BigHornRam
Well-known member
Rogerson Idaho doesn't have a lot of backyards and probably the main reason they want to put a solar farm there. I was just asking how many acres of elk and deer habitat would be displaced by this subsidized solar farm.
GOP congressman wants to remove 4 dams to save Idaho’s salmon
- Thread starter Whiptail
- Start date
CoffeeGoat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2020
- Messages
- 141
You're almost certainly right. Per the NREL report it's around 8 acres per MW on average.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Try a little research, nearly all the problems associated with the decline in anadromous fish in the Columbia/Snake River drainages are dam related problems. Just a fact.
Many of the things being discussed on this thread as parts of the problems are all associated with dams.
Lets look at a few:
Sea lions...yeah, they kill adult fish by the truckloads below Bonneville. Why? Because the fish stack up below the dam where they're easy pickings. Mink in a henhouse situation. Are sea lions the problem? Wouldn't be an issue if the dam wasnt there.
Predator fish species (walleye, smallmouth, pike minnows, etc.) all caused from impounded water behind dams. Water that doesn't flow, warms up making it conducive to warm water species. Add into that highly increased time for smolt to have to SWIM head first through miles of slack water, with huge numbers of predators, well...you can fill in the blanks.
The other problem with smolt survival is how long they have to stay in the rivers with dams present before they reach the salt. In a natural flowing system, during high water...they get flushed to the salt TAIL first and they get from the upper reaches of the tributaries in weeks. The less time they spend in fresh water, the less likely they are to get picked off by predators and they healthier they are when they reach salt. Think of the energy requirement of a smolt, that has to swim head first through miles and miles of slack water, compared to that same smolt getting essentially flushed into the salt in a few days.
Spawning habitat has been inventoried in the Selway, Snake, Salmon, etc. rivers and their tributaries. Lots of work has been done to make fish friendly culverts, etc and the Idaho F&G as well as USFS have studied the viability of the spawning habitat. Generally the spawning habitat is in very good shape, but, when you don't have adult fish getting to that habitat to spawn, does you no good.
Frankly, its amazing that anadromous fish have hung on as long as they have in the Columbia, nothing, and mean absolutely nothing has worked in their favor since the first dams were installed.
Anyone that questions if dam removal will work, is defying science, logic, and just plain g-damn common sense.
If you need further proof look to the Fraser river system, where there aren't dams just to the North of the Columbia. Not much drags me away from big-game hunting, but I spent a lot of time fishing the Fraser and its awesome tributaries in the fall. Made fishing in Idaho, which I did a metric chit ton of, look pathetic.
There is one major difference between the Fraser and Columbia...I'll give you 3 guesses what that major difference is between the 2 river systems.
Finally, as to the importance of moving smolt downstream fast...look at the winter of 1996/1997 as the perfect example. That year was a monster for snowfall, as well as good spring moisture as well. The dams on the Snake and Columbia were flushing water as fast as they could...
This was in mid November, hunting wayyyy lower than normal due to the heavy snows already hammering Idaho and Western Montana in 1996.
I remember fishing steelhead in the spring of 1997, it was tough because of the amount of water. Dworsak was flushing heavy, upper river between Clear Creek and Orifino were so high it was almost unfishable. South Fork was blown out.
But, fast forward to 1999...unbelievably good returns on both steelhead and salmon. Why? Because smolt moved to the salt in a hurry. High smolt survival, high returns 3 years later.
I'll never forget that year, I landed 106 kings fishing from the bank...and I didnt fish all that much to do it. The towns of Riggins, Kamiah, Orifino were all bustling. Motels booked solid, RV spaces didnt exist, camp grounds plugged, guide shop in Orifino was booked solid for the entire season. Waiting in line at restaurants in Kamiah? I remember buying ice at a local tackle/shop gas station in Riggins, the guy said go check to see if I have any first. He told me he had 3 ice deliveries that day, 500 bags at a time. The only tackle he had left was a few packages of hooks and a single roll of pencil lead. It was just crazy...huge economic boost to those communities.
If you build it, or in this case, remove them...they will come...and in droves:
Finally, I applaud Simpson for taking this step, something that should have happened a long, long time ago...
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Not disagreeing with much of your post - but even Simpson seems iffy on effectiveness of the plan. And I still don't hear an assessment of cost benefit, vs. other wildlife/environmental needs - $35B (likely $50B in real life as multi-year plans rarely run on budget) is a lot of money to pull out of a system that is underfunded to start with. And despite the last few years - endless spending will catch up with us. Prioritization is an appropriate question for any project of this scale.Try a little research, nearly all the problems associated with the decline in anadromous fish in the Columbia/Snake River drainages are dam related problems. Just a fact.
Many of the things being discussed on this thread as parts of the problems are all associated with dams.
Lets look at a few:
Sea lions...yeah, they kill adult fish by the truckloads below Bonneville. Why? Because the fish stack up below the dam where they're easy pickings. Mink in a henhouse situation. Are sea lions the problem? Wouldn't be an issue if the dam wasnt there.
Predator fish species (walleye, smallmouth, pike minnows, etc.) all caused from impounded water behind dams. Water that doesn't flow, warms up making it conducive to warm water species. Add into that highly increased time for smolt to have to SWIM head first through miles of slack water, with huge numbers of predators, well...you can fill in the blanks.
The other problem with smolt survival is how long they have to stay in the rivers with dams present before they reach the salt. In a natural flowing system, during high water...they get flushed to the salt TAIL first and they get from the upper reaches of the tributaries in weeks. The less time they spend in fresh water, the less likely they are to get picked off by predators and they healthier they are when they reach salt. Think of the energy requirement of a smolt, that has to swim head first through miles and miles of slack water, compared to that same smolt getting essentially flushed into the salt in a few days.
Spawning habitat has been inventoried in the Selway, Snake, Salmon, etc. rivers and their tributaries. Lots of work has been done to make fish friendly culverts, etc and the Idaho F&G as well as USFS have studied the viability of the spawning habitat. Generally the spawning habitat is in very good shape, but, when you don't have adult fish getting to that habitat to spawn, does you no good.
Frankly, its amazing that anadromous fish have hung on as long as they have in the Columbia, nothing, and mean absolutely nothing has worked in their favor since the first dams were installed.
Anyone that questions if dam removal will work, is defying science, logic, and just plain g-damn common sense.
If you need further proof look to the Fraser river system, where there aren't dams just to the North of the Columbia. Not much drags me away from big-game hunting, but I spent a lot of time fishing the Fraser and its awesome tributaries in the fall. Made fishing in Idaho, which I did a metric chit ton of, look pathetic.
There is one major difference between the Fraser and Columbia...I'll give you 3 guesses what that major difference is between the 2 river systems.
Finally, as to the importance of moving smolt downstream fast...look at the winter of 1996/1997 as the perfect example. That year was a monster for snowfall, as well as good spring moisture as well. The dams on the Snake and Columbia were flushing water as fast as they could...
This was in mid November, hunting wayyyy lower than normal due to the heavy snows already hammering Idaho and Western Montana in 1996.
I remember fishing steelhead in the spring of 1997, it was tough because of the amount of water. Dworsak was flushing heavy, upper river between Clear Creek and Orifino were so high it was almost unfishable. South Fork was blown out.
But, fast forward to 1999...unbelievably good returns on both steelhead and salmon. Why? Because smolt moved to the salt in a hurry. High smolt survival, high returns 3 years later.
I'll never forget that year, I landed 106 kings fishing from the bank...and I didnt fish all that much to do it. The towns of Riggins, Kamiah, Orifino were all bustling. Motels booked solid, RV spaces didnt exist, camp grounds plugged, guide shop in Orifino was booked solid for the entire season. Waiting in line at restaurants in Kamiah? I remember buying ice at a local tackle/shop gas station in Riggins, the guy said go check to see if I have any first. He told me he had 3 ice deliveries that day, 500 bags at a time. The only tackle he had left was a few packages of hooks and a single roll of pencil lead. It was just crazy...huge economic boost to those communities.
If you build it, or in this case, remove them...they will come...and in droves:
Finally, I applaud Simpson for taking this step, something that should have happened a long, long time ago...
BuzzH
Well-known member
Politicians are "iffy" about any decision they make, on anything and everything...it's in their DNA.
Cost benefit that I saw in 1999 through about 2004 was a huge boost in dying extractive communities when fish runs were awesome.
I very seriously looked at buying a house in Kamiah in 2000 (dirt cheap due to depressed economy), strictly for salmon and steelhead fishing...then I thought about it. Without dam removal and huge snowpack years, it was just a freak thing. Considering there had not been a salmon season on the Clearwater between 1978 and 1999...I decided not to. One of the times I'm sorry to say I made the right decision.
Hydrophilic
Well-known member
There's not a bill, so what would you have us analyze? Simpson released a concept, basically just let the world know he was thinking about trying this. And he's proven, if nothing else, that he and his staff are willing to listen to about anybody. Maybe something comes together that is more concrete about what the accomplishments can be, maybe not. Maybe, with enough buy-in, the costs come down. Maybe they go up. You're right...for now, nobody knows! But the Congressman hasn't got a gun to anybody's head. He's asking for thoughts about an idea. I'm sure his staff will politely hear you out.
We have largely stopped killing wildlife indiscriminately. We passed laws to codify clean air and water. There are very few sure things left. And where there are, it always comes with a cost. We can save wild sheep, wild salmon, hell even try and reverse a warming climate. But it all comes with varying degrees of inconvenience, costs, and risk that it won't work like we thought it would.
We can consider some risks, or we can watch these salmon blink out. Then wonder what blinks out after they're gone, because I assure you, there isn't likely a sure fix there either.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
The cost benefit always wins for the renewable resource, in this case salmon, when you extend the timelines beyond our typical scales and start to think like a true conservationist and look at the benefits of those "in the womb of time".
What is the value of a steelhead in the middle fork of the salmon worth? I can't put a value on that. Or better yet, what do we stand to lose when the Frank Church no longer has salmon and steelhead, is it still as wild?
What is the value of a steelhead in the middle fork of the salmon worth? I can't put a value on that. Or better yet, what do we stand to lose when the Frank Church no longer has salmon and steelhead, is it still as wild?
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I agree with every word you said, but what is unsaid is that if we spend $35B here, we won'be have that $35B to spend somewhere else, so we need to make sure this is the hill to die on.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
This is a cop out. As unsavory as it may seem, how work gets done requires resources, resources require money. So, as this stands they have put a value on this - $35B. Would you support if it cost $75B? How about $500B? A trillion? Or once we invoke nature no number is too big?
And once you have that number, it is prudent to ask if this is how that amount is best spent. If Warren Buffet gave BHA $35B would you be happy if they spent every single penny of it on this one river and ignored every other wilderness need?
I am for salmon. I am for wild places. I am for reducing the human footprint. But I do not automatically spend $35B on one project without grave consideration. Sorry if you believe that makes me an unthinking heretic - but I believe it makes me a thoughtful steward of our many lands.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Is that how a conservationist thinks, always about the bottom line in today's dollars? Does everything have to fit into a nice tidy package of economic viability as taught in econ 201? Or can we simple say that somethings at too valuable to quantify?
It is not a cop out to say there is no value on my son's life. No amount I would ever sell him for, or allow him to parish over. The same can be said for wild places and wild things. While you may need to place a value on them. I do not.
But you humor your irrationality:
Yes, I would gladly pay 1 trillion. Because we already are spending that kind of money on things I don't support.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Like I said, try the research angle.
Look at the money that's already been thrown down the chitter on other recovery efforts. They don't work...never have and the science points it out, and why it doesn't work.
You think maintaining dams, dredging, all that is associated with dams on the Columbia system is free? How about hatcheries that don't work? Those are operated for free?
We've been pandering to the idea of dams for decades, studying the impacts, pretending that hatcheries and a weeks worth of flushing smolt (when its not litigated, whined about, etc.) will solve it. Then it was killing pike minnows, then birds that ate them, now killing sea lions. All the while ignoring the real problem.
Its not even a proper tap dance around the single largest factor impacting anadromous fish...its dams, plain and simple. Like I said, compare the Columbia to the Fraser...its irrefutable, the science is in.
Time for agencies and politicians to stop meeting for over-priced rubber chicken lunches to discuss HOW to return anadromous fish to acceptable levels in the Columbia. One option left and the one that would have saved them 10's of billions if done first, or better yet, not allowed to happen in the first place.
I get what you're saying about the use of funds, but how do you get around the ESA requirements? Why keep throwing good money after bad when everyone with even a decent layman's knowledge of rivers, how they function, and what anadromous fish require knows the answer to be in how to fix it?
IF, and that's a big IF, there were other options that worked, we would have found them already. Only one solution that will work.
BTW, conservation is not a cop-out...and has never been cheap, easy, or convenient...but long term, well worth the price of admission, and then some.
BuzzH
Well-known member
One last thing, I think we SHOULD be looking at the bottom line. A 35 billion investment now, for economic viability of sound anadromous fish stocks essentially into perpetuity if properly recovered?
What's the economic impact of fishing into perpetuity worth? Probably more than 35 billion I would venture to guess....
What's the economic impact of fishing into perpetuity worth? Probably more than 35 billion I would venture to guess....
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Absolutely not what I said or implied. It is clear this thread is only for the un-questioning. Basis this compelling discussion I suggest we spend $70B and get it done twice as fast. Carry on.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Go do some research...in the meantime, choke on this, since the only "un-questioning" thing is your total lack of knowledge about the subject at hand.
Where were you with all the questions regarding paying people to kill pike minnows, shoot sea lions, spend money on hatcheries that largely don't work, costs associated with dams, barging fish, yada yada...that is literally throwing money out the window and not working?
Probably busy arguing...
(PDF) Regional Economic Impacts of the Snake River Steelhead and Salmon Recovery
PDF | Remaining runs of wild steelhead trout, sockeye, and chinook salmon on the Snake River are threatened with extinction, and wild coho salmon are... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
www.researchgate.net
Last edited:
idahohuntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 357
I don't know that citing the Fraser River helps make your case: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-record-low-salmon-returning-1.5682325Try a little research, nearly all the problems associated with the decline in anadromous fish in the Columbia/Snake River drainages are dam related problems. Just a fact.
Many of the things being discussed on this thread as parts of the problems are all associated with dams.
Lets look at a few:
Sea lions...yeah, they kill adult fish by the truckloads below Bonneville. Why? Because the fish stack up below the dam where they're easy pickings. Mink in a henhouse situation. Are sea lions the problem? Wouldn't be an issue if the dam wasnt there.
Predator fish species (walleye, smallmouth, pike minnows, etc.) all caused from impounded water behind dams. Water that doesn't flow, warms up making it conducive to warm water species. Add into that highly increased time for smolt to have to SWIM head first through miles of slack water, with huge numbers of predators, well...you can fill in the blanks.
The other problem with smolt survival is how long they have to stay in the rivers with dams present before they reach the salt. In a natural flowing system, during high water...they get flushed to the salt TAIL first and they get from the upper reaches of the tributaries in weeks. The less time they spend in fresh water, the less likely they are to get picked off by predators and they healthier they are when they reach salt. Think of the energy requirement of a smolt, that has to swim head first through miles and miles of slack water, compared to that same smolt getting essentially flushed into the salt in a few days.
Spawning habitat has been inventoried in the Selway, Snake, Salmon, etc. rivers and their tributaries. Lots of work has been done to make fish friendly culverts, etc and the Idaho F&G as well as USFS have studied the viability of the spawning habitat. Generally the spawning habitat is in very good shape, but, when you don't have adult fish getting to that habitat to spawn, does you no good.
Frankly, its amazing that anadromous fish have hung on as long as they have in the Columbia, nothing, and mean absolutely nothing has worked in their favor since the first dams were installed.
Anyone that questions if dam removal will work, is defying science, logic, and just plain g-damn common sense.
If you need further proof look to the Fraser river system, where there aren't dams just to the North of the Columbia. Not much drags me away from big-game hunting, but I spent a lot of time fishing the Fraser and its awesome tributaries in the fall. Made fishing in Idaho, which I did a metric chit ton of, look pathetic.
There is one major difference between the Fraser and Columbia...I'll give you 3 guesses what that major difference is between the 2 river systems.
Finally, as to the importance of moving smolt downstream fast...look at the winter of 1996/1997 as the perfect example. That year was a monster for snowfall, as well as good spring moisture as well. The dams on the Snake and Columbia were flushing water as fast as they could...
This was in mid November, hunting wayyyy lower than normal due to the heavy snows already hammering Idaho and Western Montana in 1996.
I remember fishing steelhead in the spring of 1997, it was tough because of the amount of water. Dworsak was flushing heavy, upper river between Clear Creek and Orifino were so high it was almost unfishable. South Fork was blown out.
But, fast forward to 1999...unbelievably good returns on both steelhead and salmon. Why? Because smolt moved to the salt in a hurry. High smolt survival, high returns 3 years later.
I'll never forget that year, I landed 106 kings fishing from the bank...and I didnt fish all that much to do it. The towns of Riggins, Kamiah, Orifino were all bustling. Motels booked solid, RV spaces didnt exist, camp grounds plugged, guide shop in Orifino was booked solid for the entire season. Waiting in line at restaurants in Kamiah? I remember buying ice at a local tackle/shop gas station in Riggins, the guy said go check to see if I have any first. He told me he had 3 ice deliveries that day, 500 bags at a time. The only tackle he had left was a few packages of hooks and a single roll of pencil lead. It was just crazy...huge economic boost to those communities.
If you build it, or in this case, remove them...they will come...and in droves:
Finally, I applaud Simpson for taking this step, something that should have happened a long, long time ago...
Furthermore, take a look at this study showing survival in the Snake River basin is not inconsistent with many other major river systems in BC, AK etc. without dams. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faf.12514
If the solution were as simple as you suggest it would have been done long ago. The reality is the costs of dam breaching are very high and the effect of breaching these dams on salmon survival is relatively modest, particularly given all the improvements to the dams in question.
Nice photos - I still really enjoy my folks place near Kamiah. Every morning I wake up there its a tough decision...whitetails, pheasant, steelhead, waterfowl, turkey, huns, or elk...its a special place, and while I always wish there were more fish (and game) - 35 billion in dam removal isn't going to move the needle much. If I truly believed it would, I'd be the biggest supporter of this proposal.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I don't agree, comparing 2 river systems that aren't that far apart is reasonable and appropriate.
Sure, there are going to be peaks and valley's in returns due to other factors, but anyone denying that a chit-load more fish hit the mouth of the Fraser than those that hit the mouth of the Columbia...and why, is denying common sense.
Again, the research and return numbers are there for both rivers, look them up.
That article you provided...pretty interesting that a "poor" run is 238,000 sockeye. The only thing worse than 238,000 returning sockeye for ONE year, is when lonesome Leroy, the single sockeye, that returned to red fish lake in Idaho to find he was the only survivor.
But, yeah, lets keep pretending that dams aren't a problem.
I also disagree that dam removal would have happened long ago if that were the solution. The politics involved in the 1960's was pointing to building even MORE dams on the Snake AND Clearwater rivers...no talk of removing any. If not for a handful of committed steelhead/salmon fishermen, there would have been more.
Also, if dams aren't the cause of the decline in fish stocks, can you show me a picture of a june hog you've caught above Grand Coulee lately?
SMH...
Irrelevant
Well-known member
There is more to the equation that simply dams. But as the Senator put to keep these dams is to doom those runs. Removing them is simply giving them a chance.
Nor is the blame appropriately put on the nebulous term "ocean conditions." That's significantly more of a cop out than suggesting the dam removal is actually effective over the long run.
Harvest has to decrease, both in freshwater and in the ocean, commercial, sport, and tribal. We need Pacific wide salmon management and, very importantly, enforcement. We need improvements to our wastewater treatment and reductions of discharges of toxic stormwater and agricultural runoff. But all of those things are immensely more complex and expensive. So yeah, let's get rid of these four dams, that should have never been built, while we continue to push for these other changes.
Or we can keep putting logs in creeks. Because it's cheap. And pump out more hatchery drones, that aren't fit for the wild, because it's easy. And let's willfully allow salmon to disappear from one of the last strong holds of high quality habitat in the lower 48, because we lacked the gumption to try something big.
Nor is the blame appropriately put on the nebulous term "ocean conditions." That's significantly more of a cop out than suggesting the dam removal is actually effective over the long run.
Harvest has to decrease, both in freshwater and in the ocean, commercial, sport, and tribal. We need Pacific wide salmon management and, very importantly, enforcement. We need improvements to our wastewater treatment and reductions of discharges of toxic stormwater and agricultural runoff. But all of those things are immensely more complex and expensive. So yeah, let's get rid of these four dams, that should have never been built, while we continue to push for these other changes.
Or we can keep putting logs in creeks. Because it's cheap. And pump out more hatchery drones, that aren't fit for the wild, because it's easy. And let's willfully allow salmon to disappear from one of the last strong holds of high quality habitat in the lower 48, because we lacked the gumption to try something big.
idahohuntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 357
I think its unfair to characterize any part of the debate as: are salmon worth saving at a cost of $35b. I'm not aware of anyone in this thread (and most of society) that would not agree $35b is a pittance to save salmon.
The debate is over whether spending $35b on THIS proposal is the best approach to conserving salmon. If we believe the federal scientists whose models predict a very modest ~14% survival increase, I just find it very difficult to believe this is an adequate way to spend that sum. Of the hundreds of dams in the Columbia Basin these 4 are not even close to the top of the list in terms of fish impact. So in that sense, if folks want to throw out any economic consideration, then lets do that...Grand Coulee, Bonneville, Hells Canyon...those are dams that have orders of magnitude greater impacts on salmon than the LSR dams. Nobody mentions them because they provide a lot more economic value than the LSR dams...but if we are ignoring budgets, why are we letting cost/benefit analyses focus the debate on to the LSR dams?
Also, I wasn't disputing that comparing two river systems (e.g., Fraser and Columbia) is unreasonable. I was simply noting that the Fraser has been experiencing massive declines and therefore isn't supportive of your argument that its clearly/only the snake dams as a reason for low returns, particularly in recent years.
The debate is over whether spending $35b on THIS proposal is the best approach to conserving salmon. If we believe the federal scientists whose models predict a very modest ~14% survival increase, I just find it very difficult to believe this is an adequate way to spend that sum. Of the hundreds of dams in the Columbia Basin these 4 are not even close to the top of the list in terms of fish impact. So in that sense, if folks want to throw out any economic consideration, then lets do that...Grand Coulee, Bonneville, Hells Canyon...those are dams that have orders of magnitude greater impacts on salmon than the LSR dams. Nobody mentions them because they provide a lot more economic value than the LSR dams...but if we are ignoring budgets, why are we letting cost/benefit analyses focus the debate on to the LSR dams?
I never said dams aren't a cause of declines or that they haven't contributed to the problem. Obviously they have and nobody disputes that. Again, look at the data...Snake River and Fraser River have similar in river salmon survival...doesn't give me a warm fuzzy breaching the Lower snake dams will do a whole lot. Seems the federal scientists are probably pretty close in their estimate.
Also, I wasn't disputing that comparing two river systems (e.g., Fraser and Columbia) is unreasonable. I was simply noting that the Fraser has been experiencing massive declines and therefore isn't supportive of your argument that its clearly/only the snake dams as a reason for low returns, particularly in recent years.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Compare the good years too...there's a reason why I fished the Fraser over the Columbia, Snake, and Clearwater.
I agree with your first paragraph, and also agree with breaching more dams...4 is what I'd call a decent start.
The reasons that I've read for the LSR dams being a good place to start is that main stem spawning habitat is greater there than anything on the Columbia.
Similar threads
