by: Steve Urich
One of the most miraculous migrations ever recorded was the salmon migration along the Columbia River Basin before dams were present. This migration used to reach into the upper most reaches of the Columbia River and its tributaries. Currently, these fish rarely make it back to their birth places. The main decrease in Salmon population is thought to be due to four lower Snake River dams; upstream from where the Snake River meets up with the Columbia River on its route out to sea. The Bush administration began devising a plan to tear down the dams along the lower Snake River (which are only used for barge traffic, and aren’t as beneficial as other dams on the Columbia and tributaries), but decided to hold off on action. Since Obama has been in office, he has been pressed to re-assess the situation. Sadly, on September 14 of this year, Obama has only changed the rejected Bush plan minimally. Many advocates want the Salmon population to flourish again, and hope that the northwest’s ‘Local Icon’ can manage its way up to its home, like Red Fish Lake in Idaho. Most people not from the Northwest don’t understand that life revolves around this fish. Most advocates for policy plans are from the northwest or from the areas the fish contribute to. Does the locality to the problem have affect on action taken? Should President Obama re-assess this situation, and fix the declining Salmon population in a more scientific manor; couldn’t this also create new jobs? If the cleaning out of the four lower Snake River dams isn’t the correct answer what might be another solution?
Interesting video on life around salmon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iErooJ4lE3E
27 comments:
If it's cost effective to tear down the dams then why not do so? You implied in the original post that most people from the Northwest are concerned about the salmon's dwindling numbers and what it could mean for their culture and daily routine, but you also addressed the issue of locality. Maybe enough people care about the salmon problem to take action but lack the proper organization. The delayed response on the government's part is typical and should be expected; in order for anything to be done about the situation I think the people of the Northwest, and specifically the Columbia River region, should take action to attract positive attention from media outlets and the government. That might help get the public on their side.
It seems especially weird that the dams have not allready been taken down if they are only used for barge traffic. Frequently something that blocks this action is when a dam is also providing power for the region. Also if they are simple dams not for producing power is it that hard to add those bypass "salmon ladder" sections?
What can be done from a regional perspective? What about local governments and action groups? What has been going on so far in terms of action? Like what the first comment stated, the Northwest region should take control if they want to see an change. Are the dams also used for hydroelectricity? Is there a disincentive to tear down the dams because of a loss of power?
I think the locality of this problem has a very large effect on the action taken. If the people of this region could fund this without federal money they would probably already have a plan to do so. Also, I'm not familiar with how to go about taking down a dam, is there a way to do it without further disturbing this ecosystem?
I don't really understand why the dams are there in the first place. It seems they have no real benefit and causing more problems than helping. Its upsetting to see how much human greed affects the natural world. Because Salmon is part of many of our diets it gives people the impression that the salmon can be treated in any which way. Not taking note of the amazing migration that happen through Snake river.
What were the original intentions for these dams? I only see barging traffic. If that's it, why weren't the dams taken down a while ago. This seems like an out-dated method and definitely needs to be re-assessed. Because it is hurting people at (the very least) a local level, is there something that can be done locally that can help alleviate the problem?
Great article and yes, the best option to be taken is to remove any dam thats not vital because fish simply have trouble crossing dams. In the past, as you stated, the fish migration was enormous and provided the region and the country with a valuable resource. It would benefit everyone to re-establish the salmon populations as they contribute to the surrounding ecosystems as well as provide us with delicious lox.
Do all the dams in this area all have fish ladders? I'm not from around the area at all, infact the other side of the US, what do you mean when you say a lot revolves around these fish? I know taking a vital part of the ecosystem out can cause huge disruptions...is this happening?
The wild salmon of the Pacific north west provide a huge economic industry to the area or at least once did. Commercial salmon fishing has been pass down through generations and is currently declining due to the scarcity of the fish. I feel that by removing the dams you could increase the fish population wile negligibly affecting the industries that utilize the river for barge traffic.
This problem reaches into many states and needs the help of the federal government to get started. I believe that fisheries fall under the USDA. Perhaps they could provide the up front cost of removal, then special interest groups and local governments could then handle maintenance and restoration. What were the changes that Obama made to the plan?
As a native Northwester, this topic is important to me. The salmon are a big part of our culture and the native americans' culture. More efforts need to be made to improve the success of salmon populations by clearing the snake river. If taking down dams is currently too big of a goal then maybe building more successful salmon ladders to help salmon migration.
I think total removal of the dams would be the best solution. But as Courtney said, what will the affect be on the current ecosystem around the dam be and will the removal and/or removal processes do anything to that ecosystem? Positive of negative? If removing the dam causes damage to 50 other species, then I would have to reconsider and opt to keep the dams, in which case the "Northwest's Icon" population density may continue to dwindle in the Columbia River.
It seems as if the economics of the whole situation favor taking out the dams. As Stephen said in class the dams in question really don't supply very much energy, and if barge traffic isn't an issue the cost of breaking the dam is the only significant cost to worry about. Restoring the salmon populations to levels they were pre-dams and slapping a tax on fishing seems like it would generate big money.
I think that Obama should definitely readdress the situation. Just because he doesn't live in the area doesn't mean that he should not care about ecosystems in danger. I think the best, and most cost efficient way to fix this problem is to knock down the dams upstream. If that is not an option then you could at least reroute the stream in a small area around the dam so the fish can get by. I think that this problem needs to be fixed immediately so that the icon of the northwest can flourish.
David McKinley
It would be interesting to see how the cost of tearing down the dams compares to the economic value of the salmon. It would be great to save this species, and unfortunately money is one of the loudest talkers with issues like this. Also, are these dams hydroelectric?
Like Steve said, salmon in the Northwest is part of life, it's in the culture. All power-damns need to have extensive ladders without shortcut that are monitored regularly. This will provide good data about salmon populations and provide a healthier ecosystem and economy.
I agree- the dams should be torn down. If it is as cost effective as said, then why not? It would help both the environment and the economy- saving both fish and money. What impacts do they have? Why would it only matter to half of the US if they are so beneficial?
Katie Witters
I dont know if it is cost effective at this point to tear down the dams. I dont think that this is the only thing to consider with this issue. I know that building dams is detrimental to the environment, but it is also important to consider the environmental implications of reversing the damming process. I believe that there could be major issues with tearing dams down. Although i empathize with the plight of these fish and hate to see their population decrease, we should not make a rash decision and tear the dams down without first considering the environmental impacts of such an action.
If taking down the dams is too expensive of a project to undertake, I feel other measures should be taken in order to help the Salmon population. This could include funding of research to help the salmon population. Salmon are an integral part of northwestern culture and are a staple in many peoples lives. It is important that the government take necessary measures within financial limitations to help this problem.
Decreasing salmon populations has recently been a task that is really daunting. Throughout the Northwest, the Columbia River supplies spawning grounds for thousands of these fish, but they are be inhibited by these dams. The solution for a seasonal use of these dams seems like the best idea because only a fraction of the total energy production is coming from these specific dams. This will provide opportunity for the salmon to move upstream and spawn, then, produce electricity in the offseason.
this seems like an issue that should do more the hands of the local population, who probably know more about it, then the national government. From reading your post, it would seem that tearing down the dams and replacing them with bridges would be fine as long as barges would be able to navigate the river. The question then becomes is saving 1 Salmon population worth all this hassle? to that, I have no answer as I am unfamiliar with the topic.
I doubt that any dams are going to be destroyed due to the massive redirection of hydroelectric energy. I think the best thing to do is resist against new ones from being produced.
andrew sieving
Tearing down a dam seems like a very expensive solution. I know that other dams have found alternatives to allow fish to migrate through them.
Dam removal is an incredibly complicated process, and I beleive that it should first be performed on smaller water bodies, and perfected, before it is carried out on larger water bodies, where the repercussions could be devastating.
Why is it so hard to get these essentially useless dams taken down? It would be one thing if they were providing substantial amounts of energy, or an energy for that matter, but these are simply for shipping. Have they considered installing fish ladders as a temporary solution?
ROBERT SEADER
Salmon migration is actually very fascinating. It is unfortunate to hear that the Snake River is effecting the species. I think the damns should be taken down especially since they have minimal purpose and are obviously effected an entire species. Has there been any local or international action for that matter? Is there any way to fix this problem without taken down the damn?
This is a neat topic and I think it is important to protect these Salmon from danger.
Post a Comment