Check out this advertisment in the Seattle PI outdoor section today. I guess some folks dont relize what these Dams did to Fish runs, Dam ___Dams. Fish Chomping machines.

I enlarged your add, but I still couldn't read who it was from. It distorted. Please post the text in the ad.

On another note, it would be impossible to prove that dams by themselves are responsible for the decrease in the fish runs. In any case, the dams aren't coming out any time soon, so I guess we'll just have to deal with it.

It is an ad for Grant County, a great place indeed, but noyt for anadromous fish.
Perch like it though!
You can't say that Grand Coulee isnt bad for fish, and good for farmers, and electric co's.
there are certinly trade offs here.


http://www.tourgrantcounty.com/

Of course that would not be smart to say that dams are the only thing responsible for the decline of anadromous fish species. but it can and has been proven undeniably that they are a piece of the puzzle. they provide prime habitat for warmwater species that eat salmon and steelhead fry and smolt, in many cases they prove to be an impassable barrier to returning fish.

yes, yes I know it has been shown in studies that many fish do make the out migration through the turbines and and many fish survive the ride down the spillway but even after that they make tasty treats for pikeminnows and birds after they become disorientated and temporarely incompasitated
due to water turbulence and hyper-oxegonation.

Bottom line is they are not good at all for the native anadromous fish so why even start to defend them.

of course I do enjoy the electricity they produce but I would rather have fish.

Can't prove dams harm fish.....?

WOOOAAAAHHHH!


Where have I been...?

Suggested reading:
1. The Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead Trout

2. A River Lost

GS

the lil goose damn cut off 2300 miles of spawning territory. US **** the wildlife service states that damn are responsible for the loss of more fish than all white and native commercial and sportfishing combined. hows them damn apples. by the way. both dick cheney and george bush live in homes that are environmentalists wet dream. Both homes are comnpletely solar and use water retention systems and on and on. Incredible that solar powar while good enough for the top dogs is not for us underling americans. thats why the repubs have scrapped all funding both domestically and to the UN to research alternative energies. They get the good stuff while the rest of us are stuck with archaic oil and damns... and oil wars.

Really, I'm not trolling.

There are many undammed rivers that have declining runs. Last time I looked, the Skykomish and Snohomish aren't dammed and yet we have declining runs. In any case, all I said was that dams aren't the only cause for declining fish runs.

I'll accept the US wildlife service's explanation without reservation as soon as someone can convince me that they are always right.

Finally, it is a complex problem. There isn't a simple answer.

I swear the average fisherman's prejudice against dams are worse than the racial prejudices of the early south!!!

The big picture should be taken into account here, and the big picture has three components: 1) Dams, 2) the revenue earned from dams, and 3) the hatcheries put into place to mitigate the loss from dams.

My put here is that item 2) above is neccesary to support 3) and, dams plus hatcheries in many cases can produce a more reliable and robust fishery than mother nature herself was able to produce.

Heresy you say? Outrage you say??? Well, I have the Army Corp of Engineer fish count data to prove it. Please consider the case of the Snake River steelhead runs. The Snake River dams are unique because there is quantitative fish count data available both before and after the dams went in. Guess what? After the dams and the mitigating hatcheries went in the average fish returns went up, not down.

Another example of the positive aspects of dams is the Hanford reach natural run of fall chinook salmon. This run is naturally occuring, but the water flows over the beds are very carefully controlled via Priest Rapids dam. The dam managers make sure the deposited eggs never go dry. They also insure that high water does not wash out the eggs and that juvenile smolts are flushed downstream at just the right time.

Dams are bad because some fish are killed going through them. But dams are good because they control the flow of water and generate revenue to pay for hatcheries.

Also, in a previous post it was inferred that the dead fish propagated undesirable species such as pikeminnows. Well...........if we want to take a positive bend on this......what about sturgeon????? I would say that sturgeon and sturgeon fisherman love dams.

They could have done better with the Grand Coulee though..... It has no hatchery above the dam & there is a reason for it. Many countless hundreds if not thousands of runs of wild spawing steelhead and salmon were forever lost. -Atleast in the sense of the pure wild strains if we ever decide to build a hulk of a fish ladder or implode the GC the wild runs are gone forever. (-No, not gonna happen) The Columbia's rooting headwaters exist way up in the interior of B.C. Canada. This dam was so massive when it was constructed it was hopeless to think building a fish ladder would have worked effectively.Roosevelt Lake as it is called is backed up if you will, to just clear of the the Canadian boarder. That is nearly 150 miles of lake. If a fish ladder would have been constructed on the GC it was figured then that the young smolts and even the adults would have had a very difficult time finding their way up and down such a large body of non-flowing water. (including hatchery fish) Though, to me in hindsite it still seems like it was an afterthought for the builders, engineers and government at the time to have not considered making the Grand Coulee Dam smaller and with a fish ladder much like all the lower Columbia River dams. I think the dam's economic impacts may be overshadowed by the greater past, present and future losses of commercial and sport fishing & harvest in terms of total dollar figures. It was a large available food source at one time(much like farming -a commercial fisherman could argue with an E WA farmer -who ever is "up river" ultimately can screw the other "farmer") or could have been due to the sheer volume of fish. I guess now we have a trade off -cheaper more available power vs -cheaper and more numerous fish. It all evens out somehow....... -Damn it anyhow... no pun intended

God didn't "dam" it we did!
Atleast they got the record of dam(n's) in terms of size at the time for the Guiness Book of World --Blunders. I think that might have been an addtional underlining motive.

Grand Coulee dam was built with no fish passage and pretty much screwed 100's of miles of river from ever seeing an anadromous fish again.

Then, a few years later, they built Chief Joseph dam, I think some 60 miles downstream from GC. It doesn't have any fish passage structures at all, either.

We can argue the relative merits of dams and their fish passage, which all science shows is absolutely terrible for fish survival, whether that be adults going up or juveniles coming down, but there's not even an argument for no fish passage facilities.

Fish on...

Todd.

P.S. Any benefit of water flows from Priest Rapids dam is 1) far outweighed by the damages done by dams, and 2) would be wholly unnecessary if the dams weren't ever there in the first place. Many millions of salmon and steelhead seemed to do just fine for tens of thousands of years without the dams. To claim that they are better off in any way, shape, or form from the dams is just not true.

Well, we have had this debate before, and this is my take(very simplified);

People who claim dams are the reason for declined fish runs are wrong. If the dams were the major cause of depleted fish returns, we would have no returns at all by now.(The proof exists) As was stated earlier, Snake river steelhead runs are in fact as healthy as ever.

There is also more than one study out there that suggests dams have made adult return easier than pre-dam.

Priest Rapids is not 'perfectly controlled' to protect redds and smolts, or they wouldn't have stranded and killed what they estimated was 4-5 million of them last spring by rapidly changing the water level do to the need for power generation outwaying the need for fish protection.

Dams produce cheap power(not as cheap now), irrigation for farms, and transportation for products both up and down the river. If I have to choose between these benefits, or fish I say....both. We've already proven that it can be done. They CAN co-exist. Maybe not at historic levels, but again that is not the fault of just dams. Stream habitat degredation, improper logging, storm drain run-off, the list goes on and on. And you can't fix everything to pre-dam, or pre-man levels for that matter.

So, am I pro-dam? Not necessarily, but as populations continue to increase, demands on our water systems will to. We have to find a balance between the way things use to be, and the way things have to be now.

In the meantime, I hear a lot more people blaming dams for everything, when we can't even get the city of Portland, along with many, many other cities, to quit dumping raw sewage in our rivers. Now that, should be getting more attention for protecting fish runs at this point than dams do......

Some awfully good arguments both for and against dams. And I agree with both. I think Todd gets my vote, however, for his statement that there is no excuse for dams without fish passage. I live close to the Elwha River, which is a supreme example of lack of forethought when it came to putting in dams. You probably all are familiar with its story....if not, a quick search will tell it all. A HUGE king salmon species now extinct. Like Todd said.....no excuse.

Basically, here's about 10 good reasons why dams suck!

1) They kill fish!
2) They make the water either much colder or much warmer then what nature makes it!
3) They create feeding grounds for predators (including man)!
4) They force us to have hatcheries to supplement the natural runs that make us pay more for fishing licenses (more dollars)!
5) They delay fish during their smolt and spawning timing cycle (more dead fish)!
6) They make us spend hundred of millions of dollars every year to do what nature did for free (big lost to both man and fish)!
7) They create a hatchery fish that allows a surplus net fishery because of the hatchery fish timing!
8) They kill as many as 10% of a run at each dam (fish passage...do the math)!
9) They create nitrogen gases when spilling that kills fish! (again do the math)
10) They create a "false sense" of security for people who live below the dams!
(they have already done the math!)

P.S. I can come up with about 10 more... do you need me to do more?


Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,

Damn it no you don't have to continue y'r right bout that stuff.. Though Fun 5 Acres has some valid points we are aware of. Though my thoughts are today we need to revaluate some of our "dam" issues and see where we can find middle ground and boost wild and hatchery runs combined with the farming/ag uses and the hydro power.

That's my dam thoughts

Snake River fish are as healthy as ever????????

After reading this statement a couple of times, where are you conjuring the data? Certainly the total steelhead return has been great the past couple of seasons. As well the "Wild" portion has increased to its highest levels since Dworshak and Lower Granite came on line. Salmon levels too have increased greatly.

The point here is that these runs are artificially inflated from hatchery smolts. The previous 10 year average of "WILD" steelhead returns are but a pathetic 3% to 10% of predevelopment size. Healthy??? Do your homework before relaxing into thinking all is well. With the recent water years and El Nino kicking back up these runs will quickly be right back to where they were in '95 and '96. The only change that has taken place is all mother nature. Better reproductive survival on the redds and an ocean that has flat produced fish are responsible for the population growth.

Coho are extinct (Since the early 80's) and sockeye are functionally extinct. Several remaining races of wild chinook are also being captive reared to save the genetics. The remaining wild B run steelhead have been slow to react to this high point in survival.

All I can say is to pray the anodromous populations grow enough while its good to withstand the next round of poor water/ocean conditions.

Dams are not good.

I know dams are not good, but can someone explain to me how they are worse than commercial and Native American nets in the rivers? Dams may kill fish, but nets can simply wipe out entire runs. There are also other factors such as ocean conditions, polution, etc. I strongly believe nets are the #1 culprit. Stop netting for 5 years and see what impact it has on the number of fish returning and spawning. I would be willling to give up fishing for 5 years if they would stop netting for 5 years. I strongly bellieve you would see the runs start to rebuild.


Sammy

I would be willing to go without fishing for five years too. we should not debate wich is worse for too long. damns and nets are two major problems. I am interested if anyone knows any attorneys that have much fisheries knowledge? could we use the initiative process much like tim eyeman does to ban river nets ? or would that be federally overridden? Can treaty rights be honored but the methods of extraction changed? I have a feeling this approach has been tried before, does anyone have any info on previouse inititive attempts to regulate either nets or damns?

I am also wondering why anyone would state that Snake river runs are as healthy as ever...to say thats not true is an understatement at best...

Still.... you have to work with what you have so long drawn out debates about Dams on the Snake river or the Columbia are just a waste of time. Those Dams are not going anywhere anytime soon.. In fact, they will be there forever- Like it or not.

With that in mind, I think that as sportsmen the best bet for the fish is to work on protection of wild fish and the removal of nets. You know, stuff that you can accomplish.

"Snake river steelhead runs are in fact as healthy as ever."

I only said steelhead, guys

And check the numbers from the last three years against historical, pre-dam numbers....I am right. Yes, these are artificially supplemented numbers, but the fish are coming back, non the less. Most every run of fish everywhere on the West coast is hatchery supplemented. So what? It's reality, we have to live with our past mistakes, and move on.

The same goes for dams. Are our rivers better without them....absolutely. But, they aren't going anywhere, and they obviously are not the main cause of anadramous fish return declines, so deal with past mistakes and deal with it.

And my feeling is no, their is absolutely no excuse for dams built without fish passage. Gand Coulee, huge mistake. ALL of the Snake River dams in Hells Canyon, no fish ladders. The Elwha dams.......no excuse. The good thing is, hopefully, we've learned our lesson, and now we move on....

Take the dams out and see what happens to your electric bill...what happens to all that silt behind each dam? how bout a big stinkin mud flat scenery? its easy to blame those big hunks of concrete for endangered fish when it is a problem from many things.....ocean conditions, pollution, habitat encroachment, commercial / indian as well as sportfishing. Think taking out some or all of the dams? would do it? where you gonna get the lost electrity from? pollution spewing diesel or gas? nuclear? where you gonna keep all that waste that lasts forever? wind props? where you gonna put the thousands it would take to do the same as the dams?