While it might be politically pleasurable to imagine a bunch of ivory tower idiots, the real reason driving dam removal isn't salmon, it's preventing catastrophic dam collapse. That's why there's state and federal funding for a lot of dam removal.
The dams being removed are old, obsolete, and end of life. They were usually put in place before we had a power grid.
Leaving them in place isn't an option, they will eventually fail. Spending money to replace or repair a dam that doesn't do anything is a waste.
Removing them also has a ton of environmental benefits, and improves the area for current and future residents.
It really is a win-win situation in that everyone benefits: conservation groups, tribal groups, fishing and hunting groups and taxpayers.
Maybe it was a no-brainer in this situation, but that certainly isn't the picture that the article painted, with 20 years of activism to persuade the damn owner and operator to take them out instead of refurbishing them.
Similarly, if it's such an obvious win-win, why do 80% of the locals not view it that way? Do you think they're simply wrong and have nothing to lose?
If _you_ didn't do any research and just decided the situation validated your priors, why is it surprising that locals do the same thing?
The tribes that relied on the salmon in the klamath watershed lost their jobs, subsistence food, and cultural heritage for nearly a hundred years, and this factors precisely nil in your analysis.
To be clear, Im not even necessarily opposed to dam removal. My intent was to explore the dynamic where large numbers of remote people make decisions despite having little skin in the game. This dynamic also has a long history of negatively impacting native Americans too.
There are thousands or millions of activists, statistically urban and distant, that like the conceptual idea of a free flowing river with salmon. Most of them will never visit the river. These are pitted against a much smaller number of geographic locals, many of whom may suffer flooding and the loss of their jobs, businesses, and retirements. This is not to say one side is inherently right or wrong- it is still a matter of values.
I thought the article could have done a better job of explaining what the locals realistically stand to lose in this situation, and less time on the conspiracy talk. In my experience, the conspiracy theories come as secondary post-hoc justification for economic and cultural interests of their adherents.
> Neither side is more ‘scientific’ than the other; they’re both driven by values
This isnt always the case. With respect to the science, sometimes different sides claim different and conflicting outcomes. The extent of the salmon run when it returns is a factual prediction, where one side can be shown right or wrong, as is the number of people who will be flooded or lose their jobs.
Towards the end of the article, it talks about spotted owl conservation, where 9 million acres of Forrest were protected, causing 30,000 loggers to lose their job. The environmental activists overstated how much this would help the owls, while the objectors held the position that logging was not big impact and the real driver was out competition from the barred owl. The aftermath showed the position of one side to have more scientific merit, but that is little consolation to those who had their lives destroyed. Inversely, the bad science has no cost to the conservation activists, because they had nothing to lose from the regulation.
This is a bit of a pet issue for me, because I have family who lost their life's work and life savings in similar situations.