This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Snake River article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Snake River has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Louisiana State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.
Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
on 15:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
More images at User:Maveric149/images/Idaho. If you use any, then please either drop me a line on my talk page or move it from ==Orphan== to ==Images that have homes== on my image page. -- mav 04:52, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The average volume of the Snake River is hardly 50,000 cfs. I really question the source of the person who claims it is 50,000 cfs. The Colorado and Sacramento Rivers are both larger than the Snake River. The mouth of the Snake River is near Anatone Washington and the average flow is about 27,500 cfs. The Sacremento is about 30,000 cfs and the Colorado 43,000 cfs. User:Peckvet55 17:49, 14 Feb 2007
Source http://waterdata.usgs.gov/id/nwis/uv/?site_no=13334300&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060
Myasuda 02:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have comments on if this article is ready for GA yet? I'll wait until November 30 for a reply, then I'll put it on GAN myself. Shannon talk contribs sign!:) 00:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The Clearwater River is the largest tributary of the Snake, not the Salmon. According to USGS, the mean flow of the Clearwater is about 15,000 cfs, and the mean flow of the Salmon is just under 12,000 cfs. Check out the wiki pages on both the salmon and the clearwater for the source link. I suggest changing this to be accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.196.128 ( talk) 22:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 23:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: I found 13 disambiguations. I could not determine whether Snake River Aquifer should disambiguate to Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer or Western Snake River Plain Aquifer; I could find no suitable target for Flathead; I fixed the rest. diff
Link rot: I repaired three and tagged one dead link. diff
Excellent, I ma very happy to passs this as a good article. Well done!
I've just uploaded an 1871 photo of the Snake River, see right. Feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 03:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The Lower Snake River Controversy section is a contribution from a student in
Spring 2011 Conservation Biology (Bill Platt) at Louisiana State University. Any feedback on the contribution by the community will be appreciated. BJC 16:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to this Wikipedia article, and welcome to Wikipedia! As a Wikipedian and an Idahoan who grew up a stone's throw from the Snake River, I have some feedback, including the following three main recommendations: (If I find the time, I will come back and try to do some editing in the article to reflect this feedback, but in the meantime, anyone else is welcome to incorporate these suggestions also.)
In general, this section on the Lower Snake River Controversy is making an argument in favor of dam removal, and more broadly, it is heavily biased towards the side of the conservationists (perhaps because it was written for a Conservation Biology class -- which is fine for that class, but not for Wikipedia). When it does attempt to address both sides of the argument, it primarily only addresses the ecological and energy-related drawbacks to dam removal and does not provide equal treatment of the views of people in the agriculture and transportation sectors and the residents of the affected area in general (the majority of which are opposed to dam removal and view it as an extreme solution, according to [4]).
Examples of this POV (point of view) problem can be found throughout the section. I have copied a few such examples here, and after each example, I have provided an example of how the sentence could be modified to fix this problem of bias:
Just some ideas. Thanks again for your contribution and for joining Wikipedia's efforts. Resplin.odell ( talk) 21:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Simplest solution was to revert it back to GA version. The diff is here. AIRcorn (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Something doesn't seem right about the discharge stats here. There appears to be two key sources used: 1) Snake River below Ice Harbor Dam, WA, 1963-2000 (footnote #7), a gauge below Ice Harbor dam that operated from 1963-2000). 2) Ice Harbor Lock and Dam Pertinent Data, USACE (footnote #8), the "Hydrologic Data" section of that page says it is "based on streamflow data for the Snake River near Clarkston, WA", "period of record 1915-1972"--that must be some other now discontinued gauge.
Data from the first source, [7]: "Summary statistics": highest daily mean 305,000 cfs (19 June 1974). "EXTREMES FOR PERIOD OF RECORD": Maximum discharge, 312,000 cfs (19 June 1974) (presumably something other than "max daily mean", perhaps "max instantaneous peak"). "Annual mean": 54,830 cfs. "Min daily mean": 2,700 cfs.
Data from the second source, [8]: "Instantaneous max": 369,000 cfs (29 May 1948); "Extreme outside period of record" (ie, estimated): 409,000 cfs ("flood of June 1894"); "Instantaneous minimum": 6,660 cfs (2 Sep 1958); "Average annual flow": 48,840 cfs.
Anyway, I have to go and can't say any more. But it looks like these two sources are both used but not described quite right. Pfly ( talk) 21:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Idaho's Snake river once teemed with sockeye salmon. However, there are almost no wild sockeye salmon left in the river due to a number of factors. They are literally on the brink of extinction.
There are many reasons why Sockeye Salmon in the Snake River are going extinct. One reason is that the Snake river runs through 3 different states, and is over 1,000 miles long. Salmon swimming upstream in this river are faced with predators and dams. The Snake River has fifteen dams and is extremely difficult for salmon to access because of hydroelectric dams. Hell's Canyon Dam blocks passage to the entire upper Snake River. The Grand Cooley also blocks spawning grounds to the famous "June Hogs." (June Hogs were legendary Chinook Salmon that weighed over 100 pounds.)
Secondly, almost 160 years ago when settlers came into the Pacific Northwest, they exploited the rich natural resources of beaver pelts, gold, trees, and namely, the salmon. Technological advances in canning made shipping canned salmon meat possible all over the world. Overharvesting and habitat loss accounted for the mass majority of salmon becoming critically endangered, with the majority of salmon processing factories quickly shutting down and going out of business due to the decline.
The impacts of these salmon going extinct are unimaginable. Bears, plants, and numerous other wildlife would crumble and die because they depend on the salmon for food and nutrients. The fishing industry would collapse and so would the ecosystem, since salmon deposit nutrients to the environment after they spawn and die. Future generations of humans would only hear of these salmon as a legend, or story, and never get to see or taste these magnificent, mysterious creatures.
Between 1985 and 2007, only an average of 18 sockeye salmon returned to Idaho each year. Serious conservation efforts by wildlife biologists and fish hatcheries have captured the few remaining wild sockeye salmon, collected their sperm and eggs, and in a laboratory, have them spawn. Instead of spawning naturally, these sockeye begin their lives in an incubator in a fishery biologist's laboratory. These baby salmon then are transported by ship, bypassing the dams. (The dams can hurt juvenile baby sockeye salmon with their powerful tides and currents, which suck the baby salmon down.) Another conservation effort that has helped the salmon recover, is the destruction of old, outdated dams, such as the Savage Rapids Dam. After destroying the dam, salmon populations noticeably recovered.
Sources:
"Northwest Fisheries Science Center." Once Nearly Extinct, Endangered Idaho Sockeye Regaining Fitness Advantage -. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2016.
"Sockeye Salmon Facts." National Geographic. National Geographic, 11 Feb. 2012, Web. 13 Jan. 2016.
"Whooshh Innovations' "fish Gun" Shoots Salmon over Obstacles Small and Tall." Whooshh Innovations' "fish Gun" Shoots Salmon over Obstacles Small and Tall. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kxj5906 ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
אביהו ( talk) 17:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
In the summer of 2013, more than 13,000 sockeye salmon returned to the spawning grounds.[93]
This comment is not substantiated by any evidence, and is likely being put here by people who have a strong interest in keeping the dams such as Bonneville Power or the Pacific Northwest Waterways association. The footnoted evidence links to an article by national geographic stating fish facts, not numbers. Again this number is NOT VERIFIED. Do not trust this fact until a source is connected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.183.168 ( talk) 00:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The Columbia River Gorge is a great geographical location, and there should be a wikilink to it here. Such careless is somewhat shocking, and altogether too common in the Wikipedia! 24.156.78.205 ( talk) 19:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
It's a great location... and it's a hundred miles downriver of the end of the Snake. It's called the "Columbia" River Gorge. 2600:6C54:7A00:7C8:64C1:76E2:217E:426A ( talk) 16:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi folks, I think it would be good to have a separate article to centralize content around the dam removal proposals and their supporting and opposing arguments. It feels like a mostly separate topic from the river itself, so I'm proposing to split the dam removal section into its own article.
I know there have been some NPOV issues with this content in the past. Rest assured, I'm not intending to make this article a soap box. There's been a lot of content written by proponents and opponents over literal decades, and I think it's in Wikipedia's interest to put that content together into one article. Let me know how you feel and I'll revisit this in, say, a week. AdJHu 胡 14:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Snake River article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Snake River has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Louisiana State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.
Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
on 15:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
More images at User:Maveric149/images/Idaho. If you use any, then please either drop me a line on my talk page or move it from ==Orphan== to ==Images that have homes== on my image page. -- mav 04:52, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The average volume of the Snake River is hardly 50,000 cfs. I really question the source of the person who claims it is 50,000 cfs. The Colorado and Sacramento Rivers are both larger than the Snake River. The mouth of the Snake River is near Anatone Washington and the average flow is about 27,500 cfs. The Sacremento is about 30,000 cfs and the Colorado 43,000 cfs. User:Peckvet55 17:49, 14 Feb 2007
Source http://waterdata.usgs.gov/id/nwis/uv/?site_no=13334300&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060
Myasuda 02:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have comments on if this article is ready for GA yet? I'll wait until November 30 for a reply, then I'll put it on GAN myself. Shannon talk contribs sign!:) 00:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The Clearwater River is the largest tributary of the Snake, not the Salmon. According to USGS, the mean flow of the Clearwater is about 15,000 cfs, and the mean flow of the Salmon is just under 12,000 cfs. Check out the wiki pages on both the salmon and the clearwater for the source link. I suggest changing this to be accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.196.128 ( talk) 22:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 23:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: I found 13 disambiguations. I could not determine whether Snake River Aquifer should disambiguate to Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer or Western Snake River Plain Aquifer; I could find no suitable target for Flathead; I fixed the rest. diff
Link rot: I repaired three and tagged one dead link. diff
Excellent, I ma very happy to passs this as a good article. Well done!
I've just uploaded an 1871 photo of the Snake River, see right. Feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 03:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The Lower Snake River Controversy section is a contribution from a student in
Spring 2011 Conservation Biology (Bill Platt) at Louisiana State University. Any feedback on the contribution by the community will be appreciated. BJC 16:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to this Wikipedia article, and welcome to Wikipedia! As a Wikipedian and an Idahoan who grew up a stone's throw from the Snake River, I have some feedback, including the following three main recommendations: (If I find the time, I will come back and try to do some editing in the article to reflect this feedback, but in the meantime, anyone else is welcome to incorporate these suggestions also.)
In general, this section on the Lower Snake River Controversy is making an argument in favor of dam removal, and more broadly, it is heavily biased towards the side of the conservationists (perhaps because it was written for a Conservation Biology class -- which is fine for that class, but not for Wikipedia). When it does attempt to address both sides of the argument, it primarily only addresses the ecological and energy-related drawbacks to dam removal and does not provide equal treatment of the views of people in the agriculture and transportation sectors and the residents of the affected area in general (the majority of which are opposed to dam removal and view it as an extreme solution, according to [4]).
Examples of this POV (point of view) problem can be found throughout the section. I have copied a few such examples here, and after each example, I have provided an example of how the sentence could be modified to fix this problem of bias:
Just some ideas. Thanks again for your contribution and for joining Wikipedia's efforts. Resplin.odell ( talk) 21:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Simplest solution was to revert it back to GA version. The diff is here. AIRcorn (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Something doesn't seem right about the discharge stats here. There appears to be two key sources used: 1) Snake River below Ice Harbor Dam, WA, 1963-2000 (footnote #7), a gauge below Ice Harbor dam that operated from 1963-2000). 2) Ice Harbor Lock and Dam Pertinent Data, USACE (footnote #8), the "Hydrologic Data" section of that page says it is "based on streamflow data for the Snake River near Clarkston, WA", "period of record 1915-1972"--that must be some other now discontinued gauge.
Data from the first source, [7]: "Summary statistics": highest daily mean 305,000 cfs (19 June 1974). "EXTREMES FOR PERIOD OF RECORD": Maximum discharge, 312,000 cfs (19 June 1974) (presumably something other than "max daily mean", perhaps "max instantaneous peak"). "Annual mean": 54,830 cfs. "Min daily mean": 2,700 cfs.
Data from the second source, [8]: "Instantaneous max": 369,000 cfs (29 May 1948); "Extreme outside period of record" (ie, estimated): 409,000 cfs ("flood of June 1894"); "Instantaneous minimum": 6,660 cfs (2 Sep 1958); "Average annual flow": 48,840 cfs.
Anyway, I have to go and can't say any more. But it looks like these two sources are both used but not described quite right. Pfly ( talk) 21:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Idaho's Snake river once teemed with sockeye salmon. However, there are almost no wild sockeye salmon left in the river due to a number of factors. They are literally on the brink of extinction.
There are many reasons why Sockeye Salmon in the Snake River are going extinct. One reason is that the Snake river runs through 3 different states, and is over 1,000 miles long. Salmon swimming upstream in this river are faced with predators and dams. The Snake River has fifteen dams and is extremely difficult for salmon to access because of hydroelectric dams. Hell's Canyon Dam blocks passage to the entire upper Snake River. The Grand Cooley also blocks spawning grounds to the famous "June Hogs." (June Hogs were legendary Chinook Salmon that weighed over 100 pounds.)
Secondly, almost 160 years ago when settlers came into the Pacific Northwest, they exploited the rich natural resources of beaver pelts, gold, trees, and namely, the salmon. Technological advances in canning made shipping canned salmon meat possible all over the world. Overharvesting and habitat loss accounted for the mass majority of salmon becoming critically endangered, with the majority of salmon processing factories quickly shutting down and going out of business due to the decline.
The impacts of these salmon going extinct are unimaginable. Bears, plants, and numerous other wildlife would crumble and die because they depend on the salmon for food and nutrients. The fishing industry would collapse and so would the ecosystem, since salmon deposit nutrients to the environment after they spawn and die. Future generations of humans would only hear of these salmon as a legend, or story, and never get to see or taste these magnificent, mysterious creatures.
Between 1985 and 2007, only an average of 18 sockeye salmon returned to Idaho each year. Serious conservation efforts by wildlife biologists and fish hatcheries have captured the few remaining wild sockeye salmon, collected their sperm and eggs, and in a laboratory, have them spawn. Instead of spawning naturally, these sockeye begin their lives in an incubator in a fishery biologist's laboratory. These baby salmon then are transported by ship, bypassing the dams. (The dams can hurt juvenile baby sockeye salmon with their powerful tides and currents, which suck the baby salmon down.) Another conservation effort that has helped the salmon recover, is the destruction of old, outdated dams, such as the Savage Rapids Dam. After destroying the dam, salmon populations noticeably recovered.
Sources:
"Northwest Fisheries Science Center." Once Nearly Extinct, Endangered Idaho Sockeye Regaining Fitness Advantage -. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2016.
"Sockeye Salmon Facts." National Geographic. National Geographic, 11 Feb. 2012, Web. 13 Jan. 2016.
"Whooshh Innovations' "fish Gun" Shoots Salmon over Obstacles Small and Tall." Whooshh Innovations' "fish Gun" Shoots Salmon over Obstacles Small and Tall. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kxj5906 ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
אביהו ( talk) 17:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
In the summer of 2013, more than 13,000 sockeye salmon returned to the spawning grounds.[93]
This comment is not substantiated by any evidence, and is likely being put here by people who have a strong interest in keeping the dams such as Bonneville Power or the Pacific Northwest Waterways association. The footnoted evidence links to an article by national geographic stating fish facts, not numbers. Again this number is NOT VERIFIED. Do not trust this fact until a source is connected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.183.168 ( talk) 00:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The Columbia River Gorge is a great geographical location, and there should be a wikilink to it here. Such careless is somewhat shocking, and altogether too common in the Wikipedia! 24.156.78.205 ( talk) 19:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
It's a great location... and it's a hundred miles downriver of the end of the Snake. It's called the "Columbia" River Gorge. 2600:6C54:7A00:7C8:64C1:76E2:217E:426A ( talk) 16:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi folks, I think it would be good to have a separate article to centralize content around the dam removal proposals and their supporting and opposing arguments. It feels like a mostly separate topic from the river itself, so I'm proposing to split the dam removal section into its own article.
I know there have been some NPOV issues with this content in the past. Rest assured, I'm not intending to make this article a soap box. There's been a lot of content written by proponents and opponents over literal decades, and I think it's in Wikipedia's interest to put that content together into one article. Let me know how you feel and I'll revisit this in, say, a week. AdJHu 胡 14:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)