: columbia river fishers
04-30-2004, 01:45 AM
please,for the rest of the world,tell us what dams could be removed and what would the consequences be;having never been there,,i haven't a clue,,could the river be returned to predam condition,or breaching,,,this was `thrown around' by the democrats in the last election,,could it be done?:confused:
04-30-2004, 10:16 AM
A bigger impact would be to remove the thousands of nets from the Columbia.
I would glady opt for a program that paid the Indian and commercial fishers NOT to net the Columbia. Lets say we incresed license fees to $100 or $200 a year and used funds from the increased fees to pay them not to net.
Of course this is only my personal pipe dream. Imagine the hundreds of thousands of fish that now go to nets swimming under your fly.
From what I've read about this issue is that the 4 lower Snake River Dams should be breeched to restore the river to it's natural state. This would remove the 300 miles of lakes behind the dams.
The dams generate a little power and provide some irrigation but their major purpose is to create a seaport at Lewiston Idaho. The problem is not so much adult fish returning up river but juvinile smolt trying to migrate down river. Up river from Lewiston there are thousands of miles of spawning and rearing habibtat in pristine condition, but nobody's home.
Removing the earthen section of the dams would leave the concrete structures in place, mothball the power generators and leave the locks in place. They could easily be put back in use if needed later or if this action did not restore the fish. Studies indicate that the cost of removing the earthen structures would cost less then what we now spend on maintaining the dams.
It's a very emotional and volitale issue here in Idaho. The U.s Fish and Wildlife Service shoved Wolf Reintroduction up our butts and I moan and groan, Why didn't they choose Salmon instead.
04-30-2004, 11:27 AM
Hey, as long as we're hoping and wishing, how about open season on seals/sea lions?:razz:
J.D. I don't see many of them up here( unless I've had more scotch then I should have ).
How about mergansers? Plenty of these smolt eating machines around, of course now you have the Audubon Society on your butt.
04-30-2004, 12:09 PM
This is my personal opinion... no data to back anything up. only my best uneducated guess.
1. there would be an innitial reduction in the productivity of Lower Columbia Chum salmon as their spawning grounds would be high and dry
2. there would be an increase in down river juvinile migration and if ocean conditions allowed larger runs as a result
I think more important than removing mainstream columbia dams you'd increase runs more by eliminating dams that completely block access to spawning grounds. Dworshack on the North clearwater, the dams on the north lewis, cowlitz,white salmon,deschutes, sandy ect. ect. etc. Also along with the removal of these dams a laege campaign to replace culverts to provide fish passage would help. Probably the single best thing we could do for salmon and steelhead in the columbia basin would be to stop hatchry plants and harvest. As hatchery plants mask the real problems with wild fish and as a result of these large but unhealthy runs too many wild fish are harvested.
04-30-2004, 03:35 PM
what about the human factor,,,?,how would people along the river be affected?,i know there's more info from the board here;;;;,or,,,:tsk_tsk:
04-30-2004, 03:49 PM
again here is my theory not to be taked for anything other than BS
My theory is that the columbia as it is now is in a perpetual state of being unnaturally high. therefore if the dams we gone the river would have more room to flood and the river would like any other be high in late spring and low in fall through winter.
Barge traffic would be limited as it was before the dams and international shipping into portland would cease which is ok with me because having a deep sea port 100 miles inland doesn't make sence to me,,
aggriculture would have to inceasr efficiency of their watering systems, but sad to say aggriculutre in the northwest is on the way out, they cannot compete with overseas stuff.
something we need to come to grips with is that it's not going to be imediatly good for the economy
05-01-2004, 12:55 AM
the Rogue has been changed forever;with the building of a dam,,boy!,,i surely learned a ton when we had a drought,,made me wonder,,talking to what's left of the oldtimers,,i'm an `oldtimer',,,but a um,,ahhhh,,,bait guy,,,just like `the majority';fished a few times a year,,,not posessed like `NOW"!,,there's several things of note,,,about water temps,fish run-timing,,heck,,even the pacific lamprey,,,,the onlything about the river here though,,the damned dam;is at the the very base of the,,,,?,,,headwaters?,they have a section called the `holy water',couldn't be more from the truth,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hey !,,Rob,,when we gonna fish the river here!,maybe my neihbor needs a laod of blanks hand delivered!,,and,,,you got me here;;;from we--cry,,i owe ya's a ride,,:hehe:
05-08-2004, 03:55 AM
while we on the subject of non-native things destroying fish. why is there not a bounty on cormorants? there are about 20,000 of them in the columbia basin and they eat there weight in fish each day. 30 years ago we had none! there are also lots of pelicans and a few loons. they eat all the fish in some lakes, and the fish in the lake we paid for with license fees. mike w
05-08-2004, 06:38 PM
First off my feeling is what best for the FISH.
Then you go from there. Look what big $$$ has done, has the fishing been better? You could say yes in some areas. But mostly it has not. The Damís what did they call them white elephants; they should be making power for aluminum plants are they? I donít think so. I now one of them is getting there power from Canada itís cheaper . I think it time to remove them.
.10 (cost went up)