Fez Hammersticks
スーパーバッド Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 29,207
- Likes
- 9,899
- Points
- 113
Yeah, nevermind the fact that in her speeches included her "struggles" as a "black women."
She's a sociopath.
She's a sociopath.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ugh, why is there so much hate for this transracial woman! Like, I can't even! I'm literally crying right now!
I forgot to mention that Nixon created affirmative action and other liberal social programs you wouldn't associate with modern republicans. I think the tide really changed when GHW Bush was president.
Seems to me SPD is still arguing it's dead. He'll post a link to some scientists saying they can't catch many of the big fish so they must be mostly gone, yet actual professional fisherman keep catching them. Maybe the scientists are just incompetent at catching fish
I live very close to the ocean. It's not dead, and it's not dying. We may have overfished some of the bigger fish (under govt. approval), but they're not gone and I don't see why they'll be fished to 0. They do have babies, and they will produce a sustainable population that allows for plenty of fish to be caught.
Sustainable means 5M fish, we catch 2.5M, and by next year, there's 5M again. That's how it's worked for thousands of years.
Up until about 100 years ago, yes that is how it used to work.
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/webpls/MF_ANNUAL_LANDINGS.RESULTS

Yeah, about 1910 is the tipping point when most agree that the Chinook salmon population hit it's peak and the decline in salmon began. Once modern fishing fleets coupled with union American canneries the catch ballooned in the 60's and with all the dam building going on back then nearly wiped Chinook off the face of the earth. It is so rare that it is too expensive to pursue commercially, and has been for over 25 years.
LOL. Your chart merely shows that all salmon. hatchery and wild combined, only amount to an average of 5% what the historic wild population was before we fished, dammed and polluted them to near extinction.
Thanks for proving you're wrong again.
No, 100 years ago, the number of salmon did not decline. It increased 60 years ago and even more so in the 2000s. What's true for this one river, which has < 20% of all the salmon, is true for all locations where salmon are. That is, there's more of them than 100 years ago.

WTF MARIS, you're the one that pulls facts out of your ass. Where did the 100 years ago come from?
![]()
It's obvious in the chart with that post.
Please follow the instructions in my previous link and learn how to read a graph, then we can discuss this like educated adults.

"Over a century's worth of data shows immense variety in total abundance..."
Not "100 years ago..."
Your assertion proved wrong again.
If by immense variety you mean 100 years of near-extinction speckled with 3-4 "okay" runs.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100903/full/news.2010.449/box/1.html
