At the Underground, we’re not exactly shocked when the Corp of Engineers, Bonneville Power Association and the Bureau of Reclamation submit yet another Columbia River salmon recovery plan that offers absolutely no hope for salmon recovery.
But for the sake of ruining your breakfast, we’ll provide you with the self-serving quotes of the mindless political appointees who have no interest in upholding the law:
We’ve included a robust set of actions that we think will make a substantial contribution to the recovery of these fish,” said Steve Wright, BPA administrator.
Gag.
Nola Layde, spokeswoman for the Corps of Engineers, said the organizations have already improved fish passage at the dams to the point where only minor improvements could be made to improve the fish’s survival.
Gag.
I can think of one more “improvement” — remove the useless dams on the Snake, which provide little power, flood control or anything beyond cheap transport for a few grain farmers.
The ugly reality is this; the new Columbia River Salmon Recovery Plan is more of the same old stuff — the same kind of “recovery” which has seen salmon populations continue to plummet in the drainage (especially the Snake River)
It’s also essentially the same plan that was rejected by a judge as offering little or no chance for salmon recovery.
And yes – this is the same wacky crew that essentially said “the law doesn’t require us to provide a salmon recovery plan that will actually work — it just requires us to have a plan…”
Always heartening to see your tax dollars at work.
Gag. And, Bye-Bye, Sockeye
Speaking of Sockeye, if this plan is implemented, you might as well say good-bye to our finny sockeye salmon friends:
“One of the real tragedies of the plan released yesterday is, in my view, it writes off the sockeye,” Sedivy despaired. “They are proposing doubling the life support hatchery effort which in itself is a good thing, but in their assessment, they say they’re not sure it will work and they say there’s nothing else they can do.”
The reaction of pro-salmon groups wasn’t kind, to say the least, and there’s little hope this non-starter of a plan will escape the inevitable lawsuits — or even the wrath of the judge who kicked the original “recovery” plan back to the agencies. More as it happens.
[tags]columbia river, snake river, salmon recovery[/tags]
{ 1 trackback }
{ 41 comments… read them below or add one }
I think we’re seeing the rantings of someone who is a radical about dam removal and someone who has little respect for the facts. Your one statement that the 4 dams provide little power is in itself gross absurdity. You have no solutions to replace the lost power that make any sense. Windmills don’t generate dependable power, conservation can’t solve the problem, you don’t want Nukes or cosl-fired power, so what is your solution. I have a good idea for all of you in the Northwest who do not understand the value of hydropower. Let’s tear down all the dams and reurn the NW back to territories.
(Quote)
RAC:
I’ve got plenty of “facts” and they remain clear: the salmon runs — despite the largely barged-base “recovery” efforts — are going, going… almost gone.
How about another fact: the dams in question generate damned little power during the summer and fall — when the power’s actually needed. A little research — something you could perform instead of posting name-calling rants on blogs — would lead you to the following:
In case you’re wondering, the above description was provided by the Army Corp of Engineers, and I’d like to point out that they’re lying about the “conservation” and recreation benefits (there aren’t any), and that no one considers the irrigation function significant.
The power? Less than 5% of the Northwest’s total supply, and in drought years, it turns out it’s a whole lot less than that.
By contrast, let’s look at the environmental losses since the dams went in:
Ooops! Care to quantify the economic costs of that (to tourism, commercial and sport fishers?)
The RAND corporation did, and guess what?
Still wondering about the economic “benefits” of these dams?
Consider this — since 1980, about $4.5 Billion tax and ratepayer dollars have been spent trying to maintain salmon populations, and of course, more spending is on the way because those efforts aren’t working.
Darn facts! Don’t you just hate it when they get in the way of a good rant?
After all the spreadsheets are done, the subsidies removed, and the economic damage to fisheries are quantified, those who argue to save dams like those on the Klamath and Snake are inevitably reduced to making broad, unprovable statements regarding the lost power.
These include things like “conservation can’t work” and “renewables aren’t reliable” (forgetting that the Snake river dams already don’t produce energy when we need it most).
Of course, conservation hasn’t even been tried, and people who know a lot more about it than you or I say renewables are a cheaper bet than these dams once the ongoing recovery costs are considered.
Finally, feel free to sling mud and ignore economic realities, but when you make absurd statements about tearing down “all the dams” when nobody’s advocating anything like that, you don’t advance your own cause.
(Quote)
Too much protestation and too little balanced facts for my taste — even the idea of renewables is rife with controversy and have unintended consequences– remember that hydro was considered the ultimiate renewable resource and no one considered your fish issues? But the thing that I find offensive is that you are seeking to save salmon for oyur recreational pleasure. when you are willing ot give up all sport fishing, then you might be credible.
(Quote)
Ann:
At least I’m providing facts. The folks running the dams — and the ones charged with recovering the fast-fading salmon stocks — can’t even muster enough convincing facts to satisfy a judge, who has repeatedly
The rest of your statement mystifies me. It’s like saying you have no credibility on the dam issue until you’re willing to give up electricity.
That’s a pretty implausible standard just for entering the discussion.
I’ve never fished for salmon and don’t plan to, and all arguments for the existence of a clean environment aside, the opportunity costs of sport and commercial fisheries have to be considered in these discussions.
The ugly truth is this: we’re willing to doom a salmon fishery (commercial and sport) that represents a healthy, sustainable food source for centuries to come for 5% of the Northwest’s power and a cheap way to barge grain.
As for whether hydro used to be considered a clean source of energy, I’d suggest that’s not entirely true, but even if it was, we know better now. And somehow, using ignorance to justify stupidity flatters no one in this discussion.
(Quote)
I’ve never fished for salmon and never plan to either. I try to consume farm grown fish to preserve the natural fish that struggle to survive for many reasons unrelated to dams. You have fallen for all the blather about hydro that’s simply not true. If you are referring to the nonsense published about hydro and greenhouse gases by the International Rivers Network, then you are just not aware of the truth. They base their entire argument on a few dams in the tropics that do not represent hydro projects in the U.S. at all. In addition, you casually blow away 5 % of the NW power as if it’s trivial and it is not. We’re discussing over 3 million kW that produces over 10.7 million MWHs annually. Dam removal would require replacing lost energy by burning coal, oil, or nat. gas or the use each year of the equivalent of 17.9 million bbl. of oil, or 4.5 million tons of coal, or 109 billion cu. ft. of gas. The increase in oil imports alone would cost about $1.25 billion dollars annually (assuming $70/ bbl for oil). And, you can’t replace that much power easily with undependable power sources such as wind.
As far as Judge Redden is concerned, he has been on a warpath about this subject for many years and nothing will ever change his views, even if he was proven wrong. The NW will get what it wants. What that is, I surely don’t know. I do not believe dam removal will resolve the problem completely because we convenienly overlook the over-fishing of the oceans and the fact that salmon is just one of numerous fish species that are at the brink of extinction, not because of dams but because of the abuse of the oceans in general. It is questionable whether we can have any sustainable food supply from the oceans with the current sad state of affairs from over-fishing.
And, if we are to believe all the information about global warming, then we’re all wasting are energy on this subject because that will do the job of extinction unfortunately.
(Quote)
Perhaps my opinion on this issue is rather naive, and I have done no where near the research required to intelligently discuss it, but I believe if we have a chance to save these fish right now, then that should be our number one priority. Perhaps instead of worrying about how to replace the loss of 5% of the energy, we should figure out ways to reduce our energy consumption by 5%. I know this is a complex issue and there are no simple solutions, but why not try to save them? I find it sad that we insist on running our air conditioners (in horribly inefficient homes, I might add) and watering our yards even if it means losing an entire species of fish. I’ve never fished for salmon, but I might like to some day. I want to have that option at least. Anyway, what I’m saying is that why don’t we do everything we can to save them while we still can, especially if there’s a simple solution?
There may be no reliable and sensible ways to replace the 5% of energy the dams provide, but I know there are easy ways to reduce our consumption by that much. All it’d take is enough homes committed to turning off their air conditioners during the summer or something comparable. Maybe a possible solution would be for folks in the NW who care about salmon to commit to using less energy? If enough people signed on, maybe some sort of deal could be struck…you never know. Forgive my uninformed opinion,
hawgdaddy
(Quote)
Intersting debate with thoughtful comments. I come down against blind support for fish becasue of the lack of understanding of the issues. Consider this. How often is any answer wihtout impact on other issues? Never. The problem with the fish versus salmon debate is that it looks only at a tiny corner without standing back and considering the bigger issues. Here are a couple. We use the hydro system to integrate wind power. Everyone seems to think that wind energy is a great idea. However, if you don’t have the damns, then you have to have a gas or coal fired plant (ie air issues) to shore up the wind making it useable (becasue wind blows at veriable times and speends and thus as a matter of physics (not policy or opinion) has to be melded with something that can track and follow the variation.) Wind wihtout hydro means more gas and coal fired plants, not less. or- it isn’t actually a 5% reduction in use that would equal the impact of the “solutions” being postulated for saving fish — and if your retail outlet, job, oreconomy as a whole went down by 10%, you may be out of a job and more kids will go without sufficient food, we have more social services costs, and higher crime. Or how about this – at the cost of several $100,000 per fish saved (yes, really), could that money be spent on other things like developing alternative ways for saving the fish (which might look at why alaska has so many when we have few and few when we have a good run), or developing renewables that do not have unintended impacts on the environment, people, and food soruces. Or, when we consider the impact of global warming’s impact on fish (it does impact migration patterns and food soruces.) we don’t know very much at all and too many get up in arms about a solution that has not considered all of the impacts and results.
(Quote)
Renewables are the best choice overall when you look at the life-cycle economics of power production facilities. However, renewables usually have high up-front costs which Public Utility Commission’s don’t like because they are looking for short-term payouts for amortizing debt. What the State PUC’s have forced us into is fossil fuels. In the long run, renewables are always the best choice, but you have to look at their economics over longer periods to make sense out of the whole energy picture. In a nutshell, it’s always better to look at energy production from the net efficiency point-of-view which favors renewables, but the PUC’s won’t allow that. We have a hydro system that is basically paid for and that many people want to dismantle, such as American Rivers. If you need to replace the lost power with anything, a renewable is too expensive on a short-term basis. And, wind and other renewables are less dependable and do need backup power. Incidentally, wind advocates never want to include that cost. I want to see the salmon preserved to, but ripping out the Snake River dams is not a complete solution. We need to address over-fishing, climate change, and a myriad of other factors. I’ve always found it interesting that rivers that do not have dams are suffering declines in fish populations too. I wish I had an answer, but I’m just not as smart as our environmental friends who seem to “Know” the right answers.
(Quote)
RAC: You’re being disingenuous; saying we shouldn’t consider the salmon vs. dams issue until we’ve solved all the other issues is a classic responsibility dodge.
The “facts” around the four Snake river dams are entirely clear — the number of salmon who make it past the dams plummets with each additional dam, until few fish remain.
In fact, a grand total of four sockeye salmon made it to Redfish lake last year — and that’s not a result of overfishing.
It’s the dams.
Outgoing fish suffer similar depredations as they go through turbines, and the net result is that populations keep falling because not enough salmon reach their upstream spawning habitats.
That’s not so hard to understand.
As for the rest of your points, I’m afraid simply dismissing the arguments of others — sans facts — isn’t debate, it’s just denial.
Of course Judge Reppner is on the warpath. The people charged with looking at the facts and then delivering a plan to recover salmon stocks (BPA, Corp of Engineers, Reclamation) have failed to do so, and their latest plan actually involves spilling less water at critical times.
In short, it’s a restatement of an already failed recovery policy, which means the groups in question feel free to once again ignore the law.
That actions like that make the judge unhappy is hardly surprising, and remember — this is the same judge who was presented with an argument that recovery wasn’t mandated, only a recovery plan.
Trucking & barging salmon around the dams has been tried — to the tune of many billions of dollars — and it’s failed miserably.
The economic impacts of these failed efforts are significant.
Finally, I can’t let this one pass. You mention fish population declines on undammed rivers as some kind of proof that dams aren’t the problem.
The problem is simply habitat loss — and whether that’s due to development, overharvesting timber (as we’ve seen in the past), or a series of dams that wouldn’t be built today — the economic and population impacts on a renewable, affordable food source is entirely the same.
You say “I wish I had an answer, but I’m just not as smart as our environmental friends who seem to “Know” the right answers.”
I’d say I don’t have all the answers, but I am smart enough to ignore all the distractions foisted upon us by people who aren’t willing to admit what every piece of data shows us — that the salmon populations on the Snake are being decimated by those four dams, and the people charged with maintaining those economically important salmon populations aren’t protecting them.
Simple as that.
(Quote)
Ann: I’m glad you could rejoin the conversation, and in terms far more cordial than those you used in your private e-mail to me.
Can we agree to kill the name-calling in the future?
(Quote)
I didn’t think I was doing any name calling. If so, it’s not my intent. I can take getting bashed around so have at it. I still think there’s a bit of righteousness being dished out. It’s not just the dams. There are many other factors, but the anti-dam interests do have a cause here and will hear nothing else. Hydropower built the NW, but it’s now being beat up on the Columbia, the Elwha, and the Klamath. There’s also a lot of clamor to remove more dams in CA and even the Colorado River. It’s clear that hydropower is not considered with great favor. I often wonder where we would be in this country if we tried to do anything that is now the backbone of the economy. The Interstate system is a classic example. It would never happen. We are either in the NIMBY, BANANA, or NOTE mode. Salmon are important but the discussion is really only about dam removal.
(Quote)
RAC: I was referring to the private emails I’d received in reference to the name calling, although at one point you have resorted to labeling, which hardly does your argument justice.
As for the rest of it, labeling everyone who thinks those four dams should be removed as some kind of anti-dam zealot is intellectually dishonest.
We’re talking about the four lower dams on the Snake River, and we both know those dams were pet projects that wouldn’t have a prayer of being built today.
We also both know there are distortions on both sides of the fence as to the statistics being thrown about, and we also both know that any plan to truly help salmon recover means a lot more water slipped over the dam and less through the turbines, and it also means power couldn’t be generated at the times of the year when it’s most needed.
I’m struck by one repetitive factor of these conversations — those who want dams out are always challenged to replace the power, and told that conservation can’t work.
In truth, we haven’t even tried it, but let’s reverse the tables.
You want to keep the dams? You come up with a plan to restore spawning habitat to the runs.
And guess what? The numbers about the current barging plans don’t lie — they don’t work, and further, you can’t simply say overfishing is the cause — commercial salmon fishermen have been severely restricted in their quotas as of late (making them yet another economic victim of these dams).
So what’s your plan? And how much will it cost?
(Quote)
I guess we are at a stand still. I don’t think the dams need to be removed. You think they need to be removed. I think the data supports leaving the dams, you do not. That means you win!
(Quote)
If somebody can come up with a viable alternative to dam removal — one that restores salmon populations in commercially and recreationally viable numbers, I’m all ears.
Unfortunately, the latest plan won’t save salmon, and in some ways makes the problem worse. It also suggest nothing can be done to save sockeye salmon populations.
Unlike so many, I don’t think the solution to the problem is “there is no problem.”
The data confirms the salmon are in significant trouble, and that the agencies charged with protecting them have proven themselves unwilling to do so (that was affirmed by the 9th court of appeals).
Ultimately, perhaps the only hope for this situation lies with a “skunkworks” group similar to the working negotiating something around the four Klamath dams
(Quote)
Tom,
I think the end of this thread bears out what you told me by email. The burden of finding solutions always seems to lie with conservationists. “Want to save the salmon? Well then figure out how to replace the energy!” we’re told. But when the tables are turned, and the one’s who want to keep the dams are asked for a solution that saves the salmon, there are no good answers. The only apparent answer is, “The dams are simply more important than salmon, so why are we even having this discussion?” The problem I have with that is that I believe the salmon are more important than the energy and cheap transportation offered by the dams. I know this is a subjective opinion, but from what I can tell, the law agrees with me. So, for those who want to keep the dams, do you have anything else to offer? If removing the dams is the only viable solution, let’s get rid of them and quit playing around.
hawgdaddy
(Quote)
The push to remove select dams on several rivers in the Northwest are often blamed on anti-dam forces with “an agenda.”
Of course, that’s just a label. Even non “tree huggers” like The Taxpayers for Common Sense think the things should go.
(Quote)
You are either not up-to-date on the anti-dam movement or choose to ignore what is happening. There is an organized and concerted effort to remove as many dams as possible. The charge is led by American Rivers nationally and the International Rivers Network internationally. They resort to fact distortion and many other tactics that are intellectually dishonest, such the bogus argument about greenhouse gases perpetuated by IRN that I mentioned before. They have taken two projects that anyone would agree are a disaster that were built in the tropics doing everything wrong environmentally that one can imagine and extrapolated that situation worldwide. That’s just the tip of the miss-information blitz. They get the press and headlines and rational discussion and facts are absent. It’s no wonder that those who are involved with dams are fighting a losing battle. The world will get what it wants. I just hope that we can feed everyone and make life better for everyone who is striving to pull themselves up from the horrors of poverty and starvation. Development has its consequences. It’s up to the haves to help the have nots and to hopefully do that in an environmentally sensitive way. I do hope that you are right, but I still beg to disagree.
(Quote)
RAC, who are you? And Ann DeBlasio, are you related to Richard DeBlasio, the manager of the Hydro Energy group?
You are the ones with the wrong facts about the 4 dams on the Lower Snake. They cost the tax payers close to $1 billion per year. They produce almost no power when it’s needed in the late summer, fall, and winter…they are run-of-the-river dams. They can’t store water.
Economics? Only 13 irrigators draw water from only one dam. They provide almost no barging anymore. Potlatch in Lewiston no longer ships product down the river. And get this the cost to run the transportation system, only 700 small barge trips per year, is greater than the cost to operate the Panama Canal and the St Lawerence Seaway combined.
The 700 barge trips? Oh dear. At least 125 of these trips are barges carrying (and killing) salmon and steelhead smolts past the turbine killing dams.
And the REAL political kicker? Potlatch dumps over one-million gallons of super heated poisonous water into the confluence of the Snake and the Clearwater every day.
(Quote)
Who are you? As if that’s relevant. I’m just someone who is trying to put forth the other side of the issue. It’s not all about what you think. Others have a right to a different point of view and each of us has a right to state their views. You must be reading some real propaganda to state that operating these four dams is more expensive than the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Panama Canal combined. Where is the data that proves that? As for the dams being run-of-river projects, perhaps you forgot that the 4 projects are part of the entire Columbia River system of projects and the storage is located at upstream dams, some of which are in Canada. All of the Columbia River projects in Canada and the U.S. are operated as system of power, flood control, irrigation, etc, projects. No one project operates alone. There is a treaty and an agreement between the two countries to accomplish that.
(Quote)
RAC, it is relevant who you are. It takes courage to step out from behind your handle when debating. You have the voice print of another I debated several years ago on the same issue, the Snake dams. It turned out the debater was a paid hydro lobbyist, retired from a career working for big Cali hydro, a biostitute of the first order.
Me, I have been fighting for cold water fisheries for 35 years. I live in Idaho. I am a retired real estate broker, not a lobbyist, simply a citizen who educated himself on this issue and others.
The St Lawerence Seaway and the Pananma Canal information? Not from propaganda, from online government docs concerning annual budget costs to operate.
It’s quite simply. The Panama Canal experiences an average of 15,000 ocean going vessel passages each year. The St LS passage numbers average 5,000 each year.
Each of these vessels pay lockage fees that offset management costs leaving about $125 million for taxpayers to cover.
The Snake River shallow draft barges pay NO lockage fees. And the taxpayer gets hammered again. The grain shippers, about all that’s left using the waterway, only pay $1.30 per ton (10%). The taxpayer pays $11.70 per ton (a whopping 90% subsidy.)
RAC, your focus continues to be the Cloumbia system all the way into Canada. Correct. However we Idaho folks are concerned with the Snake River system in Idaho. The four dams are killing our salmon and steelhead. Our fish were able to survive the other five dams. We once had one to three million wild fish per year entering Idaho. Even with the inferior hatchery fish, the numbers are now only around 35,000 on a good year. Wild fish? Sadly less than 3,000.
(Quote)
You are flat out wrong about the so-called voice print. I am not paid by anyone. I am a retiree and I pay my own bills. I’m no one’s lackey so get off of your high horse. I choose to debate this topic because I am interested in the subject and it’s that simple.
(Quote)
Well…who are you? Retired? From what hydro related industry?
(Quote)
I am not retired from a hydro industry. You are so out in left field as to who and what I am, keeping a personal matter is better. You are quite the neb nose. Can’t just debate a subject without wanting to know a person?
(Quote)
Hard to debate a guy or gal with a paper bag over his or her head.
That’s okay, let’s continue and try to stay focused on the four dams on the Lower Snake River.
One of the most respected salmon-steelhead experts on the isssue, Don Chapman, once a strong supporter of the dams, swirched sides a few years ago.
Here is an excerpt and a link to him.
http://www.bluefish.org/dchapman.htm
Fisheries biologist Don Chapman says the impacts of global warming on the region
call for drastic action if Idaho’s salmon are to survive
MCCALL — For 25 years, biologist Don Chapman has defended the hydroelectric industry’s technological fish bypass systems as adequate to prevent salmon from going extinct.
Chapman, a well-respected fisheries biologist and long-time consultant for electric utilities, now says the warming of the Columbia River and its tributaries and potential ocean changes from global warming call for drastic action if Idaho’s salmon are to survive or flourish. Chapman says removing four dams will reduce the cumulative effects on salmon so they can survive the increasingly hazardous migration route.
“Regional warming makes breaching imperative,” Chapman, 74, said in an interview at his McCall home.
(Quote)
You sure like to throw a hand grenade each time you respond. One’s privacy should be respected, not taunted. I am very familiar with Mr. Chapman and did read the information you refer to when it was first published. He is a respected scientist, most certainly, and I respect his opinions. I have my views also.
We do go in circles on this subject. It seems we have a dilemma in many ways. We want to attack global warming, and one of the solutions is more renewable energy, something I am keenly interested in. In your view and the view of others, removal of dams will solve some of the fishery problems. At the same time, we reduce renewable energy. I would sure like to see a solution that helps solve both problems, but there is no chance of that happening.
(Quote)
How about responding to the Potlatch polution into the Clearwater?
We know for a fact one of the reasons the dams remain is the backwater reservoir at Lewiston, Idaho hides the discharge.
How about the tax payer subsidies for grain shipping?
The power is being replaced as we spwak with almost 1000 new power plants through out the Northwest and California.
(Quote)
I don’t know anything about the 1000 new power plants. are they renewables?
(Quote)
Another tid-bit about the four Lower Snake River dams.
The city of Lewiston on the border of Washington and Idaho, the so called terminal port, has had it with the failed river system. The Port of Lewiston has been on the verge of bankruptcy for years and survives because of tax levies.
(Quote)
Have you read the new report on the effect of hydro on the CO2 footprint in the Northwest Power System and info on the effect of removing the 4 Lower Snake River Dams:
http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/2007/2007-15.pdf
(Quote)
RAC, you can make $70,000 per year fishing for squawfish…as long as the the dams remain.
I’ll comment on your CO2 piece when you muster up the courage to respond to my earlier posts.
And I thank you for the opportunity to advance the “Truth” about the issue.
Here’s an item you may know nothing about.
When Idaho salmon and steelhead smolts attempt to migrate the 700 miles back to the Pacific Ocean, their biological clock is running.
They must reach the saltwater in a week or die.
Before the four Lower Snake River dams, a distance of 120 miles…this what not a problem, there were 78 white water sections (where the dams are) which moved them in a day to lower reaches.
Since the Lower Snake River dams…the fish encounter slack water, 120 miles of overheated close to stagnant backwater…death to the salmon.
Here is the ringer. The smolt destruction is not so much the slack water. It’s from the huge proliferation of Squawfish and they are predacious. They eat stunned smolts by the thousands.
HOW DO YOU RAC GET $70K PER YEAR? THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILL PAY YOU $9 FOR EACH SQUAWFISH HEAD YOU BRING IN TO THEIR CHECK-IN STATIONS.
Now don’t cheat. Some do. Some go to other rivers and catch them and bring them.
Also, don’t mess with the prime squawfish holes. There’s guys with guns that don’t like Californians getting in on their action.
Yep, believe it or not…the Corps pays millions in Squawfish bounty.
Go for it RAC !!!! Arm youeself tho !!! Get’s some Washington or Idaho plates on your 60 foot RV railer thingy…and sit by the banks of the Snake and get rich.
(Quote)
You continue to be your arrogant self-righteous self, totally engrossed within your own world of “I know everything”. You are not worth my time any longer in this debate. Go fishing!
(Quote)
Gotcha RAC…I was hoping you had something of value to add. I do agree with your September 9, 2007 statement…
…Let’s tear down all the dams and reurn the NW back to territories.
Returning to territory status might difficult, but tearing out the four dams on the Laower Snake makes sense to me.
(Quote)
Ann, now that RAC tossed in the towel with nothing new pro or con…I was wondering if you would care to talk about the Lower Snake dam issues ?
(Quote)
No takers, huh! Washington Post article:
Numbers Are Mixed As Salmon Return
Chinook Increase, But Sockeye Decline
By Meghan Peters, Seattle Times, October 7, 2007, Washington Post
SEATTLE — A record number of threatened chinook salmon are passing through the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks in Ballard, Wash., this year, bound for East King County rivers. The return of nearly 32,000 far surpasses the previous record of about 19,000 set in 2001. Counts began in 1995. “It’s an exceptional survival for the hatchery fish released from Issaquah,” Steve Foley, a fishery biologist at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, said Friday. “It’s also an exceptional survival for those who got out of the Cedar [River] that are naturally produced.” Sockeye salmon, however, have reached a low of about 60,000. Biologists had estimated that about 125,000 would enter the Locks this season. The numbers come from the Muckleshoot Tribe, which conducts the counts. Sockeyes are returning to Canadian rivers in similarly low numbers. Coho salmon are just short of average at about 16,000.
Foley said marine conditions, especially water temperatures, affect the numbers most. Because chinook and sockeye migrate out to the ocean at different times, the bulk of the chinook returning this year probably reached the ocean in 2004, while most of the sockeye probably entered saltwater in 2005. In Bellevue, Wash., various efforts have been made to improve the number of chinook coming to Lake Washington. Kit Paulsen, Bellevue’s stream scientist, cited ocean conditions as a substantial factor and noted the work of volunteer salmon watchers. As part of the salmon-recovery plan, monitors watch for fish for 15 minutes twice a week and can help identify problems, Paulsen said. “We know our area, and we want to keep these fish,” she added. “It’s really exciting to see salmon in the middle of an urban center.”
(Quote)
Here’s your answer RAC…tear out them damn worthless Lower Snake dams ane the Idaho fish would be back
8 Years And Counting: Columbia-Snake River Salmon Returns Fall Short Again
SEATTLE, Aug. 20 /PRNewswire/ –
SEATTLE, Aug. 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The book officially closed on the 2007 spring and summer salmon season on the Columbia and Snake Rivers on Friday, and the bottom line was even worse than fisheries managers predicted.
Returns of spring and summer chinook to the Columbia-Snake basin fell far below the level needed for recovery for the eighth consecutive year. For fishermen and northwest communities, it was another year of reduced seasons and economic insecurity, and put an exclamation point on the continuing failure of federal salmon recovery efforts.
“The federal agencies can slice the numbers and spin the data any way they want, but the real bottom line is clear: fewer and fewer fish are returning each year, and this administration has no intention of doing anything new or serious to actually help us,” said Jeremy Brown, a commercial salmon fishermen and member of the Washington Trollers Association. “We’ve had to spend as much time tied to the dock this year as we have fishing, and nothing the federal government is proposing suggests they intend to improve the situation.”
Recreational, commercial and tribal fishermen in Washington, Oregon and Idaho all experienced cutbacks and closures in 2007 that gutted fishing seasons to just half of what they were last year. Those who fish Washington’s waters, in particular, faced quotas as low as they’ve been since 1994, threatening the economic stability of already struggling coastal and river communities in the state.
(Quote)
Just providing info. You get very emotional at the drop of a hat. I am not debating – just sending the info. Calm down.
(Quote)
…just knew you couldn’t stay away. Just knew your previous comment was pure chaldrens fairy-tale
………………………………………………………………………….
RAC | Sep 29, 2007 | Reply
You continue to be your arrogant self-righteous self, totally engrossed within your own world of “I know everything”. You are not worth my time any longer in this debate. Go fishing!
(Quote)
Not true like most of your blather.
(Quote)
As much as I enjoy the banter in this thread, the online community lacks beer, which makes it possible for everyone to get together afterwards and be buddies again.
Let’s focus on the issues and not the person.
(Quote)
I tried but you made that impossible.
(Quote)
Central Idaho salmon, once numbering in the millions, are almost gone. The millions of dollars spent each year in an attempt to recover one fish, the upper Salmon River Redfish sockeye, is no longer a recovery program. Biologists are now focused on simply saving the DNA for sometime in the future when the four lower Snake River dams have been breached.
The following is a report on this years return.
September 6, 2007
IDAHO MOUNTAIN EXPRESS – Salmon numbers remain low
Four sockeye swim to Redfish from Pacific
by GREG MOORE
Efforts toward recovery of salmon on their namesake river continue an uphill battle, with 1,549 returning Chinook salmon having been counted at the Sawtooth Hatchery near Stanley by Sept. 4. This Friday, Sept. 6, will be the last day of counting.
As of Aug. 28, only four sockeye salmon had been counted returning from the Pacific Ocean to their namesake Redfish Lake, where they once spawned by the thousands. The sockeye program is primarily a gene-banking program, rather than a recovery program, and far fewer sockeye smolts are released than are Chinook smolts.
The number of returning sockeye in recent years has varied tremendously, from a low of three in 2003 and 2006 to 257 in 2000. Most years, the number is in the 20s.
“These are some of the poorest returns we’ve seen in recent years,” said Mike Peterson, a fisheries biologist with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
Peterson said sockeye return numbers have been low throughout the Columbia River basin, which includes the upper Columbia and Fraser rivers in British Columbia.
He said biologists suspect that unusually high temperatures in the upper Salmon River, caused by a low snowpack and hot summer weather, contributed to the low survival rate here. He said water temperatures reached 75 degrees, near the survival limit for salmon.
Roger Elmore, assistant manager of the Sawtooth Hatchery near Stanley, said the 1,549 returning Chinook there are about a normal number, though last year only 761 fish returned. He said one anomaly this year is that a large percentage of the returning fish – 1,259 of them – are “jacks,” fish that have spent only one year, as opposed to two, in the ocean.
“It’s a hopeful sign,” he said.
Lots of jacks mean good recent conditions for salmon survival in the ocean. That means a likelihood of a good return next year for 4-year-old fish, which will have spent two years in the ocean.
However, it also means that hatchery employees have fewer than the normal number of adult females from which to draw eggs. Elmore said the hatchery will probably spawn about 70 females this year, far fewer than the 325 the facility can handle.
Biologists have placed most of the blame on the dramatic declines in migrating salmon on the four dams built on the lower Columbia River and the four dams built on the lower Snake River. However, they acknowledge that they have little information on how the fish are affected by other factors.
Peterson said that in 2005, the year the currently returning fish were released, about 68,000 sockeye smolts made it downstream to Lower Granite Dam, the first of the eight dams they encounter heading downstream. From there, they are barged around all eight dams.
“We really don’t know where the majority of the mortality occurs,” he said.
He said survival conditions for salmon in the ocean depend on varying temperatures and current patterns, and that much remains to be studied.
Peter Hassemer, anadromous fish manager with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, said the state’s sockeye program is primarily a holding operation until the environmental factors affecting the fish can be changed.
“We’re trying to make sure we have this species so that when the opportunity presents itself, we’ll have the closest thing to a native population to work with,” he said.
Copyright © 2007 Express Publishing Inc.
(Quote)