I just finished reading a posting on another tread (part 2;Do our rivers produce as much as they can?) and the comments that were made by "Silvercast". His posting inspired me to ask this board; do you really fully understand the long reaching effects of what the dams have had on the Columbia and other river systems?

Think about this for just one moment, besides the issue of fish passage (both up stream and down stream) what else is affected by those dams?

We know that "humans" are affected when they live directly by or under those "high transmission" power lines, but do we known what the effects of that same electricity is to fish? Don't fish have to pass directly through most of dams? After all, isn't that where all this "high transmitting of electricity" comes from?

Some of you may think that I am reaching a little too far, but what studies, if any do you know of that have ever looked into this scenario?

What management decisions are directly or in directly effected by having these dams in our rivers?

Even if we are successful in inventing and getting another "source of power" does anyone really believe that those dams (especially on the Columbia) will ever be removed? If so, what happens to the tens of thousands of people that now live in the "old flood plans" of those dams? Do you really think that those same "voting people" would ever vote or support the removal of those dams?

I fully support the removal of the dams in the Columbia, but do I ever believe that it will happen…not likely!

This board has a lot of great thinkers, so why not share some of your thoughts on what you believe may be the side effects of these dams. Like a board member has stated, "Knowledge is key in making things the best they can be for us, the fishermen, and more importantly the fish" A lot of us think that we already know all the answers, but do we really?



Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Its not the electricity or the people in the flood plain that will be the sticking point. There are other options for electricity and places to live. It is the water. In eastern washington there is no other water. The dams are hold back irrigation resiviors. Historically speaking, the columbia river flowed through a desert. Without the water it would be a desert again. I think the economic impact on allowing eastern washington to return to its natural desert state would be more than the majority of WA residents are willing to endure, salmon or no. If you can irrigate without dams, then there is hope for eventual removal of those dams.

Interesting point Cowlitz your right i am sire that has never been studied and I am just as sure that it will never be studied. I don't know if there is any merit to the theory but even if there is BPA NWPPC and the ACOE certainly don't want to know about it.
About dam removal, The dams will someday come out they will not last forever concrete ages and crumbles so eventually they have to come out. By then i am sure it will be far too late to do anything to save the fish. As far as the flood plane goes, I am certainly not an expert but my theory is that without the dams although the river would fluctuate more the river overall would be lower. I believe the river to be unnaturally high even during low flows because of water storage. In the winter when flooding occurs there will be no water coming from the eastern side of the state and the rockies so the only areas prone to flooding would be from Portland down but at that point the water would already be so low that no flooding would occur. The Columbia would also be flowing so hard that it would no longer cause the Willamette to back up as badly. The Columbia would reach it's peak flow in the late spring when the snowpack in Idaho and Montana are melting (june July).
I think the removal of tributary dams would show GREAT promise for fish restoration. Imagine what the north Lewis was like before the dams went in, and the cowlitz. if we had thoes rivers in pristine shape? No one would ever go to Alaska to salmon fish or to BC to steelhead fish.

Anyway thats what I think based on nothing but my own opinions and theorys i may be FOS but who knows

Thanks for the "Kudos" cowlitzfisherman... The dams in the Colombia River Basin really were a HUGE detriment and the most single important Reason for the fish populations decline in this river and all of its tributaries... yet... to only a few people that really know how to smell the air of change see it. The nay sayer's will blame everything else in order to hide the truth. period. Damn the Dams is absolutely right on the money.

The only dam that was directly built on the Columbia for power and water for irrigation(Banks Lake) is the Grand Coulee Dam. The others were built for power production and since they backed up the river then people took advantage of the lakes created and started putting pumps on them thus opened up more land for farming.

Also on the lower Columbia they saw that with the lakes they could use barges thus they built passages for them.

I agree we need to find better sources for power. But coming from the Okanogan I know the people of the Basin wouldnt have water if it was not for Banks Lake( the Columbia Basin is the only real receiptient of the irrigating purposes of the lake).

As for power hurting the fish in the dams. That is not a real issue as it is sent out quickly form them the danger comes from the power lines crossing the river it has similar effects on fish as it does in humans if the fish stay under them for long periods but as we know fish move so in reality it isn't a real concern.

Just my observations from growing up where the dams are more important.

I am going to go out on a limb here just so as to get flamed on. Last year's salmon and steelhead runs were record years, surpassing all years going back to 1938 (when counting first began). Given that many of the Columbia and Snake River Dams were put in during the 40's, 50's, and 60's, how does one explain a record year showing up now? The only explanation is that the federally run hatcheries, put in to mitigate habitat loss, have done the job pretty well, so much so that a record year can occur here in 2002.

These hatcheries maintain a relatively low profile, and many people do not know they are even there. But they are there, three spring chinook hatcheries along the Wind River, Little White Salmon River, and the Deschutes River, a coho hatchery at Drano, a fall chinook hatchery at Spring Creek, and, finally, in Idaho, the Dworshak steelhead hatchery, the largest steelhead hatchery in the world.

These hatcheries are all federally operated facilities. If the dams were to go away, I would guess that all the hatcheries would also go away, and the end result may not be as rosy as you think.

Dworshack now there is a disaster!!!!! Worst single event in the history of steelhead. Single handedlt killed off all the clearwaters wild B runs If i were a terrorist that would be my first target. I'd be so fixated on it i wouldn't eat till it was destroyed.. But anyway I'm not a terrorist so the dam wil lremain. A black eye for America though.

Bamettm

Quote:

"I am going to go out on a limb here just so as to get flamed on. Last year's salmon and steelhead runs were record years, surpassing all years going back to 1938 (when counting first began)"

And where do you think that the counting occurred at?

Just curious, how in the world do you THINK that steelhead and salmon were counted in the main stem Columbia at that time, when there really was NO WAY to really count them? What counts were you relating too?

Not flaming, just curious!

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Obviously... barnettum has totally missed the point. Objectivity is a good thing when based upon facts that substantiate what a person is trying to point out. Reading his self-informed posting is tantamount to either an employee of the hydro-electric company or he makes a living in the greater colombia river basin.

The fish counts he refers to are in no way any kind of record that would hold up against 100 years ago of wild salmon that werent exploited to near extinction, thus, giving our government the authority to put "wild salmon" on the endangered species list, and imposing fines and prosecuting to the fullest extent of the law for possession of said fish. The government wins either way, $$$ cash for ignorance and jobs to enforce it just in case. The fish lose.

These precious fish have been harassed, Exploited, wasted grossly and dammed away from their natural habitat to the brink of extinction. Your point of hatchery fish being there to pick up the slack is duly noted and will satisfy those that don't care about the difference- after all- we are men, and man comes first. Men built the dams for multiple reasons that benefit man- understood.

Interesting as it may sound, you have points that must be understood and do benefit man, but not the fish. I for one, do not accept your attempt at selling me and my fellow fishermen on the "hatchery" run production as compensation for the loss of Natural wild Salmon and Steelhead habitat. I never have and never will believe what people like this try to sell me.

Try looking at it (without being so obtuse) from the wild salmons point of view. Sure, they are just a stupid fish and contribute nothing to any of us other than food and recreation- this is what you believe and would have ME believe as well.

Sound thinking on the wild salmon and steelheads behalf is the ability to see how it was BEFORE our invention of the fish counting machine and these dams and making sure that their rights as contributors to life on this planet are not just disregarded like the carcasses of chum and dogfish for their eggs only just for mankind to profit from.

I will never be the saviour of these magnificent animals, I only know that things are drastically different with the installations of the water stopping concrete super human power machines and that I wish the intelligent community of man as a whole would be brave enough to face the truth and use alternate methods of making a profit.

Pollution- our rivers are full of it and may never recover. The farms that dump pesticides, the industry that dumps concrete and hazordous chemicals into it..., and the commercial fishermen... and the indians with their improved technology on netting them and wasting them , man is out of control in areas that could have been better thought out.

Its just my opinion but who made man god? When will it be time for mans lease on these fish to exploit be up? The answer is NEVER thanks to people thinking of only themselves. Accepting the what the fish counter says and what the man in the white shirt tells you makes you a sheep in todays world. I have two good eyes and have seen the truth and I do see where we have come from to this point.

There is a better way, it just takes courage to get it done. Want to know how i know?
A Great King told me.

You want great fish runs of the good ol days than build a time machine and go back in time. Because not only do you have to get rid of the dams but the what about the thousands of people that live on the river banks that pollute the system or the gill netters that take a big chunk of fish out. Too many things would have to change to get the runs back. There's probably a hundred more reasons as well. Don't get me wrong I'd love to see the rivers full of fish, but I've never seen it so what we got now is pretty good for me.
Personaly I've been having the time of my life the last few years. Plenty of fish for me just to many surfers sharing them.

Barnettm

No flame here, the data you are referring to is what was widely reported as the largest number of fish “counted” at Bonneville. Recently fish managers went to a 24-hour video monitoring system. Before that, fish counters only worked from 6am to 10pm during the busy times and less hours when early or late in the run. This allowed many fish to get by without getting counted.

The other important fact that has lead to the largest number of fish counted at the dam is the relatively low number of fish commercially and sport harvested in the lower part of the river now compared to the 20’s 30’s or 40’s. The current impact on wild fish is limited to no more than 15 % of the returning adults. Historically harvest levels ranged from 70% to 85% of returning adults. The counts were low at the dam because most were harvested before they made it to the dams. In order to get the numbers of fish back to where they were originally we would have to see an increase of nearly a factor of ten over what we saw this year. That is a whole lot of fish…

My argument assumes that the Bonneville fish counts are both quantitative and accurate. If they are not, then the argument is like a court case losing it's prime witness.

The data cannot say anything about the pre-1938 (ie, "historical") fish counts and how they were impacted by commercial fishing practices. But it can say a bunch about what happened after 1938, especially as it relates to upstream hatcheries and dams built during the 40's, 50's, and 60's.

I just have to interject a little something. It takes more than just the dams to decimate the fish populations. It takes more than just hatchery raised fish to affect them......probably the greatest factor in the decimation of the fish populations has been overharvesting. Even before the dams man was there taking more than was needed. Indiscriminantly overharvesting salmon runs. Over time as the runs diminished we just got better at it. If we want to make a difference we should cut back first and foremost on the amount we harvest. Then look at how much a river will support and what we can do to improve them.

Escapement is a theoretical science. It has never been supported by fact over a long term. We set escapement goals and when we do we are looking for a 'minimum escapement' then we open the fish up to harvest. Why not look for a 'maximum escapement' level and thus have a buffer for the years of drought, poor ocean quality etc? The reason is that if we had too many fish the price per lb would go down, egg harvest and prices would drop and during the lean times of reduced harvest less fish licenses would be sold to sport fishermen who did not want to take a chance on just a couple of fish and sport fishing would be hurt. So it really comes down to $$$. Not sense. ( Pun intended ) I am sure that everyone wants to see the fish runs improved. Until we start to make some decisions that allow more fish to get through to breed then we will continue to see small runs.

The use of the term 'we' is intended to refer to everyone....not just sportfishermen.

What did the fish say after it ran into the wall?

"DAMMED RIVER!"

Common guys lighten up...

No, the joke is what does a salmon say when it runs into a concrete wall…. DAM!

Yes, I agree with Busy 100 percent. The Columbia was heavily overfished in the early statehood years and has never been allowed to come back. The other factor is the number of other fish around. Once upon a time it was probably only salmonoids and sturgeon. Now there is a 3,000,000 fish shad run on the Columbia and who knows how many small mouth bass and walleye. If you subscribe to the theory that a river system can only support so much bio-mass, then these other fishes are replacing salmon in the bio-mass equation.

One other "little thing" that many of you are forgetting about. It is a direct factors and result of the dams on the Columbia River; its call Total Dissolved Gas (TDG). TDG kills untold thousands of salmon and steelhead each year in our rivers. It kills fish even when it's not coming or occurring from spill.

And yes, many of the damn fish ladders also kill as many as 3% to 10% of the returning adults. Many of those fish that are killed are wild fish also.

So add up the adult kill; 3% average for each dam on the Columbia, 3% or more for each dam on each major tributary of the Columbia, 100% for each dam without fish passage (smolts), 10 to 15% smolt kill from TDG, 20% to 30% kill from predators, 10 to 20% adult kill from gill netters, and then top of all that off with what ever kill is done by sport fishing. Oh I forgot about habitat and dredging and pollution.

Even if my figures are off a bit, the numbers speak for themselves!

And we all wonder why our fish are not returning like they did before the dams went in!!

If I had to point one finger…guest who I would point it at? The damn dams have change the fishery management and are the number one problem. They (the dams) have affected the entire management of our fishery on the Columbia, and its tributaries.

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Regarding - 'folks living in the flood plain', this is a relatively minor issue. Bonneville was closed around 1938; european settlers had been living on the flood plain since the 1850's or so. In fact, there were more people living along lower Columbia pre-WWII than there are now. Spring high water was just a fact of life.

Beyond the dams, in the locales where the greatest capital investment has been made (like PDX) the river is constrained by dikes that will hold back a flood crest at 32' or so.

Regarding 'will the dams come out'. Sooner or later they will no longer be. All that sediment is being deposited behind the dams, filling their pools in.

Strongly Disagree; Habitat loss not Harvest is the reason for declining fish runs. Regardless of the number of fish we see this year or last the low end return years continue to get lower.This depletes genetic deversity beyond repair
Power Choice ? Nuclear or Turbine ? You decide
Solution to all our problems relating to the environment ? Your behavoir in the bedroom !

GL&GB

A A A AH, bedroom??

Just saw reference that the conservative think tank 'Rand' (I believe it may be called the Rand Institute) recently did a comprehensive study on removing the Snake River dams -- bottom line was that such an action would provide a net benefit to the region.

I've not had time to look it up -- anyone have time for a net search?

From the perspective of the smolts alone, there is currently anywhere from 10-30% smolt mortality PER dam as they head to the ocean. Most apparently are killed form the tubines. You can read this in the Corps helpful "salmon and dams" brochure where they tell of how they steer 80-90% of fall chinook smolts and 70-80% of spring/summer chinook smolts away from the turbines at each dam. I have seen a graph of counts thru the 7 dams (can't find the webpage) and only a small percentage make to the ocean in a given year (1-10%).

-------When a smolt "swims" to the ocean, their heads are pointed upstream.-------

So they don't actually swim, Rather they count on the river's current to take them out to sea. It shouldn't be too hard to figure what one factor limits smolt ability to make it out sea (but it apparently is for most). If all dams were removed, the speed they would make it back to the ocean alone would reduce many other death contributing factors to a minimum (barging has not been sufficient means to remedy this). If you don't have smolts, you don't have adults. Of course if there were all those smolts, could the ocean even support them with current commercial constraint on food sources. Hey, maybe we don't want too many smolts!! That'll be the next thing people will try to argue.

From an economic standpoint, alot of the jobs we justify keeping the dams for are subsidized thru tax dollars. Meaning they aren't turning a profit. We don't hear much about them from that standpoint, But I can't decide whether jobs thru tax dollars are either good or bad. I don't think there are very many companies making an actual profit in todays economy.

How do we know this? Everything I've seen recently does not support this idea.

Dan

Just look at their hair!!!!

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Too funny, cowfish!

Another byproduct of dams is the beach erosion going on along the WA and OR coasts. Without the tons of sediment that used to wash out of the Columbia to be deposited on the beachfront, the wave action is now removing beach, instead of building it.

Humans rarely think about ALL the consequences to our actions. We are masters of modifying our environment.......we aren't masters of foreseeing the consequences.

Dan, sorry about my first reply, but I just couldn't help it!

All kidding aside, we as humans, are affected by electricity. It is my opinion, that all life forms are "affected by electricity". Too what degree, well that's beyond my limited education…but not to my common sense! Maybe some other member has a better understanding of this then I do.

BUT, I do know how animals and fish react to it! Has anyone watched a deer getting close to an electric fence, or a smolt going down stream into an electrical field? The deer most often "knows" when the fence is on or off because he can "feel" the "electrical field" and he can "back off", but the smolt learns only the "hard way" and then its to late… right?

Look what they have done at places like the Barrier Dam on the Cowlitz! They have an electric current running all the way across the Barrier dam to prevent "adults" from jumping over the Barrier Dam (it also works well for stopping and killing any "wild" smolt that may have made it down through the upper 3 dams). The only reason they (Tacoma and WDFW) do it, is because it will cost them (Tacoma Power) big bucks to capture any wild adults that want to pass above the Barrier Dam. More money for wild fish simply means less money for WDFW hatchery "jobs"! Tacoma Power has made this position quite clear!

The game goes on and on!

Well, so much for those wild adult fish that don't "want to go" into Tacoma's hatchery… what the hell, what's a little shock going to do anyway when those fish are plumb full of eggs?

Probably just toughens up them for the real world…right?

And look at the results that WDFW and BPA have found out about using "electricity" to "shock" fish for transport. It's my understanding that is now considered to be a no-no practice! It really screws them up, even in the "short term"…right?

Who even knows what electricity does to fish… maybe that's why glow balls work so well to catch them!

Yep, it's still my laymen opinion that "electricity" does screw up and affect both humans and fish.

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

cowfish,

There are many animals, and many varieties of fish, that are affected in different ways by electrical fields. The Black Boxes so many anglers use is an example of taking advantage of a fish's reaction to electrical fields.

I watched a Discovery channel show about sharks once. In it, a Sand Tiger shark at an aquarium would swin around his enclosure, and veer into the wall at a certain location every time he went by. The shark's keepers were concerned by its behavior and looked into a possible cause. What they found was this. A tiny crack in the concrete enclosure had allowed the salt water to seep into the wall. When it reached the rebar inside, it began to corrode the steel and cause a minute electrical current. When the shark swam by, he zeroed in on the current, and would bash into the wall. They drained the tank, fixed the cracks, sealed the concrete, and the shark lived happily ever after. So yes, electrical currents do affect fish and their behavior.

I was speaking about possible genetic defects, or cancers, that EMF has been claimed to cause.

I should have been more clear in my response.

Actually, prolonged cell phone use has been linked to cancer. If you dont believe that these fields are strong, set your cellphone by your computer monitor and give it ring. Watch the screen go haywire.

That is BS. I work in the industry and there is no conclusive evidence that radio waves cause cancer. Your body is bombarded by radio waves of all different frequencies all day long. Who can say that only an 850mhz or 1900mhz (which are what most cellphones use)frequency will cause cancer. No-one.

Yea Sky, you probably work for wireless industry doing studies that conclude it doesn't, while other studies from outside the wireless industry say it does. What was that about radar detectors and police , and Leukemia in kids from prolonged electromagnetic radiation exposure from power lines? Ah, It's hard to remember those have been out so long. There are many studies showing the link with cellphones and the microwave/electromagnetic radiation they give off. That's good enough evidence for me, and the outcome of the findings has no effect on my job, other than telling me to use the cell's less. But if you work for the wireless industry, the outcomes certainly can effect your livelyhood from people's airtime. It kinda goes along the same mentality with the fish. We have all these studies out showing the correlation of dams vs salmon/stelelhead declines, yet people argue their validity saying its gotta be all these other reasons(especially the people directly affected by dam removal). I can understand trying to protect your jobs, but give me a brake. It's plain common sense that dams have caused the declines and have modified all other effects along the way. They reduce smolt numbers directly in the turbines at 10-30% per dam, they slow the water down enough so that the current hardly carries them out to the ocean(fish go to ocean with head pointed up stream)which in turn makes other things a larger factor such as temperature and predation.
I mean what is with people? Sure, say you want to "explore other ways than dam removal", or make the argument that " economically we can't afford to remove them", But don't make the argument that dams aren't the main reason behind decimated wild runs. If you do you should be forced to take a course in fisheries biology (and pass it). :p

Shane,

If you're referring to conclusions drawn about EMF and cancer from the Swedish study everyone likes to wave around, then you'd better look for a reliable study. Their conclusions were garbage, and Sweden spent several billion dollars burying high-tension wires to protect their citizens from a cancer risk that doesn't exist.

If you can find a study that says different, please provide a link so I can check it out. Everything I've read confirms what Sky-Guy posted. It's hysteria, just like Alar and Saccharin.

You want to avoid cancer? Then don't smoke and stay out of the sun.

Dan

I think your right about how electricity effects fish!

I know that there are various "theories of how" our salmon are able to find their way to their feeding grounds and then return back many years later as adults, but does anyone know for sure if passing through these massage electric fields affect their "homing ability" to return?

Just maybe, that may be one of the reasons that so many fish return back to smaller streams in places like Alaska and other river system that don't have dams on them. The more I think about it, the more merit I give it!

Electricity may not injure fish physically, or give them brain cancer, but it sure may screw up their ability to return home. I never recall seeing any fish using a cell phone

What do you guys think?

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

cowfish,

I'd never really thought of it before you brought it up. I have seen a few shows where salmon migration was affected by different water diversion projects, but nothing really in-depth on all the tools salmon use to make their way back to their water of origin. I know that they use smell to locate their home waters, but nothing on how they navigate the ocean waters and make their way back.

Interesting question, though.

There are no links to actual "studys" that support or show no relation, just papers and newstorys that relate to them
But here some links anyways

http://www.emrnetwork.org/research/research.htm (has a bunch of links)
http://www.emrnetwork.org/research/research.htm (same)
http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/nemrad2.htm
http://www.milligauss.com/news.html (biased they sell comp monitors)
this one cant decide but leans your way strongly http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/powerlines-cancer-FAQ/toc.html
Theres tons more that support either way.
So take your pick on what to "believe". I can take an educated guess on their effects. We may not see them for years to come.
Same as lung cancer and cigarettes.

It sure is strange why the goverment had to put "emf" output level caps on cell phones, and why certain types have been put out of production because they didnt meet these reqs. After all they are perfectly safe.

I also live in town with paper mill that "doesn't" cause one of the highest rates of allergies/sinus problems in the country, or the highest rate of hodgkins disease ( a form of lymph cancer) in the country. And it doesnt smell bad enough to keep other commerce from entering our area. The mill is a gold mine and I wouldn't want anything to happen to it or the jobs of some of my friends. Who cares whether they discharge hot effluent directly into the water or whether their settling ponds are visably leaching scudge thru the banks into the river.
It's no forseeable damage. We'll just look the other way, and see things the way that meet our needs.

ShaneR

Indeed, you are a very concerned fishermen and person!
Thank you for you concern, references and replies. This is what opinions/science is all about. We all need to be able to review the facts before we lock our minds into form. No one wants to dominate their opinion over others, and we appreciate all of your impute. It's quickly becoming a more complicated world for both fish and man!

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Radiation effects are easy to simulate in the lab. Just put the rat into the special oven, turn it on for a few days, weeks, or years, and then record the results. Alot more straightforward than other types of research, so I would tend to believe the experts who say that cell phones and overhead power lines are safe.

With respect to power lines disrupting smolt navigation, I thought it was MAGNETIC fields the fish were using, same as your compass. This field is quite different than the electric fields from power lines.

With respect to dams and their impact on fisheries, the Army Corp of Engineers has been keeping dam passage records for over 60 years. These records indicate that the last couple years have had more fish pass by than all other years, and these previous years include the time periods when the Snake River Dams, McNary, John Day, the Dalles, and other dams did not even exist!!!!!

What the counts do not show is what happened in the early statehood years (ie, pre 1938) when all those ugly pilings you see all up and down the Columbia had large canneries sitting on top of them.