As most of the persons on this board are from Washington state, I was wondering what the general feeling "if any" was about the 4 dams on the lower Snake. The removal of these dams
is a hot topic here and the only real answer to the decline of Salmon and steelhead in the Columbia basin. Its being "studyed to death" with a bunch of peter pullers and pork barrelers running the show in all states with anything at stake.

Removal of the Dams is indeed one of the only options available that appears to have any hope of succeeding. It may cause some chose for those who ship via barge, but the economic value of a wild flowing (hopefully fish-full) river is tremendous. Lots of tourists, rafting, fishing and so on. Since I have spent the better part of 5 years fishing and living around them I sincerely hope to live to see the day they are removed.

As someone who lives and fishes in Western Washington but grew up around the dams, I may have a diff. perspective. First and foremost, I KNOW that if they breach them, the fish survival rate soars. Having said that, I am not convinced that this outweighs the economic impact to the area. I want tobelieve the studies that show that the losses will be made up in other areas such as trucking revenue, recreation, etc. but I am not totally convinced this is the case. I guess if I had a vote, they would be breached but I am also realistic enough to believe that given the political realities, it will likely never happen.

check out www.removedams.org

As a resident of the community most influenced by the dams' presence and their potential removal, this issue hits quite close to home. Will the dams be breached? Five years I'd have said not a chance; now, with the idea publicly gaining momentum and support from environmentally focused politicians, the probability is very real. So far as my personal convictions, I don't know that I'm absolute either way. The salvation/restoration of wild salmon and steelhead runs is obviously significant, but more so than economic and civic concerns? It depends on whom you ask. Since slackwater came to Lewiston long before I did, I can't honestly speak to its affect on the quality of life. But of the residents who can, the majority stands opposed to breaching. I would love to see the Snake and Clearwater rivers again teeming with native salmon and steelhead, but I'm not convinced that end would justify other sacrifices which would have to be made. Jaded as this may sound to some of you, there's more at stake here than fish.

All the wild runs of the Snake River will eventually be lost unless the 4 lower Snake dams are breached. The sad news is that even with breaching, some of the remaining marginal wild runs will likely be lost. Too little, too late for those fish.

The costs of breaching, lost energy, reverting from barge to rail, increased pumping for irrigation, are spendy but bearable. It would be an act of courage to admit we made a mistake in developing the lower Snake dams and to correct our mistake by breaching them. Why is it so hard to be brave?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

On the dams being taken out I wonder why just the snake river dams and not all the dams on the columbia river too . Don't the fish have pass though these dams to .I love to fish for steelhead and would like to see them come back strong .

While I would truly love to see big returns of wild fish to this region, some issues need to be explored. We don't yet know what impact some quick fix help may have. For example: Getting rid of the hundreds of gill nets on the Columbia, the tern problem, and comercial fishing off the mouth of the Columbia. And I agree, Why not the Columbia river dams also. Do they feel that would impact too many people? Its not like a lot of fish are making it to Ice Harbor Dam ( the first snake river dam ) and getting no further. Another point to consider is what is 40 years of silt going to do to the Columbia, and how long do you think it will take to ever clear again? If I really was convinced that breaching the dams would restore the fish runs, I would say Go for it, but I am not convinced. This should have been done 20 years ago before so many fish runs were too far gone. We better love our hatchery system and leave an already depressed area alone. Also Dino, call me and we'll go fishing soon.

The dams are not the problem here. They don't help the situation, but there are way too many other things at work here than just the dams. If the dams were the reason our fish runs are declining, do you really think there would be any fish left at all? Why do the Clearwater(ID) runs continue to decline while the Grande Ronde is still FULL of fish EVERY spring? Could it be that the Clearwater fish (10-20+ lbs.) have a harder time getting through all of the commercial and Indian nets than the Grande Ronde fish (4-8 lbs.)???? The Hanford Reach still has a healthy return of salmon even though they have to cross 4 dams. So fish can handle crossing 4 dams, but not 8(see Grande Ronde)? Come on, people. The Lower Columbia River coho are as near to extinction as any Snake River fish, and they don't cross ANY dams! It's a whole lot easier for our politicans to point fingers at dams as being THE reason fish runs continue declining instead of having to deal with overharvest, huge predation losses(terns, seal lions), habitat, ocean conditions, etc........ "Of course, that's just what I think, I could be wrong!"--Dennis Miller

I feel Backlash has made a good point. I am originally from eastern washington and have fished many rivers in that area. The Ronde runs are big, but the fish are small 4-8lbs. versus the clearwater fish that are much larger. Dams are a factor, but so many little fish so high up the snake, is it just because they are small enough to survive the monofilament net walls in the lower columbia. Ahhh.... but nets are such a taboo subject, we wouldn't want to be tagged a "racist" suggesting their removal, or exploring other options, would we? The only option it seems by the state is more studies...more models. very frustrating.
The solution seems pretty obvious, if you want wild fish to return and spawn succesfully , the river must be healthy with spawning areas that aren't burried in silt, and limited interception in the sea and rivers by fishing. The dams have buried many main river spawning beds and if we want to see wild fish spawning in the main river in more places, they should be removed. But, removing dams won't be the solution. Stop netting the heck out of the rivers, let the fish populations get up to the spawning areas. Getting healthy runs back in the rivers, isn't going to be cheap. Power will cost more as a result along with other things. It comes down to whether or not people really want to make the sacrifice, or just say they want the fish back and do nothing.


[This message has been edited by KORE (edited 02-08-2000).]

What about those hatcheries that we all love? Mike, those "frustrating" models our managing agencies rely on suggest that hatchery runs have not augmented, but merely replaced wild runs. How about bagging "hatchery reform" in return for breaching a dam or two, i.e. a long-term goal of dam removal/hatchery phase-out, where wild populations can slowly fill in the gaps formed by newly created habitat. It dosen't surprise me that nobody on this BB mentioned the H-word, though. That's because most of us have the same attitude that other non-fishers have -- damage control in regards to the dam issue. As it stands, straight-up dam removal gives recreational fishers the largest net benefit. If the increase in our electricity bills hurt us that much, then we WOULD be using VMCs, and lord knows we wouldn't be arguing about which Loomis fishes the best --because we'd all be using Eagle Claws. In my opinion the effective recovery of our native salmon and steelhead stocks should originate from user groups, like us recreational fishers, that utilize them the most. Maybe our sacrifices, like hatchery removal or just plain not fishing (the ultimate sacrifice), will be equally matched by non-fishers, such as farmers, Joe Blow or Jane Doe, who will incur the economic costs that Salmo G. highlighted. Ultimately, the recovery of native stocks on the Columbia will require a holistic effort by numerous stakeholders. For now I can dream though that those 20lb Tule clones disappear to Never Never Land, and out emerges this historic run of URBs -- Ooh! Aah! Damm I wet myself again!

"Clap yo' hands everybody. Everybody clap yo' hands."-Lamar, Revenge of the Nerds

well put hoh! We never consider ourselves part of the problem. It is always easy to blame someone else.
Maybe someone will figure this out, so their will be some fish left for our kids!!!

The dams "ARE" the problem... Grand Rhonde fish or whatever... The fish don't get to the Ocean so how can they ever come back. The problem with the Coho is related to commercial fishing. The Indian fishery "if you can call it that" is B.S- I don't think it was a tradition to pull into the albertsons store, pick up a case of Keystone and head down to the river with the boat and string a gill net across it. The port of Lewiston.. thats crap also. They money they lose..which is little would be more than made up in dollars generated by healthy fish runs. To say that you would not be able to afford a GLOOMIS rod because your power bill went up??? whats that??? All the talk, all the studys. If Idaho loses these fish it will impact Oregon and Washington as well.

Well B RUN, you already agreed with me that your theory has a huge hole in it because you can't explain the Grande Ronde. Obviously, THEY don't have a problem getting to the ocean and back. If you are so concerned about fish getting back to Idaho, why isn't there an uproar over there about the Hells Canyon and Brownlee dams needing to be torn down??? The contracts to build both of those dams clearly stated that fish ladders were to be built, and they weren't. So the good government of Idaho let hundreds of miles of steelhead and salmon river be permanently blocked to the fish, but now Washington needs to tear their dams out because that will fix everything. RIGHT!!!
So the next time you want to tell me that Washington OWES it to Idaho to tear out dams to save Idaho's fish, I'm assuming you'll be sending a petition for me to sign supporting the building of fish ladders over Idaho's dams on the Snake. --Now, another note. When the Feds listed the bald eagle as an endangered species, did they still allow a limited hunting season for them? How about sea lions? Was there a certain number of them allowed to be harvested after they were listed? Then why in the hell does the NMFS say that there is a certain number of allowable Snake River salmon that are allowed to be harvested by both the commercials and the indians? Think about it.........

Hohwaiian, I agree with you that hatchery fish are part of the problem. But could they also be part of the solution. Instead of pumping the rivers with genetic clones. Use fish traps to trap wild fish use them to generate smolts.Help the wild fish out. Or possibly use a varied stock of genetic traits for the plants, hoping that the similiar genetics are in the batch, to those of wild fish. Phasing out the hatcheries and letting the wild fish fill in the gaps sounds like a good idea, but are there enough wild fish to fill in the gaps on the snake and columbia.(besides the spawners in the hanford reach) Also, I would hang up my rod if I felt that my not fishing would help to bring back certain runs. But so far I don't see that my doing so would matter. mike

The state of Idaho is certainly not above reproach here. Consider Dworshak Dam on the North Fork of the Clearwater. When it was completed in, I believe, 1972, it sealed off what was considered some of the greatest native steelhead spawning grounds in the Western U.S. The dam didn't even include a fish ladder, and still doesn't. The solution? A hatchery, albeit one the Corps of Engineers calls the largest steelhead hatchery in the world. Sure, that's a gesture fishermen in this vicinity have appreciated for nearly 30 years, but is it adequate compensation for native stocks forever lost? Responsibility for the current situation obviously doesn't rest on the shoulders of any one faction.

I would hope we can all agree that there are more reasons that one for the degradation of the steelhead and salmon runs on the Snake and Clearwater. The damns are not the only cause but they are a major cause. Of course we need to also focus on netting, predadation by terns at the mouth of the columbia, etc. The FACT remains though that a percentage of smolts are lost at each damn during downstream migration. I am not saying that the damns should come out but please admit that they are a problem. Denial simply serves those that would rather we keep saying "hey blame them, it's not our problem".

There may be other solutions. I gentleman I have recently met as we share an early morning steelhead pool was telling me about a project he is working on to assist migration past the damns. I won't even try and describe it here (Steve, describe it if you feel comfortable doing so) but it sounded very promising.

As for the Rhonde fish, how many of them are native? The Rhonde was almost a barren river in the late 70s and it was only through hatchery options that it recovered to its present levels. (Not that this year was anything to rave about.)

Ok time to get off of my soap-box.

Backlash- I'm not telling you Washington owes it to Idaho to save our fish. I'm saying you owe it to yourself and your kids... All of you are right about the Idaho end of the political mess. I can see Helen Chenowith in my worst dreams..

Alot of talk but no one has yet to tell me why not the columbia river dams

I can give you a couple reasons off the top of my head.
First, Bonneville through McNary provide a lot of flood control for the Portland/Vancouver area. The economic consequences of losing that alone would dwarf those created by removal of the lower Snake dams (which don't provide flood control on a comperable scale). For example, can you imagine all the north/south transportation corridor like I-5 and the railway cut due to flooding?
Second, the first ESA listings in the Columbia basin were of Snake river fish. The first wheel to squeek gets the grease (?).
Third, Each of the lower 4 Col. river dams generate 2-3 times more electricity than any of the lower Snake dams. Add them all together and you've got quite a difference.

There are other biology reasons that I can't think of right now ( I'm too busy wrestling the keyboard away from my two year old) but I'll get them later. Hope this helps and I'm glad this discussion is being carried on in a civil manner.
Stinkfoot

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!

There are many more issues to discuss about dam removal than the amount of fish killed at the dams. The temperatures behind the dams kill as many fish as the dams themselves. Farmers in my area count on the dams for there survival and that puts me in a tough situation. I am for dam removal but my business isn't supported by the wheat harvests. Just removing the dams won't cure the problem. There are several dams up river on the Snake that havn't even been discussed when talking about dam removal. These dams raise the temperature of the Snake to the point where a salmon is very stressed resulting in a large die off. We have to adress the big picture if we want to make a differance. If we keep trading concessions we'll never accomplish anything. I'll agree that taking out the dams will help fish but unless we adress all the problems it won't save them.