Look, I'm not even against taking the dams out. But it has to be done as the result of sound scientific study that CLEARLY says that this is THE way to get the fish back. There is no real evidence that this will work. Yes, there have been many studies done, using smolt passage formulas developed in the early 70's, but neither the corp or NMFS will guarantee this will work. Ask them about the 400 million cubic yards of sediment built up behind the dams. Ask them what that will do to the water quality for the fish we are trying to save. How many years will this brown cloud of crap wash down the river? We are about to spend 10 BILLION dollars to tear out the dams because the feds think that it MIGHT work. How about banning all fishing(commercial, indian, AND recreational) for one year. Then, go back to the way things are now for 3 years. The 4th year, you ban all fishing again, only for the year. Pay all the commercials and indians not to fish those two years. It would cost a small fraction of 10 billion dollars to do it. Care to guess how many fish would return that 4th year? That would solve once and for all whether it's the dams, or the nets. I know where I would put my money. Just a thought....

Once again, someone looking for a silver bullet. Backlash, your argument is very similar to the anti 696 argument, and it's flawed for the same reason. There is no one thing that will bring the Snake river stocks (or any other failing stocks) back. There are a lot of different parts to any solution. The fact remains that removal of the lower Snake dams would be the largest contributor to recovery. Nobody questions this,even Bruce Lovelin.

Ironhead, you're right. The John Day pool is a killer. You're also mistaken: the bypass screens at John Day are also killers and the barging program has had mediocore results at best and probably lead to a much higher than normal straying rate among wild fish.

The river is waiting!!! The Salmon river is in good shape and is ready for its fish to come home. Its free flowing.. Largest in the lower 48.. That in itself is a feat. The amount of fish that it could support.. Think about it. Lots of good thought here guys. I good to know that the issue is thought about in your state. Buy out the nets. Thats a no-brainer but It don't happen. Get rid of the terns.. O.K, WHEN ??? Crack down on some high seas poachers, not very often. Its guys like us who are going to make this stuff happen. I'm glad your out there. Logging is another issue. Stop selling the Japs logs and start selling them chairs and stuff.. they will be selling us back the logs we sell them some day soon. I flew over the coast of B.C this summer headed into Rivers inlet. I was shocked at the amount of clear cutting. Huge rafts of logs being towed by tugs. P.S fishing sucked for kings. The studys are done. Time for some action.

Hey Stinkfoot-- how does barging hatchery smolts have anything to do with wild fish straying?? You agree with me that there are several broken wheels on the wagon, but tell me I'm looking for the silver bullet. Huh? If you mean that I want to see a recovery strategy that deals with all of these issues, yes, your right. Is that too much too ask? Taking a shot in the dark that only addressing one issue(dams) will possibly fix everything is irresponsible. Fix the tern problem, put 2 pigs on the island and they will run all the terns off. It's been done in alaska. Cost-- I don't know, maybe, $200 bucks. Buy out the commercials. Cost-- just a guess, say, $100 million. Cut a deal with the Indians to at least reduce there harvest for a while. Who knows what that will cost. If that doesn't work, tear the dams down. Cost-- 10 BILLION DOLLARS! Why does just about everyone else not want to try some other options? I don't work for Tidewater, I'm not a farmer, I have no ties to the dams whatsoever. I just think tearing the dams out as a savior to the problem is bad science. Just my opinion. And with that I will leave it alone. Thanks for all the replies, it's been an good topic to hear everyone's opinion on. Bobber Down!

Backlash,
The Corps loads both hatchery and wild fish into the barges at Lower Granite. I think the pig thing is a great idea. Problem now is that so many OSU grad students are running around there now the pigs'll probably spend all of thier time raiding lunch boxes rather than nests!
You can buy out the commercials, send the navy after the foreign fleet, beat your head against the wall trying to get the natives to change harvest tactics, but -- again -- the single way to affect the most recovery is to bring those dams down.
If we tried other methods of recovery, evaluated their effectiveness, how many more years down the road to extinction would put us?

Stinkfoot,
Your question tells me that you don't believe the other options have a chance to work. I respectfully disagree. I don't think we would be farther down the road toward extinction. I think if they devoted all the energy they are expending toward dam removal towards actually saving fish, you would see the results come in one after another as they cross Bonneville, The Dalles, all the way past Lower Granite. That's just me....

Thanks for the discussion, Backlash. I hope you're right because I don't see the dams coming out. Good luck on the rivers.
Stinkfoot

I live in the Tri-Cities, but learned the metal-head waltz out on the West end in the mid 80's. Most opinions I have read have valid points, including economic loss offset by improved runs. Most hardcores would like to see the dams removed for selfish reasons, better fishing. If the dams are removed, don't expect better fishing anytime soon. A removal project would take pentagon scale dollars and decades to complete (nobody's figgured out how to deal with the good portion of Idaho trapped behind each dam as sediment). Those wishing for better fishing likely won't see it in their lifetime even if removal starts tomorrow. Hope for a better future.

The Grande Ronde (note: this is the correct spelling) is a perfect example of the issues related to salmon decline. I have worked there my entire professional career (4 years) on salmon issues. I have walked and floated much of its extent and flown over the entire system in a helicopter.

Today, coho and sockey are extinct in the Grande Ronde. Spring chinnok have not returned to the upper river for three years... big bummer. Minam/Wallowa spring chinook are at all time lows and the slope in still negative. Serious declining numbers of returning adults occurred during the period of Snake River dam construction and persist today. I can pull the numbers... they paint a clear picture of hydro impacts.

But, the Grande Ronde is an area with many other habitat and water problems. Mining, forestry and agriculture have had (and still do) massive negative impacts in the basin. In Grande Ronde valley 28 miles of river was straightened in to 6 miles. In this same area, all of the water is diverted from the river... problem? Yes. 40-60 Pushup dams are built along the river to make the river deep enough to get the pumps submerged… and create fish barriers. Summertime water temperatures often exceed 80*F… salmon start to die around 70*F.

I can tell you with certainty that the Grande Ronde fish face a bleak future until ALL of the problems are addressed... including Snake River dams. Elevating one issue above the others is silly. All of these problems are equal: they are lethal to salmon. Breach the dams… great, now leave some trees along the river and water in the river.

Here’s a quote from an early settler passing through the Grande Ronde Valley.

We descend a very steep hill in coming into Grande Ronde, at the foot of which is a beautiful cluster of pitch and spruce pine trees, but no white pine like that I have been accustomed to see at home. Grande Ronde is indeed a beautiful place. It is a circular plain, surrounded by lofty mountains, and has a beautiful stream coursing through it, skirted with quite large timber. The scenery while passing through it is quite delightful in some places. We nooned upon Grande Ronde river.

The Letters and Journals of Narcissa Whitman
August 28th, 1836

I agree that the issues are many not just the dams no matter what river you are talking about. I see many many problems, forestry, farming, trollers and so on.

If we cannot wake up and address all these problems before it is to late there are going to be fewer and fewer fish-----untill NONE.

I think that if you feel pulling dams that have adult passage is the answer, you are wrong.

jmolanoj.... ADULT FISH RETURNING IS NOT THE PROBLEM... Its the fact that the smolts don't get to the ocean.. which is a direct result of the dams... About that I am not wrong. The adult fish can and do make it up thru the dams.. and gill nets and fisherman. the barges are not working "no matter what the BPA tells you" I agree that there are several things that could be done that could help that are not being done. A simple graph of returning fish numbers pre/ post damns on the lower Snake says it all. The Salmon river is wide open and waiting as is the main Clearwater.. hundreds of miles of spawning habitat thats just about lost. The fish will do the rest if they get a chance.

Backlash,
Your "simple graph" of adult returning fish is just that, SIMPLE. Which is the reason you believe pulling dams out will work. It's a "simple" explanation. You might want to check out the "simple graph" of ocean harvest before and after the dams were put in. Also, check out what little data there is on "bycatch". There is little data available because the government made rules for it but don't enforce them and have no idea how many salmon are killed and thrown overboard. Also, check out the way indians fished for salmon 60 years ago before the first dam was built, and how they fish for them now. It's a hell of a lot easier to catch salmon with a monofilament net strung halfway across the river in 100 yard increments up and down the Columbia River than it is to spear them at Celilo Falls. If the smolts weren't getting to the ocean, you would have NO SALMON by now. Salmon stocks are declining in almost every river, dams or no dams, all over the west coast. Lower Granite and Ice Harbor are not killing all these fish. WAKE UP!!! You have bought the propoganda campaign from the same government you are bitching about. Once you educate yourself on all of these issues, the answer will indeed be "SIMPLE".

[This message has been edited by backlash2 (edited 02-16-2000).]

I don't know how much good will come from removeing the dams,I'm sure there will be a
proplem with dirty water for a long time.I'm sure this silt will cover any spawning beds now active in the river.,I'm also sure that if I-695 would have passed the biggest proplem would have been elimanated with NO MORE NETS.Even then it would take at least two full cycles of spawning fish to notice a big differance.I think it might be to late to take the dams out it might take a bad situation and make it worse.The gillnetters and seiners have got to go before there is not a fish left to catch.We'll end up like those people in england and pay a small fortune to go catch CARP....

------------------
Bob Dawson

The backed-up silt doesn't have to be as much of an environmental problem as some people want to believe. The Corps of Engineers can remove silt before breaching. As a one-time C. of E. hydrographic surveyor, my guess is that they could remove the silt along the old riverbed and banks before the breaching, and then remove more silt after it is high and dry to save $. Yes, I realize it would still be expensive. Hopefully, "they" already have it in their cost estimates.

Backlash - Sounds like you have a general mistrust of the fish agencies and government... can't help you with that.

But, don't dismiss clear evidence of the effects of the dams. Yes the numbers are simple... and they paint a clear picture of the dams effects during and after construction. I agree that there are other reasons for having the dams (social and economic values), but in terms of effects to fish the analysis is SIMPLE. Pre and post data shows that they reduced the number of fish by 80-90%. Why? Because they are lethal to instream (nonbarged) juviniles, stressfull for adult migrants, warm the river, change the hydrograph and remove nearly all of the mainstem spawning areas (which the fall chinook used to utilized). These effects on salmon are a reality that should be accepted and instead of debated.

One point that may be being missed here is: Are there in fact any really wild fish left in the snake river system. There are a lot of people, biologists included, who feel that as a result of many years of hatchery augmenting of various runs, that there are no truly wild fish left. If that is the case, we are proposing spending a huge amount of money, and economically hurting a lot of people, for the wrong reasons. Just a thought to consider. I might add, there is some argument on this point, and I am not aware that any real conclusion has been reached.

Ya know, I sure am glad i'm not as blind, deaf, dumb, stupid, lost, or helpless as the salmon some of you think you are saving by breaching dams. Read my lips, "IF THE DAMS KILL SO MANY SALMON AND STEELHEAD, THEY WOULD BE LONG GONE BY NOW". The largest run of chinook salmon ever recorded(since Bonneville was constructed) returned 50 YEARS after the first dam was built. HELLO?? WAKE UP!! You must have fell asleep dreaming about rafting on the new free flowing section of the chocolate brown, silt in the fishes gills, still salmonless section of the Snake. Oh well, you can still go to Safeway and buy fresh, farm raised salmon to eat. Yeah, your dog is eating that last Snake River Chinook, because they make dog food out of fish over 15 lbs.

I certainly don't think that you are dumb... just biased.
You write:
"IF THE DAMS KILL SO MANY SALMON AND STEELHEAD, THEY WOULD BE LONG GONE BY NOW".

In the Snake River, they are gone... for the most part. Wait ten more years of debate and study and delay... and they'll all be gone. And, chances are, with our wonderful fish agencies, you'll get your answer.

The large fish returns that you are referring to were hatchery plants... not wild stock (i.e. the kind of fish that spawn in real rivers). Do I have to wait 50 more years to see a large run of hatchery planted fish? I don't know if I've got that long.

Hatchery or not, that run did not come back because they planted that many more smolts 4 years before. And hatchery or not, ALL salmon and steelhead have to cross the same number of dams. Granted, a lot of the main river channel in the Snake is no longer spawning ground as it once was. But, the Salmon River is pristine spawning territory and guess what, NO FISH. Where did those pesky fish go!?! Hmmmm!?! Must be the dams...hehehe

Steely--I know that you are pro dam removal. But what are the numbers of smolts killed by the dams if that is where we are loosing so many fish. I think that we need to look at water quality. There are so many issues in water quality, water run off from logging, poor irrigation from farming, poor screening in farming, poor laws that protect instream run off, and so on. Then we need to fix the small diversion dams that have no fish passage. I know of several that are being removed in Washington that will open up new areas for spawing.----you that there is very little premium spawing areas let in most river systems. I understant your point but there are many areas that we can fix that are not as costly as removing a dam or two.---------fish on!