I oppose the killing of sealions. If they consume too many salmon, nature will ensure either a lower reproduction rate or the sealions will serch elsewhere for their food. Isn't the true concern about competing with the sealions for the salmon? We deplete more life from the oceans than sealions ever will. Perhaps we can simply consume less salmon.

I oppose the killing of sealions. I think with our current human obesity rate, people should just consume less and let the animals be.

I highly favor killing sea lions at the dam - at the heads of rivers and anywhere else they invade on the salmon population. Finally, someone is actually getting to the source of the problem. The sea lions have been a protected species and our headwaters are overrun with these critters! Ever take a look at Netarts Bay in Tillamook County or the docks in Newport? These guys are just sitting there waiting for a free lunch. The salmon depletion has been blamed on poor logging practices, but the sea lions are a far greater cause of this depletion.

YES WE COUNT ON THE FISH FOR FOOD.ALSO THE SEA LIONS DO NOT HAVE LEANGTH REQUIREMENTS ON STURGON THEY GO AFTER THE SLOWER BIGGER FISH. LAST WEEK MY FATHER AND I WATCHED THEM TEAR APART A 8 TO 9 FOOT STURGON AT THE DAM. PLEASE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS PROBLEM . 7 YEARS AGO THE SEALIONS DID NOT GO THAT FAR UP THE RIVER. THEY NEED NOT BE THERE

If we are going to kill whatever might eat salmon when is our turn? I'm sure that sea lions are not the main cause of the shortage of salmon.

I oppose the killing of sea lions as well. It seems the first time I
heard about the sea lions "fishing" for salmon, it was the
fishermen that objected to the "competition". How quick are
we to interfere with nature. Perhaps if the salmon did not have
to confront our dams the sea lions would not be able to catch
their prey as easily as they seem to. Constraint is called for,
anytime anyone interferes with nature an imbalance is created,
with the only solution ever being VIOLENCE! Enough already.

yes they need to kill some off.

As a retired professional (Licencesed) fishing
guide the state of WA & AK I have seen what a
herd of sea lions can do to a salmon or a
steelhead run. Literally killing the run. What
few fish that were left to spawn do what they
can. Some 8 to 12 years later these runs would
gradually start to rebuilld them selves. They have killed or severly ruined runs of salmon and
steelhead. I,m all for relieving the pressure on the fish by reducing their numbers by killing to
thin down the numbers. P.S. the ones in the Cowlitz had problems with the locals.

I don't think that we should kill these creatures its just not right you can move them but killing them isn't the best thing. They are getting killed in Alaska. So I don't think Washington should start this, and yes we do need salmon but salmon isn't the only fish in the only fish in the world I also no its are state fish but theres other Salmon in Washington and just not only at Bonneville Dam! If you really want them gone then just let them take there time to die off. I don't think we should be in a rush on this! Any ways I don't think now is the time!

I whole heartedly favor the lethal removal of Sea Lions at Bonneville Dam. The Sea Lions have become a very huge threat to the Salmon and Sturgeon that gather in the area below the fishway. The fish become concentrated, and therefore are easy pickings for these voracious Sea Lions. I have witnessed Sea Lions coming to the surface with Salmon and Huge Sturgeon, and this has to come to a stop, Kill Them!!
Do we have to suffer the same consequences that the Steelhead runs that passed through Ballard Locks in Seattle? Thier runs of Endangered Winter Steelhead were virtually wiped out by Sea Lions. I only hope that 85 Sea Lions removed, will be enough to make an inpact.

As a retired professional (Licencesed) fishing
guide the state of WA & AK I have seen what a
herd of sea lions can do to a salmon or a
steelhead run. Literally killing the run. What
few fish that were left to spawn do what they
can. Some 8 to 12 years later these runs would
gradually start to rebuilld them selves. They have killed or severly ruined runs of salmon and
steelhead. I,m all for relieving the pressure on the fish by reducing their numbers by killing to
thin down the numbers. I have seen them up to the I-5 bridge in the Cowlitz R. Causing the season to be closed,this was in 1994 P.S. the ones in the Cowlitz had problems with bad water or something.

As a retired professional (Licencesed) fishing
guide the state of WA & AK I have seen what a
herd of sea lions can do to a salmon or a
steelhead run. Literally killing the run. What
few fish that were left to spawn do what they
can. Some 8 to 12 years later these runs would
gradually start to rebuilld them selves. They have killed or severly ruined runs of salmon and
steelhead. I,m all for relieving the pressure on the fish by reducing their numbers by killing to
thin down the numbers. I have seen them up to the I-5 bridge in the Cowlitz R. Causing the season to be closed,this was in 1994 P.S. the ones in the Cowlitz had problems with bad water or something.

i think they should kill all the sea lions that enter columbia because they are called (SEA) lions they are ment to stay in the sea not the rivers, also i spoted 3 sea lions killing off the sturgeon breeders at boniville dam

Hey .. if they can kill parakeets because they are a nuisance .. why not be able to kill off some sealions ?

Keep in mind that our species didn't fight itself to the top of the foodchain to become wimps.

IMHO, where are the sea lion experts? Good points have been made about why "Sea" lions are inhabiting non-"sea" waters? Something must be causing the sea-lions to be migrating to river waters. This is what should be addressed. Other techniques for removing sea lions from salmon waters need to be explored. Has anyone considered donating sea lions to aquariums around the world, rather than killing them? I agree with creating a better environment for salmon to flourish, but not at the expense of killing sea lions. More research has to be undertaken.

Allow the nearby native tribes first rights to conduct a sanctioned controlled hunt so the animals are removed in a traditional manner and used in a traditional way.

Humans are not allowed to kill or harvest or even purposly target native runs. We only kill and take hatchery salmon and while we do catch and release many native fish, sea lions are not so conservative. Many rivers in the northwest are closed during certain times of year as well as certain stretches of some river to protect wild spawning runs. I do not fish much because I spend most of my time hunting but anyone who has followed the issue for the last few years knows what needs to be done. Killing Sea Lions wont be the end of the world folks!

We have to long spared the sea lions and the time has come to spare the salmon and steelhead.
The Ballard locks was a fiasco from start to
finish and the game department had no say so
because the do gooders blocked the killing.they
will be the downfall of our country.

Between the Sea Lions and the Turns, I am surprised there are any salmon left. I live at the mouth of the Columbia River. We used to have huge salmon runs, now it is virtually nothing due to these 2 invasive elements. Reduce the predators and save the salmon now. Turn the problem over to the fish & game department, that is their job. Save the salmon!

Please, please, let us not kill those innocent little sea lions that have done nothing wrong and are just trying to survive in nature. What right do we have to kill these little creatures that have done nothing more than to do what sea lions do – eat fish.
Instead, lets reserve our killing for those little globs of fetal tissue who will grow uncontrollably into unwanted infants who will, if left to develop, put a damper on our selfish plans and free lifestyle
Yes, life will certainly be much simpler when we leave the sea lions alone and concentrate on the legal pre-birth elimination of human beings.

i think a few sealions should be harvested,we have to remember it is an eco system out there and it would do no good to protect one species if it contributes to the extinction of another

Protection for sea lions has been overdone for many years. Now other species are paying the price. It has been a problem in many areas like Seattle, Hood Canal , Quilcene, Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound. I say the Indians have the RIGHT to shoot them ,,,,,,,,,can I buy you some bullets to help save the Northwest.

Enough !!!! Those sealions are not EATING the fish; they play with the fish, take one bite, and throw the fish. Some of you people need to get a brain. I don't fish or hunt and I am fully aware of the problem with over-protected sealions. The liberal protectors have made their own monster but refuse to admit it. KILL the sealions now. There is NO alternative. Everything else has been laughingly useless for years.

I don't see that the Sealions are endangered are endangered in any way. It seems obvious that the salmon are at a great disadvantage against these vorasious predators. Please remove these killers so the salmon can have a chance to survive.

i think that they should shoot the sea lions cause nature needs a balance...too much predators will kill of a spices. and us humans have done this all ready

When it comes to the point of save the fish or save the sea lions the sea lions must be controled.Should this mean killing some of the trouble makers so be it. Look what they have done to San Franscisco's waterfront and docks the stench and agressiveness of these sea lions needs to be brought under control. The wildlife agents have tried everything humanly possible to deture them from the fish ladders and to no avail. Now is the time to reduce and manage their numbers to protect our diminished fish runs. If not, LOOK no more fish.........

After being on the river and seeing the sea lions return AFTER being trapped and removed, it is time to take stronger measures. I have talked to fisherman that have had there catch taken by a sea lion, it is only a matter of time before one try's to come in a boat after a fish and someone really gets hurt. I have no problem with them finally getting to remove them for good. Again, they are not getting ride of all of them, just a few. Go For It!

These Sea Lions have been feasting on these endangered species for years now and it's about time someone opened their eyes to offer help to our beloved Chinook. Sea Lions do not belong 145 miles up the Columbia in front of a dam to find their food.

Sea lions 145 miles from the sea feasting on anadromous fish forced to concentrate in a tiny portion of the river ( to ascend a fish ladder ) is not a natural situation. Killing some sea lions, although not desirable, seems a reasonable effort to attempt to rebalance the situation.

After making every attempt to relocate the Sealions and failing then killing them is the only option We need to have balance and the salmon deserve to be able to return home and
spawn as they have for many, many years.
This is fair and keeps balance in nature.

we should take the sea lion's skills and use them to our own end. we could capture them and train them to have a taste for the snake-head fish from asia, then release them into waterways that are being plagued by those alien fish. they are much better fishermen than we are.

Eliminating all the sea lions (note they are not river lions) upriver is a start; it would greatly aid the vital salmon and sturgeon populations.
Further action should be taken at Yaquina Bay and other areas where sea lions destroy docks and damage boats and navigation aids.

YES very few salmon left-our top choice forhealthy protein.NettingNETTING!! & transporting to polar bear country,nature can take its course-bears are starving & becoming extinct-stupid with all this food down here.Christian humans are custodians of their fellow creatures. no longer endangered,sea lions are top carnivores with us-no predators. They don't just eat salmon-any kind of fish. Salmon is so rare it's too expensive for poor people,but we should eat it instead of hamburger.humans especially politicians need to react much quicker.With few fish left in the river many people are out of work & the gov. could pay fishermen to transport these animals further northNETTING-catch & release will eliminate the timeconsuming debate &bickering

Yes, they need to be killed along with some seals. I remember when you could go fishing in the puget sound area and now at low tide all you can see is seals and sea lions. Its time to kill some. It was great when you could catch a few salmon!!!!

I think it's more important to protect the salmon than sacrifice the sea lions. Wild salmon runs everywhere on the Western Coast of America need to be protected. The benefits of this industry and the health benefits of the wild salmon outweigh sympathy for the killing of sea lions. Mankinds' removal of the Grizzly has left the sea lions without a threat on the rivers thus leaving us as the sole protectors of the salmon (ironic I know). We also need to rein in fish farms which are also contributing to the decline in healthy wild salmon. What is really strange here, is the fact our Vice President, Dick Cheney, still holds the record for the largest wild salmon fish kill in history (70,000 in 2002 on the Klamath) and nobody has held hearings as to what punishment he should get. Maybe his punishment should be: sit in a dinghy in the river and scare off the sea lions every season until if and when such time the salmon make a comeback!

I believe that all 85 sea lions should be killed each year. Transplanting them obviously does not work- they come back, or others take their places.
If salmon are such a valuable resource to the environment, which they are, we should be doing all in our power to protect them before it's too late. The sea lions seem to also be preying on other species in the rivers rather than in the salt, where they belong.

I favor killing the sea lions. In the rivers, they have no natural predators other than humans. It's time we stepped up dealt with our responsibility at being the top of the food chain. It's the natural way. Left alone, they will drive salmon/steelhead/sturgeon to extinction.

Any sea lion east of a line across the mouth of the Columbia should be eliminated. There should also be a harvest of any sea lion found at the mouth of any river entering salt water. Finally any sea lion which creates a nusiance as in using docks,piers or bouys for resting places should also be harvested.

Its rediculous to call the sea lions a problem. the human race has depleted the oceans supply of fish, and anyone that argues that can explain why there is a need for fish farms to refill the waters and why we are not allowed to catch and keep native fish-only hatchery. So, the hatchery scandals isnt working, so lets blame our failure on the sealions. the only reason they become a problem is because they are following the depleted food source up the rivers. Go out and kill off the commercial fisheries that kill off anything in their nets and throw the run off that rots off the side-or out the backs of their boats. If you want to kill, kill the problem, not the innocent effected animals. America is out of control and these sick people in office only want to line the pockets of their sup[porters who donate KILL profits to the cause.

Kill them All they don't belong in the rivers. Make gill netting illegal and maybe the sealions will stay at the mouth of the river. Most civilised countries banned gill netting years ago

Why would the government pay the fees to kill them off, when relocating them is cheaper? If they are killed , what people dont realize is that the bodies are collected and then autopsy then disposal, which comes to about 200K. The other Two West coast states have this on record, why does Oregon hide it with the approval of washington state?

This pic shows a simple and safe conclusion on relocating them. Why do we not put a few of these in the river? They are cheap to rent, and possibly use the "HIT MAN" money to build some and save the grief?

This pic (click on my name link below)shows a simple and safe conclusion on relocating them. Why do we not put a few of these in the river? They are cheap to rent, and possibly use the "HIT MAN" money to build some and save the grief">This pic shows a simple and safe conclusion on relocating them. Why do we not put a few of these in the river? They are cheap to rent, and possibly use the "HIT MAN" money to build some and save the grief click on my name for the pics--This pic shows a simple and safe conclusion on relocating them. Why do we not put a few of these in the river? They are cheap to rent, and possibly use the "HIT MAN" money to build some and save the grief">

The Sea Lions are Predators, Intelligent, and will eat what and where it is easiest. They have learned from each other that the river location provides easy food, and the naive humans use harmless noise and rubber bullets, so there is no danger. We put the salmon at increased danger, therefore we need to protect them. The Predator/SeaLions will learn that it is lethal, dangerous, to eat in the river. They will quit, they are intelligent.

We tried capture and moving, that worked for as long as it took the Sea Lion to swim back from California. That is documented.

We taught them to eat in the river, we need to teach them not to.

Don't listen to the people who think with their emotions, their thoughts are as unstable as their emotions.

Although I do believe in natural selection and letting nature take it's course, I think that humans have already interfered in this aspect by protecting the sealions. Now we should at least maintain a balance as both humans and sealions depend on this commodity for food. As Walt had mentioned above, we have nearly overfished the salmon pop and it is in our best interest to promote the replenishment of this food source.

This is one review of the misstatements regarding loss of salmon populations.
SalmonAA

SAVING THE SALMON AND THE SMALL WATER USER
EACH CONSIDERED AN ENDANGERED OR THREATHENED SPECIES.

This is an opinion of the waters and salmon of the Yakima River area and reference to the Columbia River Watershed. It covers the enhancement of the waters and salmon habituate, which can benefit the many water users as well as the salmon.

The writer of this page is neither an irrigator/farmer nor a commercial fisher nor does he have any personal ambitions for or against either.

THE PAST:
It is necessary to review the past as well as the future. Some considerations are given to the conditions and changes and their causes from 100 years ago up to the present. Reference is often made to the fish populations in the 1800s

These activities started in the 1800s and have continued since:
1. Commercial offshore, river, and inlet fishing.
2. Europeans introduced gill net fishing.
3. Railroads and slope protection.
4. Highways and slope protection.
5. Diversion structures with erosion protection.
6. Flood control dikes, etc. with slope protection.
7. Power boats

In the late 1800’s there was little irrigation and few water controls and well as relatively little effect on the natural watersheds. However, this is when the future of the salmon populations first became a concern.

There were those who tried, a number of times, to get others to understand the causes and results of the loss of salmon populations.

The primary cause was over-fishing.
1. Sometimes to the affect that many tons of the fish were wasted.
2. Little was done to curb the fishing.
3. Some use of the drag seine net was cut.
4. Eventually the water wheels were outlawed.
5. There were a number attempts to outlaw the gill nets.

Since then:
I. The northern perch pike and bass, each a native fish, has been indicated as a predator of fry but, and government pays for riddance of the perch pike but nothing done about the alien, ferocious walleye.
II. Roza Dam fish ladder had silted up in the 60s or 70s and Fisheries and the Bureau of Reclamation wasted time arguing on who was responsible to clean it out, .... finally private sports clubs took the initiative.
III. New concrete in new fish ladders discouraged fish from entering the ladder.
IV. The many gravel ponds along side and for Interstate highways in the 60s & 70s(I-90, I-82, I-84, I-182).
V. Also in the 60’s & 70’s gravel ponds for highway construction were dewatered by pumping directly into rivers.
VI. Channel changes were made for realigning the river.
VII. City of Ellensburg garbage dump closed but not removed or treated.
VIII. Mt. St. Helens caused a big loss of fish in 1980 - 1990. Instant turbidity and continued erosion of ash for years. Some still exists on the ground.
IX. The use of gill nets is opposed by many.
X. Commercial fishing continues with little concern for conservation.
XI. The amount of canned salmon doubled in 1986 to 1988 over previous average.
XII. Mount St. Helens dropped millions of tone of ash into rivers and streams as well as other areas that continue to erode the ash into the streams.
XIII. The number of gill net permits increased from 600 in 1969 to 1500 in 1979 and more continue to be used.
XIV. Terns were blamed for consuming 100,000’s of juvenile salmon. Terns are part of government wildlife.
XV. Save the steelhead and bull trout was primarily for commercial fishing and the sportsman.
XVI. Commercial harvests of salmon reportedly went from >500,000 in the mid-70’s to o in 1994 to a few 1000 from 1995 to 1998 to 100,000’s in the last year.
XVII. Coho commercial catch from 2.5 million in 1976 to a few 1000 in 97 to the great populations in the present migrations.

THE PRESENT

It a is difficult to describe the present conditions due to the variety of forced changes and many meetings, hearings, studies, other reports and expenditure of time, effort, and funds.

It is estimated that 25 % of the Yakima River Banks have been negatively altered by government funded or government sponsored projects. At a minimum width of only 50 feet, this is about 500 acres. If areas beyond 50 feet were included, this total area would double in size.

These projects, however affected not only the immediately areas but also other changes to some extent, up stream, and to a greater extent, down stream.

Upstream are additional deposits of sands and gravels with some flooding. This leaves shallow waters which produce higher temperature. These areas are also subject to quick changes in flow channels due to any high flow. These changes can cover a redd or erode a redd away.

Down Stream changes are usually erosion of bands and added deposits of sands and gravels. The erosion can occur within the waterway as well as along the banks. The results are the creation of “holes” or the filling of these deeper areas.

Besides the shallow areas affecting temperature, the loss of vegetation and addition of large rock and concrete, add to the losses of temperature controls. The rock & concrete not only change the stream flow but; for a short depth they reflect more heat into the subsurface water, and also reflect the radiant heat into the water from the shorelines. There are methods to alter conditions in these areas to provide for the establishment of vegetation. These may not be best for trees. But bushes, shrubs and grasses can be developed and would not injure the protection to the background provided by the material structures.

Some causes of decline of populations that are rarely mentioned and corrections which could be immediately effective as means to provide for the salmon populations. This does not cover all aspects but attempts to include ideas that are thrown about around by some government agencies and environmental groups.

Number of cans of salmon doubled in 1986 - 1988 over previous average. Obviously lacking the controls on over fishing.

Mount St. Helens dropped millions of tons of ash into rivers and streams and in other areas that eroded into the streams & rivers for years.

The number of gill net permits raised from 600 in 1969 to 1500 in 1979 and there certainly more than that now.

Terns became a noted problem; consuming 100,000s of juvenile salmon. Those terns are under the governments control or lack thereof.

Save the Steelhead and Bull trout seems to be primarily for the commercial fishing and for the Sportsman

Commercial harvests of salmon reportedly went from >500,000 in mid 70, to 0 in 1994 to a few 1000 1995-98 to a 100,000’s this year.

Coho - commercial from~2.5 million in 76 to a few 1000 in 97 to the great populations in the present migrations..

To help the salmon runs:

(1) Restrict the commercial fishing and outlaw gill nets until salmon populations show improvement.

(2) Reestablish the vegetation along the rivers. There are hundreds of miles of shore lines that have had vegetation replaced by bare rock riprap slopes. This riprap was placed for railroads, highways, local roads, flood control, water diversions, and other riverside projects.

The vegetation affects all of the elements that fish need and use -
a. Shade from the daytime sun

b. pH control from the decaying of the leaves, old plants and trees and roots of plants that are washed into the streams.

c. Oxygen, the swirling and splash of water passing around and against the vegetation, imparts air (oxygen) into the water.

d. Shelter for fish that are feeding and/or spawning.

e. Food; insects from on and in the foliage, stems, in and around the roots and richer soils provided by the existence of vegetation.

f. Temperature control by shade in the summer and open to the sun in winter.

THE PRESENT:
Difficult to describe as the variety of implied conditions. Estimate 25% of Yakima River banks have been negatively altered by government or government sponsored projects. At a minimum 50 feet width this is about 500 acres. If other areas beyond the 50 feet were included, this total area would likely double in size.

These projects, however affected not only the immediately areas but also other changes to some extent, up stream, and to a greater extent, down stream.

Upstream is do to some flooding which causes sands and gravels layers to build up, leaving shallow waters which produce higher temperature. These areas are also subject to quick changes in flow channels due to any high flow. These changes can cover a redd or erode a redd away.

Down Stream changes are usually erosion of bands and added deposits of sands and gravels. The erosion can occur within the waterway as well as along the banks. The results are the creation of “holes” or the filling of these deeper areas.

Besides the shallow areas affecting temperature, the loss of vegetation and addition of large rock and concrete, add to the losses of temperature controls. The rock & concrete not only change the stream flow but; for a short depth they reflect more heat into the subsurface water, and also reflect the radiant heat into the water from the shorelines. There are methods to alter conditions in these areas to provide for the establishment of vegetation. These may not be best for trees. But bushes, shrubs and grasses can be developed and would not injure the protection to the background provided by the material structures.

Other areas should be planted with trees, bushes, shrubs and grasses.

This vegetation will help provide control for all facets of fish habituate:
1. Temp control by shade in the summer and open to the sun in the winter.
2. Erosion control by the roots and reduced water flow along the banks.
3. pH control by the decomposition of any vegetation including leaves and old logs.
4. Helps to induce oxygen into the water by mixing water splashing and swirling the plants and collecting air.
5. Greatly improves the food supply. Insects on the limbs and foliage, in the stems, around and in the roots and in the improved ground conditions.
6. reduces solar radiation in resting and feeding areas.
7. Provides security for fish resting and feeding

The following are included:
1. Pages 32-34 from a study by the USF&WS.
2. An opinion of gill nets.
3. Article of Yakima Nation members refusing alternate fishing methods.
4. Correspondence, and attachments, with Wesley Ebel, Ph.D., co-author of a study sponsored by the USCoE.
5. A page from Ebel’s study given some numerical information on volumes of salmon taken.
6. A list of positive aspects of ponds within the affected watersheds.
7. Miscellaneous articles

Item 1. is part of a study and report by the USF&WS: Bull Trout Interim Conservation Guidance, December 9, 1998. This is included because bull trout require water conditions most similar to that of salmon and the bull trout live in the same waters as do the salmon. The primary reason for this inclusion is to reinforce a recommended treatment to help the salmon, i.e., reestablishment of riparian zones along the effective streams.

A number of reports have suggested this treatment, but I have not seen any actual replacement programs in action, in the field, to restore the stream bank vegetation. The bull trout report makes numerous references to the need for this work.

Item 2. Found on the Internet and reference books relative to the dangers of gill nets. Anyone who has gone fishing and hung a fish on a stringer knows the fish dies in a short time and if left for several hours, the fish will begin to rot.
The gill nets that I have seen on the Columbia River are not drawn more than 2 times a day. At times many are apparently not drawn for a day or more.

Travel between the Tri-Cities and the Portland areas a number of times a year. There relatively many nets on the river now. Over the years; noted were 3 boats working the nets one time, 2 boats working 2 times, and one boat four times.

A decline in sturgeon has been noticed, in the 4 to 6 feet range, between John Day an McNary Dams; since the numbers of gill nets have increased. Almost none in the 24 inch to 40 inch. When a fish is captured by a gill net it is killed in a short time. The net catches the fin in the gills, causing the fish to bleed and to suffocate. The gill nets are killers.

Item 3. An article by the Yakima Indian Nation on an effort to use methods in place of the gill nets to allow the fish to survive for a longer. This provides a chance to return many of the fish back to the water alive. As the articles reports, the Native fishermen declined the proposal. Gill nets are obviously easier. The Native Tribes along the various streams talk conservation and revival of some species, but few practice logical methods.

Item 4. Attachments of portions of a study for the Corps; Saving The Salmon.

Item 5. a page from Ebel’s report indicating the increase in salmon catch in the 1976 to 1996 era which is reported as the ultimate disastrous loss of salmon populations.

Item 6. A list of some positive aspects of ponds within the affected watersheds. There are agencies and others having more expensive meeting and studies on ways to increase water storage. Others are fighting the existence and development of ponds. More wasted time and money.

THE FUTURE:

Do something constructive, now, not after more meetings, studies, hearing and reports.
Limit fishing
No gill nets:

Save the Steelhead and Bull trout seems to be primarily for the commercial fishing and for the Sportsman

Commercial harvests of salmon reportedly went from >500,000 in mid 70, to 0 in 1994 to a few 1000 1995-98 to a 100,000’s this year.

Coho - commercial from~2.5 million in 76 to a few 1000 in 97 to the great populations in the present migrations..

Will the proponents of dam removals or restricting irrigation guarantee the implied success of the salmon runs? And will they also guarantee that the overall benefit will be positive? Will they back these guarantees with their own money and/or other viable assets?

Those who use words such as breach the dams or open the dams and other light phrases are talking with crooked tongues. It is logical and easy to understand that holes in the dams or merely opening the flood gates will not be the final chapter. Once the fish people get what they seem to want; they or others who are lined up behind them, will want the dams and everything that went with the dams removed also. The dams and the power lines and towers and the irrigation facilities will then be called worthless giant monstrosities, eyesores, ugly monuments, still a determent to the rivers flow, still a determent to the fish, etc? These will be the follow-up targets.

They are using a tactic that now seems to be a favorite of many public agencies in dealing with the public or any private entity. First they want some relatively small thing, something that would be easier to sell. Once they get that accepted, they add a little more, and a little more again; like any slick salesman. Once they get enough of their plot begrudgingly accepted; they lower the boom, and you then begin to get an idea of what the full plan is. But it's too late "we've gone too far to turn back", they'll say. They can not and will not deal openly and honestly.

The Idaho Rivers United from Southern Idaho want those dams destroyed, but mention nothing of the dams and other obstructions in their area; C. J. Strike, Bliss, Idaho Falls, American Falls, Twin Falls, Walcott, on the Snake; and the Ririe, Anderson Ranch, Magic, Palisades, Lucky Peak, Black Canyon, etc., etc.. They are not totally honest nor fair about their wants. They are apparently another of the self serving groups?

The final costs will be in the multi-billions not merely a few million or a billion dollars they want us to assume.

LOSSES TO DISMANTLE DAMS ON THE SNAKE RIVER OR ELSEWHERE

Costs will exceed the original costs to construct the dams:

These are some of the added costs and losses:

1. Establish pollution prevention controls for the river in the area of the dams and reservoirs..

2. Remove the Megatons of hardware - generators, gates, power control systems, power cables, steel platforms, steel frames, concrete reinforcement, railings, motors, etc..

3. Remove support roads and ramps.

4. Remove earthen sections.

5. Dispose of concrete rubble.

6. Dispose of earthen materials.

7. Removal and disposal of pollution prevention devises.

8. Removal and disposal of power lines.

9. Removal and disposal of power-line towers.

10. Removal and disposal of concrete footings.

11. Restoration of shorelines.

12. Control of erosion along new shorelines from silt deposits now underwater.

13. Administrative costs (job security for some).

14. Continued maintenance of the environmental controls and the many other items left in place.

15. Control of slides and soils sloughing into the river and tributaries during draw-down.

16. Reclaiming the land at the dam site and all other "disturbed areas".

Other Losses:

1. Higher electrical costs to consumers.

2. Costs to construct new power sources to replace the dams

3. Loss of use of electrical power for the impoverished and small business due to higher costs.

4. Loss of recreation resources on and along the reservoirs.

5. Loss to marina and other commercial facilities.

6. Higher costs to pump irrigation waters from the river.

7. Loss of agriculture along the present shorelines.

8. Loss of transportation of agricultural products and other materials on the river

9. Loss of flood control.

10. High financial and human losses due to lack of flood control.

11. Control of insects and odor from stagnate pools in draw-down areas.

12. Removal and transport of fish and other waterlife from pools left by draw-downs.

13. Loss of irrigated farm lands and businesses associated with the farm operations.

14. Reestablishment of recreation areas and and facilities along the new shoreline.

15. Loss of permanent long-term jobs in all of the above fields.

16. Other... ?

More concerns:

Who would get the excess lands, that would be left out of the water? Lands that we spent millions for to construct the dams and to provide room for the backwaters.

This is perhaps a diversion by the proponents to achieve approval of some lesser but still radical changes at the expense of taxpayers, rate payers and/or rivers benefits users .

There is a need to consider the negative aspects vs. positive aspects of the dams for everybody affected.

Ignoring the normal advance of evolution; does not stop it from continuing.

The population and industrial growth in the Northwest will require even more power resources. Power now sold out of the area will need to be returned as the area grows. More power will be needed to pump water the addition heights from the river.

Loss of the power resources also affects other areas that now buy the electrical power from the Northwest. The loss of this power source will have to be replaced. They will have more coal burning, more oil burning, more generators in the tidal zones, more dams in someone else’s backyard.

Humans and human affects are part of the natural element; part of the environment.

To help the salmon runs:

(1) Restrict the commercial fishing until salmon populations show improvement.

(2) Reestablish the vegetation along the rivers. There are hundreds of miles of shore lines that have had vegetation replaced by bare rock riprap slopes. This riprap was placed for railroads, highways, local roads, flood control, water diversions, and other riverside projects.

The vegetation affects all of the elements that fish need and use -
a. Shade from the daytime sun
b. pH control from the decaying of the leaves, old plants and trees and roots of plants that are washed into the streams.
c. Oxygen, the swirling and splash of water passing around and against the vegetation, imparts air (oxygen) into the water.
d. Shelter for fish that are feeding and/or spawning.
e. Food; insects from on and in the foliage, stems, in and around the roots and richer soils provided by the existence of vegetation.
f. Temperature control by shade in the summer and open to the sun in winter.

The various government agencies are responsible for 99+% of this shoreline construction including providing lands and funds and approvals for the projects.

Was the word gill used to describe native fishing rights in the various treaties?

Will the proponents guarantee the implied success of the salmon runs by the removal of the dams? And will they also guarantee that the overall benefit will be positive? Will they back these guarantees with their own money and/or other viable assets?

Save the Steelhead and Bull trout for the Sportsman

Commercial harvests from >500,000 in mid 70, to 0 in 1994 to a few 1000 1995-98

Coho - commercial from~2.5 million in 76 to a few 1000 in 97.

Reference is often made to the fish populations in the 1800s

These started in the 1800s and have continued since:
1. Commercial offshore fishing.
2. Europeans introduced gill net fishing.
3. Railroads and slope protection.
4. Highways and slope protection.
5. Diversion structures with erosion protection.
6. Flood control dikes, etc. with slope protection.
7. Power boats

Since then:
8. Walleye not indicated as a predator of fry.
9. Roza Dam fish ladder silted up in the 60s or 70s and Fisheries and bureau
argued about who was responsible to clean it out, .... finally private sports
clubs took the initiative.
10. New concrete in new fish ladders discouraged fish from entering the ladder.
11. The many gravel ponds for Interstate highways in the 60s & 70s(I-90, I-82, I-84, I-182).
12. Highway gravel ponds were dewatered by pumping into rivers for excavation.
13. Channel changes.
14. City of Ellensburg garbage dump.
15. Mt. St. Helens caused a big loss of fish in 1980 - 1990. Instant turbidity and
continued erosion of ash for years. Some still exists on the ground.

RE: HELP THE SALMON AND CITIZENS

I feel that too much time, effort, and money has been spent on what to do and studies on what has happened, is happening, and might happen. We need some real action; now. I feel that the BPA is the most people-conscious of the many entities involved and should have the lead in getting something positive done - NOW.

I am pointing to some causes that are rarely mentioned and some immediately effective means to provide for the salmon populations. This does not cover all aspects but attempts to include ideas that are thrown about around by some government agencies and environmental groups.

I have attached copies of information issued by government and private entities to better define some of the opinions given here.

The following are included:
1. Pages 32-34 from a study by the USF&WS.
2. An opinion of gill nets.
3. Article of Yakima Nation members refusing alternate fishing methods.
4. Correspondence, and attachments, with Wesley Ebel, Ph.D., co-author of a study sponsored by the USCoE.
5. A page from Ebel’s study given some numerical information on volumes of salmon taken.
6. A list of positive aspects of ponds within the affected watersheds.
7. Miscellaneous articles

Item 1. is part of a study and report by the USF&WS: Bull Trout Interim Conservation Guidance, December 9, 1998. This is included because bull trout require water conditions most similar to that of salmon and the bull trout live in the same waters as do the salmon. The primary reason for this inclusion is to reinforce a recommended treatment to help the salmon, i.e., reestablishment of riparian zones along the effective streams.

A number of reports have suggested this treatment, but I have not seen any actual replacement programs in action, in the field, to restore the stream bank vegetation. The bull trout report makes numerous references to the need for this work.

Item 2. Is one of several opinions I found on the Internet relative to the dangers of gill nets. Anyone who has gone fishing and hung a fish on a stringer knows the fish dies in a short time and if left for several hours, the fish will begin to rot.
The gill nets that I have seen on the Columbia River are not drawn more than 2 times a day. At times many are apparently not drawn for a day or more.

I travel between the Tri-Cities and the Portland areas a number of times a year. There relatively many nets on the river now. Over the years; I have seem 3 boats working the nets one time, I have seen 2 boats working 2 times, and one boat four times.

I and other fisherman have noticed the decline in sturgeon, in the 4 to 6 feet range, between John Day and McNary Dams; since the numbers of gill nets have increased. When a fish is captured by a gill net it is killed in a short time. The net catches the fin in the gills, causing the fish to bleed and to suffocate. The nets are killers.

Item 3. Is an article by the Yakima Indian Nation on an effort to use methods in place of the gill nets to allow the fish to survive for a longer. This provides a change to return many of the fish to the streams alive. As the articles reports, the Native fishermen declined the proposal. Gill nets are easier. The Native Tribes along the various streams talk conservation, but few practice logical methods.

Item 4. Correspondence, and attachments, with Wesley Ebel, Ph.D., coauthor of a study for the Corps; Saving The Salmon.

Item 5. A copy of a page from Ebel’s report indicating the increase in salmon catch in the 1976 to 1996 era which is reported as the ultimate disastrous loss of salmon populations.

Item 6. Is a list of some positive aspects of ponds within the affected watersheds. The are agencies and others having more expensive meeting and studies on ways to increase water storage. Others are fighting the existence and development of ponds. More wasted time and money.

Item 7. These are general items on the subject.

I feel that (1) a 50% reduction in the total commercial catch limits for 3 years, (2) the immediate elimination of gill nets, and (3) immediate start of streamside vegetation restoration programs; would begin to provide improvement for the salmons habituate and populations in a relatively, very short time.

Many areas along the Snake and Columbia Rivers were barren areas even before the construction of the dams, roads and other structures. But there are many areas where the was vegetation and more areas now where vegetation would survive if the funds and the work were applied to the many new areas.

I have lived within the Yakima River watershed Snoqualmie Pass to Roza Dam and many more areas down to it confluence with the Columbia River. I would estimate that 25 percent of the Rivers stream banks are partially or totally bare of vegetation. With a average width of only 50 feet; this would be some 500 acres. Many areas could be extended to include many more acres.

Reestablishment of vegetation in these areas would add a large natural control factor to the betterment of the water of the Yakima River. This would also be applicable to other streams in this, as well as other watersheds. Consider the River Basins of the Wenatchee , Willamette, John Day, Deschutes, Klickitat, Cowlitz, Clearwater, and the many other rivers.

The NMFS has stated that it doesn’t know real numbers on adult salmon populations. I suggest that this most negligent on their part. Also; that they be removed from part of the conservation effort as they “control” the commercial fisheries, which are a large part of the problem; and but do not seem to be able to manage these operations.

I hope that BPA can help implement some positive actions in the field, besides studies, hearing and other expensive, useless noisemaking.

Benefits of Ponds in Lowland Areas

1. Additional water storage for flooding, irrigation and stream flows; perhaps
5,000 acre feet in Kittitas County

2. A settlement basin for erosion from overland flows during rainstorms and
snowmelt.

3. Dilution for septic system discharges.

4. Help moderate rapid temperature changes in streams

5. Added wetlands

6. Added fish habitat

7. Provides a large quantity & variety of insects.

8. Help lessen impact of flood water flows

9. Feeds streams as the streams recede.

10. Dilution for overland flow.

11. Dilution irrigation runoff.

12. Provide additional wildlife habitat.

13. More water recreation areas out of the streams.

14. Alternate fishing zones.

15. Added fishing possibilities for kids and older folk who used to sit by the river
and streams and bait fish. (Taken away by the government.)

16. Added water supplies for surface use such as firefighting & irrigation.

17. Water for cattle and other uses without diversions from streams.

PROTECTION OF THE POPULATIONS OF SALMON AND SMALL FARMS
By: Dorain L. Dexter

For many years now, the plight of the Northwest Salmon has been questioned time and time again. The loss of certain species has been made part of the debates. Much burden has been placed upon the citizens of the Northwest to correct many faults found inland. Yet, little seems to be directed at the causes of most of the activities that take away most of the salmon.

If the fish can not get to inland areas then any condition inland can have little affect on the salmons survival. Millions of pounds of salmon are taken from the waters before they can migrate to their spawning grounds.

Hatcheries have introduced millions of hatchery fish into the populations over many years. It is impossible to claim that any particular species of salmon fish is 100% native.

Many square miles of fish habituate has been covered, removed or altered by construction projects along the main rivers in the Northwest. These include highways, railroads, diversion structures, dikes, canals, bridges, walkways, erosion control facilities and others. These projects have all been funded or sponsored by various government agencies, in particular the State and Federal governments.

To truly understand what has affected the salmon populations the most, it is necessary to go to the late 1800s. This era has often been referenced when considering the salmon populations.

IN THE BEGINNING of heavy fishing, 1880 to 1905, there were concerns voiced then on the losses of salmon populations. There was little irrigation or other inland water usage in those times. The primary activity that was causing the concerns was that of over-fishing of the salmon.

Also: roads, railroads, dikes and diversions were beginning to be developed along the major streams. Vegetated stream banks were being removed and others covered to facilitate these construction activities.

Banks of the streams were being covered with sterile earthen fill materials and covered with heavy rock (riprap), and stream channels were realigned. Meanwhile the heavy fishing continued as did the concerns of population losses.

IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS the construction projects and heavy fishing continued. Some control was applied with the drag seine nets being restricted and the water wheel became outlawed.

At times many fish were wasted as processors could not handle all that came in and in many cases there was no effort to reduce wastes because there was plenty of fish delivered by the fishing operations. The use of the European Gill Nets, also known as killer nets, were introduced.

More roads, railroads, dikes, diversions, dams, armored stream banks, and loss of stream bank environment. Motorized boats were developed for the fishing industries.

At times there were restrictions put on the fishing when migrations populations were low, but otherwise no other worthwhile controls were established and used.
The heavy fishing spread well up into the rivers as more areas were made accessible by roades a large quantity & variety of insects.

8. Help lessen impact of flood water flows

9. Feeds streams as the streams recede.

10. Dilution for overland flow.

11. Dilution irrigation runoff.

12. Provide additional wildlife habitat.

13. More water recreation areas out of the streams.

14. Alternate fishing zones.

15. Added fishing possibilities for kids and older folk who used to sit by the river
and streams and bait fish. (Taken away by the government.)

16. Added water supplies for surface use such as firefighting & irrigation.

17. Water for cattle and other uses without diversions from streams.

Rarely has been heard any mention of the commercial fishing or the gill nets or stream side vegetation. Who benefits from all of the time and dollars spent on these studies and diversions? - off-shore fisheries, gill netters, sportsman and NWFS.

They are saying that these bugs live in the ground water along any stream. They are carried by the ground water into the streams as part of the food chain in the streams. They say that one of the major reasons that the salmon, steelhead and bull trout are dying off; is because of the interference of the development of these bugs in a river or creek. These interference’s include; irrigation, fertilizing, gravel mining, water withdrawals, livestock grazing, septic systems, livestock ponds, housing and any other activity by humans along the streams or within their water sheds.

There are also areas that are covered with water only during high run-offs. Gravel and other material could be removed from these areas to provide temporary high water storage and some could be converted to provide year-around fish habituate as well as designed to include silt detention and added areas of vegetation.

To help the salmon runs:

(1) Restrict the commercial fishing and outlaw gill nets until salmon populations show improvement.

(2) Reestablish the vegetation along the rivers. There are hundreds of miles of shore lines that have had vegetation replaced by bare rock riprap slopes. This riprap was placed for railroads, highways, local roads, flood control, water diversions, and other riverside projects.

The vegetation affects all of the elements that fish need and use -
a. Shade from the daytime sun

b. pH control from the decaying of the leaves, old plants and trees and roots of plants that are washed into the streams.

c. Oxygen, the swirling and splash of water passing around and against the vegetation, imparts air (oxygen) into the water.

d. Shelter for fish that are feeding and/or spawning.

e. Food; insects from on and in the foliage, stems, in and around the roots and richer soils provided by the existence of vegetation.

f. Temperature control by shade in the summer and open to the sun in winter.

The various government agencies are responsible for 99+% of this shoreline depletion The government provided lands and funds and approvals for the projects involved.

Were the words gill nets or power boats used to describe native fishing rights in any of the various treaties?

Will the proponents of dam removals or restricting irrigation guarantee the implied success of the salmon runs? And will they also guarantee that the overall benefit will be positive? Will they back these guarantees with their own money and/or other viable assets?

The Federal Government and Native Tribes often refer to the salmon populations in the 1800s. In the 1800s is when commercial fishing grew immensely, railroads were being built along the rivers, later came the diversions structures, dikes and highways, then into the 1900s came more railroads, highways, diversions and added flooded control and bigger highways; all involving more bare and armored stream banks.

The government is trying to reverse evolution factors brought about greatly by their own authorities and responsibilities.

Re-establish vegetation along the rivers. There are many, many miles of river banks and shorelines that have had the vegetation replaced by bare or partially covered rock slopes. These rock slopes, riprap, have been placed along the rivers for highways, railroads, flood control structures, water diversions and other riverside construction. These types of barren entities were place by or under the sponsorship primarily of the Federal and State Governments.

Instead of working on replanting and stream bank enhancement programs; the Federal agencies are trying to blame everyone except themselves. Thus they are trying to force the others to expend time, effort, and funds to make up for the governments causes of stream side losses of necessary natural fish habitat controls.

The vegetation affects all of the elements that affect the fish:

A. Shade from the daytime sun to minimize the effects of solar radiation.

B. Control of pH from the decaying leaves, old plants and trees and roots of plants.

C. Oxygenation, the swirling and splash of the water passing around, over, under and against the vegetarians, dead and alive, induces air (oxygen) into the water.

D. Shelter fish that are feeding, resting and/or spawning.

E. Provides foods of the many, many insects from, on, and in the foliage, stems, limbs, in and around the roots and richer soils provided by the existence of vegetation.

F. Temperature control by shading in the summer during high temperature periods and open to the sun in winter. Riprap and concrete also adds reflected heat in the summer.

G. Promotes establishment of aquatic vegetation; additional source of insects.

The various government agencies are responsible for 99+% of this shoreline construction by providing lands and funds and approvals for the constructids and trails.

Since then:
1. The northern perch pike and bass, each a native fish, has been indicated as a predator of fry but, and government pays for riddance of the perch pike but nothing done about the alien, ferocious walleye pike.
2. Roza Dam fish ladder had silted full in the 60s or 70s and Fisheries and the Bureau of Reclamation wasted time arguing on who was responsible to clean it out, .... finally private sports clubs took the initiative.
3. New concrete in new fish ladders discouraged fish from entering the ladder.
4. The many gravel ponds along side and for Interstate highways in the 60s & 70s(I-90, I-82, I-84, I-182).
5. Also in the 60’s & 70’s gravel ponds for highway construction were dewatered by pumping turbid water directly into rivers.
6. Channel changes were made for realigning the river.
7. City of Ellensburg garbage dump closed but not removed or treated.
8. Mt. St. Helens caused a big loss of fish in 1980 - 1990. Instant turbidity and continued erosion of ash for years. Some still exists on the ground.
9. The use of gill nets continues to be opposed by many.
10. Commercial fishing continues with little concern for conservation.
11. The amount of canned salmon doubled in 1986 to 1988 over previous years.
12. Mount St. Helens dropped millions of tone of ash into rivers and streams as well as other areas that continue to erode the ash into the streams.
13. The number of gill net permits increased from 600 in 1969 to 1500 in 1979 and more continue to be used.
14. Terns were blamed for consuming 100,000’s of juvenile salmon. Terns are part of government wildlife.
15. Save the steelhead and bull trout was primarily for commercial fishing and the sportsman.
16. More gill nets are put in use.
17. Coho commercial catch from 2.5 million in 1976 to a few 1000 in 97 to the great populations in the present migrations.

THE PRESENT:
It a is difficult to describe the present conditions due to the variety of forced changes and many meetings, hearings, studies, other reports and expenditure of time, effort, and funds.

It is estimated that 25% of the Yakima River Banks have been negatively altered by government funded or government sponsored projects. At a minimum width of only 50 feet, this is about 500 acres. If areas beyond 50 feet were included, this total area would double in size.

Other rivers, including the Columbia, have been similarly altered.

These projects, however affected not only the immediately areas but also other changes to some extent, up stream, and to a greater extent, down stream.

Upstream are additional deposits of sands and gravels with some flooding. This leaves shallow waters which produce higher temperature. These areas are also subject to quick changes in flow channels due to any high flow. These changes can cover a redd or erode a redd away.

Down Stream changes are usually erosion of banks and river beds, and added deposits of sands and gravels. The erosion occurs within the waterway as well as along the banks. The results are the creation of “holes” or the filling of these deeper areas.

Besides the shallow areas affecting temperature, the loss of vegetation and addition of large rock and concrete, add to the losses of temperature controls. The rock & concrete not only change the stream flow but; and concrete, add to the losses of temperature controls. The rock & concrete not only change the stream flow but; for a short depth they reflect more heat into the subsurface water, and also reflect the radiant heat into the water from the shorelines. There are methods to alter conditions in these areas to provide for the establishment of vegetation. These may not be best for trees. But bushes, shrubs and grasses can be developed and would not injure the protection to the background provided by the material structures.

Some causes of decline of populations that are rarely mentioned and corrections which could be immediately effective as means to provide for the salmon populations. This does not cover all aspects but attempts to include ideas that are thrown about around by some government agencies and environmental groups.

TO HELP THE SALMON RUNS:

(1) Restrict the commercial fishing by 50% and outlaw gill nets until salmon populations show improvement.

(2) Reestablish the vegetation along the rivers. There are hundreds of miles of shore lines that have had vegetation replaced by bare rock riprap slopes. This riprap was placed for railroads, highways, local roads, flood control, water diversions, and other riverside projects.

THE VEGETATION affects all of the elements that fish need and use -
a. Protection from solar radiation.

b. pH control from the decaying of the leaves, old plants and trees and roots of plants that are washed into the streams.

c. Oxygen, the swirling and splash of water passing around and against the vegetation, imparts air (oxygen) into the water.

d. Shelter for fish that are feeding and/or spawning.

e. Food; insects from on and in the foliage, stems, in and around the roots and richer soils provided by the existence of vegetation.

f. Temperature control by shade in the summer and open to the sun in winter.

Benefits of Ponds in Lowland Areas

1. Additional water storage for flooding, irrigation and stream flows; perhaps
5,000 acre feet in Kittitas County

2. A settlement basin for erosion from overland flows during rainstorms and
snowmelt.

3. Dilution for septic system discharges.

4. Help moderate rapid temperature changes in streams

5. Added wetlands

6. Added fish habitat

7. Provides a large quantity & variety of insects.

8. Help lessen impact of flood water flows

9. Feeds streams as the streams recede.

10. Dilution for overland flow.

11. Dilution irrigation runoff.

12. Provide additional wildlife habitat.

13. More water recreation areas out of the streams.

14. Alternate fishing zones.

15. Added fishing possibilities for kids and older folk who used to sit by the river
and streams and bait fish. (Taken away by the government.)

16. Added water supplies for surface use such as firefighting & irrigation.

17. Water for cattle and other uses without diversions from streams.

IN CONCLUSION (for now):

The Tribes have declined more conservative fishing methods in lieu of the killer gill nets and continue to increase their catch where possible. NMFS has not put affective restrictions on all commercial fishing. Both have not been changing the ways of their people to conserve salmon populations but insist that others do.

If the dams were not in place, many salmon would not have had enough water during some of the migrations this last year or more.

It is past time to stop wasting more funds, time and effort rehashing the same arguments over and over. It is time to start doing things that are positive, certain, and immediately affective.

SalmonA
The effects of the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980 and the loss of stream side vegetation.

I have fished Washington rivers including the Spokane, Snake, Yakima, Klickitat, Cowlitz and others including numerous creeks and other tributaries to the Columbia River and including the Columbia.

I primarily fished with flies. When I looked for types of insects to imitate with my flies; I looked along the stream bank. When I determined which insect(s) were prevalent; I would use an imitation of that from my collection or tie a fly in the field. Invariable these were quite successful.

There were times, during a warm summer day, when I would take a break from the wading and fishing; and sit back in a clump of brush along the stream back. It was initially nice and comfortable. However, in a short time the shore line community would come alive. Crawling, flitting, running, buzzing and biting in increasing numbers. I quickly learned that the insect populations in this environment were very numerous. I look for open shaded areas for comfort now.

the insects came from every entity of the stream side. The variety was constant and great. Even during spring run-offs; the crumbling banks provided a feast of food for the new young growing salmon.

this abundance of food and the other necessary aspects found with vegetated stream banks is important for the security and well-being of spawning fish ; and for the survival and growth of the new fry during their first year or more in the upper waters and then for subsistence during their run to the sea.

program to revegetate the stream sides, in the constructed areas, were to begin now, by the Federal Government, that initial success would be significant and would be followed and joined by other entities.

I am involved in this concern on my own without the backing or influence of any other group or faction except my experience and that of others whom, in my contacts, were not involved politically or by any organization. I do intend to continue to pursue this concept with political groups or individuals within our government.

The Federal Government and Native Tribes often refer to the salmon populations in the 1800s. In the 1800s is when commercial fishing grew immensely, railroads were being built along the rivers, later came the diversions structures, dikes and highways, then into the 1900s came more railroads, highways, diversions and added flooded control and bigger highways; all involving more bare and armored stream banks.

The government is trying to reverse evolution factors brought about greatly by their own authorities and responsibilities.

We need more restriction on the commercial fishing, including gill nets, until salmon populations show a significant improvement. The loss of the salmon populations by over fishing were of concern back in the 1800s, before much farming and other inland water uses were developed, and are continuous up to the present time.

Re-establish vegetation along the rivers. There are many, many miles of river banks and shorelines that have had the vegetation replaced by bare or partially covered rock slopes. These rock slopes, riprap, have been placed along the rivers for highways, railroads, flood control structures, water diversions and other riverside construction. These types of barren entities were place by or under the sponsorship primarily of the Federal and State Governments.

Instead of working on replanting and stream bank enhancement programs; the Federal agencies are trying to blame everyone except themselves. Thus they are trying to force the others to expend time, effort, and funds to make up for the governments causes of stream side losses of necessary natural fish habitat controls.

The vegetation affects all of the elements that affect the fish:

A. Shade from the daytime sun to minimize the effects of solar radiation.

B. Control of pH from the decaying leaves, old plants and trees and roots of plants.

C. Oxygenation, the swirling and splash of the water passing around, over, under and against the vegetarians, dead and alive, induces air (oxygen) into the water.

D. Shelter fish that are feeding, resting and/or spawning.

E. Provides foods of the many, many insects from, on, and in the foliage, stems, limbs, in and around the roots and richer soils provided by the existence of vegetation.

F. Temperature control by shading in the summer during high temperature periods and open to the sun in winter. Riprap and concrete also adds reflected heat in the summer.

G. Promotes establishment of aquatic vegetation; additional source of insects.

The various government agencies are responsible for 99+% of this shoreline construction by providing lands and funds and approvals for the construction and existence of these various projects.

Number of cans of salmon doubled in 1986 - 1988 over previous average. Obviously lacking the controls on over fishing.

Mount St. Helens dropped millions of tons of ash into rivers and streams and in other areas that eroded into the streams & rivers for years.

The number of gill net permits raised from 600 in 1969 to 1500 in 1979 and there certainly more than that now.

Terns became a noted problem; consuming 100,000s of juvenile salmon. Those terns are under the governments control or lack thereof.

Save the Steelhead and Bull trout seems to be primarily for the commercial fishing and for the Sportsman

Commercial harvests of salmon reportedly went from >500,000 in mid 70, to 0 in 1994 to a few 1000 1995-98 to a 100,000’s this year.

Coho - commercial from~2.5 million in 76 to a few 1000 in 97 to the great populations in the present migrations..

Reference is often made to the fish populations in the 1800s

These started in the 1800s and have continued since:
1. Commercial offshore, river, and inlet fishing.
2. Europeans introduced gill net fishing.
3. Railroads and slope protection.
4. Highways and slope protection.
5. Diversion structures with erosion protection.
6. Flood control dikes, etc. with slope protection.
7. Power boats

Since then:
8. The northern perch pike and bass, each a native fish, has been indicated as a predator of fry but, and government pays for riddance of the perch pike but nothing done about the alien, ferocious walleye.
9. Roza Dam fish ladder had silted up in the 60s or 70s and Fisheries and the Bureau of Reclamation wasted time arguing on who was responsible to clean it out, .... finally private sports clubs took the initiative.
10. New concrete in new fish ladders discouraged fish from entering the ladder.
11. The many gravel ponds along side and for Interstate highways in the 60s & 70s(I-90, I-82, I-84, I-182).
12. Also in the 60’s & 70’s gravel ponds for highway construction were dewatered by pumping directly into rivers.
13. Channel changes were made for realigning the river.
14. City of Ellensburg garbage dump closed but not removed or treated.
15. Mt. St. Helens caused a big loss of fish in 1980 - 1990. Instant turbidity and
continued erosion of ash for years. Some still exists on the ground.

Too much time, effort, and money has been spent on studies of what to do, what has happened, what is happening, and might happen. We need positive action; now.

Some causes of decline of populations that are rarely mentioned and corrections which could be immediately effective as means to provide for the salmon populations. This does not cover all aspects but attempts to include ideas that are thrown about around by some government agencies and environmental groups.

I have attached copies of information issued by government and private entities to better define some of the opinions given here.

The following are included:
1. Pages 32-34 from a study by the USF&WS.
2. An opinion of gill nets.
3. Article of Yakima Nation members refusing alternate fishing methods.
4. Correspondence, and attachments, with Wesley Ebel, Ph.D., co-author of a study sponsored by the USCoE.
5. A page from Ebel’s study given some numerical information on volumes of salmon taken.
6. A list of positive aspects of ponds within the affected watersheds.
7. Miscellaneous articles

Item 1. is part of a study and report by the USF&WS: Bull Trout Interim Conservation Guidance, December 9, 1998. This is included because bull trout require water conditions most similar to that of salmon and the bull trout live in the same waters as do the salmon. The primary reason for this inclusion is to reinforce a recommended treatment to help the salmon, i.e., reestablishment of riparian zones along the effective streams.

A number of reports have suggested this treatment, but I have not seen any actual replacement programs in action, in the field, to restore the stream bank vegetation. The bull trout report makes numerous references to the need for this work.

Item 2. Found on the Internet and reference books relative to the dangers of gill nets. Anyone who has gone fishing and hung a fish on a stringer knows the fish dies in a short time and if left for several hours, the fish will begin to rot.
The gill nets that I have seen on the Columbia River are not drawn more than 2 times a day. At times many are apparently not drawn for a day or more.

Travel between the Tri-Cities and the Portland areas a number of times a year. There relatively many nets on the river now. Over the years; noted were 3 boats working the nets one time, 2 boats working 2 times, and one boat four times.

A decline in sturgeon has been noticed, in the 4 to 6 feet range, between John Day an McNary Dams; since the numbers of gill nets have increased. Almost none in the 24 inch to 40 inch. When a fish is captured by a gill net it is killed in a short time. The net catches the fin in the gills, causing the fish to bleed and to suffocate. The gill nets are killers.

Item 3. An article by the Yakima Indian Nation on an effort to use methods in place of the gill nets to allow the fish to survive for a longer. This provides a chance to return many of the fish back to the water alive. As the articles reports, the Native fishermen declined the proposal. Gill nets are obviously easier. The Native Tribes along the various streams talk conservation and revival of some species, but few practice logical methods.

Item 4. Attachments of portions of a study for the Corps; Saving The Salmon.

Item 5. a page from Ebel’s report indicating the increase in salmon catch in the 1976 to 1996 era which is reported as the ultimate disastrous loss of salmon populations.

Item 6. A list of some positive aspects of ponds within the affected watersheds. There are agencies and others having more expensive meeting and studies on ways to increase water storage. Others are fighting the existence and development of ponds. More wasted time and money.

Item 7. General items on the subject.

A recommendation is (1) a 50% reduction in the all commercial fishing for 3 years, (2) the immediate outlawing of gill nets, and (3) immediate start of streamside vegetation restoration programs; would begin to provide definite improvements for the salmons habituate and populations in a relatively, very short time.

Many areas along the Snake and Columbia Rivers were barren areas even before the construction of the dams, roads and other structures. But there are many areas where the was vegetation and more areas now where vegetation would survive if the funds and the work were applied to the many new areas.

It is estimated that 25 percent of the Yakima River’s stream banks are partially or totally bare of vegetation. With a average width of only 50 feet; this would be some 500 acres. Many areas could be extended to include many more acres.

Reestablishment of vegetation in these areas would add a large natural control factor to the betterment of the water of the Yakima River. This would also be applicable to other streams in this, as well as other watersheds. Consider the River Basins of the Wenatchee , Willamette, John Day, Deschutes, Klickitat, Cowlitz, Clearwater, Columbia and the many other rivers and streams.

The NMFS has stated that it doesn’t know real numbers of adult salmon taken each year by commercial fishers. If true, this most negligent on their part. that they should be removed from part of the inland conservation effort as they “control” the commercial fisheries, but do not seem to be able to properly control any operations. They seem to be working for the commercial fisheries as the Tribes are working to increase their own catch rather than worry about specific species.

Benefits of Ponds in Lowland Areas

1. Additional water storage for flooding, irrigation and stream flows; perhaps
5,000 acre feet in Kittitas County

2. A settlement basin for erosion from overland flows during rainstorms and
snowmelt.

3. Dilution for septic system discharges.

4. Help moderate rapid temperature changes in streams

5. Added wetlands

6. Added fish habitat

7. Provion and existence of these various projects.

We need more restriction on the commercial fishing, including gill nets, until salmon populations show a significant improvement. The loss of the salmon populations by over fishing were of concern back in the 1800s, before much farming and other inland water uses were developed, and are continuous up to the present time.

Reference is often made to the fish populations in the 1800s

These started in the 1800s and have continued since:
1. Commercial offshore, river, and inlet fishing.
2. Europeans introduced gill net fishing.
3. Railroads and slope protection.
4. Highways and slope protection.
5. Diversion structures with erosion protection.
6. Flood control dikes, etc. with slope protection.
7. Power boats

Since then:
8. The northern perch pike and bass, each a native fish, has been indicated as a predator of fry but, and government pays for riddance of the perch pike but nothing done about the alien, ferocious walleye.
9. Roza Dam fish ladder had silted up in the 60s or 70s and Fisheries and the Bureau of Reclamation wasted time arguing on who was responsible to clean it out, .... finally private sports clubs took the initiative.
10. New concrete in new fish ladders discouraged fish from entering the ladder.
11. The many gravel ponds along side and for Interstate highways in the 60s & 70s(I-90, I-82, I-84, I-182).
12. Also in the 60’s & 70’s gravel ponds for highway construction were dewatered by pumping directly into rivers.
13. Channel changes were made for realigning the river.
14. City of Ellensburg garbage dump closed but not removed or treated.
15. Mt. St. Helens caused a big loss of fish in 1980 - 1990. Instant turbidity and
continued erosion of ash for years. Some still exists on the ground.

Too much time, effort, and money has been spent on studies of what to do, what has happened, what is happening, and might happen. We need positive action; now.

Some causes of decline of populations that are rarely mentioned and corrections which could be immediately effective as means to provide for the salmon populations. This does not cover all aspects but attempts to include ideas that are thrown about around by some government agencies and environmental groups.

Number of cans of salmon doubled in 1986 - 1988 over previous average. Obviously lacking the controls on over fishing.

Mount St. Helens dropped millions of tons of ash into rivers and streams and in other areas that eroded into the streams & rivers for years.

The number of gill net permits raised from 600 in 1969 to 1500 in 1979 and there certainly more than that now.

Terns became a noted problem; consuming 100,000s of juvenile salmon. Those terns are under the governments control or lack thereof.

Save the Steelhead and Bull trout seems to be primarily for the commercial fishing and for the Sportsman

Commercial harvests of salmon reportedly went from >500,000 in mid 70, to 0 in 1994 to a few 1000 1995-98 to a 100,000’s this year.

Coho - commercial from~2.5 million in 76 to a few 1000 in 97 to the great populations in the present migrations..

Item 1. is part of a study and report by the USF&WS: Bull Trout Interim Conservation Guidance, December 9, 1998. This is included because bull trout require water conditions most similar to that of salmon and the bull trout live in the same waters as do the salmon. The primary reason for this inclusion is to reinforce a recommended treatment to help the salmon, i.e., reestablishment of riparian zones along the effective streams.

A number of reports have suggested this treatment, but I have not seen any actual replacement programs in action, in the field, to restore the stream bank vegetation. The bull trout report makes numerous references to the need for this work.

Item 2. Found on the Internet and reference books relative to the dangers of gill nets. Anyone who has gone fishing and hung a fish on a stringer knows the fish dies in a short time and if left for several hours, the fish will begin to rot.
The gill nets that I have seen on the Columbia River are not drawn more than 2 times a day. At times many are apparently not drawn for a day or more.

Travel between the Tri-Cities and the Portland areas a number of times a year. There relatively many nets on the river now. Over the years; noted were 3 boats working the nets one time, 2 boats working 2 times, and one boat four times.

A decline in sturgeon has been noticed, in the 4 to 6 feet range, between John Day an McNary Dams; since the numbers of gill nets have increased. Almost none in the 24 inch to 40 inch. When a fish is captured by a gill net it is killed in a short time. The net catches the fin in the gills, causing the fish to bleed and to suffocate. The gill nets are killers.

Item 3. An article by the Yakima Indian Nation on an effort to use methods in place of the gill nets to allow the fish to survive for a longer. This provides a chance to return many of the fish back to the water alive. As the articles reports, the Native fishermen declined the proposal. Gill nets are obviously easier. The Native Tribes along the various streams talk conservation and revival of some species, but few practice logical methods.

Item 4. Attachments of portions of a study for the Corps; Saving The Salmon.

Item 5. a page from Ebel’s report indicating the increase in salmon catch in the 1976 to 1996 era which is reported as the ultimate disastrous loss of salmon populations.

Item 6. A list of some positive aspects of ponds within the affected watersheds. There are agencies and others having more expensive meeting and studies on ways to increase water storage. Others are fighting the existence and development of ponds. More wasted time and money.

Item 7. General items on the subject.

Benefits of Ponds in Lowland Areas

1. Additional water storage for flooding, irrigation and stream flows; perhaps
5,000 acre feet in Kittitas County

2. A settlement basin for erosion from overland flows during rainstorms and
snowmelt.

3. Dilution for septic system discharges.

4. Help moderate rapid temperature changes in streams

5. Added wetlands

6. Added fish habitat

7. Provides a large quantity & variety of insects.

8. Help lessen impact of flood water flows

9. Feeds streams as the streams recede.

10. Dilution for overland flow.

11. Dilution irrigation runoff.

12. Provide additional wildlife habitat.

13. More water recreation areas out of the streams.

14. Alternate fishing zones.

15. Added fishing possibilities for kids and older folk who used to sit by the river
and streams and bait fish. (Taken away by the government.)

16. Added water supplies for surface use such as firefighting & irrigation.

17. Water for cattle and other uses without diversions from streams.

Rarely has been heard any mention of the commercial fishing or the gill nets or stream side vegetation. Who benefits from all of the time and dollars spent on these studies and diversions? - off-shore fisheries, gill netters, sportsman and NWFS.

To help the salmon runs:

(1) Restrict the commercial fishing and outlaw gill nets until salmon populations show improvement.

(2) Reestablish the vegetation along the rivers. There are hundreds of miles of shore lines that have had vegetation replaced by bare rock riprap slopes. This riprap was placed for railroads, highways, local roads, flood control, water diversions, and other riverside projects.

The vegetation affects all of the elements that fish need and use -
a. Shade from the daytime sun

b. pH control from the decaying of the leaves, old plants and trees and roots of plants that are washed into the streams.

c. Oxygen, the swirling and splash of water passing around and against the vegetation, imparts air (oxygen) into the water.

d. Shelter

Come on Dorain, this is suppose to be a blog, not a filibuster. If you can’t make your point in 5-10 well scripted sentences, don’t submit. You lost everyone.

Time to thin them out,sea lions are like huge rodent's.the fish and game should sell tags.Heck iwould shoot them for FUN.If it were legal.

After we kill off the hungry Sea Lions, maybe we should consider eliminating some obese people who are eating more than their fair share.

What is the difference between killing sea lions or killing any other pest? We kill rats, bugs, reptiles, birds, and anything else that threatens our food or well-being, attacks endangered species, etc. We do not hesitate to weed our gardens. Why should sea lions be special? They are pests.

Couldn't we have licenced fishing for sea lions like we do for salmon? Maybe they could be marketed as catfood or something.

The sealions are the least of our problems, how about we talk about the indians who choke our rivers with their nets, thats the problem..

I oppose the killing of sealions, because it is the dams that get in the way of the sealions to begin with. Our own damn fault.

I love the comments! This is my first visit to commenting,instead of just reading.
The sea lions eat the salmon, the Orcas and the sharks eat the sea lions. Why not release them where they can join in the circle of life,lol, the good old food chain. Hey aren't they also part of the native american food chain in Alaska?Food for thought.
Thanks, this was fun.

Salmon populations are declining to a point where we need to be worried about their future. Sea lions populations are climbing and they are in no danger of becoming extinct. The salmon problem can be attributed to many factors other than sea lions. The real issue with the sea lions is the artificial environment that we have created. Historically sea lions did not travel very far up the Columbia to feed on salmon. There were plenty in the ocean and the currents and depths of the free flowing river were too much work for the sea lions to benefit from any salmon they might capture. Now, with the construction of dams the waters move slower, are deeper, and the dam slows the natural migration of salmon upstream creating an all you can eat buffet of ESA listed salmon for the sea lions. The sea lions that have been removed in the past have beat the researchers back to the dam. The number of zoos and aquariums that can house sea lions is smaller than the population of sea lions that need to be removed. They can't simply be removed they will always come back. Lethal removal isn't pretty, but it is necessary.