3 ms·
I may regret making this comparison, but bear with me here... the thinking person realizes that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are in no way an accurate
by poulsbohemian 3y ago
I may regret making this comparison, but bear with me here... the thinking person realizes that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are in no way an accurate reflection of two camps on that issue. In the same way, what's clear to me is that dams are not anti-salmon, despite the common political portrayal that dams == dead salmon, no dams == return of the salmon. Could the fish (not just salmon, but also lampreys, sturgeon, trout, etc...) do better without dams? Sure, possibly, but let's not overlook that these dams also employ technology to cool the water to counter climate effects. And, the rate of fish through the dams is pretty darn amazing -- 95+% will survive their up /down journey. So I'm with you - we all have to study and look at the big picture and try to reign in the various political forces that may not be acting with cool heads (on all sides of the equation).
- bobthepanda 3y agoThe issue with fish ladders is not that they kill fishes, actively. The issue is that fish just don't really go back up fish ladders at dam, with the rates estimated as low as 3%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_ladder#Effectiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_ladder#Effectiveness
- tlow 3y agoAnother issue with dams and ladders for that matter is that they significantly lengthen the journey time. Additionally protected marine mammals take advantage of the backlog of these blockages and consume significantly more fish as they have no quick escape.
- briffle 3y agoThese dams don’t have fish ladders, and retrofitting them would cost astronomical amounts more than they could recover by selling the power.