This is a 'species protection' issue, not an environmental protection issue. You have them confused. The reason this whole thing is Ironic is because the lives of certain animals (livestocks) are at stake for the sake of some other animal, one that is endangered.

In order for this to be an environmental issue, you will have to demonstrate that there will be environmental repurcussions if these fish die off. Since thier numbers are low being that they are endagered, there should already be some repurcusions. Well, where/what are they? Until you do it simply does not matter to me what the hell happens to the stupid fish. My kids won't complain, and I certainly don't want to explain to the children of those farmers that they will enjoy life better since even though they live in poverty and squaller, they still have the suckle fish (although they can't fish them or eat them, which would seem a further slap in the face).

While you are at it, go ahead an explain to me how the farming in a valley is destroying the environment for ME (not for other animals for ME). Else you prove my origional point by basing environmentalism on other animals welfare and thus prioving how livestock dying is ironic.

-Justin Kelly