Curly
Member
BigHornRam said:
I don't know what I can do to contribute. What do you suggest?
Judge Rules that Federal Government's Salmon Plan is Illegal...Again
- Thread starter Washington Hunter
- Start date
I don't know what I can do to contribute. What do you suggest?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Curly and WH,
Dont waste your time with BHR, he doesnt understand the dam issues or the salmon issues.
If he did, he'd realize that the dams were/are the biggest subsidy EVER in the history of the West. Funny how a Republican like Paul would ever think dams were a good idea...welfare from inception and welfare until they come down.
Dams are losing proposition for the taxpayer, always have been and always will be, thats all the facts I need to breach the 4 on the Snake River.
Combine the loss of taxpayers money since they were built, with the loss of salmon runs and the now money-pit of saving the salmon, as well as the maintenance of the dams, the taxpayers are taking a screwing like no other scewing they've ever had.
Anyone with half a brain who is capable of simple math and has studied this issue at all will soon find that dams are destined to fail.
The dams on the Snake river will be coming down, and thankfully the courts, the science and common sense will see that it happens.
Dont bother listening to BHR's BS scare tactics about 600,000 people turning off their power. There are many ways to mitigate the subsidized power that the Snake River dams provide.
Tom, you're worried about welfare? You cry over a few people losing their jobs on the closing of 4 unnecessary dams on the Snake, where were you when 10,000 people lost their jobs related to the loss of salmon runs? I suggest your next picket sign you construct reads something like "End welfare...breach dams"...
Dont waste your time with BHR, he doesnt understand the dam issues or the salmon issues.
If he did, he'd realize that the dams were/are the biggest subsidy EVER in the history of the West. Funny how a Republican like Paul would ever think dams were a good idea...welfare from inception and welfare until they come down.
Dams are losing proposition for the taxpayer, always have been and always will be, thats all the facts I need to breach the 4 on the Snake River.
Combine the loss of taxpayers money since they were built, with the loss of salmon runs and the now money-pit of saving the salmon, as well as the maintenance of the dams, the taxpayers are taking a screwing like no other scewing they've ever had.
Anyone with half a brain who is capable of simple math and has studied this issue at all will soon find that dams are destined to fail.
The dams on the Snake river will be coming down, and thankfully the courts, the science and common sense will see that it happens.
Dont bother listening to BHR's BS scare tactics about 600,000 people turning off their power. There are many ways to mitigate the subsidized power that the Snake River dams provide.
Tom, you're worried about welfare? You cry over a few people losing their jobs on the closing of 4 unnecessary dams on the Snake, where were you when 10,000 people lost their jobs related to the loss of salmon runs? I suggest your next picket sign you construct reads something like "End welfare...breach dams"...
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Buzz, I hope you're right (the dams on the Snake river will be coming down)
BHR, I wonder where you come up with this: "It's a complex issue and will only be resolved through open honest debate of ALL the parties concerns." What is so complex about the fact that the dams block the migration of salmon going upstream and downstream? How can the species survive if they cannot get up the river to spawn, and even if they do, the smolts can't get to the ocean???
I just don't understand how that is so complex and such a difficult concept to grasp. I would think even 99% of kindergartners would be able to figure it out.
BHR, I wonder where you come up with this: "It's a complex issue and will only be resolved through open honest debate of ALL the parties concerns." What is so complex about the fact that the dams block the migration of salmon going upstream and downstream? How can the species survive if they cannot get up the river to spawn, and even if they do, the smolts can't get to the ocean???
I just don't understand how that is so complex and such a difficult concept to grasp. I would think even 99% of kindergartners would be able to figure it out.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
I don't believe the dams would be built today with what we now know, nor would I be in favor of doing it with private dollars let alone public. But it's a simple fact that they are there now. It's also a simple fact that breaching them will be expensive, have enviromental side effects of it's own, and still not guarentee the future of the salmon. I would think 99% of kindergartners would be able to figure this out! Watch the up coming Milltown dam removel here in Montana before you form your opinion on this issue.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
True, breaching the dams may not guarantee the future of salmon, but not breaching them will guarantee that salmon will go extinct in the very near future.
BuzzH
Well-known member
BHR,
Your ignorance is endless...
For starters milltown is arguably one of the most complex dam issues in the WORLD. Its immediately downstream of the largest superfund site in the WORLD. Milltown dam and the upper Clarks Fork is cited in text books in CHINA on reclaimation and superfund sites...and used as a classic example of HOW NOT to manage ones waterways.
So, comparing the Snake Dams to Milltown, while handy for a simpleton like you, is really a stretch for people in the "know".
Also, you may want to have a kindergartener explain to you how the taxpayers have taken a beating for about 100 years worth of unneeded dams and water projects across the West. While they explain that, you could have them explain to you what "siltation" is, and also associated costs with dam maintainence. The only way to save taxpayers money on the issue of Salmon and dams is to breach them. If that doesnt happen the taxpayers will continue to take an ass kicking.
Breaching is cheaper in the short and long run, and thats a fact.
Your ignorance is endless...
For starters milltown is arguably one of the most complex dam issues in the WORLD. Its immediately downstream of the largest superfund site in the WORLD. Milltown dam and the upper Clarks Fork is cited in text books in CHINA on reclaimation and superfund sites...and used as a classic example of HOW NOT to manage ones waterways.
So, comparing the Snake Dams to Milltown, while handy for a simpleton like you, is really a stretch for people in the "know".
Also, you may want to have a kindergartener explain to you how the taxpayers have taken a beating for about 100 years worth of unneeded dams and water projects across the West. While they explain that, you could have them explain to you what "siltation" is, and also associated costs with dam maintainence. The only way to save taxpayers money on the issue of Salmon and dams is to breach them. If that doesnt happen the taxpayers will continue to take an ass kicking.
Breaching is cheaper in the short and long run, and thats a fact.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
W. H.,
That's a pretty bold statement. They may go extinct in the Columbia River at sometime in the future, maybe not. Breaching all the Columbia River dams would make more sense if you were truely interested in a guaranteed fix. Or is this the true agenda all along. Why promote this plan incrimentaly, why not go for what you truely want? Why compromise the future of the Columbia river salmon? Breach a few to get the ball rolling and then go after the rest down the road? What kind of chicken shit plan is that?
But not breaching the dams will not guarantee that salmon will go extinct in the world. What benefits of the dams are you and your family personally willing to forgo in order to move forward with this? I don't think you are aware of the benefits you personally gain from the dams, but will figure it out once they are removed. Is it worth it?
That's a pretty bold statement. They may go extinct in the Columbia River at sometime in the future, maybe not. Breaching all the Columbia River dams would make more sense if you were truely interested in a guaranteed fix. Or is this the true agenda all along. Why promote this plan incrimentaly, why not go for what you truely want? Why compromise the future of the Columbia river salmon? Breach a few to get the ball rolling and then go after the rest down the road? What kind of chicken shit plan is that?
But not breaching the dams will not guarantee that salmon will go extinct in the world. What benefits of the dams are you and your family personally willing to forgo in order to move forward with this? I don't think you are aware of the benefits you personally gain from the dams, but will figure it out once they are removed. Is it worth it?
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Go for what I want? I'm not a scientist who has studied this issue. They have come to the conclusion that the 4 Snake River dams should be breached to help salmon recover. It isn't my plan, it's the government's. And they won't even do what their scientists are telling them to do! Tell me, aren't there already certain rivers in Idaho that historically had large salmon runs, that now have none? If so, those particular runs are already extinct. So I don't see how it's a bold statement to say they will go extinct.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Buzz,
You already posted your economic "facts" concerning this issue at least a dozen times. You were blown out of the water and still to ignorant to comprehend that. Lucky for us, the ones making the decisions are not as ignorant as you. The Chinese may be paying attention on how not to do it, but a currently building dams there. Why?
As for Milltown dam removel. Compare the estimated cost of removel vs. actual. Compare the estimated down stream effect vs. actual. Not hard to do, and would be usefull information reguarding breaching the Snake river dams. Have a kindergartener explain to you the benefits of such comparision.
You already posted your economic "facts" concerning this issue at least a dozen times. You were blown out of the water and still to ignorant to comprehend that. Lucky for us, the ones making the decisions are not as ignorant as you. The Chinese may be paying attention on how not to do it, but a currently building dams there. Why?
As for Milltown dam removel. Compare the estimated cost of removel vs. actual. Compare the estimated down stream effect vs. actual. Not hard to do, and would be usefull information reguarding breaching the Snake river dams. Have a kindergartener explain to you the benefits of such comparision.
Ithaca 37
New member
See why I have BHR on "Ignore"? I don't even have to read his posts to know how idiotic they are. Why waste time on them?
Keep in mind, you're dealing with a dimwit who is real involved with wild sheep. He really should understand endangered species issues.
I don't even have to read his posts to know how idiotic they are. Why waste time on them? Keep in mind, you're dealing with a dimwit who is real involved with wild sheep. He really should understand endangered species issues.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
IT,
If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest guy on the planet! Yep you brought a lot to the table with your last worthless post, as usual.
W. H.,
Is it possible that some of the "scientists" may have an agenda? Did some of the lynx biologist have an agenda? When Buzz brings only half of the "facts" to the table, much of which is outdated or false, and ignores the other half, could it be possible he has an agenda? Wouldn't you want to look at all the "facts" first before you make such a difficult decision? Or is your mind already made up?
If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest guy on the planet! Yep you brought a lot to the table with your last worthless post, as usual.
W. H.,
Is it possible that some of the "scientists" may have an agenda? Did some of the lynx biologist have an agenda? When Buzz brings only half of the "facts" to the table, much of which is outdated or false, and ignores the other half, could it be possible he has an agenda? Wouldn't you want to look at all the "facts" first before you make such a difficult decision? Or is your mind already made up?
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Yes, my mind is made up. I don't want to see any salmon species extinct, no matter what the cost.
BTW, the lynx thing was totally blown out of proportion by Rush and all the brainless people who "ditto" him.
BTW, the lynx thing was totally blown out of proportion by Rush and all the brainless people who "ditto" him.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
W. H.,
The "lynx thing" was at best major stupidity by the biologists and at worse fraud. Either way, the "science" is flawed. So you think it is entirely impossible for these "scientist" to have preconseaved agendas, and that they are above minipulating their data to achieve a desired result?
The "lynx thing" was at best major stupidity by the biologists and at worse fraud. Either way, the "science" is flawed. So you think it is entirely impossible for these "scientist" to have preconseaved agendas, and that they are above minipulating their data to achieve a desired result?
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
No, not totally impossible but I'm just not one of those people who believes in all of those ridiculous government "conspiracies." Scientists, whether government or privately employed, are just ordinary people, and are not out to screw us as you and Rush Limbaugh seem to believe.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
But all politicians are out to screw everyone? What if their just plain incompetant? Are you going to blindly agree with everything they have to say, just because they are the "experts"?
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Well, I'm not blindly agreeing on the breaching of the dams issue. It's so obvious in this case that (like I said before) a kindergartner could figure it out. The dams block the migration of salmon in the rivers. Salmon need to migrate to the ocean, and then back again to spawn in order for the species to survive. Gawd, how hard is that to understand? And, like I also said, I don't care how much it costs to keep the salmon from going extinct.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
I understand the dams are the problem with the salmon. I just don't think everyone in the Columbia basin is willing to give up what you are willing to give up in an attempt to save them. I don't even think you actually know what it is you will be giving up. That is the problem. You need to sell dam breaching with all the "facts". If you try to sell it with half truths and lies, it will not go forward.
BuzzH
Well-known member
BHR,
Youre a clueless hack, at best.
There is a mountain of peer-reviewed science behind the 4 Snake dams, compiled by the leading fisheries experts across a broad range of agencies. Theres more combined knowledge of anadromous fish and dams in the PATH report than has been found in ANY document of its kind in History.
Can you name a single dam or water project in the History of the Bureau of Reclaimation or the Corps of Engineers that has ever turned a "profit" since they were built?
I'll save you the effort, there isnt one. Dams are destined to fail and they ALL will, despite our efforts to maintain them. The facts of this case for dam breaching are so over-whelming that its hard for anybody, but the most backward assed bumkin redneck, to not see it.
Theres already been BILLIONS spent on the losing propositions that are dams, and many more billions will be spent as time goes on. The only way to save taxpayer money and salmon is breaching. The evidence is clear, the courts and the experts are all in agreement. The dams on the Snake are toast, it may as well happen sooner than later and save the taxpayers a heap of money and also save the endangered anadromous fish runs. That will also ensure that the U.S. taxpayers will avoid a 200-300 billion dollar lawsuit the tribes are currently drafting and assured to win.
You need to wake up and get with the program as you really dont understand the issue AT ALL.
Time to wake up and pull your head out of your ass, this aint 1960.
Why you refuse to believe the most knowledgeable people in the world on this issue is an absolute mystery. How do you refute 200 leading fisheries biologists? Please provide you source to refute what they claim in this issue.
If you cant, then how about shutting your mouth until you get a remote clue?
Oh and while we're on the subject of actual and estimated costs of things, please look up the numbers associated with any dam BUILDING project...not ONE was ever at or under budget in the history of dam building.
Youre a clueless hack, at best.
There is a mountain of peer-reviewed science behind the 4 Snake dams, compiled by the leading fisheries experts across a broad range of agencies. Theres more combined knowledge of anadromous fish and dams in the PATH report than has been found in ANY document of its kind in History.
Can you name a single dam or water project in the History of the Bureau of Reclaimation or the Corps of Engineers that has ever turned a "profit" since they were built?
I'll save you the effort, there isnt one. Dams are destined to fail and they ALL will, despite our efforts to maintain them. The facts of this case for dam breaching are so over-whelming that its hard for anybody, but the most backward assed bumkin redneck, to not see it.
Theres already been BILLIONS spent on the losing propositions that are dams, and many more billions will be spent as time goes on. The only way to save taxpayer money and salmon is breaching. The evidence is clear, the courts and the experts are all in agreement. The dams on the Snake are toast, it may as well happen sooner than later and save the taxpayers a heap of money and also save the endangered anadromous fish runs. That will also ensure that the U.S. taxpayers will avoid a 200-300 billion dollar lawsuit the tribes are currently drafting and assured to win.
You need to wake up and get with the program as you really dont understand the issue AT ALL.
Time to wake up and pull your head out of your ass, this aint 1960.
Why you refuse to believe the most knowledgeable people in the world on this issue is an absolute mystery. How do you refute 200 leading fisheries biologists? Please provide you source to refute what they claim in this issue.
If you cant, then how about shutting your mouth until you get a remote clue?
Oh and while we're on the subject of actual and estimated costs of things, please look up the numbers associated with any dam BUILDING project...not ONE was ever at or under budget in the history of dam building.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Buzz, he did admit in his last post that "dams are the problem." He also said he doesn't think "everyone in the Columbia basin is willing to give up what you are willing to give up in an attempt to save them." I won't/can't argue with that statement, because it may be true. However, it really doesn't matter who is willing to give up what, all that matters is that the government is obligated under the ESA to protect/save endangered species'. (isn't that true Buzz?) The best option available right now to prevent some fish species from becoming extinct is to breach those 4 dams. Therefore, it must be done, no matter how many people whine and cry about it.
BHR, I'm not quite sure...are you for or against breaching the dams? Seems like now you're just saying that you feel the majority of the people are against it.
BHR, I'm not quite sure...are you for or against breaching the dams? Seems like now you're just saying that you feel the majority of the people are against it.
BuzzH
Well-known member
WH, theres more to it than the ESA, theres also case law with treaty rights and violations of them.
Even if the current administration chooses to look the other way over the ESA, they still have an uphill battle with the treaties...which may be more costly than the building of the dams, the recovery of anadromous fish, the maintainance of the dams, and dam breaching...COMBINED.
Considering the implications of ESA violations and violations of treaties...the taxpayers should be more than just a little concerned over the anadromous fish in the Columbia...
Apparently BHR has no problems with the taxpayers getting soaked by piss-poor decisions. He's a real brain-housing.
Even if the current administration chooses to look the other way over the ESA, they still have an uphill battle with the treaties...which may be more costly than the building of the dams, the recovery of anadromous fish, the maintainance of the dams, and dam breaching...COMBINED.
Considering the implications of ESA violations and violations of treaties...the taxpayers should be more than just a little concerned over the anadromous fish in the Columbia...
Apparently BHR has no problems with the taxpayers getting soaked by piss-poor decisions. He's a real brain-housing.
Similar threads
