Another chance for salmon!

[Ithaca 37]

In past threads we've had diagrams showing how only the earthen part of the dams will be breached. Basically, they'll just did a ditch around them.

When you hear people talking about "taking the dams down" and "blowing up the dams" you know immediately they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Ten Bears]

So what your saying IT, is that you didn't know what you were talking about until recently?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-12-2003 17:18: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Ten, You're wrong again and I'm not going to bother answering your idiotic posts anymore.

 

[BuzzH]

Delw, read the articles I provided under the Paul C. choke on the facts thread. Its all in there...

While on the subject of people refusing to read the PATH report and the articles I provided, Paul, in his infinite wisdom and knowledge said, "Guys is there a poll out to see how many Washington citizens are in favor of paying more for their electricity to help out Idaho salmon?"

Well since you asked, and its obvious either:

1. You dont read, or
2. Your comprehension is pathetic

From the first article I supplied:

"The people of the Pacific Northwest and the United States care about salmon. We care enough that in the past 20 years we have spent, even by modest estimates, $1.7 billion trying to bring salmon back to healthy population levels - more than has ever been spent on any other endangered species. A 1997 poll from the Northwest's largest newspaper The Oregonian showed that salmon protection is the number one environmental concern in the state; 86 percent of Oregonians want to preserve salmon runs in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. In Washington, over 70 percent of people believe protecting wild salmon is important."

Oh and further in the next article it also goes on to say how, "worst case scenerio is that NW power users will see an increase of $2-3 dollars per month on their electricity bills...power users who pay 40% below the national average for electricity."

You know Paul, rather than keeping up with the smart ass remarks and total lack of knowledge you possess on this issue, try informing yourself. Take the blinders off, pull your head out of your butt, and either admit your wrong or prove me and the more than 200 authors of the PATH report wrong with your set of "facts".

The only thing worth debating at all is WHEN the dams will be breached, not IF they will be breached.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-12-2003 20:57: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[Delw]

I will hit that post next(reading it)


Thanks
Delw

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paul

With respect to the Green program on Idaho Power, you can find it on their website with an easy search. The way it works is, you make a voluntary contribution each month, they pool the money, and then add it to the base kilowat rate. (Keep in mind, in Idaho we pay about 5.5cents per I think it is up a bit, but maybe 6 cents). They take this money and buy GREEN power. Green power for this program is Solar and Wind. No Hydro, no Nuke.

Here is the website for Idaho Power's Green progam.
Idaho Power Green Program


You asked if I contribute, and the answer is No. I don't care about Solar and Wind power. I AM NOT AN ENVIRONMENTALIST. I did for a month, but then thought better. I AM A HUNTER AND FISHERMAN so I decided that my interests would be better served by giving the money to the attorneys who are WINNING this fight and are going to get the damn dams breached.

It is a simple, direct investment in the fight. No middleman, no polls, no politics. Just $$$$, legal precedent, congressional laws, and the 9th Circuit

My money is much more effective, for my passions of hunting and fishing, if I give it to the guys filing the briefs.

I would be perfectly happy seeing the Nuke plant in Tri-Cities Washington run at capacity, like it was designed. That thing is always being taken off line, due to surplus. And since I am not an environmentalist, I think there is nothing wrong with shipping Nuke waste to Nevada or New Mexico.

er

 

[BigHornyRam]

Ithaca,

I want the salmon to come back to the best levels possible, without dam breaching. If what we have today is the best it will be then so be it. Maybe you should spend more of your time on the gill net issues if you really want the salmon to come back?

About 12 years ago I helped build a facility in Central Ferry that off loads and stores fertilizer delivered by barge. You breach the dams and this and numerous other business will be distroyed. If you don't care about someone elses livelyhood, then why should they care about your salmon. It's called compromise, and it's what you will need to do if you want the salmon numbers to improve.

Maybe barge transportation is subsidized, but so is rail and highway. Your studies only show the negative aspect of river transportation, but does not address the negative effects of increased use of the other forms of transport. Barge transport is the most efficient way to transport large bulky items. So find another way to to improve the salmon, cause dam breaching at this time isn't going to happen.

Paul

 

[Ithaca 37]

Paul, Without dam breaching you can't expect much better results than we're getting now, and even if the returns doubled they'd still be terrible compared to what they could be with dam breaching.

All your posts indicate a real fundamental lack of understanding of the issue. Have you ever thought about all the jobs that were lost when the dams were built? That's a whole other issue we could get into, but there's no sense getting into that one until you understand the basics of this one.

You want to continue subsidizing the barge industry? You wouldn't if you understood the total costs, unless you're so locked into your current thinking that nothing will sway you (which it looks like).