# Talk:Snake River

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

You need to look at data over an entire year and for a series of years – not simply grab the current measurement for one particular day.  When I went to the same site and grabbed data for the Snake River at Ice Harbor Dam, I saw the following data (year, cusecs):
1963 	46,310;
1964 	56,610;
1965 	73,120;
1966 	37,390;
1967 	48,830;
1968 	45,480;
1969 	54,960;
1970 	54,050;
1971 	74,640;
1972 	70,300;
1973 	36,130;
1974 	76,140;
1975 	64,840;
1976 	63,720;
1977 	27,940;
1978 	53,730;
1979 	41,620;
1980 	46,710;
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. Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 00:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, heh, I'm two weeks late in responding, so anyone who wants to object has until the Santa Ana River Ga review is done to comment. Shannontalk contribs 02:56, 15 December 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) 

The USGS's water data for the Clearwater is only from 1914 to 1927 and there are a lot of years missing in between, so there were only five years recorded on the Lewiston gauge. Additionally, the early 20th century was a wet period. The Salmon River has data from 1911 to present and it's true that the average flow is around 12,000 cfs. The Salmon is also longer and drains more area. However, this may need some additional research. I've seen conflicting statements between whether the Salmon or Clearwater is the largest tributary, so this might need some further poking around. Shannontalk contribs 00:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Snake River/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

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


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Very well written, I venture to suggest that this approaches FAC class. I did make a few minor copy-edits.diff
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
ref #89 [1] requires a login - that needs to be stated in the reference
ref #86 [2] and ref  #90 [3] are tagged as expring news links by WP:CHECKLINKS.
Dead link fixe.  Done
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
This article thoroughly covers the subject without going into unecessary detail.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
All images tagged and captioned
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
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)

Thanks. It looks like a nice replacement for the low res image in the exploration section. Shannontalk contribs 18:34, 17 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.)

This section on the Lower Snake River Controversy is too long. One option would be to write a much more concise summary of the controversy -- in two to three paragraphs -- and then move this longer discussion into a separate article that you could create entitled "Lower Snake River Controversy."
This section also does not fit best under the "Biology" section, since it deals more with politics than the actual biology of the Snake River. It could be moved into the "River modifications" section under "Dams" -- which already refers briefly to the dam removal proposal. Alternatively, a new section could be added to this article entitled "Controversies," which could contain this summary.
My most important recommendation: This section violates the NPOV rule of Wikipedia, which is that all articles should present a neutral point of view. The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia's NPOV policy page, subheading Impartial tone:
Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. 
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:

ORIGINAL: Dam removal is necessary for restoration and recovery of salmon, but politics get in the way.
SUGGESTION FOR REVISION: Advocates of dam removal argue that it is necessary for restoration and recovery of salmon. ("politics get in the way" is too biased of a phrase and should be eliminated completely.)
ORIGINAL: Save Our Wild Salmon website also recommends removing the four lower Snake River dams, which they believe would enable salmon to rebound with more habitat and easier passage on their journey to the ocean. The website criticizes the government for spending eight million dollars on salmon recovery that has failed. In addition the Save Our Wild Salmon group disapproves of the government for getting around legal requirements and politicizing science - ignoring sound science.[125]
SUGGESTION FOR REVISION: Add a brief description of the group "Save Our Wild Salmon" to make it more transparent that this organization has a particular agenda and is not a neutral scientific party in the debate. E.g. "Save Our Wild Salmon, a coalition that lobbies for restoration of salmon populations, recommends removing the four lower Snake River dams..." Also, to provide balance, add a quotation from or summary of the views of an organization that opposes dam removal, such as Northwest RiverPartners, a coalition of farmers, port operators, hydroelectric companies, and small businesses (information on their views can be found at http://www.nwriverpartners.org/).
ORIGINAL: Although many people in support of the Columbia salmon plan state that other factors such as climate change contribute the most to declining salmon populations, and that dam removal will not be an effective solution, in an article about the myths and facts of Lower Snake dam removal on the Save Our Wild Salmon website, it states: “In fact, the current federal salmon plan permits the federal dams to kill more than 90% of some of these salmon”.
SUGGESTION FOR REVISION: Advocates of dam removal attribute the deaths of more than 90% of some salmon species directly to the current federal salmon plan.[5] However, some ecologists point out that factors such as climate change are the primary factor contributing to declining salmon populations and that dam removal will not be an effective solution. (Insert source here - an example of ecologists who make that argument.) 
ORIGINAL: The Snake River Controversy is an ongoing conflict and it will not be resolved until a greater degree of transparency is reached by the government, and until biological and ecological values are placed above purely economic concerns.
SUGGESTION FOR REVISION: Delete the whole sentence. While such conclusion sentences are good for policy or academic papers, they are not necessary or suitable for encyclopedia articles, since an encyclopedia article is not making an argument and thus does not need a sentence to sum up that argument.
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)

Rivers of North America (p. 607) gives the mean discharge "below Ice Harbor Dam just before it enters the Columbia" as 1,565 cubic metres per second (55,300 cu ft/s). This pretty much confirms the "annual mean" data from the first source. The discharge at Clarkston would naturally be smaller because Clarkston is quite a ways upstream from the mouth, and tributaries enter downstream of that gauge. Finetooth (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Back. The main thing was that the Discharge section describes the 369,000 cfs peak as the "max daily" recorded at the Ice Harbor gauge. I've a bit of time now, so I'll just fix it up. Pfly (talk) 03:29, 21 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) 

Origin of the name of the river is given (at the Name section) as "the name Snake River was derived from an S-shaped gesture the Shoshone tribe made with their hands to represent swimming salmon. Explorers misinterpreted it to represent a snake, giving the river its present-day name" or (at the Exploration and settling section) as "They also referred to the Shoshone Indians as the "Snake Indians", which became the present-day name of the river". Which version is the correct one? Maybe both are valid?
It is stated (In the Exploration and settling section) that "One crossing the trail made over the Snake River was near the present-day site of Glenns Ferry." and that "Another place where pioneers crossed the Snake was further upstream, at a place called "Three Island Crossing", but according to Three Island Crossing on the Snake River site it is the same crossing.
The statement "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." is supported by a citation to an article called "Once nearly extinct, endangered Idaho sockeye regaining fitness advantage". Reading the this article I did not find any mention of Savage Rapids Dam destruction, so I search with Google to find out that the Savage Rapids Dam was indeed destroyed, but not on the Snake river! Savage Rapids dam was on Rogue River in Oregon. See Savage Rapids Dam Removal.
The Salmon story is told in two sections. The first in the Dams sections starting from "There are many reasons why Sockeye Salmon in the Snake River are going extinct.", which continue to tell about Sockeye Salmon and not about dams, and the second under "Salmon and other anadromous fish". The first section should be merged with the second.
The section "Lower Snake River dam removal" ends with the following statement "A final decision from Judge Redden is expected in the spring of 2011". It should be updated.
אביהו (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The source linked said it was the Shoshone name for themselves, so presumably both. This theory of mixing up the signs for "fish" and "snake" seems like mere speculation. The Yellowstone Nation Park website says: "The Snake name comes from sign language — a serpentine movement of the hand with the index finger extended — that referred to the weaving of baskets or grass lodges of the Snake or Shoshone Indians". The Indian sign language term for Shoshone given by W. P. Clark in 1885 is the same as the sign for "snake" (and is indeed quite similar to "fish"); he says he doesn't know how the Shoshone came to be called Snake Indians, but one old Shoshone man told them it was because they used to eat snakes. The name of the Snake Indians appears long before any European had reached the Snake River, AFAIK. The name appears in the journal of HBC explorer William Pink, on the Canadian Prairies in 1768, in both English and Cree, clearly from native sources. Granted it is not certain that the Snakes who terrorized the western plains in the 18th century were really the Shoshone, though surely they are the prime suspects. Megalophias (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2019 (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)

Support. There is already sufficient detail for a separate article. It's a complex and contentious issue but is currently getting lost in the main article. Precedent with Restoration of the Elwha River. QuincyMorgan (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. I see no evidence that the topic satisfies either of Wikipedia's two guidelines for splitting, WP:WHENSPLIT. It is not out of scope, and it is not too long for it to maintain balance within the Snake River article as it stands. Moreover, splitting would increase maintenance loads, apparently without substantial benefits.
"It feels like a mostly separate topic from the river itself," you say. The current Snake River article keeps the dam removal material in context and in check, so it does not become a detached political bunfight, but remains anchored to the scientific, geographical, and existential realities of the river, for both sides of the argument. The dams cannot exist without the river, and nor can the fish. Unlike the dam removal argument, the Snake River is central, and would have to be considered the parent article if there were a split. The Snake River article is a long-term standard reference article suitable for an encyclopedia.
With out of scope being illogical as a motive for splitting, one must consider length and weight. The current long-standing GA, which I admire, summarizes the arguments succinctly, but not so briefly as to be incoherent (WP:SPLIT). Furthermore, I do not see that there is much more to add. It's not broken, it doesn't need fixing. This is where I agree with half this proposal, but not its contradictory other half, although I think the dismissive tone is excessive. Balance is what I look for: the current limited summary is needed, but I do not see where there is so much more material with which to create a child article. To that end, I would want to see, if not a draft, at least an outline with sources that would change my mind. Creating fragmentation and knowledge silos facilitates polarization, not centralization.
What would be the title of the child article? "The politics of Snake River dam removal," or "Plummeting fish numbers in the Snake River Basin?" Up-to-date fish numbers are missing from Wikipedia, but they could be incorporated into fish articles, where they are needed.
The C-class Elwha River article is a bad precedent, a lost child that looks pretty but only preaches to the already converted. It has had no scientific updates about what has actually happened for eight years. Totally neglected! That's what I mean about maintenance. Therefore I don't trust it, because it looks like the results are being hidden.
WP:POV FORK notes how splitting makes it harder to maintain neutrality. Moreover, the maintenance burden is especially increased when the subject is controversial. Indeed (WP:SPLIT), controversy is a motive for discouraging splitting.
Splitting does not mean removing all the dam removal content from the Snake River article. Summary style (WP:SUMMARY) requires a continuing updating of the summary of the child article in the parent article whenever the child article is significantly altered, maintaining synchronization (WP:SYNC). Flawed splits create messes for other Wikipedians to clean up.
In conclusion, the proposal appears to me ingenuous and lacking in forethought. I would not be so reckless. Rebecca Beecham Gotzl (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Undecided but still considering: To Rebecca Beecham Gotzl's points, I agree that it's worthwhile to keep the topic in context, but the river itself is only one of several important pieces of that context. Others could be Columbia River Basin, dam removal, Columbia River drainange basin, as well as topics like major cases of the ninth circuit, local/federal politics of the Pacific Northwest, economy of Washington and economy of Idaho, etc. etc. To me, that seems like an argument for separating the issue (with how it has grown in significance), so it can be summarized and linked from each of those. It seems to me like a topic that could be covered in much greater depth, and maybe should. But, given its current size, it would probably make more sense to expand it to the point where it's straining at the size appropriate to this article prior to splitting, and that may or may not ever happen.
Separately, Rebecca, I think most of your points are very well thought out and helpful, but several times you veer into personal attacks. I'd urge you to strike out the part that speculate about the motivations of the people you disagree with. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Apologies. Less opposed now.: I welcome Peteforsyth's intervention. My comments above should not be taken personally as a reflection on the motivations of AdJHu or QuincyMorgan, which are unknown to me. I apologize for any personal distress they may have caused.
My mistaken approach was triggered by panic that an article I love would have content removed from it. I felt the brevity of discussion showed insufficient respect for good content, which I think Wikipedia does not do enough to keep safe.
In my daily round, I see many new edits that are technically flawed, or disruptive; even a conspiracy theory can be published if blandly presented. I sometimes stress about these things.
On this occasion I was in a mood to tease people about these systemic, not individual, problems.
In particular, my comments about the Elwha River dams article are not intended to convey mistrust of editors' motivations, rather unintended consequences with the readership. Perhaps Unintended consequences. should have headed my comments.
Wikipedia was designed for a nicer (90s?) internet, not the world we are in. The thought-patterns of social media are affecting Wikipedia. Do Wikipedia's systems meet the moment, meet this time in American politics?
What price Lower Snake River dam removal? It's a cause célèbre that can starve other PNW environmental causes of attention and money. Pete's arguments are perfectly good in technical Wikipedia terms, and they softened my opposition. Yet, caring about the river, I would run a mile from reading the proposed article that would be heavy on politics, or have a polarizing, debate style of content. There are not only two POVs, and there are not only two types of people. Given my views, I will recuse myself from editing on it.
My being provocative was intended to illustrate some conundrums. Through opposition, I probably gained a greater intensity of attention. Nature's the same. Wildfires can be helpful if you learn from them. But does it have to be that way? Acknowledgments to Barry Lopez and Ursula Le Guin. Rebecca Beecham Gotzl (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)