Dams or nets?

O.K. here is the deal, dams or nets what will make the biggest impact on our returns?

TM,

Sorry, it's not that easy. Depends which stocks of fish you're talking about. In the Columbia River basin, dams are the number 1 harvester of salmon and steelhead by a very long country mile. With the dams harvesting 65 to 85% of the smolts, that's an equivalent proportion of adults that don't come back. Treaty and non-treaty nets typically harvest less than 50% of the adult fish that result from the remaining 15 to 35% that made it to the ocean.

Nets are the primary harvester of Puget Sound pink, chum, and sockeye salmon for sure. And probably chinook and coho as well, but it gets tricky when you add in ocean sport and troll, and Puget Sound sport catches. And do we count Canadian interceptions in this equation, or not? That has tended over the years to be mostly troll, with some net and sport.

Coastal stocks will vary. I don't know whether nets or hooks account for most of the catch. Coastal includes the significant net catches in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, along with treaty net catches in most of the rivers. I'd give nets the nod, overall for the coast.

The answer, as so damn often is the case, depends. Columbia - dams. Puget Sound and coast - nets.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

P.S: Giving myself a big DUH! here. There are not dams of consequence on the coast, and dams are limited in number and impact on Puget Sound rivers, so nets are the dominant factor, of the two you asked about, impacting fish runs outside the Columbia system.

[This message has been edited by Salmo g. (edited 09-14-2000).]

Not that dams aren't important, but there are a lot more nets in alot more rivers. Lots of meat fisherman, and guys who like to show off their catch too.

Remove Both and the fish will flourish!!!!lester

I have to agree with you all in that dams can dramatically reduce fish counts. However, one must reason why these dams have been placed on rivers to begin with. A large majority have been placed on rivers to produce electricity for our homes. The national trend right now indicates that the USA will encounter a SERIOUS shortage of electrical power within the next 10 years or so.

We have to consider alternative choices to these dams for supplying electrical power. Can you say nuclear or fossil fuel? Take a look at the environmental impacts these two choices make on our precious environment. Personally, I feel the nuclear plants produce much less FISH reduction in our streams, but the obvious delema of nuclear waste will always be a serious issue. Fossil fuel plants pump tons of acid-rain producing compounds into the air which ultimately makes its way into our streams.

With all this said folks, I think we must make a choice for our future taking into account how we can better serve our fish runs. I don't think we can just conclude that damns NEED TO GO without thinking of the repercussions on ourselves first. This is how most Liberals think.....get rid of something so they PERSONALLY can benefit from it, irregardless of the repercussions on everyone else!

To me it's a question of balance. I think the balance is tipped way too far against salmon. The only dams that are being looked at for removal in this region are the Elwha and Snake river dams. These are not big contributors to the power grid, 5%. The damage to fish runs from these dams far outwieghs the benifit of the power they produce. Another point is that with hydropower the hidden cost of fish mitigation, which amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars, is a subsidy for all ratepayers. We should look at energy conservation and alternitive clean power sources, but I am not willing to write off our salmon runs , which are very rare on this earth so people in California can crank up their air conditioners when it gets hot.

Just a note about nuclear power. It is (I know few will believe me) a very safe form of power production. The big mess at Hanford is mostly from wepons production, and storing waste from other production sites (bomb and power). I know the waste is very dangerous, but nuclear power produces a smaller volume of waste than any other method of electrical production (other than hydro and solar -- one which destroys a whole ecosystem and the other produces little power and very toxic materials as a result of cell production). Unfortunately with all of the hype about nuclear power (there are people who still think nuclear reactors can explode like a bomb -- not true BTW.) it may never have a chance.


But to answer the original thread, on the east side of the state, it is Dams without question. Next runner up would be surface water irrigators.