For all of us who have been involved in the recovery efforts to bring back and strengthen wild salmon runs, we fear that this change in policy could lead to further declines in these wild stocks.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Without sound conservation and management measures, fisheries will quickly become depleted and a basic component of global food security will be lost.
Wild fish are under threat of extinction because they're hunted to feed us. Yet land animals that we farm are under no threat of extinction. Shifting from hunting fish to farming fish - where the farmers have the incentive to keep their stocks healthy - could do a tremendous amount of good for wild fish.
I fully support the goal of species protection and conservation and believe that recovery and ultimately delisting of species should be the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's top priority under ESA.
Our fish, our recreation, our irrigation and all our uses of the Missouri River are threatened if the drought continues and the Corps of Engineers decisions aren't changed.
My life is what a salmon must feel like. They are always going upstream, against the current.
The substantial uncertainty about the path of asset price movements going forward necessarily reduces the case for altering policy in advance of the move.
If the oil runs out, we'll be reduced to fracking Alex Salmond.
Well, I think breathing life into the Endangered Species Act, taking those wolves back into Yellowstone, restoring the salmon in the rivers of the Pacific Northwest.
Fish and Wildlife has a significant amount of federal funds for land acquisition, yet it is skimping on management of the lands it already possesses and shortchanging local tax bases.
If you take away the predators in the prairies and the national parks, you suddenly have an explosion of elk, and then you have a lack of the food source for the elk, so they strip all the ground bare and that takes away the cover, on and on and on and on. The whole food chain is disrupted.
No opposing quotes found.