gsvol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2008
- Messages
- 14,179
- Likes
- 10
We don't need the hydroelectric
energy nor the food but we need the fish!!!
Question, if the fish survived a century of
having the dams, why do the dams need
to be destroyed now??
Not only that, salmon can be grown on fish
farms, a neighbor of mine produces $250,000
worth of salmon annually.
As I mentioned in another thread, the farmers
of the Klamath Valley were WWs I and II veterans
who had served this country admirably and were
guaranteed irrigation waters forever if they settled
and farmed there.
The SF Chronical puts the usual liberal spin on
it all, most of which is outright lies or at best
misrepresentations of the truth or half truths.
No doubt Pacificorp will get a few hundred million
$$$ out of it.
No doubt the nonprofit mentioned is funded by
those who own somewhere between 51 and 97%
of the liquifiable assets of this nation and/or of the
whole world to be more exact.
They fail to mention the number of farmers
starved out by the Clinton administration's
policy of denying obligated irrigation water
to the Klamath farming community.
Let's all hope and pray that Ken Salazar isn't
the Sec of the Interior in 2012.
No doubt the citizens of California and Oregon
will be overjoyed to be paying a surcharge of
$200,000,000 for this insanity. (and who's to
tell them to stop charging a surtax when the
$200,000,000 number is reached???? Users of
TVA electricity are paying about $5,000,000
a day in interest on loans we didn't need to make
in the first place, fwiw.)
Another question(s), if tearing down the dams
solves the problem then why the need to build
fish ladders??? Do fish ladders not work with
the dams in place????
Isn't hydro electric power the most readily
available, sustainable, nonpoluting source of
energy we have???? And want to talk economically
sound, these hydroelectric sites are already in
place so there is no cost involved with building
something new.
Gorbachev said environmentalism would be the
tool by which America would be socialized and
then such noble sounding terms as "endangered
species act" and "clean water act" are stuffed
into other much larger bills because they wouldn't
stand up to public scrutiny if they were submitted
as stand alone bills.
Even worse is denying irrigation water to the San
Joaquin valley, changing the most productive farm
land in America into a desert.
When I quote wildly sounding claims such as
those by 'environmentalist' who say we should
tear down all the dams in this country or animal
rights activists who say we shouldn't allow
ownership of domesticated animals or even pets,
don't think they don't mean business and that they
don't have the money behind them either. Some
have $100,000,000 annual budgets with which to
implement their insane agenda.
Next project, tearing down 4 dams on the Snake
river in idaho.
What we really need is millions of Dexters imo!
energy nor the food but we need the fish!!!
Question, if the fish survived a century of
having the dams, why do the dams need
to be destroyed now??
Not only that, salmon can be grown on fish
farms, a neighbor of mine produces $250,000
worth of salmon annually.
As I mentioned in another thread, the farmers
of the Klamath Valley were WWs I and II veterans
who had served this country admirably and were
guaranteed irrigation waters forever if they settled
and farmed there.
The SF Chronical puts the usual liberal spin on
it all, most of which is outright lies or at best
misrepresentations of the truth or half truths.
No doubt Pacificorp will get a few hundred million
$$$ out of it.
No doubt the nonprofit mentioned is funded by
those who own somewhere between 51 and 97%
of the liquifiable assets of this nation and/or of the
whole world to be more exact.
They fail to mention the number of farmers
starved out by the Clinton administration's
policy of denying obligated irrigation water
to the Klamath farming community.
Let's all hope and pray that Ken Salazar isn't
the Sec of the Interior in 2012.
No doubt the citizens of California and Oregon
will be overjoyed to be paying a surcharge of
$200,000,000 for this insanity. (and who's to
tell them to stop charging a surtax when the
$200,000,000 number is reached???? Users of
TVA electricity are paying about $5,000,000
a day in interest on loans we didn't need to make
in the first place, fwiw.)
Another question(s), if tearing down the dams
solves the problem then why the need to build
fish ladders??? Do fish ladders not work with
the dams in place????
Isn't hydro electric power the most readily
available, sustainable, nonpoluting source of
energy we have???? And want to talk economically
sound, these hydroelectric sites are already in
place so there is no cost involved with building
something new.
Gorbachev said environmentalism would be the
tool by which America would be socialized and
then such noble sounding terms as "endangered
species act" and "clean water act" are stuffed
into other much larger bills because they wouldn't
stand up to public scrutiny if they were submitted
as stand alone bills.
Even worse is denying irrigation water to the San
Joaquin valley, changing the most productive farm
land in America into a desert.
When I quote wildly sounding claims such as
those by 'environmentalist' who say we should
tear down all the dams in this country or animal
rights activists who say we shouldn't allow
ownership of domesticated animals or even pets,
don't think they don't mean business and that they
don't have the money behind them either. Some
have $100,000,000 annual budgets with which to
implement their insane agenda.
Next project, tearing down 4 dams on the Snake
river in idaho.
What we really need is millions of Dexters imo!
