I've become convinced I'm right about the Klamath Dams not really affecting the fish up there to any great extent. Convinced if only because those espousing taking the dams down keep saying the same things without regards for what's actually happening.
I'll agree that people using water for agriculture and other uses can certainly drain a river, but that's not necessarily a problem of the dams themselves since dams store water for use we otherwise wouldn't have.
First to get me started on this rant was Eric making a post on the dam busting and saying he hopes that there's any salmon in the Klamath to be saved. This, despite me pointing out earlier on here that the Klamath is the only river in the state where salmon fishing is allowed this year and the run is believed to be the second strongest in thirty years.
But, but....I thought the dams were fish killers?
Then some of the commenters saying the big fish kill on the Klamath was a "massacre", suggestive that man caused the kill by having the dams there. I pointed out that low flows can cause problems with or without dams. Heck, dams actually store water so they could help with the flow.
So, of course, the Times- Standard covers plans to bust the dams this morning referring to the "troubled Klamath River and its once legendary salmon runs...". No mention of the Klamath's apparent near record salmon run this year.
It kind of makes me wonder who they'll blame for what when the dams come down and the salmon runs keep going up and down like they always have?
For instance, I doubt if estimates show a run was going to double, from one year to the next, that they'd necessarily double the amount of fish people could catch. They might, but I don't know that would be the case.
Still, something to be said in that they doubled the allocation on the Klamath and closed down fishing nearly everywhere else.