IFish Fishing Forum banner

1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Bonneville Dam was counting fish both before and after the Snake River Dams and hatcheries went in. The counts after the dams went in did not decrease, and in fact steelhead counts actually increased (due to the hatcheries).

PS:The Bonneville yearly fish counts go back to 1938 and are available to everyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,569 Posts
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Numbers without a complete picture of what is going on are always suspect. As COTR points out the increase has a lot to do with hatcheries.
Why don't you come on up with me to the Stanley Basin in Idaho and look at the empty spawning beds that used to have Chinook or Redfish lake which used to have sockeye up until those dams were put in?
The fact is the dams serve only to provide an ocean port for Canadian wheat farmers and others who want a port at Lewiston. The electrical power they provide is miniscule and they have absolutely no flood control. This is an example of using the river at the detriment of millions to provide a convenience for a few.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,726 Posts
Originally posted by SandySteel:
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Numbers without a complete picture of what is going on are always suspect. As COTR points out the increase has a lot to do with hatcheries.
Why don't you come on up with me to the Stanley Basin in Idaho and look at the empty spawning beds that used to have Chinook or Redfish lake which used to have sockeye up until those dams were put in?
The fact is the dams serve only to provide an ocean port for Canadian wheat farmers and others who want a port at Lewiston. The electrical power they provide is miniscule and they have absolutely no flood control. This is an example of using the river at the detriment of millions to provide a convenience for a few.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">
Very well said and oh so true..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,307 Posts
I'm no fisheries biologist or anything like that but, it seems to me that adult salmon can get past the dams with ladders (OK), but the juveniles have more of a problem getting back to the ocean,(warm water, low or no flow, predators, turbines, oxygen? saturation etc.).

Smj
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,582 Posts
Sandy Steel, I do know that Idaho F&G poisoned the sockeyes for years though. I'm not discrediting you, I'm just posting a well known fact. Theres's no perfect world once man gets involved. I don't have the asnwers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
I never heard of IDFG "poisoning" the sockeye...but, according to Dr.Robt.Behnke of Colorado State Univ., for about 2 decades (1930s-1940s) Sunbeam Dam on the Salmon RIver was a 100% blockage to upstream migrants. That is what killed off the Redfish Lk sockeye. The remnant run today is the result of the tendency of resident kokanee in the lake to exhibit residual anadromous traits and produce a few smolts...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,936 Posts
I worked the Busterback Ranch in the summer/winter of '78-79. The ranch is located on the headwaters of the middle fork of the Salmon River in the Stanley Basin. While I understand the fish counts are lower now, back then we had salmon out in the fields (flood irrigation) and thousands of fish in the river. We'd kill fish in the fields with a cresent wrench and smoke 'em. Almost got tired of smoked salmon that year....almost
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,502 Posts
IDFG has poisoned sockeye, I think in the 50's on purpose and once more recently on accident during a scheduled poisoning of a lake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
Originally posted by barnettm:
I do not believe that the Army Corp of Engineers fish counts are lies.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">its a quote
i belive it was hemmingway said something like "there are 3 types of lies, lies, damn lies and statistics"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,079 Posts
I think we are debating accuracy of fish counts.

Today VS 1938 maybe?

Were there hatcheries in 1938?
Were there outcries from sportsmen, commercial harvesters and environmental groups in 1938?

Were there far more fish in '38 than today? (DUH)
Who was president in '38? should HE have declared the species of salmon and steelhead "endangered"? (who would have?) or ignored the depleteling numbers?

Of course they were endangered...they are GOOD EATS!

We are cleaning up our forefathers' mess of indulgence!.. shame they didnt have the FORESIGHT of PRESERVATION! Im so glad they left us alcohol and the right to bear arms!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I do not believe that the Army Corp of Engineers fish counts are lies. A "lie" would have to involve a conspiracy of many people and the motive is just not there.

Also, my post was in regard to the main-stem Snake River Dams, smaller dams I do not know about.

Bonneville Dam was installed in 1938 and has been counting fish while all the other dams went in. So the data is there for anyone who wants to look at it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,367 Posts
HERE WE GO AGAIN! Get Brionlutz over here. He'll argue with you for days and try to discredit you, but never answer your questions you aske him. There is no easy answer on this question. I believe you should look at the nets before you worry about some dams. Dams do kill fish, but they are not the total answer to salmon rejuvination!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,534 Posts
According to the government's own research, dam breaching would be the surest and most cost-effective way of restoring Snake River salmonids. The fact that they haven't gone ahead with dam-breaching is proof they care more about the grain and barging industries than fish, sportfishermen, commercial fishermen and the rail and trucking industries combined.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,367 Posts
People always talk about how they don't care about Lewiston being a seaport or why people don't think about the benefit to the trucking industry. Most wouldn't be saying this if they lived in Eastern Washington instead of a subdevelopment in Portland. Also, I don't know how many would want to be on the roads with all those trucks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
I just couldn't help but add my 2 cents on this topic.

It's a well known fact in the scientific community that one of the largest salmonid mortalities associated with dams (hydroelectric, diversion, etc.) are a result of poor downstream passage of juveniles. In this instance lets take the Listed Snake River Spring Chinook. Roughly half of all downstream migrating smolt are collected and barged, the other half are spilled or bypassed and referred to as "inriver migrants." As Mr. Carp stated in an earlier post, about 98% of the barged fish survive the journey downstream. The question derived from this figure is that even though 98% of the fish survived the transportation, what kind of condition are the fish in once they reach the estuary? Thousands of smolt crammed into a barge is hardly a "natural river system." What many people forget is that these fish are complex biological organisms. Smoltification is a complex physiological process, just because we cram these fish into a barge upstream does not mean they're ready (on our schedule) to adapt to a brackish water environment downstream, below Bonneville. Instinctively the fish will outmigrate on their own time using the natural river current to carry them downstream. Taking the journey as quickly or as slowly as they deem necessary to prepare for this complex metamorphosis. A natural flow regime cannot be achieved when you have an extra four dams creating resevoirs to slow water travel time.

Now to my point. Current research conducted by Idaho Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife shows that even though as much as 98% of the smolt survive the journey, they're Smolt-to-Adult Return rates are lower than the "inriver migrants." This especially holds true in normal or high water years. So, barging is not the answer to increased adult returns. In fact smolt-to-adult return rates are a primary indicator of the health of a stock. Current smolt-to-adult return rates in Snake River Spring Chinook are below the 2% minimum recovery threshold necessary to rehabilitate a stock. On the other hand, return rates in the Yakima river Spring Chinook (apart from Snake River Stocks most fish outmigrating from the rest of the Columbia basin are inriver migrants)are hovering around 8%. In other words something is drastically different between those fish negotiating the lower Snake River Complex (Idaho Spring Chinook) and those that don't (Yakima River Spring Chinook). In addition to the barging crisis, (which research has proven does not lead to increased SARs) those fish that are left in the system as inriver migrants have an additional four dams to negotiate. Since we continue to sacrifice increased instream flows within these four dams for the sake of hydropower and barging (river transportation to Lewiston), we continue to sabotage the only effective alternative to breaching.
I hope this shines a new light on this thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,625 Posts
to you Mr. Carp :cheers: It`s very easy to blame fish problems on these hunks of energy producing pieces of concrete but they are important to us in alot of ways...I too believe that other measures should be taken before anyone rips these dams out and that goes for the snake river dams, they play a huge part in our energy needs with a clean renewable power source....to replace with what? nuclear? wind? (thats a joke) and do not be fooled if the snake river dams come down, like dominoe`s(spell?) the columbia river dams will follow. how many hundred of years do the studies say it will take for runs to recover,IF they do recover...I`ve seen estimates of a 175 years. "IF" is too risky for me to approve taking the dams out. one has to think about the silt built up behind the dams that will be dislodged and end up where? the huge amount of money it will cost to "breach" which will be ireversible, the cost which will be incurred to maintain highways/bridges due to increased truckloads on the roads ( one barge = 500something semi`s) train tracks would have to be beefed up,irrigation as well as lost electrical power they provide. If some think that this would affect only around the northwest they are wrong that power is sold all over....to be replaced with what?

[ 05-14-2003, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: dampainter ]
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,726 Posts
Originally posted by dampainter:
they play a huge part in our energy needs with a clean renewable power source....

I realize that "huge" is a subjective word but based on most recognized definition of the word, the statement quoted above is simply not true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
Originally posted by Straydog:
Originally posted by dampainter:
they play a huge part in our energy needs with a clean renewable power source....

I realize that "huge" is a subjective word but based on most recognized definition of the word, the statement quoted above is simply not true.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">damns arnt even really all that "clean" or eco friendly

[ 05-15-2003, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: BonkBonkBonk ]
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top