Regarding the recent editorial, "Farmers right to be skeptical" (The Astorian, Jan. 7): The last paragraph states, "We don’t know anyone who is against saving the whales or the salmon if the real human costs and impacts can be realistically addressed. Count us as skeptical that could ever be the case."
While the meaning of the paragraph is not entirely clear, it appears to be saying that whales and salmon should be saved only if efforts to breach dams aren't too costly, and don't seriously impact the livelihood of humans. This is the same short-sighted argument put forth by our administration in Washington, D.C., along with the oil and gas and coal industries, to justify doing as little as possible to address climate warming.
Humans are flexible. Farmers, barge operators, deck hands and dock workers, those most impacted by dam breaching on the Columbia and Snake rivers, can work elsewhere or change careers to meet the challenges of a changing environment. Perhaps not great options for these workers, but at least humans have choices. Unfortunately, salmon and whales do not.
The editorial states, "The loudest proponents of breaching the dams seem to have the least personally at stake." The unfortunate flipside to this is that the least loudest proponents of breaching the dams have the most personally at stake — their very existence.