Could Federal Hatcheries Be In Peril

[flytyer57]

When would be a good time? Think of the smallmouth fishing that could be found between bull shoals and batesville.

I ain't no engineer so I don't know what it would take.

Probably cheaper to tear the dam things down.

[exiledguide]

When would be a good time? Think of the smallmouth fishing that could be found between bull shoals and batesville.

And the tons of people in their canoes and yaks and jet boats. These people who have been trout fishing some will still fish somewhere. Plus where are you going to get the smallmouth. Plus I think you might catch it from the people living around the lake if you tell them you want to turn it into a river again. I don't understand how we need to cut back on money for the hatcheries but we keep sending money to this country or that country for whatever reason.

[eric1978]

Running the water over the top of the dam more than likely would not make the tailwaters hospitable for smallmouth...it would be too warm and turbid. Probably okay for spots and largemouth, though. The river's never coming back, unfortunately. We have what we have...we may as well embrace it and get the most out of it, which I think we probably do.

[Outside Bend]

Here's Lake Mead. Note the "bathtub ring," which developed as a result of extended drought. That's why you draw water from the bottom of the dam, not the top- if the lake level falls below the turbine intake, power generators are screwed.

Even if you could overcome that and manage the tailwaters as coolwater fisheries, it doesn't ensure things revert back to the fisheries before the dams went in. You've had lots of changes to the landscape- land clearing, urbanization, the creation of nutrient sinks in the reservoirs- and the tailwaters today receive many times more angling pressure than they did in the 30's or 40's.

[gotmuddy]

It was a thought. At least I can smallmouth fish the white during the summer.

[Al Agnew]

Yes, nice to dream, but there's too many economic benefits to the dams to either tear them down or retrofit them to turn the river below into a cool water fishery. Like it or not, the reservoirs are nationally famous for their bass fishing, and the White is nationally famous for trout fishing. As sad as I've always been that I never got to fish the White and North Fork before the dams, I know it probably wouldn't be a good thing to get rid of them at this point.

[bigredbirdfan]

Not sure where this comes from, but it only costs about .6-.7 cents per kwh for hydro power compared to 2.2 cents per kwh for coal. In the pacific northwest where 60% of their power comes from hydorelectric they pay 1/3 the costs for power of what the average American pays. Once the dam is built it is extremely cheap to run the plant as they are now fully automated and require few staff members. In addition the plants are long lived with many still operating that were built 50 to 100 years ago.

I would love to see local rivers in their former splendor, but it would be extremely counterproductive to eliminate this clean energy source at a time where we are looking for more and cleaner energy.

It still only amounts to less than 7% of our energy consumption....before we are forced to use highly toxic fluorscent bulbs in 2012...maybe it will be a much larger percentage after that. It was a good idea at the time but really does little in 2011 in regards to the demand for electricity. The problem is that certain groups would rather restrict our electrical consumption than allow nuclear power facilites.

Anyway I'm afraid unless a dam becomes structurally unsound they will never come down because to many structures are in the flood plains of most of the dams.

[Justin Spencer]

....before we are forced to use highly toxic fluorscent bulbs in 2012...

What about the highly toxic pollution from coal power plants, and from what I understand there is nuclear waste produced from those power plants. We can make excuses for or against anything, but it is inconvenience that keeps anything from getting done in this country. It is very easy to take these bulbs to be recycled, and I would guess it will get easier as we are forced to use them. If you are like me, mercury was practically a toy when I was a kid (may explain alot), so maybe these bulbs will just bring that practice back.

As for hydroelectric only providing 7% of our power, that offsets alot of coal plants cleanly and efficiently. It is a regional thing and I would guess those in the Pacific Northwest who get over half their power from this source would have strong reactions if a bunch of coal or nuclear plants went in nearby and their energy prices tripled.

[flytyer57]

In the Pacific Northwest, there is a big push to remove dams there also. The steelhead and salmon guys have been going on about this for years. The dams block the passage of the steelhead and salmon and are blamed as the number culprit for the demise of these species.

[Justin Spencer]

In the Pacific Northwest, there is a big push to remove dams there also.

Makes sense for those wild fisheries that depend on upstream runs for spawning success. I don't know much about it on the larger dams but don't see them being removed. Haven't they put fish ladders on many of the smaller dams to permit passage of fish that make upstream runs? I assume this helps the fish get over the dam, but wonder what the habitat for spawning is like above the dams.