Catching Pike Minnow for money

[Tom]

So, ISAB and PATH have said go back to the river conditions is best, it sounds like.

They are trying other things, they refuse to go back to river conditions, is that it? So, we still have the problem.

Is that none to 0.5% come back or nearly none make it out? I guess I should read more of that PATH group's work if it as thorough as it gets. I'll read some more, its great you put me onto it, the PATH report.

 

[BuzzH]

Tom,

You'll find through the research the main problem is smolt, both hatchery and wild fish, making it down to the ocean. The various agencies have tried all sorts of stuff, from collecting smolt behind the dams and barging them (conclusive evidence points to that actually REDUCING the adult return rates) to installing turbine screens, to killing pikeminnows, etc. etc. etc. A vast majority of the money spent to recover anadromous fish has gone into these "techno" fixes...and yet, we still get 0.5% return rates.

Further evidence that dams are the problem is simply looking at coastal U.S. rivers with NO dams and river systems in Canada and Alaska that have NO dams. Those rivers typically have smolt-to-adult ratios of 30% or more. A good comparison would be the Fraser River and the Columbia...both about the same size...not that far apart, maybe 400 miles. The Fraser River has (1) dam on a small tributary, the Columbia has over 200 dams including a bunch on the main stem. The Fraser river fish returns are still measured in the 10's of millions...while the Columbia is rarely even at 800,000...Wonder why??????

Even further evidence that dams are the problem are the "good" times the fish in the Columbia have experienced the last 3 years. All because of extremely high-water conditions on the rivers. The corp of engineers had no choice but to release water and as a result the smolt were flushed to the ocean. I'd guess the smolt-to-adult returns were in the neighborhood of 3% for the "good" years. Think what they would be like with smolt-to-adult return rates of 30%+, which is common on rivers without dams...

Another key piece of evidence is to look at the Hanford Reach, you'll find that referenced many times. Its one of the last good rearing grounds on the Columbia system that still functions as an undammed river. The return rates for salmon there are again in the 30% range...

The evidence is so crystal clear its scary, the research is the BEST ever conducted, and the solution is so easy to comprehend, most 3rd graders would understand it. Yet, the Shrub administration denies logic, science, and common sense in their tireless efforts to end hunting and fishing in North America...and the idiots continue to vote them into office...pretty sad.

 

[Tom]

the "good" times the fish in the Columbia have experienced the last 3 years.

Good stuff, but I thought this year is down. I was following along pretty good, till the conclusion, its the Shrub administration. He didn't build the dams.

He's holding up taking down the dams, but they've been there 50 years. How feasible is it to take down dams? Does it say that somewhere?

We had a dam on the Medina lake/river here on the west side of town that was close to spilling over a year ago. They evacuated towns down river for miles. Is that what happens when you take down dams partially. How feasible is that?

It would be good for smolt, I see that. Do people actually want to take these dams down?

 

[BuzzH]

Tom,

You dont take the dams down, you breach them...big difference.

This year is down, which is back to the normal trend of the years between the time of the last dams being built on the Snake-2000. 2001-2003 were "fair" in salmon returns, 2004 there was enough for a season...barely.

Clinton ordered the science and the PATH report...too bad he didnt have time to implement the results. Shrub has the science in hand but lacks the brains to implement it.

So, yes, he is holding up the process that makes sense, will save taxpayers potentially billions, and also restore economies along the Columbia River Basin.

He'd rather spend money taking measuring cups away from Sadam than do anything to help anadromous fish or the environment.

 

[Tom]

Save billions and restore economies, wow! If the state residents paid a decent tag fee, that money could be used for breeching. We need a breech the dam fund raiser, I guess.

 

[BuzzH]

Tom, do some more research...

We're (meaning every tax-paying American) losing money faster and faster every year the dams arent breached. Who do you suppose subsidized the dams to begin with? Who do you suppose flipped the BILLION plus dollar bill for salmon restoration to this point? Who do you suppose paid the bill for the countless hatcheries that were built? Who do you suppose pays for the highest subsidized grain transport system in the U.S.? Who do you suppose will pay the 200-300 billion dollar lawsuit the tribes intend to file (and will definately win) when wild salmon/steelhead go extinct? Who do think subsidizes dam maintainance?

We dont need a fundraiser...we need a President thats fiscally responsible and has a clue...

 

[Tom]

I could write him a letter that he meet with you ASAP. He's probably met with people on it though, it seems so clear to you. Is it clear to your boss? Don't you work on stuff like this? Somewhere up the line, its not getting through.

 

[BuzzH]

Tom,

Shrub stood in front of Ice Harbor Dam on the campaign trail and said no dams would be breached on his watch...

Any questions?

 

[Tom]

It sounds like there must be lots of people that don't want to breach a dam that got to him first. Who were they?

 

[BuzzH]

The same idiots that funded his campaign and voted for him...

 

[Tom]

What do they have against saving $100 million / year and having salmon in the northwest? It doesn't make sense, there's more costs, right? That's why they didn't do it?

 

[BuzzH]

Tom, when figure out the answer to that question...let me know. I've been asking the same question for years...

 

[Tom]

here's from some old campaign stuff, people apparently dissagree on the costs and benefits:
"Washington Governor Gary Locke has finally stated emphatically that he does not support dam breaching. ... Here's the issue: a variety of federal agencies is presently considering whether to recommend to Congress if four dams on the Lower Snake River should be breached as part of an overall program to restore twelve different species of salmon listed as endangered or threatened in the Columbia and Snake River basin. The Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Lower Granite and Little Goose dams were built 30 years ago and the electricity consumers of the Northwest have made investments in improving these facilities to help salmon. Today, these dams make it possible for agricultural producers to deliver their crops to Pacific Ocean ports from fields 300 miles inland. Additionally, they produce about 12% of the hydroelectric power sold by the Bonneville Power Administration making it cheaper to irrigate the farm land that produces agricultural goods shipped down the river. Those who support saving the dams--including farmers, barge operators and aluminum workers-- realize that it will devastate our local economy by dropping reservoirs below the level of irrigation intakes, eliminating transportation for agricultural products and reducing the supply of electricity. "

It was the irrigation, I guess.

 

[BuzzH]

Tom, nope, it wasnt irrigation.

Read the document I gave you...the grain transport system on the Snake is the highest subsidized grain transport system in the U.S.

Plus, under the proposed dam breaching, a rail line would have been installed (also in that document I provided) to mitigate the grain transport.

Also, only 13 corporate farms draw irrigation water from behind Ice Harbor Dam...there is NO irrigation from the other 3. Again, the document I provided mitigated that by either lengthing intakes to the water or buying out the farms and farming interests.

All that would have and will be mitigated when the dams are breached.

The Governor of Washington pulled a typical politician move...and bent to the will of welfare farmers...so he could get re-elected.

By the way, the current Governor and past Governor of Oregon, both disagreed with the Gov. of Washington...as did the science and scientists involved.

 

[Tom]

Which document has it? It sounds like an economic summit or something like that is what is needed now, like the PATH team, put together an economic team to settle those questions as best as can be settled. Its a bad situation still, right?

 

[BigHornRam]

Buzz,

I don't think anyone can say that the dams are not bad for salmon. But I have yet to see any of the pro breaching crowd offer to give up their consumption of electricity. I thought you were one not to compromise. Breaching of the 4 dams is a compromise. Even Trout Unlimited stated that breaching of the 4 Snake River dams would not guarentee success.

Also, your facts and figures are seriously flawed. If you want to convince people to support dam breaching, be intellectually honest and use acurate, up to date data to support your claims. Otherwise to the informed people (the ones that make decisions) you come off as a lying idiot. Why do you think there is bi-partisan opposition from N. W. politicians against Bush's proposal to raise BPA rates? Both Granny and Mr Bigs' ox is being goared by this one. You oppose welfare ranchers getting federal grazing rights at less than the going rate, correct? So why should Joe electricity consumer get federal land produced electricity at less than the going rate?

I will support dam breaching under these conditions:

That ALL dams on the Columbia and Snake be breached, not just 4.

That enough people and businesses become electrically independent to offset the electricity lost by dam breaching (My next house will be off grid, how about yours?)

Monies that are above and beyond any reliezed savings from dam breaching will be covered by it's proponents (Start raising funds).

Support a viable candidate for President who favors dam breaching, and get them elected.

Untill then you are just pissing in the wind.

 

[BuzzH]

BHR,

Theres plenty of people smarter than me that are pushing the dam breaching and salmon recovery forward...I just support them with as much $$$ as I can afford. I also get involved in letter writing, testifying when possible, etc.

Its about all I can do.

As to the figures...heres what I know.

I know how much we've spent on salmon recovery and gained nothing.

I know the tribes fully intend to file suit and win a 200-300 billion dollar settlement if runs are allowed to go extinct.

I know treaties are considered "high law" according to the U.S. Supreme Court...and those treaties are being broken by not having adequate salmon/steelhead.

I know the grain transport on the Snake is the most heavily subisidized in the U.S.

I know dams and the power they produce are subsidized.

I also believe the 250+ top fisheries biologists and the PATH report.

The actual number figures...I dont think anyone really "knows" the exact dollar values associated with a project of this magnitude. I also think it pretty tough to predict economics on things like sport fishing, increased river recreation, and associated dollar values of having plenty of salmon and natural rivers.

Those numbers were up-to-date and of course, are proportionaly higher now, then when the report was produced.

What I dont have any doubt about though, is that those dams are DEFINATELY costing the U.S. taxpayers money....and fish, no doubt about that.