News

Klamath River dam removal opponents label pro dam-removal evidence as “junk” science. What do they call it when they manufacture their own facts?

A lot of the commonly accepted “facts” in the bizarro world of Siskiyou County politics aren’t facts at all, but that hasn’t prevented their spread.

In the fight to remove the four lower Klamath River dams and restore the Klamath’s fast-dwindling coho salmon populations, we’ve been told that “dams are good for salmon.” It’s all the Native Americans’ fault. And that the UN wants to seize our lands and create a wildlife preserve.

Then there’s my personal favorite: the Klamath’s coho salmon are not native to the Klamath watershed, so their ESA listing is illegal — as is removing the Klamath River dams to protect them.

This, Undergrounders, should prove entertaining.

Your Junk Smells

It’s common for dam removal opponents to label any science supporting dam removal as “junk science,” despite the fact it’s peer reviewed(by several groups) and widely available for public scrutiny.

In other words, when a group like the Siskiyou County Water Users Association (SCWUA) files a petition to remove the Klamath coho salmon from the ESA endangered roster, they’re pretty clearly pushing a boulder uphill — unless they’re willing to manufacture evidence.

Which, it turns out, is what they did.

First Things First

Let’s look at one of the key bits of evidence supporting the “coho aren’t native to the Klamath River” claim: this apparently damming quote from a 1913 California Fish & Game commission report (screenshot taken from the SCWUA Petition):

Quote from SCWUA coho delisting petition

Using this quote as a foundation, a “Dr. Richard Gierak” (a chiropractor who is listed as “Science Advisor” on the SCWUA petition) had this to say in a blog post on the Defend Rural America website:

Coho were first planted in 1895 and according to a 1913 California Fish & Game Commission report it indicated there were no run of either kind of Salmon in the Trinity River even after Coho were planted in 1895 and 1899.

Unfortunately for the SCWUA and Dr. Gierak, I found a scanned copy of the 1913 Fish & Game Commission Report (you can find the book on Google books).

After reading it, I couldn’t find the quote.

Odd. Let’s see if the original quote was in another 1913 report, or if it could be found elsewhere.

Turns out I did find it.

Which is when the rain really started to fall.

Instead of coming from 1913 California Fish & Game Commission report, the quote is found in an 1895 U.S. Fish Commission Report (click here, look at pg 41 of the .pdf file).

And they didn’t just get the date and authorship wrong. The un-modified quote actually means the polar opposite of what the SCWUA petition says it does.

To refresh your memory, here’s the quote from the SCWUA delisting petition:

“Most of the salmon and steelhead eggs were taken at the [Redwood Creek] substation, as there was no run of either kind of Salmon in the Trinity River.”

Now here’s the original, unmodified wording (emphasis mine to note differences):

“Most of the salmon and steelhead eggs were taken at the [Redwood Creek] substation, as there was no run of either kind in the Trinity, all the fish having been taken at the cannery at the mouth of Klamath River.”

Night and day, Undergrounders. Night and day.

• The original quote wasn’t uttered by Shebley in 1913, but was found in an 1895 report
• Somebody (gasp) truncated the original quote to reverse its meaning
• The words “of Salmon” were added, apparently to mislead the reader (the quote was about Chinook salmon and steelhead)

Was the quote deliberately transplanted from 1895 to 1913 to give the 1895 plantings more impact, truncated to flip its meaning, and the words “of Salmon” added in an attempt to change its meaning?

Given the chain of alterations (one error is a mistake; several is likely a deception), I’d suggest the answer is “yes.”

As it stands, the quote confirms the presence of steelhead and Chinook salmon in the Trinity River, not their absence (which never made any sense; the existence of Chinook in the Klamath system has never been in question).

And while it doesn’t conclusively confirm the existence of coho salmon in the Trinity or Klamath Rivers, it certainly places the veracity of those making the claims (and presumably lying about the quote) in question.

While We’re On The Subject…

Further torpedoing the SCWUA’s assertion that the relatively small 1895 coho plant on the Trinity River is the genesis of all the coho salmon on the Trinity and Klamath is a Fish & Game report on the odds a single 1895 coho plant in the Trinity River could have populated the entire Klamath watershed.

Although it cannot be determined with absolute certainty that the 1895 stocking [*ED: on the Trinity, a tributary of the Klamath] did not result in a portion of the runs observed 15 years later in the Klamath River, this initial stocking was likely too small and in the wrong area to have had much chance of establishing a new, self-reproducing population in the upper Klamath River and tributaries. At least some portion of the eggs reared and released in the Trinity system in 1895 originated from Redwood Creek; a much smaller system. Redwood Creek coho salmon are specifically adapted to swimming relatively short distances (<60 miles) to reach their customary spawning areas. It seems unlikely these fish could have strayed the additional 150 river-miles necessary to reach the upper Klamath River to successfully establish a new run. Further, the eggs hatched and reared at Fort Gaston had opportunity to imprint to the Trinity River, and this also would have reduced the chances of straying to the upper portions of the Klamath. Finally, as reported by the Klamath River Basin Fishery Task Force (1991), Withler (1982) found that no introduction of Pacific anadromous salmonids using non-native broodstock has been successful in producing new, self-reproducing populations anywhere on the West Coast.

OK. History, science and common sense are not on the SCWUA’s side, but what about the actual numbers (at least those pertaining to the coho)?

The great majority of coho salmon returning to spawn are three-year-old fish (although a small portion of each brood year returns as two-year-old fish, these primarily consist of precocious males). Therefore, run size in any given year is strongly influenced by the number of fish produced three years prior. Hatchery records indicate both coho salmon fry and yearlings were planted in 1895. It is not clear from the records if the fry and yearlings originated from the same brood year or were from two separate brood years. Regardless, because of their three-year life cycle, coho salmon returns from the 1895 plant would have appeared at the Klamathon Racks in only one or two of every three consecutive years. Egg take records from the Klamathon Racks show that this is not the case: coho salmon eggs were taken in substantial numbers in consecutive years beginning with the 1912-1913 season ( Appendix Table D-1). This would not have been possible if all the adult fish had been descendants of fry and yearling plants made in 1895.

With the Coho’s three-year life cycle in mind, one wonders how the SCWUA document asserts:

“After each subsequent planting (Ed: coho plantings in the 60s and 70s) there was a rise in returning Coho for the following three years…”

Given the three-year life cycle of coho, there would only be a “rise in returning coho” for one of the three years.

Let’s Look At More

So we’ve established the “fact” the SCWUA petition contains at least one outright fabrication, and a couple of statements that defy logic. What’s still in store for us?

It isn’t pretty.

For example, the authors use a single, out-of-context passage from the minutes of a 2001 Karuk tribal meeting — not exactly a gathering of scientists nor a peer reviewed publication — as “proof” coho aren’t native to the Klamath.

They neglect to mention the Karuk language uses a separate word for coho salmon, and that it’s been in the lexicon for thousands of years:

The Karuk word for coho is achvuun. Coho appear in ancient Karuk stories and were managed for traditionally long before non-natives arrived.

Oops.

Other Amazing Facts

• Dams are good for salmon
• “There is no Salmon problem in the Pacific Northwest”
• There are no differences between hatchery and wild salmon
• Coho salmon don’t range south of Oregon (relying on that bastion of peer-reviewed science Wikipedia, which mistakenly relied only on a report written only about Canadian coho stocks.)
• A statement from California’s leading expert on salmonids (Dr. Peter Moyle) should be ignored because he “is not an expert on salmonids but is instead a freshwater species expert.”

It goes on.

Much of the document relates to Chinook salmon (who are not in question), or offers alternative reasons why coho salmon numbers are dwindling (ocean warming due to Pacific Rim volcanic activity is a favorite) — neither of which address the presence of coho salmon in the Klamath Watershed.

In fact, even a cursory glance at the rest of the SCWUA’s coho delisting petition reflects a level of “integrity” similar to that displayed with the “1913″ quote manipulation.

Now For Something Completely Sane

The coho myth last gained traction in Siskiyou County in 2001, and while it mercifully disappeared for a while, like a zombie, it has risen from the dead and in an attempt to eat the brains of the living.

Back then, California Fish & Game crafted a document (excerpted above, but also below) that scientifically, rationally and calmly makes the case that Coho are native to the Klamath watershed:

The fact that the upper Klamath River and tributaries are: 1) contiguous with documented historical coho salmon distribution in the lower reaches of the Klamath River system and historical coho salmon streams both north and south of the Klamath River; 2) contain no natural barriers that would prevent their migration into the upper reaches and tributaries such as the Scott and Shasta rivers; 3) have physical attributes that would have produced suitable coho salmon habitat in the past (e.g. gradient, morphology, and, in some cases like the Shasta River, spring sources that provide perennial flow); and 4) still contain suitable coho salmon habitat, provides substantial evidence that coho salmon likely inhabited the upper Klamath River and tributaries prior to hatchery stocking. It is evident from the coho salmon’s persistent presence, and field observations made by the Department and other biologists, that sufficient habitat still exists in the Shasta and Scott rivers to support sustainable populations of coho salmon.

…

Substantial coho salmon populations appear to have been present in the upper Klamath River in 1910 as evidenced by the egg collections made at the Klamathon racks during the initial year of operation. The relatively large number of females required to produce the number of eggs collected that year and in subsequent years suggests that native coho salmon were well established in the Klamath River upstream of Iron Gate Dam’s location. For the reasons described above, it is unlikely that these runs could have originated from the plants made in the Trinity River in 1895. Coho salmon were well documented in the Shasta and Scott rivers long before the construction of Iron Gate and Trinity River hatcheries and the subsequent introductions of large numbers of non-native coho salmon at the hatcheries. Based on the above discussions, the Department believes that coho salmon are native to the upper Klamath River system, including the Scott and Shasta Rivers, and historically occurred in these streams prior to any hatchery stocking.

Junk Is As Junk Does

In only one sense are dam removal opponents correct; a photograph of a coho salmon lying on top of a pre-1895 newspaper featuring the headline “I’m a native coho from the Klamath” does not exist.

Yet the Klamath offers excellent coho habitat (this is more important to coho than Chinook salmon; coho spend a year in freshwater before migrating to the ocean while Chinook do not), and coho are found in streams both to the north and south.

The lack of references prior to 1895 are easy to explain; the coho salmon runs were largely ignored or lumped in with Chinook salmon runs, which were larger and contained bigger fish, and were therefore more commercially interesting.

Simply put, every bit of “real” evidence says coho were extant in the Klamath watershed, yet like the birther and moon landing “conspiracies,” real evidence simply becomes proof a conspiracy exists (yes, a conspiracy is alleged by the SCWUA petition).

Simply by participating, Siskiyou County could have come out of the dam removal negotiations smelling like a rose. Instead, many in the county — including the Board of Supervisors — have chosen to try and force a private company to retain privately owned, salmon-eradicating dams that will lose $20 million annually if relicensed.

To do so, they’re relying increasingly on wacky “facts” that — in at least one case — appear to have been fabricated.

See you chipping away at the four Klamath River dams, Tom Chandler.

UPDATE: Amusingly, the “science advisor” for the discredited SCWUA petition to delist the salmon (Dr. Richard Gierak) apparently can’t tell the difference between a juvenile coho salmon and a yellow perch… seriously (read the editorial and the comments).