GOP congressman wants to remove 4 dams to save Idaho’s salmon

[Salmonchaser]

Bullbri, don’t be concerned dad’s legacy at the EPA, what he accomplished in his tenure to preserve, protect the waters of this nation is well documented. He was in charge of the science and research and dedicated people who wrote the clean water act. If you wanted to get thrown out of his office cherry pic your data. Happened to me all the time. As to the John Day, it was one of his favorite rivers to fish. One of my younger brothers was a research biologist on the John Day with ODFW for a number of years. Pretty damn familiar with it. Dad left the EPA years ago because good science was being thwarted by politically biased science. The coastal streams certainly have improved with curtailed logging, since the Clinton administration and the Forest practices act. I wonder how I managed double digit catch and release days on the north fork of the Siletz 40 years ago when the entire length had been clear cut. It’s not clear to me where you come up with the stones to question my dads opinion it wouldn’t hurt to remove the damns by citing the John day River, a shadow of its former self. That decline dove tails with the increasing bass that offer 100 fish days. Let’s not forget those fish in the John day have had to negotiate Bonneville, The Dallas and John Day dams before ever making their final trip. He would argue, given we were to have run out of oil, faced mass starvation and an ice age since the mid 70s; all science based theories and supported by some still in government, not to mention the historical accuracy of ODFW and others in forecasting Salmon runs, to proceed with caution and low expectations. His greatest concern and mine is the lack of acceptance of middle ground. Science working honestly should come to similar conclusions.
That being said, if he were still alive, he would try to be the first down the river in his drift boat.

 

[Bullbrl]

I don't disagree, but...

JD steelhead are doing better than other runs, but thriving... maybe with a shifting baseline. ODFW says they've been trending down since 1951. 7k fish total in, like you said, the 4th longest undammed river in the lower 48. https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/web stores/data libraries/files/ODFW/ODFW_40920_2_2009_Steelhead_Annual.pdf

The elwa dam removals and the WS dam removals, have both shown that simply removing a dam isn't a miracle worker. We're 8 yrs after condit dam came out and have maybe a couple 100 steelhead to show for it. Elwa is a little better but has been no where near the recolonization many forecasted would happen. Salmon have been even worse.

yes, sorry, thriving was not the correct term. Compared to other runs in the region they are doing well, not thriving.

 

[Bullbrl]

Bullbri, don’t be concerned dad’s legacy at the EPA, what he accomplished in his tenure to preserve, protect the waters of this nation is well documented. He was in charge of the science and research and dedicated people who wrote the clean water act. If you wanted to get thrown out of his office cherry pic your data. Happened to me all the time. As to the John Day, it was one of his favorite rivers to fish. One of my younger brothers was a research biologist on the John Day with ODFW for a number of years. Pretty damn familiar with it. Dad left the EPA years ago because good science was being thwarted by politically biased science. The coastal streams certainly have improved with curtailed logging, since the Clinton administration and the Forest practices act. I wonder how I managed double digit catch and release days on the north fork of the Siletz 40 years ago when the entire length had been clear cut. It’s not clear to me where you come up with the stones to question my dads opinion it wouldn’t hurt to remove the damns by citing the John day River, a shadow of its former self. That decline dove tails with the increasing bass that offer 100 fish days. Let’s not forget those fish in the John day have had to negotiate Bonneville, The Dallas and John Day dams before ever making their final trip. He would argue, given we were to have run out of oil, faced mass starvation and an ice age since the mid 70s; all science based theories and supported by some still in government, not to mention the historical accuracy of ODFW and others in forecasting Salmon runs, to proceed with caution and low expectations. His greatest concern and mine is the lack of acceptance of middle ground. Science working honestly should come to similar conclusions.
That being said, if he were still alive, he would try to be the first down the river in his drift boat.

Sorry, I wasn't criticizing your dad, but from the science I've read it shows that in the grand scheme of things the predation from bass and walleye is a drop in the bucket, especially if we compare it to the birds downriver.

I just get pretty worked up when people are afraid to change and try something new to benefit our fish and wildlife. It's always been interesting to me that hunters and fisherman are always whining about the lack of game/fish, numbers declining, management, etc...yet, when action is trying to be taken to increase those numbers they whine again.

On another note, we floated the JD on a three day trip this past fall and did well for steelhead. One really nice hen went crazy, tail walking on top in the run above cottonwood.

 

[idahohuntr]

Interesting perspective. The current return rate for hatchery salmon is less than 1%, so even a low survivability rate of 14% is huge when we are talking tens of millions of hatchery plants.

You bring up $33 billion, any idea on how many billions have already been spent on salmon recovery? What have those billions already spent done for salmon recovery? What do the VAST majority of scientists say about the 4 snake river dams as it relates to those ESU's?

We can keep doing what we've been doing and get the same result or we can try something new. Which seems like the more intelligent course?

With that being said, let's not distort the issue anymore than it comes down to money and politics. Farmers don't want the dams removed because the status quo is working for them. Plain and simple.

I think you misunderstood my description. A 14% increase in survival would take a SAR of 1% to 1.14%...not 14%.

The numbers I've heard on salmon recovery hover around 16 billion, over 30 years, for the entire Columbia Basin. Sorry, but spending more than double that figure on an action that can only help 4 of 13 ESU's in a manner that federal NMFS scientists say will result in potential survival increases of 14%??? There are FAR better things to do with 33 billion. It also comes at the cost of (at least under Simpsons proposal) protecting dams that have zero fish passage and have much greater effects on fish returns. I lost all respect for Simpsons proposal when I learned it not only ignored barrier dams, it would prohibit them from being challenged or litigated for at least 35 years...those aren't the actions of someone who actually gives a damn about fish.

So, in that sense I do agree with you, the issue is more political than scientific. The science does not support Simpsons proposal, but there are many who are so blinded by a desire to take out some dams that costs, benefits, and what is best for the resource simply do not matter. I'd rather see a focus on dams that cause the most impacts...anything less is playing politics...nothing new on this issue.

 

[Irrelevant]

I think you misunderstood my description. A 14% increase in survival would take a SAR of 1% to 1.14%...not 14%.

The numbers I've heard on salmon recovery hover around 16 billion, over 30 years, for the entire Columbia Basin. Sorry, but spending more than double that figure on an action that can only help 4 of 13 ESU's in a manner that federal NMFS scientists say will result in potential survival increases of 14%??? There are FAR better things to do with 33 billion. It also comes at the cost of (at least under Simpsons proposal) protecting dams that have zero fish passage and have much greater effects on fish returns. I lost all respect for Simpsons proposal when I learned it not only ignored barrier dams, it would prohibit them from being challenged or litigated for at least 35 years...those aren't the actions of someone who actually gives a damn about fish.

So, in that sense I do agree with you, the issue is more political than scientific. The science does not support Simpsons proposal, but there are many who are so blinded by a desire to take out some dams that costs, benefits, and what is best for the resource simply do not matter. I'd rather see a focus on dams that cause the most impacts...anything less is playing politics...nothing new on this issue.

Right but 33b isn't really the number. So much of that is candy giveaways to industry. The cost to actually remove the dams is less than 10b. Also, trying to get an accurate number of money spent in the Columbia basin on salmon recovery is difficult, but BPA spent almost 1b in 2019 alone, and they're far from the only player in the game. I don't know where you got your 16b from, but my gut says we're in the +50b all time, especially if we throw in hatchery production.

 

[idahohuntr]

It well could be much higher...I've seen 16b cited recently but have not dug into it. I'd guess whatever bpa has spent covers an overwhelming majority of the costs though...they (i.e., ratepayers) fund so many agencies, tribes, hatcheries, RME, etc. a lot of the $$ in any of their salmon programs can be traced back to bpa.

 

[Irrelevant]

It well could be much higher...I've seen 16b cited recently but have not dug into it. I'd guess whatever bpa has spent covers an overwhelming majority of the costs though...they (i.e., ratepayers) fund so many agencies, tribes, hatcheries, RME, etc. a lot of the $$ in any of their salmon programs can be traced back to bpa.

I think they're the big player for sure, but the tribes pitch in quite a bit of their own money (at least the ones with casinos), I've seen WDFW's budget, they certainly kick in money that was allocated from the general fund, and you have WSDOT poised to be the next big player with their court dictated culvert removal and rebuilds (I recognize that is in the future, but they've certainly rebuild crossing in the past at a higher cost to promote salmon recover).

 

[Salmonchaser]

Can you imagine what that river must have looked like before the damns? What an Eticket boat ride it would have been. The snake and the Columbia. If only for a time machine.
The next whimsical thought I had was breach all the damns on the Snake and the Columbia. Then have a chinook wind come through after a storm like the one going on today up in the Blue Mountains. Sit back and watch Portland wash away. If only.

 

[Irrelevant]

Sit back and watch Portland wash away.

...again

I fantasize about simply having some kind of a healthy run here in WA, somewhere, something that you could feel proud of. But I'm not sure that'll ever happen.

 

[Salmonchaser]

Amen

 

[marshman]

yes, sorry, thriving was not the correct term. Compared to other runs in the region they are doing well, not thriving.

News to me that ANY ocean going fish run in ID is doing well.
Severe cuts to fishing on the CR for both Salmon and Steelhead, ID fish have a lot to do with this. They are in big trouble.