" I can't believe an editor of any newspaper would write such low level drivel. Not even a tabloid!! Writing "the dams have been there for a half century and fish problems are current" is as ignorant as it gets. Do you think the salmon numbers would have plummeted the day after the dams were built? You might take a remedial course in mid school cause and effect there scribe. "

" >
>>Indian tribes in the Klamath region as well as coastal salmon fishermen blame the dams
>>for scarce water and a decline in fish. But the dams have been there for the better part of t
>>he last half century, and the fish problems are current.
>>

The "fish problems" are current- YES- don't you think it's possible the part of the problem is that they are killed by the dam? and moving the fish around by truck? and are you forgetting the MASS fish kills?


Hasso, it would be nice if you for once started to think about what this earth would be like after you are gone. Look at the Snake River "population" of fish- are we to wait until there is nothing left in the Klamath River before we start looking at alternatives?

"

" The "Indian Tribes" are so not current to the "Editor". Their rights are the LAW, Hasso. That's right. the LAW! What gives a pip-squeak editor the right to advocate breaking this or any laws? The poor climate forecasts by your beloved Taylor were at least part of the poor planning process which led to the massive fish die-offs (in exchange for a few white farmers and their greedy water theft helping their poorly conceived farming practices avoid a drought) and the current Federal Disaster in the salmon fishing industry.

Climate change means greater fluctuations in among other things precipitation in the Klamath and other river basins. Hopefully with someone not in denial, we can have better foresight and planning in these locations. The dams are clearly a major contributer to the decline of the fish runs and ought to be removed. Maybe when the runs are back near traditional numbers better impoundment facilities can be built.


"

" Willpower, orguy, and Barefoot, the editor has analyzed the problem correctly and advises somewhat reluctantly the only sensible solution to power generation in the Klamath region. Regardless of the decision that is made, some party is not going to be pleased. In this case, I believe the most people are helped by leaving in the dams. A whole lot less people are affected by the decision to keep the dams, even though it is unfortunate that some of the fishermen have been driven out of business and some of the farmers have been affected likewise.

To call the editor of the ADH a "pip-sqeak editor", an "advocate breaking this or any laws", an editor of any newspaper would write such low level drivel", "is as ignorant as it gets.", is very immature by those who wrote them. In the future you may want to say something positive, such as "I disagree with the editor's opinion because of this or that, and here is my solution to the problem - a "plan" if you will. What I do not understand is you libs waste all your time griping, and no time helping find solutions and then carrying them out. Lots of posters agree with your information presented, but near the end, you arrive at the wrong conclusions! How do you consistantly do that? I will never underestand your reasoning. I admit I am not the sharpest pencil in the desk, but I can add 2 and 2 and get 4!

And there you go again with Mr. Taylor - blame him for the water and fish and farmer problems - now that is real bias if you ask me, backed up by nothing! And how would you know what a poor planning process is when you never propose any plans of your own. Do you not know how to construct one? "

" Hydro-Electric Power is the cheapest and cleanest power we have. I did not know the power company that built it was breaking a law. I don't think there was such a law then. If you want those dams down, then you should provide an alternative like voting for more oil exploration in Alaska. It appears you have a disdain for the editor and George Taylor. Isn't it noce this paper allows you to voice your opinion anyway. Nature has ebbed and flowed for decades with fish populations. Do you feel each fish is worh 10, 000 dollars to the Indians? Or would it be closer to $100,000? At some point that should be determined and weighed against the loss of such clean power. Maybe it would be better to limit all familers to one half the television and allow reduced size tv screens to save power. The original runs are gone. Maybe using what money we do have to save the existing runs in the Sacramento River would prove more fruitful. Maybe we could purchase fish elsewhere and give twice as much to the Indians as the river would produce. The editor has proven himself over and over. If a large percentage of readers like your views, the paper may well ask you to be a paid contributor too. But you would have to show less hatred and offer more helpful ideas. "

" Barefoot;
"Hasso, it would be nice if you for once started to think about what this earth would be like after you are gone"

Not that long term...just thinking what these blogs will be like when you are [gone] ooohhmmmm..... "

" The farmers were promised water by the federal government. So, when the federal government breaks an agreement or promise, is it only important if that agreement was with Indian tribes? Apparently so, in some people's minds. "

" >Bill claimed:
>>The farmers were promised water by the federal government.

(yawn) Did the feds promise water for as long as the grass was green and the sky was blue?

"

" oldtimer, Coffee and doughnuts are on me...that is one superb post! Great examples and appropriate conclusions. "

" >
>Do you feel each fish is worh 10, 000 dollars to the Indians? Or would it be closer to
>$100,000?
>

As the fish DIE, there are fewer of them, so the cost per fish goes up.

FOUR- one, two, three four FOUR sockeye salmon made it back to Snake River.

There is an environmental impact on ANY electrical generating facility, even solar panels out in the dessert. Clearly, there is a cost to the Klamath Dams, the question is whether or not humankind wants to pay it. These do not generate much electricity, their primary purpose is to farm where there should not have ever been farming.

"

" Anyone with any knowledge at all of federal water rights knows that their allocation is on the basis of prior standing. The fact that the farmers stole the water is well known as is the fact that the federal government failed to enforce their own rules. Once the fish get wiped out, they are gone forever, which the white racists want to do to their water rivals, the Native Americans.

Oldtimer, where are you going to "buy" fish to "give "the "Indians". Ideas like that are so ridiculous that they hardly bear commentary. You want to exterminate whole species for what?! Farmers and their TVs??? You are great to defend the ego of the editor, do you get special favors? EDS wants to give you bagels and cream cheese (he spilled the coffee and donuts on himself).

If George Taylor, whose responsibility it was to provide an accurate forecast and immediate analysis of the developing severe drought in the Klamath basin had done his job properly, federal water managers may have been able to avert the worst of its effect, allowing both sufficient water to the river for the fish as well as water to the farmers for their cattle. As it is the farmers stole the water and may have destroyed the entire basin's fishery which includes the coastal fishermen or California, Oregon and Washington. They wiped out this season's fishery and may have destroyed the entire industry. They are the ones who ought to pay, not the tax payers.

The dams could be removed and replaced at a later date with some more adequate structures. Although some say hydro is a no negatives source of energy, this case illustrates that that is far from the truth. The real costs of hydro are shuffled under the tables by the lies and the racism still active in the Western US.


"

" Old Timer and Eds. Removing the Klamath dams would work. Changing the dams to allow fish passage would work. Leaving them as is and changing the laws that require environmental stewardship and fish propagation would also work, but could never be passed. And.....that act would only address the power issue. It is much more complicated than you evidently realize. Fishing rights on both Indian and white sides have been upheld many times, the most forceful being a 70s supreme court decision. Fishing (commercial and sport) are vital parts of the coastal economies of CA, OR and WA. The fish from these CA rivers are mostly the ones caught all up and down the coast. Millions of people are impacted in many businesses by no fishing. Do you understand that the dams block the fish from returning to their spawning grounds, and over time the numbers decline? And that this decline results in laws kicking in to provide a fix? Mostly, rather than addressing the real issue, the regulators have just regulated fishing seasons, waiting for a cyclical upswing. And when the seasons are stopped, the impact is in the hundred of millions. Buying fish from China to "give to the Indians" could be done, but I would sure the heck not call that kind of thinking "superb and an excellent conclusion" as one person has done. More appropriate is ignorant, and biased. How does that approach solve the problems? Seems to me like it's similar to gas tax suspension for 3 months to solve the oil problems. This past year, Klamath stocks rebounded to 50K plus, or 20K plus above the "floor. " The Klamath is viable this year and on river sport/tribal fishing is in full swing. The collapse of the Sacramento run is the problem this year. Won't be long until it's the Columbia. On the Sacramento, the projection was for above 300K, down from 02 levels of about a million. Actual number was less than 100K (maybe even 50K) and 122K are required for a floor on this river. They stopped the fishing over this. There are scads of issues here, and no one really understands precisely what has happened. Some culprits are: There's been big draw downs on the Sacramento for irrigation (farming), recreation (filling LA swimming pools), and there have been poor ocean conditions with lack of upwelling and food in key years that would have enhanced this year's run. Since we are talking about options to address this problem, the one I favor is that those corporations and politicians who did not follow the law be held accountable. They could combine their resources and pay me and my 1200 fishing friends about a half million bucks each for our boats and fishing rights. Seems logical to me! Farmers are paid for not farming. Fishermen should be paid when their way of life is removed. "

" Willpower, the Native American racist, always blames the wrong people and Barefoot shows his ignorance (yawn) with every post. So, Willpower, why is hydro not OK for the Klamath, but OK for Albany? "

" >
>>So, Willpower, why is hydro not OK for the Klamath, but OK for Albany?
>>

So WP, you see the salmon population getting wiped out by the Santiam power generator?

Sure, the tribe of the Santiam may get upset...

"

" Show me the fish count in the Albany-Santiam canal Bill. Got some salmon that can jump 40 feet? What a slow witted question!


"

" orguy, Farmers are paid for not farming - this is wrong! They chose that profession themselves and should absorb any good or bad that comes with it. I as a taxpayer should NOT have to pay them for the choice that they made. Same with the fishermen - they should NOT be paid when their way of life is removed because it was THEIR choice to go into that business and I should not end up paying for it! GEEZE, take some responsibility for your own decisions!
And, you don't even know 1200 people! Get real. "