Bush Vows Extinction of Salmon in My Private Idaho

[BuzzH]

Paul, heres some data for you, although I dont know why I should waste my time posting it for you. Simple things seem to be beyond your level of comprehension...you being able to interpret this table with your tiny amount of knowledge about anadromous fish is really stretching things...

Table 1. Adult returns of wild salmon and steelhead to the uppermost dam on the Snake River below Hells Canyon (Ice Harbor Dam 1964-68; Lower Monumental Dam 1969; Little Goose Dam 1970-74; Lower Granite Dam 1975-00).

Run Year Summer
Steelhead Spring
Summer
Chinook Fall Chinook Sockeye Coho Pacific
Lamprey
1962 108,186 58,566 24,595 38 1,566 36,500
1963 76,788 43,514 11,068 1,118 930 49,500
1964 58,028 44,700 9,100 1,276 1,027 17,000
1965 62,566 21,900 8,200 317 157 9,900
1966 64,987 54,500 12,800 278 431 15,000
1967 45,012 57,700 14,000 717 2,000 4,300
1968 82,228 57,500 19,500 1,165 3,800 5,000
1969 57,693 63,700 6,200 1,127 4,000 4,500
1970 31,847 46,300 4,500 163 1,200
1971 48,397 39,000 4,700 891 1,700
1972 47,282 41,700 1,800 408 520
1973 27,824 42,300 2,400 192 770
1974 10,814 18,700 900 124 280
1975 14,100 17,800 1,000 209 440
1976 13,700 14,500 470 531 440
1977 13,900 30,800 600 458 50
1978 15,000 42,600 640 123 25 133
1979 19,700 5,285 500 25 50
1980 19,700 6,166 450 96 30
1981 23,300 11,267 340 218 1
1982 25,100 10,646 720 211 31
1983 24,500 9,414 428 122 25
1984 24,500 7,399 324 47 0
1985 26,708 8,441 438 35 2
1986 21,991 10,829 449 15 1
1987 25,470 10,297 253 29
1988 21,085 10,844 368 23
1989 24,968 5,379 295 2
1990 9,286 6,594 78 0
1991 17,321 5,020 318 8
1992 19,346 12,433 549 1
1993 7,354 9,967 742 12 40
1994 7,516 1,721 406 2 399
1995 7,991 1,116 350 4 680
1996 7,623 3,487 639 0 1,154
1997 8,738 7,892 797 2 1,454
1998 9,677 8,426 306 2 763
1999 10,856 3,276 905 0


Mean: Steelhead Spr/Sum Combined
1964-1968 62,564 47,260 109,824
1996-2000 11,339 6,395 17,734
Difference 51,225 40,865 92,090
Decline 82% 86% 84%

 

[Ithaca 37]

Paul, I'm looking forward to your interpretation of the data in Buzz's last post!

All you really have to do is keep in mind one question: Are the current fish returns better or worse than 1962?

 

[BigHornyRam]

Ithaca,

I need the last 3 years data before I can interprete Buzz's data. If Buzz would quit being a lying political weasel and provide this data, I would most likely determine that there has been some improvement in the salmon runs as of late, just as there have been improvements in the last 3 years for the wolf populations.

Ithaca, how do you explain the left wing wacko who initiated this topic and how it is titled? A bit hyperbolic would you agree?

You never answered me how your presidential candidate stands on this issue. Being from the east coast, he probably doesn't know much about it. Most likely he's being a typical politician, and keeping it to himself for fear of lossing votes either way. That's what I like about my candidate, he's not afraid to let you know what he thinks about issues.

Tell you what. You talk Bush into this wacko dam breaching idea you and Buzz boy have, and I'll still vote for him. I like his handling of the war issues so much, that I could over look this issue. Good luck!

Paul

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-25-2003 19:16: Message edited by: BigHornyRam ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

BHR, You've been wrong so many times on so many issues I can't be wasting any more time on ya. You have an uncanny knack for being unable to comprehend even the most fundamental concepts. Even after we've spent so much time trying to educate you you're still in the dark!

I'd rather spend my time trying to educate a caterpillar than waste any more on you.

You sure you're not from North Dakota?

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, you really are a gem...

I guess 37 years worth of data isnt good enough, so I'll fill in the gaps.

2000 11,740 wild steelhead over Lower Granite.

2001 20,580 wild steelhead over Lower Granite.

Sure, its an increase from the previous 15 years...the question though is why?

You dont know why, so you'll claim its all the turbine screens, barging, etc. That will show just how little you know about anadromous fish.

I'll let you try to guess why theres a slight increase in Wild Steelhead numbers, then you'll get "your spanking".

Heres a few more numbers for you to ponder...

Between 3/01/1977 and 12/15/2002 2,369,665 HATCHERY steelhead have crossed Lower Granite while only 174,896 WILD steelhead have crossed Lower Granite.

Also, take a look at the 80's and 90's and compare that to the early 60's any guesses why steelhead numbers went from the 100,000 area to 7000?

Lets hear it Paul, I can hardly wait.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-25-2003 20:15: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[BigHornyRam]

Ithaca,

Is that the best you can do to bait me? Your pathetic. Go back read how I handled Oak and take some notes. My guess is that he went back to suck on his mommies tit. But if he does come back, he'll have a few facts and figures to back up his opinions. You haven't provided jack shit, other than chearlead for buzz boy. Answer my questions, or go join Oak.

Buzz Boy,

I gave you my answers to this issue. You've been wrong more often than right. I read somewhere where you were bragging about some piece of shit baseball team was going to kick the shit out of some other piece of shit baseball team. You were spot on on that forecast weren't you Buzz. We can both huff and puff all we want here, only time will tell who was right.

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, you cant answer the questions because you dont have a clue.

I think if anyone needs a good long suckle on mommas boobie its you.

The dams will come down in the not to distant future...the anglers and the local business folks got a good dose of what salmon mean to Idaho....and they like it...

I'll be the first to say "I told you so" when it happens...now run and find momma.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paul,

I think Ithica was right about you drinking too much yesterday. But it appears that the Rev. Jack Daniels and Pastor Jim Beam paid you a visit again today, as no sober person could be wrong so much.

I am not sure why you want Oak or Ithica to explain the title or the "left wing whacko" that wrote it. I have never met either one of those individuals, so the only way they could explain me would be to speculate, based on very little information, like you do.

I can explain the title, but I don't think it is relevant to where this debate has gone. You have shown little or no grasp of the issues or the proposed solutions, and have challenged Buzz for the data. Buzz provided the data, but I would doubt you even have the ability to analyze, much less the inclination, as it will clearly prove Buzz' point.

I would be a bit careful calling other people whack-o, when it is you who agreed with the Whack Sheriff on the other thread. I am so far from being an Enviromentalist, that it is laughable when you try and lable me that. I don't think the Enviro- movement will endorse my V-10 as a "commuter car", nor my penchant for recycling beer cans by throwing them out the truck window.

Paul, I care about these issues, as I am a hunter and a fisherman. Why you don't care about these issues for similar reasons is beyond me.

You really should stay out of the Salmon issues, as this topic always shows your lack of understanding of the problem or the solutions. Occasionally I sometimes feel like you have some valuable knowledge on some of the sheep issues, or at least I enjoy watching you try and discuss something you have some knowledge of.

Why not go start a thread about how the Wild sheep are breeding with the domestic sheep in Montana, and how FNAWS is paying ranchers for the sheep? There are lots of topics that you might have a clue on, this one just ain't your bag....

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-25-2003 21:28: Message edited by: ElkGunner ]</font>

 

[BigHornyRam]

Gunner,

I think your trying to get rid of the lone voice of dissent on this thread. Whats the matter, afraid that my logic might sway your opinion?

Bad deal with the sheep in Eastern Montana isn't it. I don't think all your info is accurate however, but at this point it would be best not to discuse it in public.

Paul

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-25-2003 22:04: Message edited by: BigHornyRam ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paul,

I would never want to squash intelligent debate and spirited discussion. But this thread has not been balanced from the beginning, and you have not brought anything to the discussion, other than a target for some SI posters to use as an educational Dummy to the readers of SI.

You have made some requests for data, and now you don't seem to do anything with the data. What is up with that?

As for the Wild sheep breeding with the Range Maggots, what part of the information do I have that is not accurate? And why would we not want to discuss that in public? Is this some sort of a secret? Was this one of the herds that had been genetically selected to not wander off of the Mtn. where placed?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Gunner,

I think your trying to get rid of the lone voice of dissent on this thread. Whats the matter, afraid that my logic might sway your opinion?

Bad deal with the sheep in Eastern Montana isn't it. I don't think all your info is accurate however, but at this point it would be best not to discuse it in public.

Paul
[ 08-25-2003 22:04: Message edited by: BigHornyRam ]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Paul, I think Gunner would probably love to have some dissenting opinions here in SI. I know I certainly would and I bet Buzz would, too. I want some intelligent dissent though, not the kinda asinine stuff you and your buddies come up with.

Challenge us with some logic, back up and knowledge of the issues, not the kinda crap you usually pollute this forum with, and maybe we'll treat you with some respect.

Until you all can do that you get about as much respect as Sheriff Mike and Ron Gillett.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Elkgunner,

You ask:

"Was this one of the herds that had been genetically selected to not wander off of the Mtn. where placed?"

No, it was from a little known herd around Miles City that occupies private lands. But this was a concern with the herd you have mentioned. It will also be a concern with wild sheep herds all over the west, as there has been a renewed interest in using domestic sheep for weed control. Any sugestions other than ship all the range maggots to Austrailia?

Paul

 

[BigHornyRam]

Ithaca,

You are starting to get a little better with your baiting. That last one showed some real promise. I'll give it a B -.

Paul

 

[Oak]

Paul, I'm not sure how you think you "handled" me? What facts did you want from me that haven't already been posted by others here? Actually, I'd say I was "parroting" nobody when I didn't reiterate the same old proof that's been posted over and over for all to read. Looks like you're about the only one here who is still ignorant enough to look past the facts and instead believes everything he hears from polititians, welfare farmers and ranchers, and wackos like "Sheriff Mike".

The fact is, your main argument against breaching (electricity) doesn't hold water. It's been proven, and posted here, that the electricity provided by the dams in question is not produced competitively, and could be replaced with cheaper electricity if the dams are removed. I can supply that info again if you didn't get it the first 10 times it was posted.

I find it hard to believe that you can't see that you're flat out wrong on this issue, but maybe you really are as dense as they say.

Oak

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paul,

So where was my "info not accurate" as you alluded in your post of
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bad deal with the sheep in Eastern Montana isn't it. I don't think all your info is accurate however, but at this point it would be best not to discuse it in public. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems like my information was accurate. I think this just points to the whole issue with you trying to debate Salmon issues. Even when you know I am right, you still are unable to admidt or acknowledge it.

As for alternatives to shipping the sheep to Austrailia, have you considered New Zeland?

And why would it <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>be a concern with wild sheep herds all over the west, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>? The domestic sheep have priority over the exotic non-native Wild sheep that have been re-introduced in these areas. The last thing we would want to do would be to hinder rural economies by impacting the domestic sheep production.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Oak,

You still got milk on your lips. Could you please whipe it off, and while your at it, fetch me the information on how you plan to deal with sediments behind the dams as well as the information reguarding replacement of the lost electricity from breaching. Also tell me what YOU would propose to do if breaching these 4 dams does not yield the results you are hoping for.

Paul

 

[1_pointer]

Use goats instead of sheep for week control. Dump the sediments on an indian reservation, they always need the money.

Electricity, if needed, can be bought from the Dakota's, Nebraska, Kansas, or some of the other mid-west states which are going through negative population growth. Maybe instead of putting millions into helping the salmon get over/around the dams, that money should be spent looking for alternative sources of producing electricity. Just some of my idears.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Any comments on this 2000 release by J. D. Williams? Appears to me that the PATH report Buzz continually refers to is somewhat biased.

Paul

J. D. WILLIAMS
STATE CONTROLLER OFFICE OF THE STATE CONTROLLER
STATE CAPITOL
700 W. STATE STREET
P.O. BOX 83720
BOISE 83720-0011
(208) 334-3100
FAX 334-2671 KEITH JOHNSON
CHIEF DEPUTY

STEPHEN KENYON
DEPUTY
DIVISION STATEWIDE PAYROLL

LAIRD A. JUSTIN
DEPUTY
DIVISION COMPUTER SERVICES

STEVE ALLISON
DEPUTY
DIVISION STATEWIDE ACCOUNTING



For Immediate Release-
Feb. 10, 2000 Contact: Angie Williams,
(208) 334-3100

Position on Dam Breaching
Representatives for Idaho State Controller JD Williams presented his testimony at a forum on salmon recovery held in Clarkston on Feb. 10.

As a statewide elected official, I have great concern and feel a responsibility for the general well being of Idaho's ecological and economic interests. As a member of the State Board of Land Commissioners, I am also responsible for the direction, control and disposition of 2.4 million acres of public ground. These duel roles require I do my best to protect the often-competing economic and environmental interests of Idaho.

One of the most important issues facing Idaho today is the management of our water. Water is the lifeblood of our state, playing a vital role in countless capacities including shipping, logging, farming, recreation and electricity. As a long-time public servant in Idaho, I have gained a great deal of experience by reviewing and evaluating similar situations, and I know full well the difficulties that result when environments and livelihoods collide. So, it is after careful consideration of a vast amount of information, I must conclude any decision to breach lower Snake River dams at this time is speculative at best and should therefore be avoided. How Idaho's water is utilized in the costly battle to save fish habitat must be decided carefully, judicially and locally.

Dam breaching will have palpable and far-reaching negative effects on the working people in Idaho. Viable economic activity will return only after recovery, 24-48 years into the future. We can be assured jobs will be lost if the dams are breached, but we cannot be assured salmon will be saved as a result. Gambling on what might happen 25 years from now with the livelihoods of current working Idahoans is a form of environmental and economic Roulette, bankrupt of any responsible natural resource management. Until science can provide reliable assurance that the salmon and steelhead stocks will actually recover from dam breaching, the existing livelihoods of Idahoans must remain paramount.

In addition, the evidence presented by the PATH scientists to support dam breaching focused on the best case scenario for the viability of salmon under such an option. However, the estimated effects on salmon viability under a barging alternative focused on the worst case scenario. Furthermore, secondary environmental impacts were not even considered. If the dams in the lower Snake River are destroyed, 37,000 acres of farmland will be left fallow. Farming gives life to the land by providing habitat for countless species. If we decide to breach the dams we must consider the viability of this ecosystem, as well.

When I talk with the working families of Idaho and then reflect on the authority of the Army Corps of Engineers, I can empathize with the many people who feel alienated from their government. Cynicism is inevitable when 150 scientists convene to determine the best options for Idaho's resources, then offer only one – pull the plug on the dams and see what happens. Distrust is guaranteed when an environmental group in support of dam destruction, American Rivers, is funded by a Houston-based company producing gas-fired turbines. It is the people living, working and raising their families in Idaho who are best able to make common sense decisions regarding our rivers, not the federal government. I was born and raised here, and I, too, take offense at the idea Idahoans do not care about Idaho's environment. The decision to take away income should not be based upon speculations, theories and wishful ideas. After reading your report it is obvious the science does not exist to offer clear direction in this decision.

Any solution to this issue must consider and encompass all sides. Idaho will accept her fair burden in the fight to save the salmon, but dam destruction, which is also economic destruction, is neither the only solution nor the best solution. Idaho is, and will be a state of opportunity, but only if Idahoans are allowed to utilize our natural resources in a responsible manner for the benefit of our working families.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Paul, You're quoting something from a politician. Don't waste our time. The facts are clear.

 

[Oak]

Paul, are you now implying that there are more problems with breaching than just the loss of electricity? That's not what you said before:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'll vote for dam breaching when everyone in Seattle, and all the hypcrites at this site quit using electricity.

Paul <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Only way we can stop killing salmon is to remove all dams and stop using electricity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The answer is easy gunner,

Disconnect your power, and breach every phucking dam all the way down to the ocean. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since you said the only problem with breaching the dams is electricity, you must already have a solution to the sediment problem. And I think you can look through the back posts and find the answers to your electricity replacement questions. If you can't, then you must be dumber than you're acting.

The question isn't what we will do if breaching doesn't work. The fact is, it's the best chance the salmon have for recovery. If it doesn't work, I won't do anything. There won't be anything else to do.

Oak