Contradictions, Lies and Inconsistencies Regarding Salmon and Dams

By James Foley

Property Rights Advocate

Hamburg , California

December 22, 2006

Quote: Spokesman: "What are we going to do when the salmon is gone? I was raised on the river. I remember there being lots of fish. I remember packing -- in gunny sack's -- like, five fish at a time. And this was just one round. Pack 'em, clean 'em, and go back to the river again for more. Today, we're lucky if we get five."

Response: This quote is from one Native American fisherman. Multiply this many times over and it may just be possible to see that perhaps, just perhaps, over-fishing an endangered species might just lead to fewer fish. They would like to tear down fully functioning dams to save salmon and not have to curtail their own fishing for even one year to let the salmon have a chance for a comeback. The sacrifice must always be at the expense of others and for the benefit of the few.

Is it reasonable to list a species as endangered and then allow anyone to take 50% of the returning salmon? No one is allowed to harvest any other endangered species. Notice that the environmental segment of our society is not up in arms over this inconsistency. What would their reaction be to a Spotted Owl season?  

Quote: Spokesman: likened the loss of traditional foods such as salmon, deer, acorns and berries to a continued genocide of her people, ravaged now by diabetes and other ills.

Response: This assertion of “genocide,” and blaming it on the white man is totally out of line. This fuels the flames of bigotry and divisiveness, and this is from a people who accuse others of being bigoted against them. It generates an “us against them” mentality. Our nationality matters not, we are all Americans. A nation divided against itself cannot stand.

There is no loss of “traditional foods.” Are Oaks no longer producing acorns? Is someone stopping their harvesting? Are there no berries left? Deer in California have multiplied to almost to the point of being a nuisance. But still the cry goes up that there are no deer for “traditional” uses?  Could this be because there is a season for deer and native people as well as others are no longer able to harvest as many as they want, without regard to future generations?

There is a shortage of salmon in the state right now, but high and low cycles have always been a part of the natural order of nature. It is just fashionable at this point in time to “blame” someone for it. The truth is that salmon are not in short supply. If I want salmon, or if my health and wellbeing depended on them, I would simply go buy salmon. This idea that the salmon that native people need to eat must be taken out of the river, or it is no good, is utter foolishness, salmon is salmon and all salmon are equally nutritious.  

Could it be that the “free” aspect of harvesting salmon enters into the equation? If it’s free it is healthy, if it must be bought it causes disease….ridiculous!

We no longer live in the seventeenth century, where everybody, my ancestors included, could live a subsistence lifestyle. Our social structure has changed since those times and made much better and more productive than it ever could be in a hunter/gatherer society.

No one is “forcing” native people to eat unhealthy foods. There is a simple equation for nutritious eating and a healthy lifestyle. It is called personal responsibility. I am responsible for my health as well as the health of my family. Here is how it works. I get a job, get paid, and when I want good nutritious food for my health, I go out and buy it. It is just a lot easier to blame others for any lack of personal responsibility, and hence the charge of genocide.  

Quote: Spokesman:

"They got rid of the buffalo so they could get rid of the Indians. 100 years later, they're getting rid of the fish so they can get rid of the Indians. It's being used as a weapon against us right now."

Response: The charge regarding the buffalo is entirely true and well documented. We no longer live in those times, nor are we even the same people who perpetrated these despicable acts.

As to the same charge being asserted against anyone today, with regard to salmon, I would simply ask; are native people the only people who depend on salmon? Of course the answer is no. There is an entire industry and population base that depends on salmon. The industry provides food as well as jobs for families. So then, this mysterious unnamed “They”, must be working against themselves in “getting rid” of the salmon. This shows some of the ridiculous inconsistencies being put out over salmon and dams.  

Quote: Spokesman:

"The Farm Bureau and local government continue to pressure for more water diversions." The lack of salmon has ruined their health and economies. Now the Karuk people are forced to eat unhealthy government commodities.

Response: Recent peer reviewed scientific studies have shown that there is 30% more water coming down the river now than there was before the dams were built. This is due to farmland using less water than the pre-existing wetlands, which were notorious for loss of water through evaporation.

What did the Native American tribes do for food when historical salmon failures occurred in the past? Back then there were no dams to blame, and yet they survived by being resourceful and taking responsibility for their own well being. Why is it that their culture and history does not record these salmon failures? Or does it? Could it be that it is just not expedient to mention things of this nature because it might go against their dam removal agenda and they wouldn’t be able to blame others for what is a natural occurrence?

One researcher noted; “that all fish populations, from anchovies and sardines to salmon show significant natural fluctuations. He noted that in the late 1820s, settlers and Indians in the mid-Columbia region resorted to eating horses after the wholesale failure of salmon runs, pointing to poor ocean conditions as the only explanation.”  

One well known Tribal spokesman seems to “up” the count of dead salmon during the infamous fish kill, with every article he publishes. Official counts and reports list the kill at 33,000 fish. This spokesman has published numbers all the way up to 70,000 fish. I guess it just depends on your agenda of the moment. Larger numbers make for better press.

Quote: From a newspaper; A summit meeting by governors from Oregon and California to consider removing four dams and help restore struggling salmon runs in the Klamath River will be put off a month to give farmers, fishermen, Indian tribes and conservation groups time to bargain.

Response: Putting off this summit until a later time effectively put it past the closing of the official comment period as published for the public by FERC. We can only wonder why the two governors would do this if there is not a chance of affecting some change in the FERC decision. If there is a chance of affecting the decision of a federal government agency, what does this say about the public comment process?

Could it be that the actions and shadowy “back door” dealings of special interest groups will override public comments from hundreds of people, many of whom traveled many miles, at their own expense in order for their voice to be heard?

The public was assured by FERC staff that their comments would be the mechanism that the staff’s decisions would be based on. Nowhere in the Administrative Procedures Act is there a place for “bargaining” in a public comment process or secret special interest meetings that exclude other stakeholders. Any “settlement” that comes out of such secret meetings should be set aside as overdue comments by FERC. The agency should not even consider such attempts to circumvent the public due process.

Quote: Regarding Blue/Green Algae: “We're dealing with a potent liver toxin and known tumor promoter. We have known about this problem for over a year and there's still not a plan to protect the public from this toxin.”

Response: Tribes and environmentalists have made a crusade out of Blue/Green Algae, with the sole goal of fueling the fires for dam removal. It sounds good to be able to use the numbers argument again in this issue. We are constantly told that the measurements for this situation exceeded the World Health Organizations guidelines for a moderate risk of exposure by 4,000 fold. The emotional cries have gone out deploring this condition and stating it as a serious threat to human health.

The fact that this is a natural condition is never mentioned, nor is it mentioned that this condition existed before dams were built. The truth of the matter is stated by a well known scientist, accredited in water quality matters; He talked about the algae bloom spikes in July and Sept., in the UKL, from the algae blooms are from the naturally-occurring P and N levels, NOT runoff from agricultural production. “Actually, the utrophic nature of the basin and the naturally-occurring nutrients load 180,000 pounds of P into the project, and 2,000,000 pounds of N, with a net sink of 80,000 pounds of P in the project each year.”

He went on to say: “One news article stated: The environmentalists and Native Americans feel the solution is removal of Iron Gate, Copco 1 and 2 and the JC Boyle Dams all located on the Klamath River. Removal of theses Dams will not solve the algae issues nor will it change them.  The Klamath River contains high levels of Phosphorus which the algae thrives on. This is a natural occurrence starting with the artesian wells, springs and rivers that feed the Klamath River in Oregon and Upper Klamath Lake .  These are all documented facts, and have been studied by many groups.  Two of these groups are the Klamath Tribes and OSUKES ( Oregon State University , Klamath Experiment Station).

There has never been a fish kill from the algae nor has there been an illness or death recorded from exposure to the blue green algae in Siskiyou County or the State of California.”

Special interest groups that have an agenda for dam removal are quick to cite any opinion that seems to back their position. At the same time they will patently ignore any and all science that goes against their agenda. A case in point is a news article that said;

“A state water quality agency put the Klamath River on a list of troubled waters this week, this time for having too much sediment for its own good.”  A Tribal spokesman said “We agree with what the board said. We support the science and the science says it's impaired.”

These types of inconsistencies are put forth without the slightest thought that one statement might just conflict with others made by these same people. Regarding the assertion that sediment is a problem and the spokesman agrees with the science, it might just seem ludicrous to some that the same spokesman is for dam removal and the resulting release of 21 million cubic yards of sediment into the Klamath River .

Permission to post.