Ithaca 37
New member
This helps explain what's going on.
-----------------------------------------------
"Salmon backers’ victory a hollow one” read the lead editorial on Sunday, May 28. I don’t agree, but that is not why I write. The editorial staff has suggested that negotiations are needed among the varied interests to solve the problem of salmon recovery. Perhaps. But good faith is needed for any negotiations to proceed, and to have good faith you must have honesty. In my view many of our elected officials -- federal and state -- have not been honest with the public about salmon, dams and water. They have not shown leadership. They have ignored the science. The senior senator from Idaho has gone so far to subvert the science that he tried to close the Fish Passage Center whose mission it is to provide the basic data upon which to make flow and spill recommendations to federal river managers. Toss the data if they do not fit some preconceived notion. That certainly is not the good use of science, nor is it remotely close to effectively addressing the problem of recovery.
Salmon recovery is mostly about reduction of mortality to outmigrating salmon smolts in the lower Snake and Columbia River. That is where most of the mortality problem resides for Snake River salmon. The dams and their reservoirs are the cause of much of this mortality. Upwards of 85 percent of an outmigrating cohort are lost in outmigration. So that’s where to focus our efforts at solving the problem of recovery. Other sources of mortality are small in comparison.
Granted, most mortality to any cohort of a fish species occurs in the very early life history stages. That’s scientifically documented, peer-reviewed fish population biology. Certainly in the pre-dam era smolt mortality was high, but not excessively so as today. So what’s different?
Enter the dams and their pools. Ironically those most opposed to breaching the dams are at the same time opposed to sending more water to assist with outmigration. They can’t have it both ways, and with the dams in place there is not enough water to flush smolts through those pools in the lower Snake. That’s simple physics. Water velocities through those pools using water from the upper Snake cannot be attained in certain water years that are sufficient for a measurable survival benefit to the smolts. It’s not the water part of the equation that is the major portion of the problem. It is the dam/pool part of the equation that needs the most attention.
So the editorial is correct, I believe, in its assessment that the real obstacle to finding a solution is not technical. It’s social. The scientists know how to solve the problem. The question is, “Does society have the resolve to effectively address and deal with the real problem?” To accomplish such a goal, honesty is required on the part of us all -- especially of those who occupy elected and appointed offices with our governments. We can no longer ignore the science. So again I ask our officials to set aside their bias, face the problem of salmon recovery squarely, look seriously at what the science says is the problem, and negotiate openly and fairly to obtain a recovery solution for salmon. The answer has been in front of us for more than two decades. That’s what the science says.
Roy Heberger of Boise is retired from the Fish and Wildlife Service.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060608/NEWS0503/60608001/1052/NEWS05
-----------------------------------------------
"Salmon backers’ victory a hollow one” read the lead editorial on Sunday, May 28. I don’t agree, but that is not why I write. The editorial staff has suggested that negotiations are needed among the varied interests to solve the problem of salmon recovery. Perhaps. But good faith is needed for any negotiations to proceed, and to have good faith you must have honesty. In my view many of our elected officials -- federal and state -- have not been honest with the public about salmon, dams and water. They have not shown leadership. They have ignored the science. The senior senator from Idaho has gone so far to subvert the science that he tried to close the Fish Passage Center whose mission it is to provide the basic data upon which to make flow and spill recommendations to federal river managers. Toss the data if they do not fit some preconceived notion. That certainly is not the good use of science, nor is it remotely close to effectively addressing the problem of recovery.
Salmon recovery is mostly about reduction of mortality to outmigrating salmon smolts in the lower Snake and Columbia River. That is where most of the mortality problem resides for Snake River salmon. The dams and their reservoirs are the cause of much of this mortality. Upwards of 85 percent of an outmigrating cohort are lost in outmigration. So that’s where to focus our efforts at solving the problem of recovery. Other sources of mortality are small in comparison.
Granted, most mortality to any cohort of a fish species occurs in the very early life history stages. That’s scientifically documented, peer-reviewed fish population biology. Certainly in the pre-dam era smolt mortality was high, but not excessively so as today. So what’s different?
Enter the dams and their pools. Ironically those most opposed to breaching the dams are at the same time opposed to sending more water to assist with outmigration. They can’t have it both ways, and with the dams in place there is not enough water to flush smolts through those pools in the lower Snake. That’s simple physics. Water velocities through those pools using water from the upper Snake cannot be attained in certain water years that are sufficient for a measurable survival benefit to the smolts. It’s not the water part of the equation that is the major portion of the problem. It is the dam/pool part of the equation that needs the most attention.
So the editorial is correct, I believe, in its assessment that the real obstacle to finding a solution is not technical. It’s social. The scientists know how to solve the problem. The question is, “Does society have the resolve to effectively address and deal with the real problem?” To accomplish such a goal, honesty is required on the part of us all -- especially of those who occupy elected and appointed offices with our governments. We can no longer ignore the science. So again I ask our officials to set aside their bias, face the problem of salmon recovery squarely, look seriously at what the science says is the problem, and negotiate openly and fairly to obtain a recovery solution for salmon. The answer has been in front of us for more than two decades. That’s what the science says.
Roy Heberger of Boise is retired from the Fish and Wildlife Service.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060608/NEWS0503/60608001/1052/NEWS05
