By Joel Gallob Of the News-Times

Newport fisherman Mike Becker says he isn't interested in federal funds to help repair a fisheries disaster, but in convincing federal officials that "when they make a political decision to do something like send the Klamath water to the farmers, they think about the consequences first."

In September 2001, Klamath farmers turned on the pipe valves in a practical protest against an earlier federal decision to keep large amounts of water in the Klamath River for the salmon and suckerfish that live there. That prompted Oregon Senator Gordon Smith (R) and then-Interior Secretary Anne Veneman to overrule the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and direct the Bureau of Reclamation to direct more water to the farms the following year- and less to the fish.

And that resulted in a huge die-off in September 2002, of Klamath River chinook - a die-off that is now having effects across the Northwest coast.

"That decision benefited 1,400 farmers. But it cost 1,800 fishing families on the Oregon, California and Washington coast 60 percent of their season, far more money than the farmers got from that water," said Becker. "They talk about doing a cost benefit analysis. In terms of costs, it was a screaming joke. But nobody stopped to think past the farmers. So what I'm saying to our political people, when they do this type of trade-off, also look at what it does to other industries, too. The impact on us was far greater than what the farmers got. They talk about cost-benefit analyses. In terms of costs and benefits, this was a disaster.

"At some point," Becker continued, "maybe this year, the fishermen will also stand up in front of the cameras and wave our arms, too, like the farmers did, and ask the politicians, who do you want to help. When you create winners and losers, you've got to think about what you're doing to the losers, too."