Todd Myers’ Op-Ed arguing against removing the Snake River dams ignored two salient points, which thus weakened his argument.
First, he fails to mention that the Elwha River, now a real river rather than a series of stagnant ponds, has washed out a bridge that formerly allowed cars to access a parking lot six miles upriver. Rebuild that bridge, and the number of people visiting and hiking along the river will increase significantly, as will tourist dollars spent in the area.
Second, although he says that removing dams will be bad for salmon, he never explains how leaving the dams in place will be good for salmon. He apparently does not even know that salmon runs on the Elwha have improved significantly since dam removal.
What we need here is clarity about why we remove dams and the environmental and economic benefits of doing so. Everyone working to remove these outdated and unnecessary dams realizes that restoring the legendary salmon runs on the Snake will promote a healthy fishing business for both the tribes and commercial fishermen. Razing these dams now is just common sense.
Michael Shurgot, Seattle
Thanks to The Times for presenting the two sides to the Snake River dams quandary. Both writers scored points, but Todd Myers blew it when he used the Elwha River dams removal as an example of the failure of dam removal.
The greedy white man illegally built those travesties and destroyed the ecosystem of the greatest of all salmon runs. A century later, this supposed expert is using a downturn in human economics to disparage a noble effort to undo the enormous crime against nature that was committed by building the Elwha dams.
Myers’ obvious animus toward environmentalists erases the credibly he had constructed in his article to that point. I think of those giant salmon thrashing to death at the base of those Elwha dams, and I am sickened by the monstrous human greed and hubris that killed them and is still destroying the world.
Mike Sennett, Bellingham