News Article on Tearing Down the Dams Unencumbered by Evidence
In her last article, Seattle Times reporter Lynda Mapes highlighted the activists attacking NOAA scientists regarding the four Lower Snake River dams. They don’t like the fact that science from NOAA Fisheries makes it clear that destroying the dams will be extremely expensive but have only “marginal” benefit for orca.
Her latest article on September 22nd includes a wide range of unsubstantiated claims. Notable is that fact that she does provide links to some claims, like the amount of tonnage shipped on the Snake River, but doesn’t provide any links or sources for many of her key claims. Those claims include:
- “The dams provide only about 5 percent of the region’s power.”
- The electricity from the dams “is easily replaced, if it’s needed at all.”
- Tearing down the dams would be “…a sound business decision.”
- Destroying the dams is a “necessary ecological choice to help save the orcas”
- “…and even help shore up BPA.”
- “The rate of returning wild chinook from out-migrating baby Snake River chinook is still below what’s needed to prevent extinction, let alone recover the species.”
- “Spill already has been shown to be among the best ways to boost salmon survival.”
- “Multiple federal agencies years ago concluded dam removal on the Lower Snake would actually deliver the biggest benefits for salmon.”
None of these claims includes a reference or link. Many are intentionally vague – “multiple federal agencies years ago,” “among the best ways.” Others are purely speculative – “is easily replaced,” “a sound business decision.”
There are also the obligatory admissions, made as asides. In one sentence Mapes writes, “They [orca] also depend on chinook from rivers all over Puget Sound.” In fact, her own article earlier this year demonstrates that orca “heavily rely” on food from rivers in the Puget Sound. They do not merely “also” rely on them – they primarily rely on them. For policymakers deciding where to spend resources to save salmon and orca, getting the priorities wrong is a deadly mistake.
The reason for all this vagueness and lack of substantiation is simple. The consensus science from NOAA Fisheries is clear and those who want to tear down the dams have no contrary evidence.
With so much to do in Puget Sound, where it will best suit the orca, destroying the dams in Eastern Washington would be a deadly distraction for the orca.