2009 by PabloS]

David K - 12-3-2009 at 04:32 PM

The Hoover Dam was built in the 1930's... Fishing was fantastic after that, and we got clean hydro-electric power as a bonus!

Seriously, many other dams came later and then the farmers who feed the world plus a growing population of California, Arizona and Southern Nevada needed the water. So, only a trickle reaches the gulf now most years and that has had an effect on the enviroment and sea life. Alas, when it is a choice between the life of people over fish... people win.

Bajahowodd - 12-3-2009 at 04:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CaboDreamer
If you really want to point a finger at the biggest culprit concerning environmental affects on the fishery of the Mar de Cortez I would think that the daming of the Colorado River would have to be one...especially concerning the northern part of the gulf.




I would have to think that the Colorado, virtually failing to empty into the sea does have a major adverse effect on sea life in the Northern Gulf. That said, there is an enormous amount of illegal commercial fishing going on throughout, and the Mexican government has looked the other way all too much.

Skeet/Loreto - 12-3-2009 at 05:38 PM

No! The Mesxcan Govt. has Not turned away from the illegal Fishing.

Check what happened when the Japanese Fisherman went in a Vacumed out the fish and got caught.
You are Dead Wrong!!

David K - 12-3-2009 at 05:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PabloS
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vN_g2-JU_E

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXp0U8yXsoY&feature=relat...

Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0__kyyAXSUU&feature=relat...



Thank you Pablo!

I watched them again (they were posted some time ago here on Nomad)...

ncampion - 12-3-2009 at 06:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Alas, when it is a choice between the life of people over fish... people win.


Not so much anymore, just ask the farmers in Calif. central valley who got their irrigation water shut off because of some "endangered" fish.

capn.sharky - 12-4-2009 at 06:25 AM

"irrigation water shut off because of some "endangered" fish. " That little fish is a minnow that is worthless for anything. Not only the central valley but so. cal. too. The central valley was the breadbasket of the western states and is now dried up like an old lady. Friggan greenies are the reason. I do think Mexico is becoming more responsible in its management of the fishery. It is difficult to control all the commercial fishermen with such a small force of men. Mexico is dealing with so many problems right now on so many fronts...but is slowly making headway.

wessongroup - 12-4-2009 at 06:57 AM

The "irrigation water" was cut by the Federal Government due to "drought conditions"

That why there is over 40% unemployment in Fresno County's westside, they allocated the water to "permanent plantings" not row crops, so.... you are going to be seeing big food price increase in the spring on many rotational "row" crops in the Valley.. it's hitting the Imperial Valley too..

Skeet/Loreto - 12-4-2009 at 08:45 AM

Capn.
Now! Now! Sharkey the Central Valley has not fried up!
It is still the Breadbasket of the World. and we still have Water.
Now there was suppose to be a cut off of some water this years but Mt Shasta came up with enough extra that we will have enough to get us through the Drougth!!

How would like to buy a 10 acre Homesite. I will let it go today for $500,000.

Skeet

David K - 12-4-2009 at 08:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ncampion
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Alas, when it is a choice between the life of people over fish... people win.


Not so much anymore, just ask the farmers in Calif. central valley who got their irrigation water shut off because of some "endangered" fish.


Yes, indeed... proves how screwed up things can get when the idiots are elected to power in government.

monoloco - 12-4-2009 at 12:10 PM

One thing to remember about that irrigation water is that it is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. The farmers in the central valley have made millions thanks to the fact they have received water at a fraction of the true delivery costs. Another example of corporate welfare.

Just guessing

Dave - 12-4-2009 at 12:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
One thing to remember about that irrigation water is that it is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. The farmers in the central valley have made millions thanks to the fact they have received water at a fraction of the true delivery costs. Another example of corporate welfare.


Wouldn't some of the subsidy flow back in reduced produce cost?

If true cost were reflected in end price who could afford tomatoes?

monoloco - 12-4-2009 at 12:27 PM

I guess you could make the same argument for the government subsidizing everything. I suspect that if farmers paid the true cost for water they would not waste it growing crops like rice that could be grown more economically somewhere else.

mtgoat666 - 12-4-2009 at 12:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Quote:
Originally posted by ncampion
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Alas, when it is a choice between the life of people over fish... people win.


Not so much anymore, just ask the farmers in Calif. central valley who got their irrigation water shut off because of some "endangered" fish.


Yes, indeed... proves how screwed up things can get when the idiots are elected to power in government.


if people want to grow crops in the desert they should do so without cost of causing species to go extinct. if people want to transport water to desert, they should do so in a manner that does not cause environmental damage.

save the fish! tell the fat people to eat less!

David K - 12-4-2009 at 12:34 PM

Yah, okay for people to be extinct... let the minnow live!:lol:

Skeet/Loreto - 12-4-2009 at 12:34 PM

Loco; Sorry to inform you that you are 100% wrong!
There is some good information about the production costs of the Central Valley.
I start with about $6.00 per Acre Ft. and end up at the top of the Season at $30 to $40 per Acre Ft.

The Fresh Tomato Industry was captured by San Quintin BCS quite a few years back

Loco do you have any Idea at all about how much time material and Labor goes into the production of a Tomato, Gallon of Milk, Ear of Corn???? I think not are you would appreciate the Thousands of Workers, that earn a fair living, the Truck drivers that deliver the goods, The Airplane pilots who fly produce to other Countries, and a 100 others involved in this production.

Loco: Are you a Communist??

Skeet/Loreto

Rice

Bajahowodd - 12-4-2009 at 12:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
I guess you could make the same argument for the government subsidizing everything. I suspect that if farmers paid the true cost for water they would not waste it growing crops like rice that could be grown more economically somewhere else.



Yep. Rice demands a huge amount of water. And right now, there already is a large amount of rice coming here from Asia.

mtgoat666 - 12-4-2009 at 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Yah, okay for people to be extinct... let the minnow live!:lol:


homo sapiens is not facing risk of extinction. the fish is.

toneart - 12-4-2009 at 12:45 PM

Don't y'all get your jockey shorts in a knot. It restricts your clear vision. Green is good! Conservation is good!

Over regulation and restriction beyond reason is bad. When that political ball gets rolling and gains momentum it is hard to stop. There has to be regulation and restrictions, but within reason. Consequences need to be weighed and considered. There has to be a correct balance in order to keep the farmers' land productive and food on our tables.

It is not easy to drive down the central valley and see so much brown. In my opinion, that is overkill, if it is to save a minnow. I belong to The Sierra Club, but I do my own independent thinking.
So don't let the political rhetoric (Limbaugh, Fox News) put ideas in your heads and words in your mouths.

It seems that the water shortage is also caused by drought. San Diego has been under a permanent water restriction. Maybe more urban areas need to also be rationed. People will waste water if they think nobody is looking. If you live in a desert, or a drought affected area, maybe a pretty lawn or washing your vehicle in your driveway aren't good choices. There has to be a permanent change in mindset and lifestyle. Get used to it. It is going to get worse.:)

monoloco - 12-4-2009 at 12:51 PM

A 2004 EWG study found that large agribusiness, not small family farms were reaping a windfall from taxpayer subsidized cheap water. It also found that 1 in 4 Central Valley Project farms received both water and crop subsidies for at least one year. The Federal Government has subsidized California and Arizona farmers more than 700 million dollars in the last 2 years to grow thirsty crops like alfalfa, cotton and rice in arid regions. Subsidies do more than promote wasteful water use. Cotton depends on vast quantities of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer that eventually find their way into streams and groundwater. Corporate welfare is counter-productive.

Skeet/Loreto - 12-4-2009 at 01:03 PM

I am not sure where this"EWG" comes from. Who is this??

Now Loco one the costlist thing to the small and large farmers of the Central Valley is number !--Workmans Compension Scams-
next is the Costly things put on the Dairy farmers just to stay in business.
Check out how many Daires have moved to New Mexico and Texas due to Restrictions
Check it out.

monoloco - 12-4-2009 at 01:22 PM

Skeet, EWG stands for the Environmental Working Group. The problem with farm subsidies are that they promote the interests of large corporate agribusiness at the expense of small family farms. We get cheap produce at the market but there are the hidden costs of the subsidies and environmental degradation that are borne by the taxpayer.

monoloco - 12-4-2009 at 01:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skeet/Loreto
Loco; Sorry to inform you that you are 100% wrong!
There is some good information about the production costs of the Central Valley.
I start with about $6.00 per Acre Ft. and end up at the top of the Season at $30 to $40 per Acre Ft.

The Fresh Tomato Industry was captured by San Quintin BCS quite a few years back

Loco do you have any Idea at all about how much time material and Labor goes into the production of a Tomato, Gallon of Milk, Ear of Corn???? I think not are you would appreciate the Thousands of Workers, that earn a fair living, the Truck drivers that deliver the goods, The Airplane pilots who fly produce to other Countries, and a 100 others involved in this production.

Loco: Are you a Communist??

Skeet/Loreto
Skeet, It sounds like you are the communist if you are advocating for federal farm subsidies. I am for free market agricultural policies.

Skeet/Loreto - 12-4-2009 at 01:43 PM

I am not much for subsides of any kind>

Hey Loco How did we get an Off Topic going on the General Discussion

monoloco - 12-4-2009 at 02:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skeet/Loreto
I am not much for subsides of any kind>

Hey Loco How did we get an Off Topic going on the General Discussion
Beats me, I didn't start it.

mtgoat666 - 12-4-2009 at 03:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by toneart
It is not easy to drive down the central valley and see so much brown. In my opinion, that is overkill, if it is to save a minnow.


In my opinion it is overkill to drive a fish to extinction just so some crazy humans can farm the desert and overeat so much that obesity is a national epidemic. if god intended man to farm the desert he would have provided water to the desert :lol::lol:

think global, act local!!!!!!!

yes we can!!!!!

capn.sharky - 12-5-2009 at 08:00 AM

Hey Guys! I started this thread about overfishing the Sea of Cortez. How did we get so hung up on the Central Valley? I care more about the Cortez---I can get tomatos from San Quinten. All I am asking is that when you go fishing in the Cortez, take a small camera with you and shoot anything you think is a violation of the Mexican law. Don't overfish and take only what you (or your Mexican neighbors) need. Leave something for the next generations. Take a kid fishing with you and teach him how to fish. Be a good gringo and for God's sake, don't take a casket sized icechest home with you from Mexico---unless Grandpop or Grandma is in it. Skeet---you can keep your land, I don't have an extra $500,000 laying around.

Skeet/Loreto - 12-5-2009 at 08:16 AM

Cap Sharkey; I hate to tell you but the Global Warming Fraud is going to hurt all of the Enviormental Bull Puckey about the "Ruining of the Sea Of Cortez".

Maybe I can get a Nibel Prize!!

Skeet

Chances are good

Dave - 12-5-2009 at 09:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skeet/Loreto
Maybe I can get a Nibel Prize!!


I'll campaign for you.

luckyman - 12-5-2009 at 09:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
One thing to remember about that irrigation water is that it is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. The farmers in the central valley have made millions thanks to the fact they have received water at a fraction of the true delivery costs. Another example of corporate welfare.


federal water projects (storage and conveyance) have made california what it is today, for better or worse, including the incredible farming industry we have.
this comment, as well as most of your subsequent posts on the subject, leads me to believe you are uninformed and left-biased on the subject of farming today. perhaps you would enlighten us on how the average urban dweller might grow sufficient food and fiber to feed the family...start by tearing up your driveway and buying a shovel and hoe.

monoloco - 12-5-2009 at 01:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by luckyman
Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
One thing to remember about that irrigation water is that it is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. The farmers in the central valley have made millions thanks to the fact they have received water at a fraction of the true delivery costs. Another example of corporate welfare.


federal water projects (storage and conveyance) have made california what it is today, for better or worse, including the incredible farming industry we have.
this comment, as well as most of your subsequent posts on the subject, leads me to believe you are uninformed and left-biased on the subject of farming today. perhaps you would enlighten us on how the average urban dweller might grow sufficient food and fiber to feed the family...start by tearing up your driveway and buying a shovel and hoe.
where did I suggest that the average urban dweller could grow sufficient food to feed his family? How is it left biased to suggest that farmers pay the actual cost of water delivery? It is funny that people who consider their selves to be conservatives are all for corporate welfare. The fact is that if the government, read taxpayer, didn't subsidize agriculture, and people were forced to pay for the true costs of food production at the grocery store, we would have much more efficient and sustainable system. We certainly would not be growing cotton and rice in the desert.

Skeet/Loreto - 12-5-2009 at 02:05 PM

Sounds just like Mexico to me.

But where would we go for Food and Jobs--Canada???

monoloco - 12-5-2009 at 02:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skeet/Loreto
Sounds just like Mexico to me.

But where would we go for Food and Jobs--Canada???

Skeet, I had an orchard in the Columbia Gorge I can tell you from personal experience how hard it is to compete with big subsidized agriculture. It is the main reason for the decline of the family farm.

toneart - 12-5-2009 at 02:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by luckyman
Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
One thing to remember about that irrigation water is that it is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. The farmers in the central valley have made millions thanks to the fact they have received water at a fraction of the true delivery costs. Another example of corporate welfare.


federal water projects (storage and conveyance) have made california what it is today, for better or worse, including the incredible farming industry we have.
this comment, as well as most of your subsequent posts on the subject, leads me to believe you are uninformed and left-biased on the subject of farming today. perhaps you would enlighten us on how the average urban dweller might grow sufficient food and fiber to feed the family...start by tearing up your driveway and buying a shovel and hoe.


...Community gardens where there is vacant land. But beware of any idea that begins with the word commun.... It scares the b'jesus outta some folk.:o

Skeet/Loreto - 12-5-2009 at 03:44 PM

Loco; A Typical day in a Farmers/Diarmans Life.

Milking twice in a 24 hour Period; Bringing the Cows into the Barn , locking their Heads in, giving them Grain, Washing off the Teats, connecting the Milkers, with chit dropping all over you.

Try that for one Day. Then let me know what YOU think about Farming.

luckyman - 12-6-2009 at 09:25 AM

i'm all for community gardens, farmers' markets, and buying local...all things that promote self sufficiency and family owned/operated farming.
i would pay the 'true' cost, whatever that is, for an acre foot of water, provided i could pass that cost on to the consumer in the price of my product, but that's never going to happen. no matter what size farm you have, farming in california is a difficult way to make a living, but one some of us have chosen.
we have to ask ourselves 'where do we want our food to come from?'...if the answer is 'safeway' or 'albertson's' and we're fine with that without any accountability as to country of origin, then the outlook for farming in california or the USA for that matter looks pretty bleak. i've run the gamut from selling tomatoes at farmers' markets 25 years ago to selling produce to one of the stores mentioned, and i can tell you that the average store shopper has no idea what is involved in getting that product to the shelf...worse yet, they really don't care as long as the price is right and it's there when they want it, which 99% of the time it is.
so...the comments about 'subsidized' water rub me the wrong way, especially when they come from folks whose experience with california agriculture is limited to a 70 mph observation driving down I-5.
gotta go, i've got trees to prune, but thanks for the opportunity to comment.

monoloco - 12-6-2009 at 10:37 AM

Luckyman, You never answered my question of how it is a conservative principle for the government to subsidize agriculture.

luckyman - 12-6-2009 at 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
Luckyman, You never answered my question of how it is a conservative principle for the government to subsidize agriculture.

loco, i didn't realize you had posed the question, but since you have, i think, i'll give it a shot.
a little background first...i farm primarily tree crops, none of which have anything like a subsidy program, unless you count the 'welfare water' i buy each year, if it's available, from the local irrigation district that supplies two of the five orchards i farm. for comparison, my district water runs about $85.00 per acre on those blocks, where i pump water from a well, it runs about $130.00 per acre per year.

to your question, i'm assuming you're talking politics when you say 'conservative', not conservation, as in recources....
i think dems and repubs alike support the ag programs when there's voters in their districts that benefit from them, so both parties are responsible for their longevity. i'm not much in favor of price supports and direct payments to growers.
as i understand the farm bill programs, they were developed in the early 30's by hoover and later fdr to stabilize both the price and the supply of basic ag commodities, such as corn, wheat, rice, milk, and a few others. i'm not in favor of the basic premise of regulating price and supply, i think that's the market's job. as i mentioned earlier, i grow crops that don't have government programs involved in pricing and supply...some years i do well, other years i loose my ass as the price and supply changes...that's capitalism for ya.

i do sometimes wonder how the markets and society would fare during times of scarcity without government programs that keep wheat farmers growing wheat even though that year's wheat price is below the cost of production. would a loaf of bread be ten bucks in the store? would boatloads of grain bought by the US government continue to go to UN camps, or would they go to the highest bidding country? would we fight over food instead of oil? would i push out prune trees and grow wheat instead?
back to the hijacked thread to which i originally responded...your contention that affordable irrigation water amounts to welfare is pure pelosi. the reservoir stored water isn't just for agriculture, it's for recreation, drinking, and keeping rivers that used to run dry in the summer flowing year round for the benefit of fish and fishermen alike. your subsequent comments on rice water usage (uninformed), farming in arid climates, and citing data collected by a likely biased environmental working group, all lead me to believe that you have a larger agenda at hand that you're not disclosing. what is it, and why the chip on your shoulder toward agriculture?

anyhow, back to your question. i'm not sure if i've answered it or not. if we were to play a word association game, and you were to say "welfare", i would be more likely to say "liberal" than "conservative"...does that answer it?

monoloco - 12-7-2009 at 07:13 AM

Luckyman, Thanks for the response. I too was a farmer and grew peaches and produce. From my perspective federal subsidies are what killed small family farms I know all too well how hard it is to compete on price with huge subsidized farms. The federal government paid for all these federal water projects, I don't see why it is asking too much for farmers to pay the true cost of distribution. California and Arizona water regulations have been abused for years by large corporations. There is absolutely no way precious water resources should be used to grow crops like cotton and rice in the desert. The only reason that is profitable is because of federal subsidies. I certainly don't have a chip on my shoulder about agriculture and my only agenda is the truth about federal subsidies that they mainly benefit large corporations to the detriment of family farms. Personally I don't believe that government should subsidize any industry, if they can't make a profit without subsidies then they shouldn't exist. As far as liberal and conservative, those are just polarizing labels. I don't think I know anyone whose views could be considered 100% liberal or conservative. I am for efficient markets, I don't know if that is a conservative or a liberal view and I don't really care.

[Edited on 12-7-2009 by monoloco]