Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Steve Buckner, Nov 22, 2007.
I certainly hope so!:thumb:
I don't think you do. Most of the staments you have been making are biologicaly wrong and ignorent.
Cold water species (fish that evolved here) bring several-fold more dollars to the region than warm water fish that have been introduced here and for the most part these introduced fish have not adapted well to our region (i.e. poor largemouth bass survivial on the columbia system and small average size of walleye).
Also man, tossing out a word like beaner is not going to stand anywhere. It's no better than any other racail slur. The only thing it shows is racism, which always spawns from ignorence due to lack of education. Please, for the sake of everyone, kick that type of attitude. I lived in eastern Washington for 18 years and have never had a negative run in with a mexican person. They make up doctors, lawyers and buisnessmen in my community.
I wanted to point out to you that it is well documented that the smallmouth bass fishing on the columbia and snake was far better before the dams ruined much the avalaible spawning/feeding habitat. Talk to any old biologist who has worked in this state before the 70's and the will re-iterate this to you.
Sharp, every statement you have made in your last post has been blatantly wrong. It is now your time to sit back and listen to what is being discussed here. There are some great minds at work on this issue.
Hear hear. The native fisheries are income generating (less so, but they are) and I may be labeled a fish racist here, but Bass are just nasty.
Forgive my ignorance, but are they native anywhere around here?
my favorite summer time fishery was small mouth bass at the gravel bars around almota on the snake. going down into the canyon when it was 100 up top and walking down the rail line to the well worn path out to the gravel bar was a summertime regular event. the SMB were always there in the current edges, hungry and ready to take a fly that came even close. what great fun that was as we dreamed about the snow and cold which would usher in the B's.
only memories now, nothing i could share with the grandkids 'cause 'we the people' have destroyed this part of our environment without a credable rationale. sad to say the least.
Zen-- While your heart is in the right place, your research apparently isn't. The remarks you made on walleye, smallmouth and largemouth bass aren't accurate. I don't mean this as an attack, but your statements don't represent the reality for these species or really apply to the dams on the Snake.
Walleyes in the lower Columbia are far above the "average" size for the species over much of its range-- with the exception of lakes Erie and Michigan. Besides which, walleyes and dams coexist quite well.
The Columbia and Snake never have been largemouth bass habitat, except for some of the sloughs in the lower river. As for smallies-- they're much like walleyes, and the idea that dams "destroy" habitat is ludicrous, especially spawning habitat and especially in the river-run reservoirs on the Snake. The slowing down of a river provides more spawning opportunities for smallmouth bass. Their spawning preference is for slower water that is oxygenated but not fast or swift. If you don't believe me, take a trip to the Hanford Reach when it opens and look at the places you'll find spawning and post-spawn smallies: it's in the sloughs and not the mainstem. The same applies to the Columbia: you'll find more fish spawning in the off-channel areas than in areas with moderate current.
As for the population of smallies in the Snake and Columbia--they're doing quite well. Hundred-fish days are common enough if you know the drill, and those are good-sized smallmouth in the two to six-pound size range.
I second Zen on the inappropriate nature of the word beaner. Three of my kids are Mexican/Guatemalan and I personally take offence.
As for warmwater fisheries. LMB do exceptionally poorly in the Columbia and Snake when compared to their natural environs. Its too cold for the sustained year 'round growth they achive in thier native environs.
Smallies fair much better, but Zen is 100% spot on about the smallies and Dams, at least on the Snake (which is the Dams of question for the most part in this thread). The Corps habitually fluctuates river levels at exactly the right time, exposing smallie nests to dry air for days at a time after the spawn. This same kind of "water jiggling" (by the BPA) left stranded, native and ESA listed, Chinook fry below Priest rapids. I remember speaking to the WDFW biologist counting stranded and dead fry in the puddles left in the bushes by Ringold.
In the Snake, there are few spawning tribs between Clarkston and Ice harbor. And most of those that are dry in the summer. The only innundated portions are the lower reaches which dewater with the reservoir draw downs. Ironically the mandated draw downs have provided some of the best smallies spawn in decades on the Snake.
I have family that has obsessively fished the Snake from Clarkston to LoMo for 40 years and they say the same thing Andy did, with regards to continued decline of smallies on the Snake.
That being said, much of the Columbia River and Hells Canyon are literally blue ribbon smallie fisheries.
Walleye, on the other hand, are a goddamn plague. I loved fishing for them in North Dakota, but they don't belong here. Sure enough they are certianly here to stay. One more reason to remove the dams.
It's all well and good that warmwater fish are popular. That doesn't mean I would trade one native steelhead for 10,000 bass.
I'm not a bass bigot or anything. I flyfish for smallies. And warmwater fish aren't the only ones. Folks have transported Brook trout, Brown trout and Rainbow into all kind of places they don't belong. And it was just as stupid.
My research is coming from the snake river arm and I believe its spot on, unless the biologists are not . Seems it has been backed up here. The point is the main warmwater draw to this area is smallmouth bass and the smallmouth bass fishing on the Snake River would be better if the dams were out. More importantly, the steelhead and salmon populations would benifit hugely from the removal. Instead of using all the knowlege to attempt to prove me wrong, why don't you throw it towards dam removal, even if just for the smallmouth's sake.
Its not like the walleye fishery would take a huge hit because the snake river never was a great producer of walleye, rather much stronger populations are seen in the cooler cleaner waters of the columbia arm of the system.
who cares how good smallmouth fishing was/is. They're non-native period. They have detrimental impacts on the native fauna and should go. Unfortunately thats not a reality, but the bottom line is this...there is ALOT more to a watershed than what a small group of sport anglers want.
BFK and sharp,
Will beat me to it...considering what is at stake...why should anybody care about non-native introduced warm water fish in the Columbia/Snake? These feral fish are a disease to the ecosystem. They DO NOT BELONG and are only hindering what is left.
Do either of you REALLY care about the few remaining wild salmon/steelhead of the snake basin? Based on your comments it appears you do not. While it is certainly your choice to bury your head into the ostrich hole...it doesn't change what has and is happening to them.
Interesting the way this seems to be going-- Zen, I'm not trying to prove you wrong, but I seriously doubt the bios who are claiming that the LMB fishery was hurt by the dams going in because the fishery, if it did exist, was pretty much infintisemal...and the same for the walleyes. Twenty years ago, the limited population of walleyes in the Snake was concentrated around Ice Harbor and not upstream. They are still establishing themselves in the system, so the claim that the dams have affected the average size is really confusing as the dams have been in the Snake longer than the 'eyes. As for smallies, you said the bios said the dams "destroyed" the spawning habitat, when in reality the increase in littoral zone increases the potential spawning habitat for this species. Whether the dams are operated or not to benefit smallmouth bass spawning is something else again.
Inland- You are way off base in your statement. The few who have shown concern for the bass and walleyes in this thread are Zen, David Dalan, and gt...I think that's the list.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy fishing for the spiny rays (they are fish afterall) but...
If my magic wand worked, I'd make the warm water fish dissapear (out of the Snake and Columbia) with the dams. But they're here to stay.
I have no objection to warm water fisheries in lakes with no outlet. It's good fun and many lakes in E WA are either (1) Artifical (I-84 ponds) or to damn hot for good trout populations.
i'm not very concerned about SMB. my post was only to illustrate that they were in the free flowing snake, above ice harbor and below hells canyon, in the 60s.
just to add to bfk's post, warm water fish prefer slower water as opposed to fast flowing water. walleyes do best around dams and hell the dams have not decreased their average size, if anything they help. there are alot of trophy walleye that come out of lake wallula and more and more are being caught as the population establishes itself. the smallmouth are probably the spiny ray that does the best out of all of them in faster water. but dams do not hurt largemouth because largemouth are lake fish or very slow river fish, they never have made much of a population in the columbia because by nature they just dont do well there.
I never said anything about the dams hurting or help LMB or Walleye. They are both lake fish and are not adapted to a river environment. They also do not belong on this side of the country. If you were fortunate to live in the tri cities area before the dams went it and could have seen handford reach in all its glory you wouldn't care much for spiny rays or walleye.
Yeah, warmwater fish health is a non-issue. They are non-native fish. The management of the hydro system (and its eventual removal) on the Snake is being done with regard to threatened/endangered endemic fish.
Wow good thread. Just curious, If the state and city can regulate what neighborhoods areas are allowed to sell cheap alcahol, require emission controls on all new vehicles, and tell me that I am only allowed to cross a street when a stupid light says I can even if it's 3:00 in the morning and there isn't a moving car within 200 miles of me.........Wouldn't it be a good idea to ban the sale of non-energy efficient appliances, lightbulbs ect. You would think if we cut our energy usage in half using technology we already have, that we could justify ripping down more than just the snake river dams.
I forget who posted it but someone mentioned that a river can only be trashed so much before it is impossible for it to recover or something like that. Keep in mind there are rivers and streams on the east coast that have literally "caught on fire" in the past because of pollution and now have small wild salmon runs. It's never too late to try to fix all the stuff our parents f-ed up.
Whats the word.........Thunderbird :rofl:
You can easily drop your electrical usage to 15% of current without affecting your current lifestyle. For most folks this means swapping out their electric stoves, coffee makers, hot water heaters, furnace for either propane or natural gas units.
A state initiative banning electric stoves, furnaces, coffee makers makes more sense than that silly one that required 15% wind and solar power.
It is more difficult to cut total energy usage. However, we can no longer afford to waste electricity heating air and water. Nor should we waste natural gas and oil to make electricity.
Unfortunately, the Snake River Dams are not coming out anytime soon. Hell, even Ronald Reagan could not get the Sierra Club and the city of San Francisco to remove Hetch Hetchy Dam in Yosemite National Park.
Didnt know Ronald Regan was such an environmentalist. Last I heard he supervised one of the most environmentally catastrophic periods in modern history. We can thank his environmental policies for the great summer run fishing Stilly, as well as the near extirpation of Coho and Chum salmon from the oregon coastal rivers.
Sounds like a bit of revisionist history here. Reagan was about as vicious an enemy of the environment as any governor of California ever was (or president of the US, for that matter). It was Reagan who said of a plan to preserve a significant acreage of old growth redwoods in a national park, instead of the tiny pocket park his supporters in the lumber business wanted: "a tree is a tree, how many more do you need to look at?"
While Reagan was President, his Secretary of Interior floated the idea that the Hetch Hetchy dam be removed. But there was no interest on the Administrations part to do so. It was a transparent move to try to cast the progressive and environmentally pro-active city of San Francisco as anti-environmental, because they knew that the Hetch Hetchy reservoir was San Francisco's primary municipal water supply and it could not consider its removal without some assurance of replacement.
For a bit of true history, as many of you no doubt know, the Sierra Club was founded by John Muir specifically to fight the construction of the dam in Hetch Hetchy. No environmental group would like better to see it removed, but they also realized that it could not be done without providing San Francisco with an alternate source of water.
Regan the environmentalist.