Another reason for roadless/old growth areas
- Thread starter Ithaca 37
- Start date
Ithaca 37
New member
Sure is, The cost savings, plus the fact that it's the most likely solution for the salmon is what some organizations have been saying for at least ten years. We're wasting a ridiculous amount of money while decimating a potentially great new source of income.
Ten Bears
New member
We hashed this out before, and still you bring back the same unrealistic plan. The bottom line is there are not fish waiting in the ocean for the dams to go away, and removing the dams is only the beginning of the process.
The dams are old technology, and there are better system for generating hydropower.
Nuclear and fossil fuel generators are not the answer either.
The dams are old technology, and there are better system for generating hydropower.
Nuclear and fossil fuel generators are not the answer either.
Ithaca 37
New member
Ten, I wonder if you realize how the dams hurt the runs. You make it sound like the problem is that fish can't get back up the rivers. That's not the main problem.
Ten Bears
New member
The dams are not the only problem here, and people need to realize that.
Nuclear power, we get use from the fuels for a few years, and have to store the "spent fuels" for thousands of years before there safe. I foresee toxic stockpiles building with that one.
Good to see we can get from woodpeckers to salmon and dam breaching. Horizons are broadening around here, eh.
Nuclear power, we get use from the fuels for a few years, and have to store the "spent fuels" for thousands of years before there safe. I foresee toxic stockpiles building with that one.
Good to see we can get from woodpeckers to salmon and dam breaching. Horizons are broadening around here, eh.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Hey Ten Bears we're still pretty much on topic. Ithaca started the topic by saying the pileated woodpecker might be the next spotted owl...now we're talking about salmon, which are similar to the spotted owl because of the fact that the Endangered Species Act is forcing, or will be forcing people to make sacrifices in order to meet the requirements of the ESA. The regulations that went into effect in order to protect the owl are nothing compared to what it will take to bring salmon runs back (if the ESA truly is followed.) The difference is, rivers flow through major cities and therefore even people living in the cities will be affected, where with the owl mostly people in rural areas were affected. And I do agree with Buzz and Ithaca that breaching the dams is the best and most cost effective thing that could be done to help salmon. It really is a no-brainer. It sure doesn't take somebody with a college degree to figure it out. Dams block the rivers, the rivers have been turned into a series of lakes, salmon can't get up, and they can't get down. It's all pretty simple really.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Washington Hunter is right, the dams are the problem and the main problem is a high smolt mortality, thats a FACT. Adult fish can make it up easier than a smolt can get down the system. A trip that used to take the smolts a few days now takes them weeks.
Also to further illustrate the problem, all you have to do is look at the Fraser River in British Columbia compared to the Columbia. Both rivers are very similar, not far apart, but the amount of fish and the health of the two is night and day. I've fished the Fraser and its tributaries for several years, and it eclipses the Columbia in fish so bad it aint even funny. The Columbia is lucky to see 1 million anadromous fish a year enter the mouth, the Fraser has 20 million plus a year. The Columbia used to be that good, but not anymore.
For the record there is one dam on the entire Fraser system on a tributary, that being the Stave River, just a few miles from the mouth of the Fraser. But the mainstem Fraser and all the tributaries are undammed. Thats about the only real difference between it and the Columbia. Theres no reason, other than the dams, why the Columbia couldnt be the same. I have not a doubt one that removing the 4 snake river dams will save taxpayers millions and the fish from the ES list...and most all the experts agree.
Further, until I find some pretty damn convincing evidence to the contrary, I'm going to fully support dam breaching.
Also to further illustrate the problem, all you have to do is look at the Fraser River in British Columbia compared to the Columbia. Both rivers are very similar, not far apart, but the amount of fish and the health of the two is night and day. I've fished the Fraser and its tributaries for several years, and it eclipses the Columbia in fish so bad it aint even funny. The Columbia is lucky to see 1 million anadromous fish a year enter the mouth, the Fraser has 20 million plus a year. The Columbia used to be that good, but not anymore.
For the record there is one dam on the entire Fraser system on a tributary, that being the Stave River, just a few miles from the mouth of the Fraser. But the mainstem Fraser and all the tributaries are undammed. Thats about the only real difference between it and the Columbia. Theres no reason, other than the dams, why the Columbia couldnt be the same. I have not a doubt one that removing the 4 snake river dams will save taxpayers millions and the fish from the ES list...and most all the experts agree.
Further, until I find some pretty damn convincing evidence to the contrary, I'm going to fully support dam breaching.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
And...I bet most of the salmon coming up the Columbia are hatchery fish, NOT wild. The Cowlitz river gets a big run of hatchery salmon, and so does the Lewis. Both of those go into the Columbia downstream from the first dam (Bonneville.)
Ten Bears
New member
WH, I meant <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Good to see we can get from woodpeckers to salmon and dam breaching. Horizons are broadening around here, eh. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> as a compliment to all the members that are participating. We have had topics that just get debated straight down the line, but this time the whole spectrum is coming out. That is what I mean by the horizons are broadening.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Ten Bears, ok I misunderstood. Well, actually I read it too fast and didn't fully comprehend what you were saying
Seems with all the posts lately I have to read faster than I should just to keep up with everything. I agree with you, that is a good point.
Seems with all the posts lately I have to read faster than I should just to keep up with everything. I agree with you, that is a good point.
Ten- Spent fuel rods is why I can't wait for nuclear fusion, the smashing of two hydrogen atoms together. The problem is that it is too powerful, they haven't found a way to harness the energy yet. The by product is helium!!! Sure, we may have a few more clowns making balloons, but I'm willing to pay that price!
Wally Dog
Well-known member
I've been gone a few days so I must comment on the original post. Ithaca, you pontificate on and on about how you witness the degradation of our rangeland which to me means you see it. You also hunt turkeys in the Clearwater area as do I. I see and or hear the pileated woodpecker every time I go and I don't hunt in "old growth" forests and neither do you. Don't you see them? So, believe whatever you want in print.
??????????
Why must you post material that you know to lack credibility?
WD
??????????
Why must you post material that you know to lack credibility?
WD
Ten Bears
New member
1PNTER, Idon't know enough about fusion yet, so you have to post it.
A few more clowns around you say, heh.
Guess I'll have to make room for them too.
A few more clowns around you say, heh.
Think of an H bomb where the heat generated is used to create steam to turn turbines which produce electricity. The process is the smashing of two hydrogen atoms together that fuse to form helium. This fusion of atoms creates heap big energy (heat). That's a simplified version and I don't know all the details, but getting enough energy from a 5 gal bucket of water to provide electricity of New York City is intriguing.
Ten Bears
New member
Most certainly.
Ithaca 37
New member
WD, Sure I hear or see pileated woodpeckers. The article I linked to didn't say they were extinct. It said, "Despite their expansive range, the only remaining interior habitat for Pileated Woodpeckers is found in roadless areas. Dead trees, abundant in old-growth forests, contain their primary food sources. Old-growth areas also provide crucial nesting habitat for Pileated Woodpeckers."
There's certainly not as much prime pileated woodpecker habitat as there was before 95% of the old growth in the US was cut. And there are some big old dead trees in many areas that are not roadless, but not as many as there are in the roadless areas. I do hunt turkeys in an old growth area, too.
Here's some more info on woodpecker habitat.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=pileated+woodpecker+habitat&btnG=Google+Search
And here's some info about why Ivory Billed Woodpeckers are thought to be extinct---although there have been some unconfirmed sightings in the last ten years. The cause of their decline is commonly thought to be logging and clearing of forests.
"Campehilus principalis, the ivory-billed woodpecker, native to the US
south-east and Cuba, last seen in Cuba in the 1980,s presumed extinct. It
is claimed that logging was the cause although it would seem reasonable
that the extensive clearing of forests for farming might also have been a
factor."
http://www.metla.fi/archive/forest/1997/09/msg00107.html
Do a search for Ivory Billed Woodpecker for more info on their decline.
There's no way anyone can claim that old growth is not very important for some species.
There's certainly not as much prime pileated woodpecker habitat as there was before 95% of the old growth in the US was cut. And there are some big old dead trees in many areas that are not roadless, but not as many as there are in the roadless areas. I do hunt turkeys in an old growth area, too.
Here's some more info on woodpecker habitat.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=pileated+woodpecker+habitat&btnG=Google+Search
And here's some info about why Ivory Billed Woodpeckers are thought to be extinct---although there have been some unconfirmed sightings in the last ten years. The cause of their decline is commonly thought to be logging and clearing of forests.
"Campehilus principalis, the ivory-billed woodpecker, native to the US
south-east and Cuba, last seen in Cuba in the 1980,s presumed extinct. It
is claimed that logging was the cause although it would seem reasonable
that the extensive clearing of forests for farming might also have been a
factor."
http://www.metla.fi/archive/forest/1997/09/msg00107.html
Do a search for Ivory Billed Woodpecker for more info on their decline.
There's no way anyone can claim that old growth is not very important for some species.
Here's something to think about. It seems that every time someone posts something like this woodpecker thing (or spotted owls, etc) and says that the habitat they prefer is decreasing, someone, or several people, immediatly try to refute the claim by saying something like, "That's not true, I saw a _____ nesting in someone's yard," or "I saw one of those in a place that had been logged the year before."
Just because an individual of a species is able to survive in less than desireable habitat doesn't mean that the species as a whole will be able to survive. Would you say that the only habitat that whitetail deer or racoons or cottontail rabbits need is suburban woodlots? Sure, individuals can survive there, but would you say that there is no reason to save any additional habitat for them? Should we assume that a species doesn't require a certain habitat and go ahead and destroy what's left? What do you do if you find out that the substandard habitat isn't sufficient to sustain the population?
Ok, done rambling. Hope that made some sense!
Oak
Just because an individual of a species is able to survive in less than desireable habitat doesn't mean that the species as a whole will be able to survive. Would you say that the only habitat that whitetail deer or racoons or cottontail rabbits need is suburban woodlots? Sure, individuals can survive there, but would you say that there is no reason to save any additional habitat for them? Should we assume that a species doesn't require a certain habitat and go ahead and destroy what's left? What do you do if you find out that the substandard habitat isn't sufficient to sustain the population?
Ok, done rambling. Hope that made some sense!
Oak
GRAYBEARD
New member
1 Pointer, I hate to be the barer of bad news but Nuclear Fusion power plants may never happen. My sister’s Fiancé is presently in the process of getting his doctorate in Physics. His hopes were to get into nuclear fusion research but now he says that many people involved are beginning to admit that the problems they are having may be insurmountable.
I am just telling you what he told me. It may or may not be true. He might be full of chit. I don’t know, I haven’t quite figured this guy out yet.
I am just telling you what he told me. It may or may not be true. He might be full of chit. I don’t know, I haven’t quite figured this guy out yet.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Colorado Oak, Excellent point and it made perfect sense. I've heard people many times say that spotted owls have been found in habitat other than old growth. That may be true, but just like you said, does that make it ok to eliminate their preferred habitat? And if that happens will the species survive? Very unlikely.
