Geo,

I'm going to have to agree with you 110% on that one...the only folks who really think they need the dams are the farmers over there on the Snake River, and the only reason they think that is that their government tells them they do.

The funny thing is, though, their government knows that they don't need the dams, and even if they did need the dams, their government wouldn't care.

The farmers, the dams, the fish, the COE budget, the farming subsidies, the electrical power lobby, and us, the general public...we are all tools in the grand game of politics, and the dam issue on the Snake River is one of the most blatant examples of how all that game works that I can think of.

As tools in the game, all are there to be held up as the most important thing in the world, downgraded in importance, relegated to merely convenient, denigrated as unhelpful, demonized as the cause of the problem, and ultimately, sold off for support on a different issue. And each and every one of those tools can occupy one or all of those "levels" at any given time...in fact, most of them occupy every level at all times, depending on who you ask, or who is saying.

If there are commercial fishermen and timber companies that support SOS, fine. What happens if dams actually are removed/fixed so that fish passage becomes a reality? Who's next on the chopping block for fish advocates?

Sounds a lot like the argument on the WSR threads...if we want to stop the tribal netting, let's make them the only ones killing wild steelhead, get PR on our side, and then see how the "stewards of the resource" look in the public eye.

The money that would be lost to power production would be more than made up by the money saved in fish expenditures...

...but, as long as the fight appears to be fish vs. farmers, there will be a fight...and as long as there is a fight, there are those who will fight for you, and those people like having their offices in D.C. and being called "Mr. Senator" or "Ms. Congresswoman".

The fight will always be defined by those who want to be representatives in the fight as a political fight...it will always be liberal vs. conservative...

-environmentalists vs. farmers
-urban elite demos from Seattle vs. salt of the earth republicans in E. Wa
-fiscally responsible demos vs. ignorant rednecks
-people who love fish vs. people who love their families
-scientists vs. money

...etc., etc., etc...

To me, the real question has only a couple factors in it...

1. How much do the dams cost to be there? (meaning, what is the monetary value of the environmental damage being done?)

2. How much will it cost if they are gone? (meaning, what is the monetary value of the irrigation, shipping, and power production that will be lost?)

3. If the dams are removed, will the reductions of costs in #1 outweigh the loss of $$ due to #2?

4. What other, seemingly unrelated, but very connected, issues are there?

From what I think I know, the dams have an enormous environmental price tag, which besides costing the fish and the river, cost all of us taxpayers an unbelievable amount of money to get any fish back over there.

I also know that there is some agricultural, shipping, and power production values to the dams, but...

Every study I've seen says that the $$ lost to #2 would be insignificant compared to the $$ value gained by #1.

Also, the farming industry may lose $$ due to a lower amount of water available for irrigation...but what if the fish in the Snake were eventually taken off the ESA list? How much cheaper would it be for them to do business then?

The hard part to figure in is that gains in economic value will be in different sectors than those that suffer the losses.

So a few farmers lose their farms, maybe a few tens of millions of dollars? The downstream folks not only make all that money up in higher product prices for the other farmers, not to mention the commercial fishermen, and the communities that depend on sport fishing...heck, they might make up five or ten times as much money as those few farmers lost.

Looks good on paper...should be simple enough to explain it to the farmers who are going to lose their land and livelihood to take one for the team, right? Yeah....right.

As long as there is a fight to be fought, there will be someone to fight it, and if the fight is not really there, someone who wants to fight will make one up, pick a side, pick an opponent, and go.

Believe it or not, there is a point to what I'm saying, and even if you never thought I'd get to it, here it is...drum roll please...

We need term limits with teeth. The power struggles in D.C. are the cause of 90% of the problems in our country. You know what the first task looked at on the first day in office by any elected official? Beginning the re-election campaign...and the two, four, or six years between now and then is all re-election campaign.

What if they can't get re-elected, legally? Might they have to actually do some work without thinking about their re-election campaign? God forbid something else might step up as most important in their decision making...

"Politicians and diapers need to be changed often...and for the same reason".

(rant ends, steps off soap box, sprains ankle, gets kicked in ribs by one democrat, one republican, and two independents...anarchist runs up to help him up...but sees GAP delivery truck drive by...and accidentally kicks me with his NIKEs as he runs after truck, waving fist in air...I crawl towards coffee machine...)

Fish on...

Todd