Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Hoopa Tribe wants government to help spawning salmon
Here is the latest press release from the Hoopa Valley tribe regarding the relicensing of PacifiCorp's dams on the Klamath River.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contacts: Clifford Lyle Marshall (530) 625-4211
Tom Schlosser (206) 386-5200
Tod Bedrosian (916) 421-5121
HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE COUNTS DOWN TO DEADLINE FOR FEDERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE KLAMATH RIVER FISH
Hoopa, Calif. – With a deadline of Jan. 30 looming, the Hoopa Valley Tribe of northern California is hoping federal agencies are going to recommend Klamath River fish ladder passage plans to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that will trump plans like trucking fish around dams on the river. Tribal fish biologists have noted trucking, a plan recommended by the dams’ owners, PacifiCorp, will confuse spawning fish. PacifiCorp has been negotiating for a 50-year license to keep their four aging hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River, but are opposed to building new fish ladders that would open up more of the river for endangered fish populations.
“The owners of the dams apparently don’t understand that you cannot just take a salmon for a ride, dump it in the river above the dams and expect the salmon to begin spawning in an unfamiliar area,” said Clifford Lyle Marshall, Chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. “Federal biologists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have spent months demonstrating the need for fish ladders, and now we need them to complete the final step on Jan. 30. They must tell FERC that fish ladders are needed before the dam re-licensing permits can be approved.”
Since the turn-of-the century fish passage along the Klamath River has been blocked at Iron Gate Dam in northern California. This deprives salmon (an endangered species), steelhead, lamprey and other migratory fish access to hundreds of miles of habitat. The dams are a major reason why salmon runs have declined to their lowest levels ever, forcing closure of ocean salmon fisheries, according to Hoopa fish biologists.
Federal agencies, under the Federal Power Act, proposed last year fish passage prescriptions and in-stream flow conditions be included in a new FERC hydropower license to PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp disputed the need for fish ladders at a hearing in Sacramento this summer. At that hearing Judge Parlen McKenna ruled in favor of the federal plans for fish passage noting, “If access was provided through a properly designed, operated, and maintained fish way, anadromous fish would migrate past Iron Gate Dam, and enter the upper Klamath River basin.”
Under the Federal Power Act, the federal agencies must file final versions of their fish passage prescriptions and instream flow conditions by Jan. 30. PacifiCorp remains opposed to dam removal or fish ladders, saying they are too expensive. They have lobbied Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to overrule his biological staff and set aside fish requirements, according to a tribal spokesperson.
The Hoopa Valley Tribe maintains the fish will continue towards extinction unless the barrier of the dams is neutralized. “It’s really going to boil down to federal agencies telling FERC what they know. They know that these dams are killing the fish and should not be re-licensed until PacifiCorp commits to a plan allowing more spawning habitat,” said Marshall.
The Hoopa Valley Tribe has used decades of experience in restoration of Trinity River fisheries to help develop restoration measures for the Klamath. The two rivers join at the northern edge of the Hoopa Valley Reservation. The Trinity River, which bisects the Hoopa Reservation, is the largest tributary of the Klamath River, which runs through the Yurok Reservation to its terminus in the Pacific Ocean.
Media Contacts: Clifford Lyle Marshall (530) 625-4211
Tom Schlosser (206) 386-5200
Tod Bedrosian (916) 421-5121
HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE COUNTS DOWN TO DEADLINE FOR FEDERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE KLAMATH RIVER FISH
Hoopa, Calif. – With a deadline of Jan. 30 looming, the Hoopa Valley Tribe of northern California is hoping federal agencies are going to recommend Klamath River fish ladder passage plans to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that will trump plans like trucking fish around dams on the river. Tribal fish biologists have noted trucking, a plan recommended by the dams’ owners, PacifiCorp, will confuse spawning fish. PacifiCorp has been negotiating for a 50-year license to keep their four aging hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River, but are opposed to building new fish ladders that would open up more of the river for endangered fish populations.
“The owners of the dams apparently don’t understand that you cannot just take a salmon for a ride, dump it in the river above the dams and expect the salmon to begin spawning in an unfamiliar area,” said Clifford Lyle Marshall, Chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. “Federal biologists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have spent months demonstrating the need for fish ladders, and now we need them to complete the final step on Jan. 30. They must tell FERC that fish ladders are needed before the dam re-licensing permits can be approved.”
Since the turn-of-the century fish passage along the Klamath River has been blocked at Iron Gate Dam in northern California. This deprives salmon (an endangered species), steelhead, lamprey and other migratory fish access to hundreds of miles of habitat. The dams are a major reason why salmon runs have declined to their lowest levels ever, forcing closure of ocean salmon fisheries, according to Hoopa fish biologists.
Federal agencies, under the Federal Power Act, proposed last year fish passage prescriptions and in-stream flow conditions be included in a new FERC hydropower license to PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp disputed the need for fish ladders at a hearing in Sacramento this summer. At that hearing Judge Parlen McKenna ruled in favor of the federal plans for fish passage noting, “If access was provided through a properly designed, operated, and maintained fish way, anadromous fish would migrate past Iron Gate Dam, and enter the upper Klamath River basin.”
Under the Federal Power Act, the federal agencies must file final versions of their fish passage prescriptions and instream flow conditions by Jan. 30. PacifiCorp remains opposed to dam removal or fish ladders, saying they are too expensive. They have lobbied Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to overrule his biological staff and set aside fish requirements, according to a tribal spokesperson.
The Hoopa Valley Tribe maintains the fish will continue towards extinction unless the barrier of the dams is neutralized. “It’s really going to boil down to federal agencies telling FERC what they know. They know that these dams are killing the fish and should not be re-licensed until PacifiCorp commits to a plan allowing more spawning habitat,” said Marshall.
The Hoopa Valley Tribe has used decades of experience in restoration of Trinity River fisheries to help develop restoration measures for the Klamath. The two rivers join at the northern edge of the Hoopa Valley Reservation. The Trinity River, which bisects the Hoopa Reservation, is the largest tributary of the Klamath River, which runs through the Yurok Reservation to its terminus in the Pacific Ocean.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Regarding the tribes latest press release; It is unfortunate that the same old words, phrases and misinformation is used in this article as all the previous press from any tribe or environmental organization. What I have written here will be properly credited, unlike the pure opinion and emotional outcries that many times takes over our news sources simply because they are repeated incessantly.
Words have meaning and unfortunately there are people who use words in such a way that the reader is misled. I am talking specifically about unfounded assertions that have no basis in science or biology.
Numerous assertions appears in this article where the writer says, "these dams are killing the fish." This is misinformation designed to elicit an emotional response from the reader. The real fact is that dams do not kill fish. The writer may be of the opinion that dams keep fish from spawning above them, but he doesn't say that, he says dams are killing fish, there is a vast difference.
Another unsubstantiated assertion is in this phrase, "fish will continue towards extinction unless the barrier of the dams is neutralized."
This assertion has no basis in science, nor have any studies shown this to be the case. It is propaganda designed to influence those who will not or can not do the research to disprove the issue. They think that if they just say somehting repeatedly, people will believe it, and the sad part is that they are right.
The dams have been in place for almost a century and in that time salmon numbers have peaked and ebbed many times. This is historical fact that can be sunstantiated by the records. This should be proof positive that dams are not the cause of any present decline.
It was not very difficult to find an opposing opinion by a valid NOAA fisheries scientist that concluded; "Scientist Says Dams May Not Be Limiting Fish Recovery ." This paper can be found here: http://www.newsdata.com/fishletter/223/5story.html
This same Hoopa writer says this, "The dams are a major reason why salmon runs have declined to their lowest levels ever." Again, he provides no science to support the assertion, this is because there is none, it is just another oft repeated assertion that has no basis in reality or science.
One more unfounded assertion and I will go on to others things. The writer says, "The owners of the dams apparently don't understand that you cannot just take a salmon for a ride, dump it in the river above the dams and expect the salmon to begin spawning in an unfamiliar area, said Clifford Lyle Marshall, Chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe."
There is virtually no difference between trucking the fish or barging the fish. Here is another point of view. This is from a US Corps of Engineers research review. "Other new research that may shed light on the vagaries of barging fish reported that overall, barged fish were in better shape than their inriver brethren, based on lab tests that assessed their ability to ward off marine bacteria."
This review can be found in its entirety here: http://www.newsdata.com/fishletter/223/2story.html
So, I ask you, is it more reasonable to listen to the almost hysterical assertions from special interest groups that have no prooffor what they claim, or is it more reasonable to look to the science and history?
Words have meaning and unfortunately there are people who use words in such a way that the reader is misled. I am talking specifically about unfounded assertions that have no basis in science or biology.
Numerous assertions appears in this article where the writer says, "these dams are killing the fish." This is misinformation designed to elicit an emotional response from the reader. The real fact is that dams do not kill fish. The writer may be of the opinion that dams keep fish from spawning above them, but he doesn't say that, he says dams are killing fish, there is a vast difference.
Another unsubstantiated assertion is in this phrase, "fish will continue towards extinction unless the barrier of the dams is neutralized."
This assertion has no basis in science, nor have any studies shown this to be the case. It is propaganda designed to influence those who will not or can not do the research to disprove the issue. They think that if they just say somehting repeatedly, people will believe it, and the sad part is that they are right.
The dams have been in place for almost a century and in that time salmon numbers have peaked and ebbed many times. This is historical fact that can be sunstantiated by the records. This should be proof positive that dams are not the cause of any present decline.
It was not very difficult to find an opposing opinion by a valid NOAA fisheries scientist that concluded; "Scientist Says Dams May Not Be Limiting Fish Recovery ." This paper can be found here: http://www.newsdata.com/fishletter/223/5story.html
This same Hoopa writer says this, "The dams are a major reason why salmon runs have declined to their lowest levels ever." Again, he provides no science to support the assertion, this is because there is none, it is just another oft repeated assertion that has no basis in reality or science.
One more unfounded assertion and I will go on to others things. The writer says, "The owners of the dams apparently don't understand that you cannot just take a salmon for a ride, dump it in the river above the dams and expect the salmon to begin spawning in an unfamiliar area, said Clifford Lyle Marshall, Chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe."
There is virtually no difference between trucking the fish or barging the fish. Here is another point of view. This is from a US Corps of Engineers research review. "Other new research that may shed light on the vagaries of barging fish reported that overall, barged fish were in better shape than their inriver brethren, based on lab tests that assessed their ability to ward off marine bacteria."
This review can be found in its entirety here: http://www.newsdata.com/fishletter/223/2story.html
So, I ask you, is it more reasonable to listen to the almost hysterical assertions from special interest groups that have no prooffor what they claim, or is it more reasonable to look to the science and history?
Anyone who thinks Foley, a retired property rights activist and not a fisheries biologist, knows the difference between a coho and chinook should think again.
Do the research yourself:
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/WRCA/damremoval/search.html
or read the filings from numerous state and tribal agencies at FERC's website:
http://www.ferc.gov
The klamath project number is p-2082
Thinking that dams don't kill salmon is like saying cigarettes don't cause cancer...its a lie.
Do the research yourself:
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/WRCA/damremoval/search.html
or read the filings from numerous state and tribal agencies at FERC's website:
http://www.ferc.gov
The klamath project number is p-2082
Thinking that dams don't kill salmon is like saying cigarettes don't cause cancer...its a lie.
For more information:
http://www.karuk.us
Jim Foley wrote;
"Numerous assertions appears in this article where the writer says, "these dams are killing the fish." This is misinformation designed to elicit an emotional response from the reader. The real fact is that dams do not kill fish."
The Klamath dams don't directly kill the salmon, though the conditions created on the river by the presence of dams is directly responsible for the decreased numbers of salmon. The conditions caused by dams are; lower dissolved oxygen levels, increased toxic algae ('microcystis aeruginosa'), lower water velocity, higher water temps, barriers to upstream spawning habitat, etc..
Getting into these sort of roundabout arguements with corporatist sympathizers is like saying, "cigarettes don't cause lung cancer, though smoking them frequently over extended time does." Well no kidding. If we all just left the smokes in the carton, then lung cancer wouldn't be the issue, now would it??
Unfortunately presence of dams on the Klamath are not individual choices like cigarette smoking. Here since constructioon of dams is an imposition of a nature dominating imperialistic value system on indigenous cultures (Yurok, Hupa, Karuk, & Modoc/Klamath) and Klamath River ecosystem that for many centuries have lived in symbiosis and balance with one another..
Another way of saying it is, "Removal of the Klamath dams will succesfully counteract the current conditions directly responsible for the premature deaths of the salmon by; lowering water temps, increasing water velocity, increasing dissolved oxygen content, removing toxic algae growth, removing physical barriers to access upstream spawning habitat, etc.." That spells it out in greater detail for people like Jim Foley who over interpret details into comments like "dams are killing fish." Another way of putting it is that "none of the conditions listed above will be realisitically met if the Klamath dams remain in existence, and this would most likely result in an extirpation (regional extinction) of salmon from the Klamath"..
here's one problem that would cease to exist following removal of dams;
http://klamathrestoration.org/wp/what-is-toxic-algae/
Why Warren Buffet would want to reliscence the outdated Klamath dams is beyond me, though if i were a billionaire business tycoon/energy holdings mogul i may know something about energy shares bidding and other tax/economic loopholes that average people don't. For example, would Warren obtain any taxpayer subsidies by maintaining the dam's operations over the next several decades? Other outdated and polluting energy sources have also remained open past their expiration dates, there could be some financial motivation for this??
Look into the charity based arm of Warren Buffet's corporate schemes, donations to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc.. that everything Warren does has an eventual financial reward, he's not following the footsteps of Mother Teresa, despite the rosy pix painted by our corporate media of the venerable philanthropist..
This situation is a mirror parallel of Warren Buffet;
"Is the world's largest private philanthropic organization causing harm with the same money it uses to do good? That's the question hanging over the charity of Microsoft founder Bill Gates and his wife Melinda today. The Los Angeles Times has revealed the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has made millions of dollars each year from companies blamed for many of the same social and health problems the Foundation seeks to address.
The Gates Foundation has an endowment of more than $31 billion. The investment mogul Warren Buffet has pledged an additional $30 billion delivered in incremental sums. Since its inception six years ago, the Foundation has committed more than $11 billion to programs around the world. This includes major grants for vaccine and immunization programs, HIV and AIDS research, and public education here in the United States.
But the LA Times investigation reveals the Gates Foundation's humanitarian concerns are not reflected in how it invests its money. In the Niger Delta -- where the Foundation funds programs to fight polio and measles - the Foundation has also invested more than $400 million dollars in companies including Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp, and Chevron. These oil firms have been responsible for much of the pollution many blame for respiratory problems and other afflictions among the local population.
The Gates Foundation also has investments in sixty-nine of the worst polluting companies in the US and Canada, including Dow Chemical. It holds stakes in pharmaceutical companies whose drugs cost far beyond what most AIDS patients around the world can afford. Other companies in the Foundation's portfolio have been accused of transgressions including forcing thousands of people to lose their homes; supporting child labor; and defrauding and neglecting patients in need of medical care.
<skip>
AMY GOODMAN: We should point out that the kind of flaring you're describing, by the way, in the Niger Delta, in some cases done by US companies like Chevron, is not allowed in the United States. It's illegal, because of the kind of pollution that it puts out.
CHARLES PILLER: It's not. It's actually -- there is a bit of flaring in the United States, as well, but it’s on a much smaller scale, and it’s tightly controlled, and it is done in a way that less pollution results from it. The Niger Delta flaring is by far the worst in the world. Out of all the gas flaring that's done in the world -- and you have to understand that the reason that this flaring is done is that it's cheaper for the oil companies to burn off this gas that occurs with oil deposits that they are drilling. And in developed nations, they would trap the gas and either re-inject it into the ground or capture it for sale. In Nigeria, where there isn't a well-established market more natural gas, they prefer to just burn it off and get the oil out."
read entire article @;
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/09/1455200
Here's the parallel scene; Despite gas flaring being a waste of energy (imagine how many cook stoves we could fuel with the wasted natural gas), it is cheaper for the petroleum corporations to waste it into the environment than to trap it and harness, distribute to people in need, leaving the delta ecosystem relatively intact. The problem is corporate (Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, Shell/BP, etc..) control of petroleum extraction in Niger (or Mississippi) delta, solved by intensive boycotts or petroleum products, unionizing of workforce, nationalization of oil and local communities (Ogoni, Iwa, etc..) reclaiming stolen land from corporate plunderers..
Maybe Buffet is profiting from the negligence factor, cheaper to leave Klamath dams standing than to attempt restoration, in this case the wasted energy being free flowing river water and migratory salmon. The electricity obtained form the Klamath dams is negligible, regular maintenance and upkeep costs (also taxpayer subsidized?) of the dams are not included in the net electricity output equation either..
The blockage of river water by Klamath dams is like cholesterol buildup in the human body's bloodstream, preventing the blood (agua) from getting back and forth to the heart (ocean). Think of salmon as red blood cells, the river as the veins/arteries of our Madre Tierra. Is the same corporation promising the medical treatments for high cholesterol (diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, etc..) also responsible for creating the conditions of ill health by blocking the healthy food source (salmon) from the people in the first place?? Where's the philanthropy in that, sounds more like misanthropy to me!! Government USDA rations and junk food does not equal salmon in either taste or health!!
Problem here is corporate (ie., Pacificorp, Berkshire-Hathaway, PG&E, etc..) control of energy production, solved by removing dams and energy holdings corporations from their exalted positions of power, gained through land theft and presumptions about corporate personhood claims of "property ownership". Problem is that people have not yet succesfully challenged the presumptions about corporate personhood to reclaim their stolen land. Democracy requires local communties to provide people at low/no cost their own renewable energy from biomass, solar, wind, etc.. and many other non-intrusive forms of energy harnessing supressed by energy corporations who profit from the monopolization of energy production (nuclear, petroleum, hydroelectric) at the expense of ecosystems everywhere..
One way or another, the Klamath dams will be removed. The salmon will return to the Klamath in greater numbers than imagined over the following years, the ecosystem and the people will witness their health restored..
"Numerous assertions appears in this article where the writer says, "these dams are killing the fish." This is misinformation designed to elicit an emotional response from the reader. The real fact is that dams do not kill fish."
The Klamath dams don't directly kill the salmon, though the conditions created on the river by the presence of dams is directly responsible for the decreased numbers of salmon. The conditions caused by dams are; lower dissolved oxygen levels, increased toxic algae ('microcystis aeruginosa'), lower water velocity, higher water temps, barriers to upstream spawning habitat, etc..
Getting into these sort of roundabout arguements with corporatist sympathizers is like saying, "cigarettes don't cause lung cancer, though smoking them frequently over extended time does." Well no kidding. If we all just left the smokes in the carton, then lung cancer wouldn't be the issue, now would it??
Unfortunately presence of dams on the Klamath are not individual choices like cigarette smoking. Here since constructioon of dams is an imposition of a nature dominating imperialistic value system on indigenous cultures (Yurok, Hupa, Karuk, & Modoc/Klamath) and Klamath River ecosystem that for many centuries have lived in symbiosis and balance with one another..
Another way of saying it is, "Removal of the Klamath dams will succesfully counteract the current conditions directly responsible for the premature deaths of the salmon by; lowering water temps, increasing water velocity, increasing dissolved oxygen content, removing toxic algae growth, removing physical barriers to access upstream spawning habitat, etc.." That spells it out in greater detail for people like Jim Foley who over interpret details into comments like "dams are killing fish." Another way of putting it is that "none of the conditions listed above will be realisitically met if the Klamath dams remain in existence, and this would most likely result in an extirpation (regional extinction) of salmon from the Klamath"..
here's one problem that would cease to exist following removal of dams;
http://klamathrestoration.org/wp/what-is-toxic-algae/
Why Warren Buffet would want to reliscence the outdated Klamath dams is beyond me, though if i were a billionaire business tycoon/energy holdings mogul i may know something about energy shares bidding and other tax/economic loopholes that average people don't. For example, would Warren obtain any taxpayer subsidies by maintaining the dam's operations over the next several decades? Other outdated and polluting energy sources have also remained open past their expiration dates, there could be some financial motivation for this??
Look into the charity based arm of Warren Buffet's corporate schemes, donations to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc.. that everything Warren does has an eventual financial reward, he's not following the footsteps of Mother Teresa, despite the rosy pix painted by our corporate media of the venerable philanthropist..
This situation is a mirror parallel of Warren Buffet;
"Is the world's largest private philanthropic organization causing harm with the same money it uses to do good? That's the question hanging over the charity of Microsoft founder Bill Gates and his wife Melinda today. The Los Angeles Times has revealed the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has made millions of dollars each year from companies blamed for many of the same social and health problems the Foundation seeks to address.
The Gates Foundation has an endowment of more than $31 billion. The investment mogul Warren Buffet has pledged an additional $30 billion delivered in incremental sums. Since its inception six years ago, the Foundation has committed more than $11 billion to programs around the world. This includes major grants for vaccine and immunization programs, HIV and AIDS research, and public education here in the United States.
But the LA Times investigation reveals the Gates Foundation's humanitarian concerns are not reflected in how it invests its money. In the Niger Delta -- where the Foundation funds programs to fight polio and measles - the Foundation has also invested more than $400 million dollars in companies including Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp, and Chevron. These oil firms have been responsible for much of the pollution many blame for respiratory problems and other afflictions among the local population.
The Gates Foundation also has investments in sixty-nine of the worst polluting companies in the US and Canada, including Dow Chemical. It holds stakes in pharmaceutical companies whose drugs cost far beyond what most AIDS patients around the world can afford. Other companies in the Foundation's portfolio have been accused of transgressions including forcing thousands of people to lose their homes; supporting child labor; and defrauding and neglecting patients in need of medical care.
<skip>
AMY GOODMAN: We should point out that the kind of flaring you're describing, by the way, in the Niger Delta, in some cases done by US companies like Chevron, is not allowed in the United States. It's illegal, because of the kind of pollution that it puts out.
CHARLES PILLER: It's not. It's actually -- there is a bit of flaring in the United States, as well, but it’s on a much smaller scale, and it’s tightly controlled, and it is done in a way that less pollution results from it. The Niger Delta flaring is by far the worst in the world. Out of all the gas flaring that's done in the world -- and you have to understand that the reason that this flaring is done is that it's cheaper for the oil companies to burn off this gas that occurs with oil deposits that they are drilling. And in developed nations, they would trap the gas and either re-inject it into the ground or capture it for sale. In Nigeria, where there isn't a well-established market more natural gas, they prefer to just burn it off and get the oil out."
read entire article @;
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/09/1455200
Here's the parallel scene; Despite gas flaring being a waste of energy (imagine how many cook stoves we could fuel with the wasted natural gas), it is cheaper for the petroleum corporations to waste it into the environment than to trap it and harness, distribute to people in need, leaving the delta ecosystem relatively intact. The problem is corporate (Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, Shell/BP, etc..) control of petroleum extraction in Niger (or Mississippi) delta, solved by intensive boycotts or petroleum products, unionizing of workforce, nationalization of oil and local communities (Ogoni, Iwa, etc..) reclaiming stolen land from corporate plunderers..
Maybe Buffet is profiting from the negligence factor, cheaper to leave Klamath dams standing than to attempt restoration, in this case the wasted energy being free flowing river water and migratory salmon. The electricity obtained form the Klamath dams is negligible, regular maintenance and upkeep costs (also taxpayer subsidized?) of the dams are not included in the net electricity output equation either..
The blockage of river water by Klamath dams is like cholesterol buildup in the human body's bloodstream, preventing the blood (agua) from getting back and forth to the heart (ocean). Think of salmon as red blood cells, the river as the veins/arteries of our Madre Tierra. Is the same corporation promising the medical treatments for high cholesterol (diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, etc..) also responsible for creating the conditions of ill health by blocking the healthy food source (salmon) from the people in the first place?? Where's the philanthropy in that, sounds more like misanthropy to me!! Government USDA rations and junk food does not equal salmon in either taste or health!!
Problem here is corporate (ie., Pacificorp, Berkshire-Hathaway, PG&E, etc..) control of energy production, solved by removing dams and energy holdings corporations from their exalted positions of power, gained through land theft and presumptions about corporate personhood claims of "property ownership". Problem is that people have not yet succesfully challenged the presumptions about corporate personhood to reclaim their stolen land. Democracy requires local communties to provide people at low/no cost their own renewable energy from biomass, solar, wind, etc.. and many other non-intrusive forms of energy harnessing supressed by energy corporations who profit from the monopolization of energy production (nuclear, petroleum, hydroelectric) at the expense of ecosystems everywhere..
One way or another, the Klamath dams will be removed. The salmon will return to the Klamath in greater numbers than imagined over the following years, the ecosystem and the people will witness their health restored..
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network