I refer to paragraph 2 of Salmo's first post regarding privately owned dams. I am forced to defer to possibly the most knowledgable fish in the pond on this one, namely Salmo himself. Are/were these dams privately owned and if so why then are so many complaining that slade (one of 536) cannot get them torn down fast enough. I have meth labs and wreckless drivers in my neighborhood that don't affect fishing but need to be prioritized ahead of these dams. (if you ask me....) These dams can be left forever if the money not spent will get more police and judges with some stones into my neighborhood. You see we all have priorities. If the dept. of Interior owns the dams now lobby them to breach them as they are now the decision makers. It appears that Slade has secured monies for removal for several years and that money could be used for decommisioning efforts in preparation for removal. It will take years to remove them anyway so why not start with what they have and force the feds to complete the project later. A half breached dam will make slade look much worse than a functioning, power making dam with angry fishermen wandering around. Just a thought.