I have spent a lot of time persuing the issue of dam breaching, having attended meetings talked to WDFW,farmers,chamber of commerce,boilogists,and elected officials about the subject.It takes a lot of time to wade through the b.s to get to the bottom line.I discovered who was really behind this. It is the enviromentlists. B.P.A. has them, WDFW has them Gore types. Their agenda is to have a free flowing river. The salmon issue is a smoke screeen to remove the dams, belive it or not. The dam I would support removing would be the John Day, seventy eight miles of slack water, a real killer. The Corps have spent millions on bypass fishscreens and barging and have had fantastic results. Actually, smolt mortality could be higher with a free flowing stream. It's more of a habitat, predator, and harvest problem than passage. However, they ignore this. Yes, the runs are down everywhere, even rivers without dams. Environmentalists are shutting down summer programs in the Puget Sound and elsewhere. I heard this four years ago. They would like to go to a few select hatcheries in the state and the rest of the rivers managed for wild runs. NMFS mandated to the state to cut back on smolt plants. The FEDS cut back on Mitchell money. There are reasons why the WDFW has wanted to change regulations on Oly. Pen. but they won't tell you exactly why. I bet it has something to do with allocation and Indians. Greed. It seems the salmon are getting all the attention and steelhead are forgotten. A good book to read is The Great Salmon Hoax by James Buchal. Keep hammering on them, let them know you're intelligent and can think. Read between the lines, add the facts, and confront them on discrepancies. eventually they will tell you the truth and will work with you. It's a fight, but one we have to win to continue fishing.

NOT UNTIL EVERY NET,HIGH SEAS AND FRESH WATER ARE GONE THE FISH WILL NOT COME BACK IN ANY NUMBERS!!!!!!

------------------
Tight Lines!!

Wow, Ironhead may have something here. To every political agenda is a eviromentilist back by trust funds to fight for there cause. In logging there was the spotted owl, in the dams is the salmon. The typical M.O. is to cause an issue then, have the Feds come in to save the day people. Fish runs have been down every where the past few years. Any thoughts about the hatchery programs were being used to support the commercial fishing interest in th State !!!!

Ironhead, you have a very interesting perspective on dam breaching. Though, to be honest, I wasn't quite sure what exactly your stance is on this issue. You recommended breaching the John Day, yet complained that there is evidence that a free flowing river would increase mortality. I would be most interested in reading these scientific studies.

Also accusing environmentalists of whatever you're accusing them of, collusion perhaps, is wrong. It can be argued that recreational steelhead anglers, like myself, that C&R natives are practitioners of a viable and sustainable environmental practice. In fact, I think Teddy would be mighty proud of all the anglers and guides that have switched over to this sound "environmental" practice.

Ironhead, please don't group all environmentalists in the same pod. Yes, I consider myself "green," but I surely don't run with those fervid people that tried to mess up the Makah whale hunt. If I'm on a peninsula river and it's open for harvesting wild fish; no, I'm not going to throw my body in front of the nate that the dude next to me just landed and absorb the blow of his club.

[This message has been edited by Hohwaiian (edited 02-09-2000).]

Well put Hohwaiiaan and Dick! I also think the book "Salmon without rivers" is a good read on this subject.



------------------
Marty
www.steelheader.net
marty@steelheader.net

Whats really happing is that the re-introduced wolves are eating all the fish because they can't find enough small human babys to smack down on. Clinton told Gore to make that happen and it was so.... I am no tree hugger but after a while the facts start to add up and even a redneck like me can see whats going on.

Yeah, reading The Great Salmon Hoax I became convinced by the (former BPA attorney)author's flawless logic that dams are, in fact, beneficial to the salmon, and if all these benighted environmentalist/extremists would just stop trying to force their half-baked ideas on the all-knowing Bonneville Power Administration, everything would just be hunky-dory.

We may be onto something here. I bet it was those damn pinko greens who were behind the clean air and water acts too.

"Ha Ha, veddy funny Dr. Jones!" -- Shorty

Hohwaiian, please reread my post very carefully. I believe you misunderstood some of my comments. Those answers are there. Also, the environmentalist I was talking about are in government agencys themselves. They are not the active extremists. Sportmens are environmentalist also to some degree or another, you have to be. Our issue are complex and we have unique problems and removing the 4 lower Snake Rvier dams won't really solve them. Why didn't 696 pass? Media misinformation, people really didn't understand what they were voting for. Why has it been so hard to addresss the seal, terns, and other predator issues? Be careful, study alll the facts. Think. Scientific data, reams of it, a good place to start would be with the book I mentioned, available at most book stores. It is not my intention to creat an unfriendly attitude but to present ideas about controversial issues.

Ironhead, I'm not trying to mock you with that quote from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, just merely laughing along with the previous sarcastic posts. I think we all have a little tinge of skepticism regarding the motives of government. But, remember the environmental movement helped foster this attitude amongst the American people. So if what you say is true, then they have come a long way.

I wasn't dissing your post. I was merely confused about your stance on any one of the issues you presented. I read and reread your post numerous times. Yet it read like an analysis, with lots of content but with ideas countering ideas. Since you have cleared the air on your purpose, which was just to "present ideas about controversial issues," then it's all good.

My opinion is I think most of us that responded are confused with your stance about how "environmentalists" wield power in the decision-making process regarding the dam issue. Are you disregarding the role that "extremist" non-governmental organizations have in this process? Or have you acknowledged them by mentioning the "smoke screen" issue and the numerous odd-parings that occur on many Pacific Northwest environmental issues? I-696, the seal issue, for me it seems that the extremists definitely have a hand in affecting these issues.

I have read both Buchal's and Lichatowich's books, and have tried to educate myself on each of these issues as much as I can. Yes, I have some biases, for instance I am pro-wild stocks. Nonetheless, I have formed educated opinions on these issues, what are yours?

Whoops! The last question is open for everyone. No personal attack intended.

Peace Out...

Hohwaiian
You da man!

Mr Hohwaiian is indeed the man. Sounds like a lot of education talking to me. The anti goverment stuff from others sounds like a speach by Rush Limbaugh. I Have read those books also.. carefully on the can.

I have an idea, lets try reality for a moment. While breaching all of the dams on the western rivers would indeed greatly improve the fish runs, it will never be tolerated by the very people who enjoy the lowest power rates in the US (present company included). I don't want to get off on a rant here, but...untill those of us with real jobs are willing to go to work for 28K a year in Olympia to help form policy we fishermen will get the shaft. Your local senator and congressman(non-cap intended) has no more control then a 17 yr old in the back of dads olds on prom night. It's the regulations that are hurting us, not the laws. Unelected tree-huggers, responsible to no-one, living out their own fantasy theory which was developed at anheuser-busch university over top of two ounces of homegrown and signed off by a politico looking for contributions from the Sierra club. LESS RESTRICTIONS IN THE WATER = MORE FISH. I for one cannot tolerate the cut in pay and must stay where I am working. I find my only solace in the fact that high tax rates and a 28K salary make it difficult to support a family and thus they tend to reproduce at a slower rate. (just kicked off of soap box by wife) THUD!

I think the low power cost are a good thing for this state and I am not really sure how much the dams are hurting the fish runs. like others have said the predator and net problems are the thing that are killing the fish. one other thing. if the power companys would have made the dams "fish friendly" they would not have had to put all this money into barging and hatcheries. look at the Cowlitz if those dams were made "fish friendly" they would have not had to spend all that money on those hatcheries. just think of how low the power rates would be if they didn't have all those cost. just a one time chunk and it would have been done.


If they do remove the dams then I gues I will benifit anyway. I will be biulding new power generators and being a steam fitter I will make out like a bandit $$$ no I'm not talking about the fish cooking nucke plants but they have come allong way and now they have power plants that burn natural gas and it's cheap and clean. O.k nothing can be as clean as hydro power but gas is way better than nucke or coal!!!

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.

I’m one of those government workers… so be warmed that I may just be a secret environmentalist extremist agent. The Great Salmon Hoax by James Buchal was written by an east coast lawyer... and that's why it was loaded with psuedo-scientific conclusions with an bias toward dam proponents (i.e. his clients). Try Salmon without Rivers by Jim Lichatowich, a biologist from the NW. Or, use some common sense… Dams have an obvious negative impact, as does over harvest, declining habitat and poor water quality. Duh. Environmentalists often over state dam effects relative to other causes, but after all they are driven by emotion over science. Those dams are easy targets for them. At least they are trying to make a stand as we enter the final stages of extinction for the Snake River fish.

Anyone who has spent time on a river and has put an ounce of thought into these issues knows there's a combination of over fishing (Indian, commercial), screwed up habitat, sediment laden water quality in the winter and abnormal temperature increases in the summer and, yes, adult/juvenile passage issues in dammed rivers (ever been to the Elwa?).

The bummer is that we are at the mercy of NFMS (which is run by another east coast lawyer) to address all of the salmon issues. They are a messed up bunch, incapable of making a real decision even with 20 million dollars and five years time. So, it doesn’t look good from where I sit…

"Environmentalist" appears to be an epithet to some people on this board. I seems to me that environmentalists want to see free flowing rivers that aren't de-watered for irrigation. Gotta problem with that? I don't think the fish would. Environmentalists want to see trees left along the rivers and tributaries to preserve a cooler, cleaner habitat. Gotta problem with that? Environmentalists want to see more wild fish in our rivers and I think we could all get behind that. A little thought should surely make it obvious that the fisherman has more in common with the environmental movement than not.