As most of the persons on this board are from Washington state, I was wondering what the general feeling "if any" was about the 4 dams on the lower Snake. The removal of these dams
is a hot topic here and the only real answer to the decline of Salmon and steelhead in the Columbia basin. Its being "studyed to death" with a bunch of peter pullers and pork barrelers running the show in all states with anything at stake.

Removal of the Dams is indeed one of the only options available that appears to have any hope of succeeding. It may cause some chose for those who ship via barge, but the economic value of a wild flowing (hopefully fish-full) river is tremendous. Lots of tourists, rafting, fishing and so on. Since I have spent the better part of 5 years fishing and living around them I sincerely hope to live to see the day they are removed.

As someone who lives and fishes in Western Washington but grew up around the dams, I may have a diff. perspective. First and foremost, I KNOW that if they breach them, the fish survival rate soars. Having said that, I am not convinced that this outweighs the economic impact to the area. I want tobelieve the studies that show that the losses will be made up in other areas such as trucking revenue, recreation, etc. but I am not totally convinced this is the case. I guess if I had a vote, they would be breached but I am also realistic enough to believe that given the political realities, it will likely never happen.

check out www.removedams.org

As a resident of the community most influenced by the dams' presence and their potential removal, this issue hits quite close to home. Will the dams be breached? Five years I'd have said not a chance; now, with the idea publicly gaining momentum and support from environmentally focused politicians, the probability is very real. So far as my personal convictions, I don't know that I'm absolute either way. The salvation/restoration of wild salmon and steelhead runs is obviously significant, but more so than economic and civic concerns? It depends on whom you ask. Since slackwater came to Lewiston long before I did, I can't honestly speak to its affect on the quality of life. But of the residents who can, the majority stands opposed to breaching. I would love to see the Snake and Clearwater rivers again teeming with native salmon and steelhead, but I'm not convinced that end would justify other sacrifices which would have to be made. Jaded as this may sound to some of you, there's more at stake here than fish.

All the wild runs of the Snake River will eventually be lost unless the 4 lower Snake dams are breached. The sad news is that even with breaching, some of the remaining marginal wild runs will likely be lost. Too little, too late for those fish.

The costs of breaching, lost energy, reverting from barge to rail, increased pumping for irrigation, are spendy but bearable. It would be an act of courage to admit we made a mistake in developing the lower Snake dams and to correct our mistake by breaching them. Why is it so hard to be brave?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

On the dams being taken out I wonder why just the snake river dams and not all the dams on the columbia river too . Don't the fish have pass though these dams to .I love to fish for steelhead and would like to see them come back strong .

While I would truly love to see big returns of wild fish to this region, some issues need to be explored. We don't yet know what impact some quick fix help may have. For example: Getting rid of the hundreds of gill nets on the Columbia, the tern problem, and comercial fishing off the mouth of the Columbia. And I agree, Why not the Columbia river dams also. Do they feel that would impact too many people? Its not like a lot of fish are making it to Ice Harbor Dam ( the first snake river dam ) and getting no further. Another point to consider is what is 40 years of silt going to do to the Columbia, and how long do you think it will take to ever clear again? If I really was convinced that breaching the dams would restore the fish runs, I would say Go for it, but I am not convinced. This should have been done 20 years ago before so many fish runs were too far gone. We better love our hatchery system and leave an already depressed area alone. Also Dino, call me and we'll go fishing soon.

The dams are not the problem here. They don't help the situation, but there are way too many other things at work here than just the dams. If the dams were the reason our fish runs are declining, do you really think there would be any fish left at all? Why do the Clearwater(ID) runs continue to decline while the Grande Ronde is still FULL of fish EVERY spring? Could it be that the Clearwater fish (10-20+ lbs.) have a harder time getting through all of the commercial and Indian nets than the Grande Ronde fish (4-8 lbs.)???? The Hanford Reach still has a healthy return of salmon even though they have to cross 4 dams. So fish can handle crossing 4 dams, but not 8(see Grande Ronde)? Come on, people. The Lower Columbia River coho are as near to extinction as any Snake River fish, and they don't cross ANY dams! It's a whole lot easier for our politicans to point fingers at dams as being THE reason fish runs continue declining instead of having to deal with overharvest, huge predation losses(terns, seal lions), habitat, ocean conditions, etc........ "Of course, that's just what I think, I could be wrong!"--Dennis Miller

I feel Backlash has made a good point. I am originally from eastern washington and have fished many rivers in that area. The Ronde runs are big, but the fish are small 4-8lbs. versus the clearwater fish that are much larger. Dams are a factor, but so many little fish so high up the snake, is it just because they are small enough to survive the monofilament net walls in the lower columbia. Ahhh.... but nets are such a taboo subject, we wouldn't want to be tagged a "racist" suggesting their removal, or exploring other options, would we? The only option it seems by the state is more studies...more models. very frustrating.
The solution seems pretty obvious, if you want wild fish to return and spawn succesfully , the river must be healthy with spawning areas that aren't burried in silt, and limited interception in the sea and rivers by fishing. The dams have buried many main river spawning beds and if we want to see wild fish spawning in the main river in more places, they should be removed. But, removing dams won't be the solution. Stop netting the heck out of the rivers, let the fish populations get up to the spawning areas. Getting healthy runs back in the rivers, isn't going to be cheap. Power will cost more as a result along with other things. It comes down to whether or not people really want to make the sacrifice, or just say they want the fish back and do nothing.


[This message has been edited by KORE (edited 02-08-2000).]

What about those hatcheries that we all love? Mike, those "frustrating" models our managing agencies rely on suggest that hatchery runs have not augmented, but merely replaced wild runs. How about bagging "hatchery reform" in return for breaching a dam or two, i.e. a long-term goal of dam removal/hatchery phase-out, where wild populations can slowly fill in the gaps formed by newly created habitat. It dosen't surprise me that nobody on this BB mentioned the H-word, though. That's because most of us have the same attitude that other non-fishers have -- damage control in regards to the dam issue. As it stands, straight-up dam removal gives recreational fishers the largest net benefit. If the increase in our electricity bills hurt us that much, then we WOULD be using VMCs, and lord knows we wouldn't be arguing about which Loomis fishes the best --because we'd all be using Eagle Claws. In my opinion the effective recovery of our native salmon and steelhead stocks should originate from user groups, like us recreational fishers, that utilize them the most. Maybe our sacrifices, like hatchery removal or just plain not fishing (the ultimate sacrifice), will be equally matched by non-fishers, such as farmers, Joe Blow or Jane Doe, who will incur the economic costs that Salmo G. highlighted. Ultimately, the recovery of native stocks on the Columbia will require a holistic effort by numerous stakeholders. For now I can dream though that those 20lb Tule clones disappear to Never Never Land, and out emerges this historic run of URBs -- Ooh! Aah! Damm I wet myself again!

"Clap yo' hands everybody. Everybody clap yo' hands."-Lamar, Revenge of the Nerds

well put hoh! We never consider ourselves part of the problem. It is always easy to blame someone else.
Maybe someone will figure this out, so their will be some fish left for our kids!!!

The dams "ARE" the problem... Grand Rhonde fish or whatever... The fish don't get to the Ocean so how can they ever come back. The problem with the Coho is related to commercial fishing. The Indian fishery "if you can call it that" is B.S- I don't think it was a tradition to pull into the albertsons store, pick up a case of Keystone and head down to the river with the boat and string a gill net across it. The port of Lewiston.. thats crap also. They money they lose..which is little would be more than made up in dollars generated by healthy fish runs. To say that you would not be able to afford a GLOOMIS rod because your power bill went up??? whats that??? All the talk, all the studys. If Idaho loses these fish it will impact Oregon and Washington as well.

Well B RUN, you already agreed with me that your theory has a huge hole in it because you can't explain the Grande Ronde. Obviously, THEY don't have a problem getting to the ocean and back. If you are so concerned about fish getting back to Idaho, why isn't there an uproar over there about the Hells Canyon and Brownlee dams needing to be torn down??? The contracts to build both of those dams clearly stated that fish ladders were to be built, and they weren't. So the good government of Idaho let hundreds of miles of steelhead and salmon river be permanently blocked to the fish, but now Washington needs to tear their dams out because that will fix everything. RIGHT!!!
So the next time you want to tell me that Washington OWES it to Idaho to tear out dams to save Idaho's fish, I'm assuming you'll be sending a petition for me to sign supporting the building of fish ladders over Idaho's dams on the Snake. --Now, another note. When the Feds listed the bald eagle as an endangered species, did they still allow a limited hunting season for them? How about sea lions? Was there a certain number of them allowed to be harvested after they were listed? Then why in the hell does the NMFS say that there is a certain number of allowable Snake River salmon that are allowed to be harvested by both the commercials and the indians? Think about it.........

Hohwaiian, I agree with you that hatchery fish are part of the problem. But could they also be part of the solution. Instead of pumping the rivers with genetic clones. Use fish traps to trap wild fish use them to generate smolts.Help the wild fish out. Or possibly use a varied stock of genetic traits for the plants, hoping that the similiar genetics are in the batch, to those of wild fish. Phasing out the hatcheries and letting the wild fish fill in the gaps sounds like a good idea, but are there enough wild fish to fill in the gaps on the snake and columbia.(besides the spawners in the hanford reach) Also, I would hang up my rod if I felt that my not fishing would help to bring back certain runs. But so far I don't see that my doing so would matter. mike

The state of Idaho is certainly not above reproach here. Consider Dworshak Dam on the North Fork of the Clearwater. When it was completed in, I believe, 1972, it sealed off what was considered some of the greatest native steelhead spawning grounds in the Western U.S. The dam didn't even include a fish ladder, and still doesn't. The solution? A hatchery, albeit one the Corps of Engineers calls the largest steelhead hatchery in the world. Sure, that's a gesture fishermen in this vicinity have appreciated for nearly 30 years, but is it adequate compensation for native stocks forever lost? Responsibility for the current situation obviously doesn't rest on the shoulders of any one faction.

I would hope we can all agree that there are more reasons that one for the degradation of the steelhead and salmon runs on the Snake and Clearwater. The damns are not the only cause but they are a major cause. Of course we need to also focus on netting, predadation by terns at the mouth of the columbia, etc. The FACT remains though that a percentage of smolts are lost at each damn during downstream migration. I am not saying that the damns should come out but please admit that they are a problem. Denial simply serves those that would rather we keep saying "hey blame them, it's not our problem".

There may be other solutions. I gentleman I have recently met as we share an early morning steelhead pool was telling me about a project he is working on to assist migration past the damns. I won't even try and describe it here (Steve, describe it if you feel comfortable doing so) but it sounded very promising.

As for the Rhonde fish, how many of them are native? The Rhonde was almost a barren river in the late 70s and it was only through hatchery options that it recovered to its present levels. (Not that this year was anything to rave about.)

Ok time to get off of my soap-box.

Backlash- I'm not telling you Washington owes it to Idaho to save our fish. I'm saying you owe it to yourself and your kids... All of you are right about the Idaho end of the political mess. I can see Helen Chenowith in my worst dreams..

Alot of talk but no one has yet to tell me why not the columbia river dams

I can give you a couple reasons off the top of my head.
First, Bonneville through McNary provide a lot of flood control for the Portland/Vancouver area. The economic consequences of losing that alone would dwarf those created by removal of the lower Snake dams (which don't provide flood control on a comperable scale). For example, can you imagine all the north/south transportation corridor like I-5 and the railway cut due to flooding?
Second, the first ESA listings in the Columbia basin were of Snake river fish. The first wheel to squeek gets the grease (?).
Third, Each of the lower 4 Col. river dams generate 2-3 times more electricity than any of the lower Snake dams. Add them all together and you've got quite a difference.

There are other biology reasons that I can't think of right now ( I'm too busy wrestling the keyboard away from my two year old) but I'll get them later. Hope this helps and I'm glad this discussion is being carried on in a civil manner.
Stinkfoot