Comments on: Salmon Recovery in Upper Sacramento Facing Huge Barriers (Like 602′ Shasta Dam)

By: Robert Fleming

Robert Fleming — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:59:10 +0000

Tom – It’s all three. A desperate throw of the dice (which won’t work, technology never does), a recognition that the hatchery model never was a “solution”, as well an admission that the habitat has been so degraded by economic interests that it will never be allowed to recover. This is exactly what happened on the Columbia river and its tributaries (except for a few which enter the Columbia very near its mouth). This is the rub between nature and the belief that we can do anything we want with nature and then just rely on some sort of technological fix to get us by. The decline of natural resources has always been governed by economic interests. (Here, we call it the Oregon Way.) The only reason any “solution” is even considered is because of the Endangered Species Act. Get ready to spend a lot more taxpayer dollars, fight for decades, and then end up with even fewer resources available in the future.

By: Tom Chandler

Tom Chandler — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:58:53 +0000

KBarton10: Having waded through a number of them and seen the bottom substrate I can attest as to their perfection. Pea sized gravel by the millions of pounds – which is why most of the Central Valley has gravel companies actively mining their aggregate.

Sounds good, but salmon need more than gravel. They need water, and enough of it to keep temperatures reasonable, and therein lies the rub. The habitat might be reclaimable but leveraging enough water (the pesticide-laced stuff won't do) from rights holders probably has lawyers rubbing their hands together with glee. I'm not going to pretend at expert status - and getting fish up and down around the dams seems daunting - but the Upper Sac and American have both habitat and water already in place above the dams. As Bjorn noted, it's serious mess, and from a wholly selfish, personal perspective, it's likely that salmon and steelhead in the Upper Sacramento will create more problems for fishermen than opportunities.

By: Bjorn

Bjorn — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:02:30 +0000

It does sound crazy, doesn’t it? Such drastic steps being called for in such an urgent way just kind of leave me scratching my head… but I guess it is because we’ve just not been doing what has been needed for so long, this is what we are left with. The 600 Creeks sounds like the best alternative, but comes with its own set of challenges and villains.

I’d say “how did we get in this mess?” but we actually know pretty well how we got here and there have been plenty of voices screaming about it for decades.

By: KBarton10

KBarton10 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:58:32 +0000

I’d go with the 600 little creeks. Having waded through a number of them and seen the bottom substrate I can attest as to their perfection. Pea sized gravel by the millions of pounds – which is why most of the Central Valley has gravel companies actively mining their aggregate.

My little creek is among the best – and has two, Syar and Cemex, plants within 5 miles of each other – with conveyor belts stretching tens of miles from the actively mined areas to the processing plant downstream.

If memory serves both Anderson and Willows have plants right next to I-5, suggesting they’ll have to do battle with growers and some multinational companies to restore those runs.