I just saw three salmon headed to idaho

I don't see em now. They'll never make it through the dams, that's what they say.

They made it to that dam, eh. How far do they have to go now?
 
Tom,

These are the Adult Salmon, swimming UPSTREAM. There are fish ladders that allow the Salmon to pass UPSTREAM on their return until they get to the Hells Canyon complex of dams. (No passage above Hells Canyon Dam on the Snake or Dworshak on the Clearwater.)

The problem with the dams is the juvenile salmon (Smolts) can't go DOWNSTREAM!!!
 
Jose,
its pretty cool. they say the best time to look is 7-8 pm just before it gets dark.


Delw
 
Tom, "I don't see em now. They'll never make it through the dams, that's what they say. They made it to that dam, eh. How far do they have to go now?"

After thousands of posts on this topic you still don't know the problem is DOWNSTREAM migration for smolts!!!?? |oo

To answer your question, though; up to about another 500--800 miles. Plenty of danger all the way. :)
 
Oh, ok, I just started reading this stuff. Thanks for explaining it, it makes sense.

Why can't they use the ladders? Its easier to go down than up? Did they know this when they built the dams?

Have they tried the "high fence"? Make a net, get the smolts pointed toward the ladder. Have they tried that?
 
Tom, here some data thats a little out-of-date. I'll put the disclaimer in now that things have changed since this was reported...but also keep in mind, we would have already saved 100's of millions if the dams would have been breeched even 5 years ago...

Comparing Net Economic Benefits:
Dams and Reservoirs vs. Restored River
The following table summarizes the costs and benefits provided by the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs, and by a restored Lower Snake River. This report details calculations of net benefits for both sides of this table. The results of this analysis are significant.

KEY FINDINGS: (Relevant report sections in parentheses)
The Lower Snake dams and reservoirs require the Bonneville Power Administration to spend $194.4 million every year on salmon restoration. (Section 1, p. 13, and Appendix for Section 1, pp. 26-29.)
Taxpayers and electric ratepayers subsidize electric power production, river transportation and irrigation from the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs. With all costs accounted, these three Lower Snake dam "benefits" actually produce a net benefit loss to the economy of $114 million every year. (Section 3, p. 25.)
Electric power from the Lower Snake dams is not competitive. It costs 2.44 cents per kilowatt-hour. If we restore the Lower Snake River and purchase power elsewhere, we could provide energy for 1.87 cents per kilowatt-hour. (Section 2, pp. 17-18 and Appendix for Section 2, p. 29.)
River transportation on the Lower Snake is expensive and heavily subsidized. Although river shippers pay only $1.23 per ton to go from Lewiston, Idaho to Kennewick, Washington, taxpayers and electric ratepayers pay an additional $12.66. The total cost to ship one ton of goods on the Lower Snake is $13.89. In comparison, rail costs only $1.26. (Section 2, p. 19-21 and Appendix for Section 2, pp. 30-32.)
Thirteen agribusinesses pump water from the Ice Harbor reservoir. Together, these farms earn a net $1.9 million per year. But taxpayers and electric ratepayers subsidize these farms with $11.2 million. If the farms paid their full costs, they would lose $9.3 million every year. It would be cheaper to buy these farms outright and end their production altogether. (Section 2, pp. 22-24 and Appendix for Section 2, pp. 32-34.)


ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF LOWER SNAKE DAMS AND RESERVOIRS

BENEFITS

Hydroelectric power generation
River transportation
Greater returns to farmers who use inexpensive irrigation water pumping
COSTS

Operations and maintenance
Salmon restoration spending
Support for river transportation and irrigation
ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF RESTORED LOWER SNAKE RIVER

BENEFITS

End expensive, failing salmon restoration
End dam operations and maintenance
End navigation and irrigation supports
Restored fishery
COSTS

Removing earthen dam, re-routing roads, etc.
Replace power
Replace transportation
Irrigator buyout or additional support



We make two major assumptions in calculating net benefits. First, we assume ALL power generation constraints adopted to restore Snake River salmon under the Endangered Species Act will be removed if salmon are restored and thus removed from Endangered Species Act protection. Second, we assume there are benefits from restored Snake River fisheries but their calculations are beyond the purview of this paper. The first assumption increases our calculated economic benefit with river restoration and the second assumption decreases it.

Restoring the
Lower Snake River
would save approximately $87 million each year.

Conclusion
Restoring the Lower Snake River would produce an economic benefit of $87 million each year. This includes the costs of replacing Snake River hydro-power, ending the barge transportation system, and buying out the thirteen farms that use Lower Snake water for irrigation.

Restoring the River:
Summary of Net Yearly Costs and Benefits
The following tables summarize the money lost to the economy because of the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs and the economic losses caused by a restored Lower Snake River. The difference is the savings that would result each year from retiring the four Lower Snake dams and restoring the Lower Snake River.

COSTS WITH DAMS:
Managing dams and reservoirs.
The Snake River dams and reservoirs require on-going operations and maintenance. They also cause damage to the Snake River salmon. Government agencies and society pay for this damage when we haul salmon, flush water for fish instead of electric power turbines and otherwise attempt to make the dams and reservoirs less lethal to fish.

Providing hydropower, river transportation and irrigation.
Transportation and irrigation as provided by the dam-reservoir system are heavily subsidized by taxpayers and electricity ratepayers. U.S. taxpayers subsidize production of crops that are irrigated by water pumped with subsidized electricity. Local taxpayers support the ports necessary for river transportation. Water consumed by irrigation and river transportation cannot be used to produce power; electricity ratepayers' costs are higher because of this foregone power.

In addition, grain shippers pay a fee to ship goods; this private cost is an additional cost of river transportation.
ANNUAL COSTS WITH DAMS:
$ (MILLIONS)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Managing dams and reservoirs
Operations and maintenance .................... $33.6

Salmon restoration spending ................... $194.4


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Providing hydropower, river
transportation and irrigation
Transportation costs .................................... $6.4

Irrigation costs ........................................... $1.8


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

WITH DAMS: ......................................... $236.2

COSTS WITH RESTORED RIVER
Restoring and managing a restored Lower Snake River.
Restoring the Lower Snake River would require physically removing the earthen portion of the dams and re-routing infrastructure like roads and bridges. Operations, maintenance and salmon restoration spending would be unnecessary in a natural river.

Providing electric power and river transportation.
We assume that if the Snake River is restored, hydroelectric power and river transportation may need to be replaced with other sources of power and shipping.

Loss of irrigation.
Although irrigation pump in-takes could be extended to natural river level to make irrigation possible even with the Lower Snake River restored, it is an expensive proposition and one whose full economic effects are unknown. We calculate benefit assuming that irrigated lands are purchased outright and their farm production is lost.
ANNUAL COSTS
WITH RESTORED RIVER :
$ (MILLIONS)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Restoring and Managing
restored Lower Snake River
Restoration .............................................. $25.6

Operations, maintenance and Snake River

salmon restoration ..................................... $0.0


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Providing electric power and river transportation
Replacement power ................................ $115.6

Alternative transportation ............................ $4.4


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Loss of irrigation
Purchasing lands ........................................ $2.0

Loss of net crop returns ............................... $1.9


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

WITH RESTORED RIVER: ............ $149.
 
We save about $100 million a year with restored river there, I guess.

How much to restore the river? $25.6 / year to restore and manage.

I don't get. If its right, anybody can understand it worth saving $100 million per year. Somethings fishy here? The message is not right or didn't get through.

No person in their right mind would not vote to save $100 million per year and have salmon back big time.
 
Tom said, "No person in their right mind would not vote to save $100 million per year and have salmon back big time."

Tell that to BHR, Ten beers, Elkcheese,...or the dumb ass from Texas who's "leading" the U.S.
 
What about all those smart congress people in Wyoming and Montana, the ones close to Missoula, can't they tell the shrub and the rest of congress? Did they try, you probably know?
 
I beginning to see why you guys would say the worlds full of bastards. Is this why, stuff like this? Isn't that line from the movie on fishing up there, it was trout though. I forgot where that line is from about the bastards.
 
Hey last year i sent Larry Craig and some others an E`mail and some phone calls [all at Gunners request] Are they doing any good?
 
You can only beat people over the head with facts for so long...
Click to expand...

LMAO that is really funny, some don't even want to believe the truth if they were to see it with their very own eyes... ;) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

prhunter
prhunter 2024 NM bear hunt
Replies
6
Views
670
PerezA
PerezA
Roamer
Just meant to happen
Replies
16
Views
1K
Sytes
Sytes
Flatbrimmer
MT 2-day Youth hunt
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
B&CTom
B&CTom
Birddog916
The story of Limpy and this first time dad.
Replies
9
Views
640
duckhunt
duckhunt
44hunter45
Resurrecting "Red Green" a tough Toyota.
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
4K
BAKPAKR
BAKPAKR
Yeti GOBOX Collection

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,611
Messages
2,026,623
Members
36,244
Latest member
ryan96

Share this page

Back
Top