Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

West coast salmon recovery

The sediment is one of the things that has everyone tore up here. The Klamath does look admittedly gross, but I'm not sure what folks expected it to look like.

This is where Clear Creek meets the Klamath. Maybe 70 miles downstream of the dams.

View attachment 313373
View attachment 313374
That looks perfect to me! Wash that sediment out and uncover the spawning gravels again. It will clean itself out and rebuild a beautiful estuary at the mouth of the river. As noted in the video from Atlas, the first fishery to recover on the Elwha was Dungeness crab at the river mouth when the sediment deposits built huge sand bars.
 
The other thing to be realistic about is that removing the dam makes the river healthier and better able to support and produce fish. If the fish are dying at sea through starvation, predation, fishing, and bycatch then it will take much longer yet to recover. When the Chinook populations in the Kenai, Kasilof, Yukon, Kuskoquim, Bristol Bay and Canadian Rivers all decline hugely at the same time Sockeye and Pink Salmon numbers are increasing enormously there there is something else much bigger happening. The dam removals make the river more able to produce the fish once the fish are actually able to make it back to their home river. No telling when that will be but unfortunately along the West Coast (especially Washington) it is going to get worse before it gets better due to politics.
Chinook eat fish and are bottom-adjacent in the open ocean. Sockeye and pink are midwater krill/plankton feeders. Trawling bycatch is the biggest problem with King salmon numbers, as even the “midwater” trawlers have more than 50% bottom contact. Yet bycatch allowances keep increasing even while Yukon River subsistence fishing is closed.

Rivers are only part of the equation, but it is necessary. Trawling needs a permanent ban- it has crashed every fishery it has ever been implemented in.
 
Last edited:
Chinook eat fish and are bottom-adjacent in the open ocean. Sockeye and pink are midwater krill/plankton feeders. Trawling bycatch is the biggest problem with King salmon numbers, as even the “midwater” trawlers have more than 50% button contact. Yet bycatch allowances keep increasing even while Yukon River subsistence fishing is closed.

Rivers are only part of the equation, but it is necessary. Trawling needs a permanent ban- it has crashed every fishery it has ever been implemented in.
Along with this point - something to consider. SST = sea surface temperature. Figure from Sabal et al. 2023
Warm oceans exacerbate Chinook salmon bycatch in the Pacific hake fishery driven by thermal and diel depth-use behaviours

faf12775-fig-0005-m.png
 
The sediment is one of the things that has everyone tore up here. The Klamath does look admittedly gross, but I'm not sure what folks expected it to look like.

This is where Clear Creek meets the Klamath. Maybe 70 miles downstream of the dams.

View attachment 313373
View attachment 313374
Great pictures! I have spent some time on various Klamath tributaries. The streams in that part of the world are so beautiful, if hurts! Looking at Clear Creek is making me want to go back...
 
I think everyone needs to be realistic about the math. Some of the species in the Elwha are doing well. Chinook populations are down globally including Alaska and Canada so judging the success of dam removal by only exponential increases in population is unrealistic especially on a three to five year life cycle to return when they spend the vast majority of their life in the open ocean thousands of miles away. We can’t expect 1000% increases as much as we would like them. When they speak of 100% increases remember that it’s 1500 fish increasing to 3000 fish over that 4 years. It’s not going to suddenly pop back to 60,000 fish. There are a lot of other metrics of river health. The growth of the estuary at the mouth of the Elwha is absolutely amazing! It’s a much healthier place there than when I was a kid.
But at the same point we need to be real about the benefits of dam removal. If we advocate under the guise that removal will do all these wonderful things for salmon populations, while the actual controlling or limiting factors are elsewhere then we as a society aren't able to make based on the best costs/benefit analysis.

I want there to be more salmon as much as I want anything, but I also don't want to see use pissing away valuable dollars and leverage on projects that don't actually move the needle.

Every single salmon smolt in a comprehensive study conducted across 4 or 5 estuarys in puget sound tested positive for PFAS, caffeine, and cocaine. Maybe it would be better if we spent those dam removal dollars on better waste water treatment, or stormwater treatment. IDK, but I don't want to see dollars thrown at hopes and prayers, I want to see them move the needle.
 
But at the same point we need to be real about the benefits of dam removal. If we advocate under the guise that removal will do all these wonderful things for salmon populations, while the actual controlling or limiting factors are elsewhere then we as a society aren't able to make based on the best costs/benefit analysis.

I want there to be more salmon as much as I want anything, but I also don't want to see use pissing away valuable dollars and leverage on projects that don't actually move the needle.

Every single salmon smolt in a comprehensive study conducted across 4 or 5 estuarys in puget sound tested positive for PFAS, caffeine, and cocaine. Maybe it would be better if we spent those dam removal dollars on better waste water treatment, or stormwater treatment. IDK, but I don't want to see dollars thrown at hopes and prayers, I want to see them move the needle.

More to dam removal than just salmon as well though. The removal of the Klamath dams has potential to benefit a whole suite of species.

I agree with you that removing the dams won't be the salvation of salmon, but ecologically it's probably the right thing to do, and I think that's worth something.
 
More to dam removal than just salmon as well though. The removal of the Klamath dams has potential to benefit a whole suite of species.

I agree with you that removing the dams won't be the salvation of salmon, but ecologically it's probably the right thing to do, and I think that's worth something.
Maybe? I'm not always convinced of that.

We require power as a society. Where is it going to come from? Wherever that is it will come with an impact, a cost, and a foot print. How do we maximize those. We need to honestly be able to answer those questions. It can't always come from somewhere else; someone else's backyard. When I read studies like the one Chelan PUD put out on the survivability of salmon across their dams then read about the #s of golden eagles killed by wind turbines, or just looks at the complete sterilization that comes with solar, and the fact that neither of those operate continuously; then the waste produced by nuclear, the emissions with fossil fuels... there's a cost to all of it.
 
Maybe? I'm not always convinced of that.

We require power as a society. Where is it going to come from? Wherever that is it will come with an impact, a cost, and a foot print. How do we maximize those. We need to honestly be able to answer those questions. It can't always come from somewhere else; someone else's backyard. When I read studies like the one Chelan PUD put out on the survivability of salmon across their dams then read about the #s of golden eagles killed by wind turbines, or just looks at the complete sterilization that comes with solar, and the fact that neither of those operate continuously; then the waste produced by nuclear, the emissions with fossil fuels... there's a cost to all of it.

For hydro-electric across the board absolutely. We aren't taking out Grand Coulee for the sake of salmon. But the Klamath dams were pretty good candidates since they were about to be shuttered one way or the other, and the private money wasn't interested in maintaining them. I suppose an argument could have been made for public funds to be used to repair them, but their production was pretty minimal in the grande scheme of things.
 
Maybe? I'm not always convinced of that.

We require power as a society. Where is it going to come from? Wherever that is it will come with an impact, a cost, and a foot print. How do we maximize those. We need to honestly be able to answer those questions. It can't always come from somewhere else; someone else's backyard. When I read studies like the one Chelan PUD put out on the survivability of salmon across their dams then read about the #s of golden eagles killed by wind turbines, or just looks at the complete sterilization that comes with solar, and the fact that neither of those operate continuously; then the waste produced by nuclear, the emissions with fossil fuels... there's a cost to all of it.
The tribal play on the Snake River dams right now is to develop alternative energy resources on their own terms to make the dam power generation a non issue. Yes there will be some other collateral issues. To me the worst offenders are the dams with no fish ladders. I guess some folks think that that removing the lower four Snake dams would make a large spawning run but I would still be focused on the Hell‘s Canyon complex and Grand Coulee. I think there is political fear of advocating for removal of Hell’s Canyon complex because of the Federal hatcheries that were mandated because they couldn’t figure out the ladders. Those hatcheries are the only reason there is a viable fishery right now. Again it doesn’t matter if the fish never make it back to the Columbia although the smolt survival should increase over time without the dams for the wild fish that do spawn.
 
Last edited:
Why is trawling even legal?
We’re talking about an industry so jacked up that the huge fishing businesses fund the policing agency in America, and then they invented a scam to enlist native coastal communities to be “partners” in the fishing operations which is actually attributing some of the bycatch to be utilized by coastal native communities. I think there is serious corruption at ADF&G that supports commercial over sport fishing and native subsistence fishing. It is absolutely big business gaming the system to make it “legal”. There is no reason to support trawling. Pot fishing and long lining are for more sustainable and it distributes the wealth throughout the fishing community rather than a few big businesses. Yes the McDonald’s fish sticks will cost more should you choose to eat them. I will cook fish for you that is infinitely better! I challenge you to call out your local grocery store too. You literally have to look at each package. I showed my wife the other day at Super 1 that each bag of scallops varied from caught in Japan, to caught in China, to caught in the USA. Judging from international press I consider all Chinese caught fish to be stolen from other countries. OK I’m stepping down from the soap box for a Monday!
 
I didn't complete that thought very well. There are three types of trawling going on that should be watched. The Americans, Canadians, Scandinavians, UK and French are at least trying to monitor trawling despite the politics. There are a bunch of rogue nations though that are stealing fish from other countries and doing unknown amounts of fishing in international waters with factory trawler fleets. These are the guys putting Chinese fish in the supermarkets. The other type of trawling that I think is doing untold damage is the krill fishing industry. Any fishery that is using up enormous amounts of food for other fish is suspect in the long term. Same old story. Krill fishing is banned in the USA but we import the products made from Krill.


 
Last edited:
Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,668
Messages
2,028,997
Members
36,276
Latest member
Eller fam
Back
Top