wit45cal, I'm interested how you can figure that less restrictions=more fish. Maybe I mis-read your post and you were being sarcastic. If so ignore this.
What kind of restrictions do you suggest we get rid of? Harvest restrictions? Water use restrictions? Please explain. The trouble with ranting is sometimes people can't understand what you're trying to say.

dcrzfitter, one problem is that nobody knows how to make a "fish friendly" dam! Since the purpose of a dam is to run water through turbines, fish get run through turbines. The corps are trying to develop a "fish friendly" turbine but they're still working on it. A real conservative estimate would be something like each dam in the Columbia kills 3% to 5% of the smolts that pass. I agree that the cost of breaching would be huge. I don't know if it would be worth it. I do know that I would like to see more honesty in the arguments both pro and con. The dams have a big impact on survival and when someone against breaching says they don't I know that person either hasn't read much about it or is trying to blow smoke up my butt. I think it would be great if an anti-breaching person said "keeping the dams up will lead to extinction of wild Snake river stocks, but the cost is too great. Lets spend the resources on more easily recoverable stocks". Then I would know I wasn't being lied to.