West coast salmon recovery

This popped up in my news feed and it was a good but sobering read. Hard to imagine the 10s of thousands of salmon that used to come 900 miles into Idaho.

Pat Ford did a good 4 part series last summer as well.

My biggest refute is to this claim in his "last thoughts"

Yet strong public and political awareness of the fishes’ dire condition is not optional if the lower Snake River is to be restored, so that Snake salmon and steelhead get their shot to restore themselves. Results on the Klamath, Elwha, White Salmon and other rivers strongly suggest that when salmon get that chance, they grab it.

There is actually very little evidence of increased populations in the White Salmon River post-dam removal. And, of course, those declines are attributed to poor ocean conditions.
 
Pat Ford did a good 4 part series last summer as well.

My biggest refute is to this claim in his "last thoughts"

Yet strong public and political awareness of the fishes’ dire condition is not optional if the lower Snake River is to be restored, so that Snake salmon and steelhead get their shot to restore themselves. Results on the Klamath, Elwha, White Salmon and other rivers strongly suggest that when salmon get that chance, they grab it.

There is actually very little evidence of increased populations in the White Salmon River post-dam removal. And, of course, those declines are attributed to poor ocean conditions.
I always ask to see the math on these topics. When populations are knocked down to virtually nothing, a 100% improvement is “significant” yet culturally disappointing. An example would be a mathematical improvement from 100 fish to a 1000 fish is huge mathematically but trivial compared to the 1980 runs of 15000. It’s the same reason we object to the states doing 10 year averages for management objectives rather than looking at 40 year averages back when the fishing was good.
 
I always ask to see the math on these topics. When populations are knocked down to virtually nothing, a 100% improvement is “significant” yet culturally disappointing. An example would be a mathematical improvement from 100 fish to a 1000 fish is huge mathematically but trivial compared to the 1980 runs of 15000. It’s the same reason we object to the states doing 10 year averages for management objectives rather than looking at 40 year averages back when the fishing was good.
As much as I would love to think removing the Snake River dams is akin to waving a magic wand and we'll see a huge resurgence in salmon population in central ID I just don't think that's the case. The water is shockingly hot in the Salmon, both main and Middle Fork. I think some elaborate system to get around Dwarshak would provide more significant improvements, but that's going to be incredibly costly.

There is clearly some anthropogenic cause, I just don't think we've identified it yet.
 
Maybe. Certainly is playing into some runs.
Hard to show that as being a likely culprit in every run currently in decline.
I think there is a deliberate attempt to push the Bering Sea surface temps as the cause for the MASSIVE decline in chinook in the Yukon River. Likely because it absolves the regulators of any culpability.

1784229686103.png
1784229704618.png
But I find that pretty hard to believe given the long term temp data (that they failed to include in the linked article).
1784229731364.png
The early 2000's look hotter, significantly.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
119,582
Messages
2,230,913
Members
38,931
Latest member
coloelk52
Back
Top