Was just looking at the KOMO 4 web site and they have a headline that just came down that the clinton administration has approved waiting ANOTHER 10 years before possibly pursuing breaching the 4 dams.

Says that they want to wait and see how salmon recovery over that time progresses.

Gosh, I thought we just spent 75 years doing that? No more speculation about this issue...sounds like it's official.

Well, that is crap!!

Things may have gone differently, if there was really any conclusive sound science as to dams role in fish demise, or recovery. It is relatively simple to put real numbers to the economic problems caused by dam breaching, but simply speculation as to how removal would aid fish recovery.

Mike, Yeah kind of like having cancer surgery there really isn't any proof that it will work in your case but you just never know.
I can remember lobbying back in Washington D.C. a conversation with senator Murkowski Republican from Alaska he was standing 5 feet away from me screaming at the top of his lungs that he had never read any "Science" on the need for riparian zone protection, this was not a lie. He had informed his staff to keep all such reports out of his office.
That must be similar to what people who say things like there is no proof dam removal will work are thinking or whatever. I guess thats the beauty of free speech a lot of times its worth just exactly what it cost.

Native Son--

Whatever........

And the tobacco companies still claim (with a straight face) that nicotine is not addictive and smoking does not lead to lung and other cancers. Please.

I don't think we need another long discussion about the dams since we've done that in other posts. It seems to be one of those issues akin to the abortion debate - you're either pro-choice or pro-life and one side isn't going to sway the other side. In this case, you either make some money off the dams or you don't live near them and don't see why they were built in the first place. Yes, the economic impact to some would be real. Can't argue with that.

Anyway, here's a few snippets from scientists and others:

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, April 16, 1997:

CBFWA endorses natural river drawdowns at the Lower Snake River dams and natural river or spillway crest drawdown at John Day Dam as the presumptive path that is consistent with the biological needs of Snake River and Columbia River fish and wildlife, and also consistent with the Independent Scientific Group concept of a normative river. Fish and wildlife managers recognize that it is important to offset the potential adverse economic and biological effects of drawdowns and believe that these actions must be coordinated with drawdown implementation.
---------------
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Resolution, October 1998:

The Commission recognizes that current information indicates the natural river option is currently the best biological choice for recovery. The Commission supports continued work to clarify the biological component of the 1999 Decision Point to ensure the best possible resolution by the end of 1999.
---------------
Dell Simmons, Fishery Management Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in PACIFIC FISHING, November 1998:

Nets are an easy shot, but the nets aren't the bad guys, especially the ocean nets. Look at dam losses and compare that to gillnets.
---------------
Dr. Robert Behnke, Professor of Fisheries, Colorado State University, March 22, 1999:

It is painfully obvious that 20 years of technological fixes have not overcome the problems caused by the four lower Snake River dams. Either we change course now and restore the lower Snake to a semblance of a river, or we will likely lose forever a unique and precious genetic resource that cannot be replaced.
---------------
Letter to President Clinton by 200 Concerned Fishery Scientists, March 22,1999:

The weight of scientific evidence clearly shows that wild Snake River salmon and steelhead runs cannot be recovered under existing river conditions. Enough time remains to restore them, but only if the failed practices of the past are abandoned and we move quickly to restore the normative river conditions under which these fish evolved.

We, the undersigned scientists, are gravely concerned that current measures to recover Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead are falling far short of what is needed to avert widespread extinctions in the near future. We are especially concerned that the current management approach appears to be fixed on a path of technological solutions instead of a return to more normative river conditions. The former path is a dangerous one that is likely to send several depressed stocks into extinction over the next few decades.
---------------
National Marine Fisheries Service, ANADROMOUS FISH APPENDIX, April 1999:

Based on estimates of mortality in reservoirs downstream from Lower Granite Dam, losses in Lower Granite Reservoir and other Snake River reservoirs could be as high as 20%.

And I could go on. If anyone wants to read more check out the Columbia & Snake Rivers Campaign website.

Bruce


[This message has been edited by B. Gray (edited 07-20-2000).]

Very good point bruce..

Kind of interesting that on top of the decision not to breach, this summer, due to lack of rainfall, they will almost certainly not be able to keep reserviors behind the dams at acceptable temperatures to avoid killing thousands of fish. There is just not enough water to ballance the needs of people with the needs of fish and the fish get the short end again. I read this in on the Tri-city Herald web page today (7/20). www.tri-cityherald.com.

I for one will not lose any sleep about this decision making anything final. Administration after administration has made all kind of sweeping declarations, only to recand days or months later. The Clinton administration doesn't have long to go and congress is the actual group that could enact the removal. Certainly, no hope is lost.