|
|
|
MailTribune.com
  • LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

  • It disturbed me to read "Report says dam removal good for Klamath salmon" in the Feb. 5 MT, published with sugar-coated terms, numbers blown out of proportion and statements of fantasy.
    • email print
  • It disturbed me to read "Report says dam removal good for Klamath salmon" in the Feb. 5 MT, published with sugar-coated terms, numbers blown out of proportion and statements of fantasy.
    It stated that a 90 percent drop in salmon was caused by dams, over-fishing, poor water quality, disease, etc. My question is, what percentage is caused by dams.
    It stated dam removal would open up 420 miles of habitat. The major source is Klamath Lake, approximately 35 river miles above Iron Gate Dam. The state of Oregon is not 420 miles long.
    "Dam removal would improve the ability of fish to cope with global warming by opening up more access to cold water." Fantasy! Anyone who lives in the area knows that Klamath Lake is huge and shallow, which makes the water warm. No dam removal is going to change that.
    As to removing four clean, renewable energy sources, I would think that any proposal must include an alternate renewable energy source to replace that loss. Not paid for by a surcharge on our energy rates! — Roger Hansen, White City
Reader Reaction
      • calendar