Friends,

This subject is just too good, or too hot, to drop. B-run asked us what we think about removing the 4 lower Snake River dams to help restore threatened fish stocks to that area. Backlash stepped up to inform us that the dams are not the problem here. And the rest of us chimed in with our bits and pieces and chummed the waters, so to speak. Things I found interesting in this discussion, and others like it, are: the problem is always something or somebody other than me. And it seems we each think we’re unbiased, at least relatively so, anyway. Well, my contribution is unresearched, completely biased, but fairly well informed.

What is the problem that causes depressed stocks of salmon and steelhead so that they have to be listed under the ESA? Well, let’s begin with this. There are two kinds of mortality to fish. Natural mortality, the sort that occurs absent any and all human intervention. Most fish populations sustained themselves over thousands of years without letup when all they had to contend with was natural mortality. An important thing about natural mortality is that there is nothing we humans can do about it. Egg to fry survival is always less than 100%, even in the most pristine environments, and smolt to adult survival is likewise always less than 100% in the ocean. Under the best of natural conditions, the survival of salmon and steelhead from egg to subsequent spawning adult is less than 1%. They naturally carry a lot of eggs to allow for high natural mortality in the very best, pristine, ecosystems even when untouched by any human intervention.

Enter the second source of mortality, human intervention, and you can readily see that there is not a huge margin for error. Increasing mortality by as much as 0.1% above natural background levels can have a significant effect on a fish population. But collectively we add a lot more mortality to that to a Snake River fish population, as well as other populations coastwide. The point I wish to make here is that no one source of human induced mortality is on any higher moral or ethical ground than other sources, at least biologically speaking. You might think a gillnet is less moral than pulp mill pollution, but to the salmon that died and didn’t return to the spawning grounds, the cause of death makes no difference whatever.

The problem with depressed and threatened fish stocks is that taken collectively, we add too much additional mortality to a fish population above natural mortality levels. I think fish biologists support the assertion that reducing any one source of mortality results in a proportionate increase in the number of fish entering the adult population. So if it is our objective to increase the size of an adult fish population, reducing mortality at any point in the fishes’ life history is a good thing and will result in some increase to the population. If fish populations are in really bad shape, like Snake River fall chinook, spring chinook, and steelhead (let’s talk native wild stocks in this case) then it probably makes sense to reduce mortality sources that have the greatest impact on the population.

So now let’s consider impacts. Here we may also find higher and lower ethical grounds in terms of relative impacts to the depressed fish populations. For instance, every Snake River fish must pass 4 Columbia River mainstem dams. Twice, first downstream and then upstream. Most Snake River fish have to pass an additional 4 lower Snake River mainstem dams as well (Walla Walla R. and Tucannon R. fish have fewer). This eight dam complex imposes an estimated juvenile fish mortality ranging from 50 to 80% according to the scientific reports. Then commercial and recreational fishing used to harvest as many as 70 to 85% of adult fish depending on species, time period analyzed, and so forth. Directed harvests are presently much lower, but are still a significant effect on the most depressed stocks. Let’s see, increased loads of fine sediment can reduce egg to fry survival from highs of 30 - 35% to less than 10%, or even 1 or 2%.

It’s harder to quantify the total impact of other effects, but I don’t want to leave anyone’s favorite out. So let’s mention road building, logging, dewatering, irrigation diversions, M&I diversions, ag runoff and return flows, industrial and sewage effluents, mining. Please add your favorite in case I overlooked it; after all this is a stream of consciousness, unresearched, post. The point I wish to make here is that some human induced causes of mortality affect a lot of fish, like the Snake River dams, and some causes, like ag runoff or a podunk irrigation diversion on a small Salmon River tributary, affect relatively few fish, even if they are very egregious offenders. This line of reasoning leads me to conclude that the very best way to restore Snake River wild salmon and steelhead is to reduce mortality from the sources that cause the highest rates of mortality to the greatest proportion of the Snake River salmon and steelhead populations.

Now if objective evidence indicates that the 4 lower Snake River dams induce a higher rate of mortality to more Snake River fish than any other source of human induced mortality, then that should be the location where we place our highest priority and greatest effort to reduce, or even eliminate, mortality to anadromous fish. And wouldn’t the next stroke of logic be to compare the cost of fixing Snake River dam mortality to the cost of whatever alternatives would be necessary to achieve the same fishery benefits of fixing the mortality problem caused by the Snake River dams? The fish really don’t care. Reduce human induced mortality by enough, and the fish will begin returning in ever greater numbers, up to the capacity of the remaining habitat. Don’t, and . . ., well, they won’t.

Some random responses to other points raised:

The Grande Ronde gets large returns of steelhead in spite of the dams because, a) a bazillion hatchery smolts are released there every year. They nonetheless still take a pretty hefty mortality hit from the dams.

The Hanford reach gets a healthy return because the 4 lower Columbia dams don’t cause as much mortality as the 4 lower Snake dams. But, chinook further up the Columbia are endangered! Guess what? Priest Rapids, Wanapum, Rock Island, and Rocky Reach aren’t fish friendly enough to sustain wild fish populations upstream of them. So right now, it looks like the 4 lower Columbia River dams are about the limit (all other sources of human induced mortality being equal - which they aren’t) that the fish populations can handle and still exist.

Lower Columbia River coho are near extinction because the states have managed for hatchery harvest rates, in excess of 80 and 90%, that no wild population can withstand. Therefore, wild coho are at or near extinction. Right, dams are not the only way to wipe out a fish population.

Silt behind the Snake dams. This is not a sufficient reason to avoid tackling the Snake dam issue. Most of the worst of the silt will blow out in a couple years. A worst case comparison? Try the S. F. Toutle River that was partially buried by the Mt. St. Helens blast. Not nearly as bad as the N. F., but also came back into fish production in a couple years. Come on guys! This one’s a smoke screen, a whiny why we can’t do anything but ring our hands and point at other causes of the problem. A feeble excuse for doing nothing. My speculation? Within 3 years after breaching, fall chinook will spawn successfully with good egg to fry survival.

Ladders over Hell’s Canyon won’t restore anadromous fish to the upper Snake. Removal of those dams might not do it, either. Hence, no uproar at the moment. Also those dams are owned by Idaho Power, not the U.S., altho that may not matter. But the real issue is restoring the lower Snake first. It won’t do any good to restore the upper Snake if we haven’t repaired the lower.

There is no scientific evidence that says dam breaching will restore the fish. Correct. There is also on scientific evidence that says it won’t restore the fish. Depends where you wish to place the burden of proof, I guess. And there’s ton’s of scientific evidence about what hasn’t worked worth a hoot! Yet, we keep putting our efforts in things that don’t work because those efforts hurt us the least. Yeah, well that’s pretty smart reasoning! Sounds like I’m ranting now, huh?

How about banning all commercial fishing for 1 year? Hmmm, I’ll bite. Let’s ban all fishing for one year, BUT let’s also ban all hydroelectric energy production from the 4 lower Snake dams and the 8 Columbia dams for the same year - just pass the water by. Let’s just see how fish respond to that, while we’re at it. See, fish don’t care what the source of mortality is. Mortality just has to be low enough so that some of those 1% of the survivors from eggs can survive to spawn. Death by commercial fishing is no worse to a salmon than death by hydroelectric turbines or warm slackwater reservoirs.

Salmon are declining in all west coast rivers, dams or not. True. When ocean conditions are not as favorable to survival, all stocks are affected. But which stocks are most affected? Those that have additional problems. Remember, natural mortality is one of the things we really can’t do anything about. Human induced mortality is something within our capability to influence. In spite of low ocean survival, those stocks from the healthiest ecosystems are presently performing the best. And it ain’t the Snake. Surprised?

If the dams kill so many salmon and steelhead, they would be long gone by now. True. And some of them are gone now. But anadromous fish are very resilient. A species that counts on having less than 1% of its progeny survive to reproductive age has to be resilient. The dams do kill so many - its in the reports - but they don’t kill enough of some stocks to completely wipe them out. But they do seem to be trying. And most of the anadromous fish returning to the Snake are of hatchery origin. The human induced mortality rates are just too high for wild salmon and steelhead stocks to persist upstream of Lower Granite. Most of the remaining wild fish populations are, or have been, augmented with hatchery production. I’m not sure if any actually remain that have had no help from hatcheries. Looks kinda’ borderline. Maybe the dams do kill so many that the fish would be long gone by now except for the hatchery intervention. Need expert input here. Any volunteers?

Oh, and a good one. The largest chinook run returned 50 years after Bonneville was built. So? That’s merely the largest chinook run counted, since they didn’t count runs before Bonneville made it possible. All they could count previously was the commercial salmon pack. And the commercial canning industry had a hell of an impact on chinook. The big count was by no means the biggest run; likely far from it.

Obviously, there are no simple or easy answers to complex problems. I've made this lengthy post to express how fish mortality works in salmon and steelhead populations and how human activities nudge mortality rates over the edge that fish populations can withstand. And I hope I've helped you understand that the problem is you and me, but that every thing we do to reduce mortality to fish helps. I just happen to think it makes the most sense to address the cause that has the largest effect on the greatest proportion of the fish.

Especially so if the consequences are bearable. I believe a strong case has been made that we can bear the breaching of the lower Snake dams. Wheat will still get to market - by rail rather than barge. Irrigation for the 13 affected farms will still happen, they just need additional pumping. That's a pretty small technology fix. The 4 lower Snake dams provide absolutely zero flood control benefits, so please don't be misled by arguments to the contrary. And the energy from those dams is less than 5% of the regional supply and no more than 12% of BPA's supply. Well, BPA exists for the sole reason of marketing surplus federal energy. If these dams don't produce any, BPA doesn't have to worry about marketing it. And the energy loss to the region won't be noticed since we continue to have an energy glut. I just can't think of any impact from breaching so great that we as a society cannot absorb it.

If my reasoning is flawed, please so indicate.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo G.

Very well said!!!

Salmo.. thats perfect. Right on the money. I see a couple of points addressed that are not mentioned in other posts. Its hard for me to write on this subject. The people who have a job to lose are so few in relation to the impact on the entire northwest that I can't even concider that an issue. This discussion could go on forever on this board, and I read every post with great intrest. Its not about fishing with me. I do love to fish and thats were my intrest started, but as time goes on and I see first hand the impact of poor planning, I can not help but think that this is maybe the worst decision that has ever been made in the north west. If it helped I would not fish for steelhead. Hell, I can't fish for salmon so thats a non-issue. I am willing to admit that as a human, I can be concidered part of the problem, but am also willing to open my eyes and do what I can to set it straight. I have kids. I have taken them up into the Stanley basin to get a look at wild salmon "yes they still exist" and I HOPE they always will. However, the facts are simple. Without action and sacrifice, they will not exist much sooner than people realize

Salmo, while I am not in favor of dam breaching, I truly admire and appreciate the thought that went into your post. I do agree almost entirely with what you said. I must admit that my issue is selfish in the way that it will adversly affect my way of making a living. Hard to retrain yourself when you have done one kind of work for 25 years. Wish people would expend as much energy solving the other mortality issues as they are dam breaching.

The Upper Columbia, above the 395 bridge, has been closed to fishing for steelhead for the past 2 1/2 years. Except for Ringold, which is a bank fishery and it has been open for the months of June and July. The only reason why steelhead fishing was allowed was
because some returning fish were a mix of Skamania and Upper Columbia stocks.
Because this year's returning adults are all Upper Columbia Wells stock, we might not
have a season at Ringold. The steelhead in the Upper Columbia and tributaries, hatchery fish known as Wells stock and wild fish, are both listed as an endangered species. The Yakima and it's tributaries was one of the major contributing watersheds to the Columbia River system in producing salmon and steelhead. The dams on the Yakima have pretty much destroyed habitat and raised water temperature to the point that fish can't spawn successfully. Also wild fish have inter-bred with hatchery fish, putting the gene pool in a tailspin with subsequent offspring becoming less and less successful at spawning. We have sacrificed as far as sportsmen. Why is it easier to remove the dams instead of
curtailing harvest and solving predator issues. Salmo G, you are right. It is an
accumulative effect. Does the four Snake River dams account for more mortality than
the harvest and predator situation? In my opinion it is the harvest and predator issue that is a far greater evil . Removing the dams is not a magic wand. Some variables are easier to control than others and I always feel that we as sportsmen have taken a bulk of the responsibility. Why not remove the dams that would benefit both Upper Columbia and the Snake River? What makes the people think that by removing the four Snake River dams
the fish will return, when we are not getting much of a return on the Upper Columbia.
That has been my point all along. Why don't we solve the problems that are costing the most in mortality first than addressing the easier issues. This is why I do not understand why removing the four Snake River dams is such an issue when there are other areas that are contributing far more to the elimination of salmon and steelhead.

Salmo g.-

Your thoughts are on the money. Well said. Thanks.

For those of you that still think that breaching Snake River dams is a bad idea... you must like winter wheat and surplus electricity sold to california better than than a surface take on a Grande Ronde steelhead. I'm for the steelhead myself. Salmo g. has it figured out. Go work for NFMS. They need you. Trust me on this.

WHEW!!!!!Your right on,but the gillnetters still have to go.If that means I can't fish the columbia for two or three years to help
then thats what it means but the time for talking is over its time for some action
before its really to late.We've been talking for years and haven't done much of anything else.I fish the washougal 95% of the time for steelhead and fish for salmon and STURGEON just out front of the washougal and the only thing between the Washougal and the ocean is GILLNETS and our fisheries are just about nill infact there claiming we'll have a lousy fall chinook run this year and might get shutdown or just a few days to fish.But the gillnetters will still get all there time.There are NO dams from here to the mouth
of the river so again your right on saying its the human factor.Maybe the answer is to breech the dams and stop all salmon and steelhead fishing in the columbia and give the fish a chance to rebuild the runs.If thats what it takes lets get it done.


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

Wild Steelhead? On the Snake? Are you guys sure that they aren't just hatchery strays that are spawning wild, and have been for a while? If any of these fish ever had an ancestor that swam in a cement pond, and was conditioned to rise to the sound of the food truck's motor, then why are we so worried about them. As long as they are genetically similar to the fish from the old wild stocks, then the hatchery could just make more "wild fish". I think we need to realize that the wild fish from the Snake are gone, or watered down from mixing with hatchery fish, and spending billions to save these glorified rubber trout would be a poor choice, when there are much cheaper ways to bolster the returns on hatchery fish.

I believe the questions about why the Grande Ronde fish don't seem to have as much trouble as the Clearwater fish making it back to their release point, can be answered by comparing the size of the fish, to the size of the mesh in the nets used in the lower Columbia. A few years ago, the tribal fisheries as well as the sport fisheries were regulated during the migration of spring chinook. Steelhead anglers at Ringold (Upper Columbia), started noticing some early returning, larger than average steelhead making it back. These were fish that had normally been caught in tribal nets, but due to the restrictions, they were able to return to the hatchery.

I agree, as do most anglers that removing the dams could be nothing but beneficial to the fish, but we should try and eliminate the variables that impact the fewest people first.

2BUCKS- There is indeed such a thing as a wild Snake river steelhead. Its no question at all when you hook one. They look better, they fight better and are not clipped. A wild fish from the Clearwater river is a sight to behold. Usually quite large and completly pissed off. I can help but say "welcome home baby" every time I catch and release one.. Anyone who has caught one can relate.

2buck, if that were the case, no more "wild" steelhead in the snake, then by that same reasoning there are no "wild" steelhead in washington at all. Hatchery fish can stray from one river to another, and hatcheries have existed for nearly 100 years now. Try and convince all the scientists and the other fishermen on this board that there is no such thing as a wild steelhead and I think your'e in for an argument that you will not win. It sure would make managing the fisheries much easier though. But that's the problem, this is a very complicated problem that will not be solved by simlply pumping out more fish from the hatcheries. In fact the hatcheries in Idaho pour a bunch of fish into the rivers each year with fewer and fewer returns. So if you can force yourself to believe that true wild fish still exist go back and read Salmo Gs' post As he really did a nice job and put some time into it, Thanks Salmo G.

Oh, yeah for those of you who think the Rhonde is doing so great I ask you one question, What happened to the coho and sockeye runs that used to be there? Does anybody have any info on when those runs disappeared? It would be nice to know how these runs demise correlates to the construction of the dams, if at all.

thanks,
Duke

Are there any Snyder Creek (good example?) type of programs in the area that could help perpetuate some of the individual "wild" strains? And thereby eliminate one of the arguments, justified or not, that the anti-dambreachers have?.........

The "wild/not wild" discussion in this topic is another example of how hatcheries are often detrimental to native stocks. Not only are the hatchery fish diluting the genes of the native fish, the dilution is being used by anti-dambreachers to bolster their side- whether it's justified or not.

If the current States-wide enhancement practices continue, more and more native strains will have their genes diluted to the point that loggers, developers, etc., will increasingly use this "no truly wild strains" argument- whether it's justified or not.

As I've said before, I believe enhancement should be limited to a few select "meat hole" streams. (Well, now I'm starting to get off the topic)

WHEW!!!!!Quite a mouthful Salmo. Sorry fellas, was out of town on business for a couple days. Well, since Salmo started the subject, and said by all means lets be completely biased, I can probably muster up a response, or two. The beginning of your letter is excellent, differentiating between natural and human caused mortality, etc.. Then, (Here we go!)we get into the smolts crossing dams. 'This eight dam complex imposes an estimated juvenile fish mortality ranging from 50 to 80% according to scientific reports.' Well Salmo, there are also 'scientific reports' stating juvenile fish losses to downstream migration through all 8 dams is only 12%. Guess it all depends on which "facts" you look at, huh? O.K., oh yeah, here is the Grande Ronde again. You simply explain it away by saying its returns are due to 'a billion' smolts being released there every year. If you have ever been there and seen the hatchery, you know better. If I'm not mistaken, the smolt release there is less than 300,000 per year. If you want to see 'a billion' (actually, over 3 million per year) drive up to Dworshak on the Clearwater. Now that's a hatchery!!! What does the Clearwater have for fish? Ask someone who fishes there what 'a billion' smolts gets you. So, no, you still can't explain the Grande Ronde. Well, I can. It's called the size of the holes in a monofilament gill net. END OF STORY. The Hanford Reach still returns a healthy run because, 'the 4 lower Columbia River dams are about the limit...the fish populations can handle and still exist'.Puuuuuuck!!! Some fish-killing dams are OK, just not Snake River fish-killing dams. Stop right now, back up, and read what you have said. Dams are either bad, or good, not both(DUH). You say that 'lower Col. River coho are near extinction because the states have managed for hatchery harvest rates, in excess of 80 and 90%.' You think this is the only fishery they manage this way??? I finally get it. Blame overfishing for fish disappearing only if you can't somehow blame it on a dam first. ALL fisheries are managed this way, and that's where your precious Snake River fish go. After they have survived the journey down the river, swam around and grown for 3 or 4 more years, YOUR state allocates anywhere from 60-85% of the returning grown-ups to be harvested. Two or three times the fish you see returning where you live would be back, instantly. Neahhh, tear the dams down. 'Silt behind the Snake dams'. Can't argue with you here, because I don't have a clue what will happen. Could take 2 years to clean itself out, could take 20. Even the Corp agree that they don't know. 'Ladders over Hell's Canyon (i'm assuming you mean the dam) won't restore anadromous fish to the upper Snake.' Well, why the hell not? There are several scientists out there that agree going over fish ladders is much easier for returning adults than negotiating rapid after rapid in the 'natural' river. My point earlier about the Snake River complex of dams was simply that Idaho's got no room to talk about how dam's are managed for maximum fish returns. If this were baseball, Idaho is 0 for 500 with 500 strikeouts with about a dozen foulballs directly off of their forehead. How about Ironhead's point? Why is everyone crying for Snake River fish and not upriver Columbia fish? If 4 dams are OK(puke again), then don't the next 4 on the Columbia have to go, too?? Oh, that's right, the government doesn't want to tear those out yet. So they haven't told you that you want them out yet, either. 'There is no scientific evidence that says dam breaching will restore the fish.' You should have stopped your paragraph, and your letter after you typed this. But no, you still think we should bet 10 billion dollars on a single number at the roullete table because some stuffy old lady(NMFS) fresh off the bus from Boston tells us "it's the right thing to do". In your next paragraph you say instead of just banning fishing for a year, you want to ban all electrical production at the same time. Good thought, but if you do both at the same time, everyone will argue which ONE really caused the huge fish returns(and they would be huge). Also, there is only two ways for water to get by a dam 1.) Through the turbines, or 2.) Spilled over the top. The environmetalists, and a lot of your government, still swear spilling huge amounts of water is the way to go. The only problem is the nitrogen and huge amounts of dissolved oxygen created by water spilling. I have talked to the guys in the boats checking smolts below Ice Harbor during spill. IT KILLS FISH by the thousands. Gas bubble disease, check it out. I could go on and on, but I'm tired of tearing into a fellow fisherman who cares as much about the bottom line as I do, fish. Please Salmo, don't take it personally. However, if tearing out dams is the one thing left you think we haven't tried yet, you're wrong. Stop commercial net fishing. You don't have to stop the troll fisheries, they have the oppurtunity to be selective. Nets aren't. Plus, this gets rid of 'bycatch', perhaps the nastiest taste in anyone's mouth. Fish killed, accidentally, that have to be thrown overboard because they aren't what that season is open for. There are stories of 30,000 lbs. of Chinook being killed as bycatch so boats can reach there limit of 4,000 lbs. of sockeye. How does that make sense? Stop, or curtail the Indian fishery. When the treaties of 1855 were written and signed, no one knew of monofilament, or Alumaweld, or electric net winches, or anything else that pertained to Indian fishing as we know it today. Stop at Cascade Locks or Columbia Point Marina in Tri-Cities next summer. You can buy ENDANGERED SNAKE RIVER CHINOOK FOR 2 BUCKS A POUND!!! And people came out by the hundreds !! That's how well informed they are, and how much they really care. As long as they can buy it, they will. As for me, I'm looking into windsurfing. Good luck!