2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

I don't think that we are running out of time for saving the salmon.  There are some groups that certainly claim this, that we have to do more every year to "save the salmon".  However, the returning runs are large & while in-river harvest rates were below 10% in the late 1990's. they are currently up over 30% on many runs.  If the salmon populations are truely declining, why are we more than tripling harvest.  The problem is largely perception & political.

For example we've finally gotten permission to kill sealions that are eating salmon below Bonneville dam.  The same year there was an agreement made with the tribes that they could harvest more salmon in good years.  Guess what, the increase in allowable harvest is almost exactly the amount that is gained by killing off a bunch of sealions.  

The electric ratepayers of the PNW are spending over $700million/year to improve salmon survival, but any gains made are met with increased harvest quotas.  The salmon can't recover if we eat them instead of letting them spawn

posted 3 years, 9 months ago
view in context

The real problem here isn't the dams, its that salmon taste good.  During the Clinton administration over 200 scientists wrote that the Snake River dams needed to be removed to save the salmon.  In the press release they stated there used to be 4 million wild Snake river salmon and they had declined 90% since the Snake River dams were put in & there were only 10,000 left.  If you crunch the numbers you find that of the total decline in wild Snake River Salmon, 97% ocurred before before the Snake River dams were put in, & by roughly another 3% after their construction.  Still the "environmental groups" would have you believe that the only way to save this fish is to remove the 4 dams that "devistated" the runs.  Never a mention of what happened to the first 97% of the runs.

posted 3 years, 9 months ago
view in context

I agree that we need to fix the habitat, but the biggest habitat problem facing the endangered salmon isnt the long warm reservoirs, its an ocean & river filled with nets & hooks.  Harvest takes something like 30% of the Snake river salmon, much of that in the ocean.  Talking about removing dams while leaving gillnets in the river in just plain nuts.  Don't believe me, explain why the coastal rivers arent overflowing with fish.   Explain the listing of the Lake Ozette sockeye.

posted 3 years, 9 months ago
view in context