Trump is a moron.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2025/06/12/trump-breaks-historic-columbia-river-deal-between-u-s-government-tribes-northwest-states/&ved=2ahUKEwiMyv_dmvCNAxUbATQIHcY3JgoQr_oDKAB6BAghEAE&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw3a-BcqeVPVMgcvfMYIJqL2

That's an insult to morons.

This from another board.
"My fisheries biologist friend who has spent most of his 30 year career trying to save Columbia River salmon and many weeks in DC lobbying over the last several year sent me the an email yesterday basically saying this is the beginning of the end of Columbia River salmon. The damage that the remaining 3.5 years of this administration will do to Columbia River salmon will be felt for a long time and true salmon recovery is likely lost. Just a year ago my friend was extremely optimistic that the runs could be doubled in the next 5 years with a combination of upper river damn removal and better spill practices for the remaining dams and all the steps were in place to make to happen. All those deals have been revokes and now the dams will be operated to maximize energy production with the consideration of salmon now eliminated. My biologist friends parting words were "enjoy the next few years of salmon fishing as they may be the last."

Washington Salmon; Extinction is Not An Option But May Be The Preferred Alternative. An opinion piece from NW Science about 25 years ago. Nothing has changed. Overall society is unwilling to make the changes in fisheries, land use, population, and so on. Won't be too many more years for meaningful numbers of salmon to just be a memory. Not only here but note how well Alaska is protecting its Chinook.

Overall society is unwilling to make the required dietary changes needed to allow fish to flourish,, They are so yummy don’t ya know, especially kings. That along with a bit of land use, immigrating populations growing , new appetites, and on and on...


Afterall, who needs energy and food to get by, other than AI perhaps.

To me, the sad thing is that so many people value money; everything is valued by what it worth to me, what can I sell it for, and so on. Plus, most people today are radically disconnected from the environment. Now, it is a nice movie, tv special, or meme.

I grew up (older, anyway) chasing critters from butterflies to snakes. Hunted and fished. Actually touched the resource. It was real. Sometimes I killed things with my hands. There is some sort of spiritual connection that's lacking. You learn a whole lot about a stream by standing in it at various flows.

I think I can understand the Indigenous Folks connection to the earth more that the Euro-American turning everything into a commodity with a value that determines its survival.

Thank goodness, that the American model of protecting it’s wildness, animals, fish, and watersheds, along with its long hard connection to saving with the agreed to enforcement in preserving wildness, it is the truly the best Wild saving management model that the world has yet to devise.

Just gotta keep at it...

What do we save, though? The wilderness areas tens to be at higher elevation with modest tree stocks. In the lower 48 I think Olympic may be the only NP that protects a ton of anadromous fish habitat. Look at Spotted Owl. They were primarily lowland old-growth. That's all logged so we push them uphill.

We have tended to preserve areas with, at least when they were saved, marginal areas for extractive resources. But they are wonderfully beautiful.

I agree that we have the best concept for resource preservation in the world. Kind of gets political when money gets involved. I still think that we will see Pebble. Likely not in my lifetime, which has not that many years left, but it will happen as we need the metals.

I think there are other factors/alternatives that we should be employing NOW!
How about further restricting the Columbia River salmon "stolen" by other Washington residents who are trollers in Alaska and then get to sell endangered listed fish back here? What about getting rid of Columbia gillnets and transferring the catch to selective fisheries to increase natural spawners? How about reducing the unnatural population of sea birds who devour smolts by the millions? How about eliminating a large portion of the sea lions that devour the adult returning fish? How about reducing the commercial catch of baitfish?

All the above mentioned are easier political solutions than the removal of the dams. Difficult, yes. But do able.

You're right, Tug, in that all of those actions will benefit the salmon. But, is absolutely impossible to restore wild Columbia Watershed wild salmonids without the removal of all the dams in the anadromous zone. In the whole mainstem, above Bonneville, the Hanford Reach is the only place where anadromous salmonids can spawn and rear. But I agree that any major change that affects the non-fishing public is probably a non-starter.

Not bad Tug. With power demand going up it is doubtful the dams are going anytime soon.Trying to restore remnat habitat is a good goal and it does good but it is a drop in the bucket to what is lost. In fact most habitat work usually drastically under performs expectations. Until harvest is reformed not just salmon but the entire marine food chain little changes. I remember a harvest in PS that was set at 10% but cannot remember what fish. Thing is 10% of what is left or 10% strong population? It was the first awnser. You cannot keep killing them and think the fish will prosper. That is not opinion but fact!

A follow up, when we do habitat work let the work be targeted toward the effort that produces the greatest gains for the fish and and other species and a real cost benefit ratio that is positive. That is not how it is done at the present with the Highway 12 work from McCleary west being the poster child for this. Good looking work might produce a hundred fish maybe. To add to the BS the Chehalis Basin makes escapement so any potential gains will go to harvest not the watershed spawner escapement. That is a lot of money for a few fish!

Examples are:

Culvert replacement projects in Washington state, particularly those for fish passage improvement, can be expensive.

The average cost to replace a culvert in Washington state is around $20 million.

Costs can vary significantly depending on the culvert's size, installation site complexity (e.g., terrain, excavation needs, site preparation), and the need for additional features.

Examples of projects:
A large project in South Kitsap, replacing three culverts with two bridges, cost $192.6 million.

Another project replacing several culverts under I-5 in Whatcom and Skagit Counties cost $159.6 million.

Major construction projects, which likely included culvert replacements related to fish passage, began in 2023 on the highway between Aberdeen and Olympia.

This what happens when marching to a political or enviromental principal is more important than actual results. Lots of patting the ole back for good work but dismal results for the fish.

Fixing culverts, at least the way WA is going about it, is about "an ounce of image is worth a pound of performance". They don't help Chinook. much, because we don't put culverts on true Chinook water. Their removal will help steelhead, cutthroat, chum, and coho. All ya gotta do is add fish to the escapement. Which isn't done.

We need to think big. On the creeks I worked on, we got 1.3 coho smolt per linear metre of stream spawned and about 0.1 steelhead for the same metric. So, if you go in and fix 100m of creek you might add 10 steelhead smolts. In that stream, the creek's capacity was about 1200 so a nice expensive 100m project got (maybe) a 1% increase.

Trump is an outside the box thinker,, he also realizes that Salmon are a vital resource for United States food Security... Also realize that Trump does not like doing stupid things to achieve poor or stupid results and demands that the highest possible return for an investment be achieved...

I am certain Trump has a plan for Salmon but his plan will likely be a completely different policy from what we have experienced by past government leadership... Likely it will involve more opportunity and more salmon without putting the country in a compromised position regarding water and energy resources... Expect for treaties to be re worked,, regarding all involved parties both domestic and international...

Like I told you before,, Trump is going to make new deals with the Tribes,, the treaties are going to be re opened and redone... Likely the issues regarding citizenship "14th amendment",, trade and ports of entry will be important issues when making new deals... Likely the new deals will involve total assimilation as currently the tribes serve as a threat to security and safety due to unregulated ports of entry regarding duel citizenship status and exemption from immigration/customs authority... The current status quo is not acceptable...

A few years ago we had a hatchery for the Deschutes beyond planning phase. About thirty million cost. Had plans tthat included lots of room for volunteers and a large meeting room for volunteers from fishing orgs. Plans completed at a cost of almost a million. Got city of Tumwater to give us the property. It would have provided harvestable fish from Neah Bay to Olympia. Turned out WDFW spent a lot of money on project engineers salaries, not full timers. What we got eventually was a new holding pond and improved fish ladders. WDFW sold the project to legislature as a "hatchery". More harvestable fish would be good. WDFW killed off the wild Deschutes run!

The Deschutes will never make sense to me, They claim it is unaccessible without the ladder, so there should be no true native king run. But, when tens of thousands of excess kings come back, they through them in the dumpster or sell them as surplus rather than let them head up stream. The only answer I can think of is that they are afraid when they hit the salt, they will skew the numbers of true wild fish out there. If, however, the fish stock is native to the area, how much different are they from other native stocks, that all have some diluted genes from hatchery fish? If having in any hatchery genes is that horrible, then what is up with the Minter raised spring chinook?

Rich, you know all this about Trump because, how? Trump doesn't give a rat's azz about salmon, tribes, or anything about Washington State. Following his actions, not his words, it's apparent that Trump cares about nothing other than himself. So don't hold your breath waiting for Trump to do anything other than seeking self aggrandizement. And Trump has already done stupid things to achieve stupid results, to wit, DOGE, which to date has cost more than it has saved.

Tug and Krijack,

Building the hatchery at Tumwater on the Deschutes River mainly adds the benefit of not having to incubate the eggs from the returning Chinook salmon over at George Adams on the Skokomish. While that would be nice, one might logically ask if it is worth $30 million.

There are no native Chinook to the Deschutes. It's a perfect location to avoid issues of mixing hatchery and wild fish. The hatchery Chinook are of Green River origin, as are most all hatchery fall Chinook in Puget Sound. The reason excess returning Chinook are no longer allowed to migrate upstream of the falls to spawn naturally is ESA related. NMFS, for reasons that defy logic, decided that any natural offspring resulting from such spawning would be "wild" Chinook and covered by the ESA. And all kinds of ESA fish mixed with non-ESA fish problems would ensue. This makes sense only because it does logically apply to some other example locations, but it does not logically apply to the Deschutes because there were no native salmon or steelhead.

As for the benefits of the Tumwater hatchery program, Canada is the primary beneficiary, with treaty tribes being the secondary beneficiary. WA recreational anglers would benefit least and pay the most, like with nearly every hatchery salmon program in the state.

Incubating Deschutes eggs at Adams violates the State/Tribal fish health policy. It risks transfers of pathogens. The Deschutes should be a place to do hatchery production because, as Salmo notes, there are no wild fish to deal with.

The point is well taken that hatchery production should benefit the folks providing the funds.

The concept, initial funding, planning, site selection, acquisition of water rights and so on were underway in the late 80s/early 90s. It is hard to believe that more than 30 years later it still muddles around.