I just read and copied this post and reply to it off another northwest fishing site:
------------

What is your opinion?

Officials announce salmon restoration initiative
01:04 PM PST on Monday, January 26, 2004

By RUKMINI CALLIMACHI, Associated Press Writer


STEVENSON, Wash. -- Senior Bush administration officials announced a proposed $10 million increase for Northwest salmon restoration on Monday at Bonneville Dam.

The increase brings to $100 million the total that will be used to restore salmon habitat throughout the Northwest.

"Habitat restoration is making a difference," said Conrad Lautenbacher, administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

But environmentalists called the appearance, and the choice of venue, ironic.

"They are making salmon speeches at big dams -- dams are extremely lethal for fish," said Charles Hudson, spokesman for the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission.

Tribal groups applauded the increase in funding, but stressed that the figure fell far short of their expectations. The Intertribal Fish Commission said a $110 million increase is needed to fund all ongoing restoration projects.

Bush administration officials, though, said they had to weigh both economic and environmental concerns.

"It's a balancing act," said James Connaughton, chairman of the president's council on environmental quality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sandy,

On this issue, I have to agree with the Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. This is like throwing a bone to enviromentalists and all Columbia fish user groups. Much more is needed. But the Bush Admin. will always look out more for the interests of big business. Habitat restoration (which not only help native fish runs; they help the environment we all live in) unfortunately flies in the face of big biz profits. And they are the real constituents of the Gee DubYa Bush administration.

On a related note: We tried a couple years ago to get responses from Columbia Tribal colleagues of Mr. Hudson, their present spokesman, about the 6 1/2 times larger share of the Columbia springer runs they get. Of course, no responses to the pertinent questions asked. You see, those Tribes are also big dollar constituents of the 'powers to be' politicians, who then turn around and ignore the illegal U.S. Dept. of the Interior Sec. Order #3206 (which essentially states the quota negotiations should favor the tribes, due to dam destruction of a % of the runs). That order is a Federally illegal counter to Northwest Treaties and Fed. Court mandates for the proper 50-50 % split of harvestable fish!

Maybe some individuals, or group of you, could write a diplomatically polite letter to Mr. Hudson asking him the reasons for the 13% ESA impact on springers going to the Tribes, compared to 1% for sportfishers and 1% for commercial netters. If they reply that we get to sport fish for them up tributaries such as the Wind, Klickitat, Deschutes, Umatilla, Icycle, etc. rivers ... then it should be brought back to his attention that we also are aware of what he knows but tends to hide. That is the Tribes also dipnet harvest fish from those tribs too. And far beyond that they are given tons of surplus quality hatchery springers from more than those rivers open to sportfishing - they also get tons of surplus hatchery springers from Columbia tribs not open to sportfishing in recent years. That would include such as the Entiat and Methow rivers! If he mentions the dams lowering fish run potential, then it should be pointed out how dependant the Tribes are on those dams for ultra high electricity usage at low to no cost to run their many super lucrative gambling casinos that were allowed to them partly because of lost income potential via fish runs! Potential we've all lost too. And that only a very small % of sportfishers ancestors built those dams - so "we" did not build them either.

I really hope someone in regard will take these factors to Mr. Hudson and the Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission for a justification response! Is anyone up for doing this? A group of us? Perhaps newspaper journalists?

This is a serious fishing issue that goes back pre-Bush...Too bad you are trying to use the headline to attempt to bash George Bush. Focus on the problems. The tribe's 13% is there because if it were not the tribes have threatened to sue over the dams. They always win. MOney for fish is mitigation for damage done to the runs by the dams. Bush supports the dams because alot of water users besides fishermen are voters too. The users who depend on the dams don't want them taken down to save fish. Can you see both sides of the story?

Yes I do see both sides of the story. Why do fishermen feel they are so important given their recreational-based status?? They "demand" millions but their puny clout only nets them thousands. It is the eco-concerns and Indians that get real money from DC. The dams that everyone hates also pump in money via Mitchell Act habitat loss mitigation funds. This is where the money comes from and I, puny fisherman with no clout, will gladly take the 10 million since usually I do not get anything.

Grandpa's right, this goes back way before Bush. Bush simply becomes the newest entry on a long list of presidents that haven't supported the recreational fishing adequately, in my opinion.

Maybe I'm just greedy or jealous, but it sure doesn't seem right that Iowa gets 50 million to build a domed tropical rain forest, and we get a mere 10 million to put towards saving an indiginous natural resource.

C'mon now.... a rain forest in Iowa???

GP, you need to "focus on the problem" rather than rushing to defend your beloved Bush. ITS THE FREAKIN' DAMS!

It seems like the biomass of the Columbia system has moved from salmonoids only to salmonoids plus shad plus smelt plus bass plus walleye plus maybe a few more strugeon. Is that the bottom line impact of the dams?

Barnettem,

Concerning your first post about sportfishers whinning over $10M not being enough for fish restoration projects:

There have been many credible studies that combine to prove the positive economic benefit of northwest sport fishers is worth many $billion per year! Yes, billions. Not only that, we pay far more per capita and as an entity to produce hatchery runs of fish than any other group of people. We pay the same taxes and electric rates as non fishing citizens to toward habitat and fish restoration, but we pay many times more than that thru many millions on state fishing license fees, extra taxes on fishing tackle and related gear, in addition to spending so much to stimulate the northwest economy! Yes, we have some underutilized clout there. That does not mean we can't vent when we are 'thrown a bone' of insufficient funding for salmon restoration projects and very unfair fish quota allocations.

Get my drift?

I don't think I am defending Bush. I think I am simply pointing out that there is another side to the argument about dams. I am the first to say that dams are a huge problem for fish. I simply point out that any president would have to deal with those who do not agree with us about the need to take down some of the dams. What goes on with the dams and the power companies and the tribes goes way beyond Bush or any other president. We can always express our opinions on this and never be satisifed with what happens. No matter what is done it will not please everyone.

I think most here would agree that the dams are bad and need to go. But like grandpa said (I'm starting to sound redundant) the dam(n) issue is a pretty big one to take on. There's mongosso money involved all around in that mess.

I think the smarter tactic is to take on something smaller first. Aunty M, Grandpa, and the PSA taking on the WDFW and how they slice up the pie between us, the commercials, and natives is an achievable quest. Once the sporties win a small battle like that we can move on to bigger targets.

I am sorry but do people not realize that dams make electricity. I am all for saving salmon and steelhead(since I make my living fishing for them) but I am not willing to pay 500.00 per month for electricity like people in California are paying. There has to be a happy medium there. The Columbia has record returns the past few years, but dams kill to many fish. Obviously those fish are making it out to sea. We cant rely on fossil fuels to create energy because the environmentalists wont let anyone open up the resourses. A lot of those earth first people might have lots of money and but the rest of us working folks dont. There is a reason why this economy has been going through a recession, lack of industrialization. They need to do more work on controlling commercial fishing out on the ocean. Those Japan fishermen have nets that are 400 miles long and can wipe out a hole run of fish. They need to spend there time and money on them. Not the working class people that actually make this country work. It is hard to repopulate fish numbers when you have indians trying to trade fish for a half rack of Budweiser. I see it all the time. Like I said I am all for saving salmon and steelhead but there are things out there that are more devastating on our fish.

Pat,
Dou you not realize that the four Lower Snake River dams concerned produce an insignificant amount of electricity. They were built to allow barge traffic to ascend the Snake River as far as Lewiston and, being run-of-the-river dams, are not well-suited to the production of electricity.

Well, I wouldn't say "easy". Bonneville Dam puts out about 600 MW. A modern wind turbine puts out about 600 kW, when the wind is blowing of course. So, you would need 1000 of these turbines at $1M apiece. That's $1B. Next, you have to pay up the loans still outstanding for the dam and its powerhouses. That's another $760M. Now you have to dismantle all the dams, not just Bonneville. Next, you have to mitigate the loss of a navigable river to all of the upstream communities and industries.

It's pretty complicated.

Regards.

Finegrain
Woodinville

Finegrain, Bonneville isn't on the Snake. It's on the main Columbia and nobody is talking about taking it out. The four dams on the Snake produce minimal electricity. All four of them combined produce far less than Bonneville.

Without being plaintive you certainly covered this somewhat benign subject with a full spectrum of ideas Aunty
Excuse me while I'm being lighthearted :p