Issue Number 57
              Thursday - March 30 - 2000
      Ideas - Opinion - Personal Experience

  "It wasn't the wine," murmured Mr. Snodgrass,
         in a broken voice, "It was the salmon."
             Charles Dickens 1812 - 1870
                       Pickwick Papers
                              ~ ~ ~
            ~ Look Who's Talking Today ~

 Some of the New  Subscribers Checking in:
                 Anna M. Durbin '69
                 Jim Rice '75
                 John  Yesberger '70
                 Alan Porter '67
"Just a couple comments, please."
                 Mari (Leona Eckert) Leahy (65)

                 Steve Carson '58

Tearing Down The Dams (Or Not)
                 Gary Behymer '64
                 Ron Richards '63
                 Mari (Leona Eckert) Leahy '65
                 Sandra Summers '76
                             ~ ~ ~

    SANDBOX #57  Salutes: The Class of 1957
                 Check Out the Web Site:             
                   Find E-Mail addresses
                 Personal Web Page Links
              And lots of other good stuff.  
              Say Hello to Someone There!

                               ~ ~ ~

Subj.:  Subscribe
From:   Anna Durbin (69)

Hi.  I would like to play in the Sandbox, too.
  Please add my address to your list.

Your Richland Bomber family welcomes you,
 Anna.  Climb right in!

                              ~ ~ ~
From: Mari (Leona Eckert) Leahy (65)

Subj:  Just a couple comments, please.

Regarding the comments from Andrew Eckert (54)
 stating he couldn't quite figure out if I was
 making excuses for the tobacco companies or
 not.  Because I AM a smoker that wouldn't
 surprise him if I was because most smokers do. I
 was NOT and I am not willing to make excuses
 for their actions. Don't think there is an excuse
 that would be truly legitimate!

As to Patty Stordahl asking, "What is that," in
 regard to my saying "oh please" to a
 Jackson/Keyes ticket--No thought of race
 entered my mind. It was totally my response to
 the men themselves and the thought of the two
 of them trying to govern this country! Sorry but
 just can't "picture" that as a happening thing.

To the remarks about McCains' temper. Show me
 just ONE person who has NEVER lost their cool
 for a few moments when they are passionate
 about something or someone and I'll show you a
 person who doesn't care passionately enough! As
 to his remarks concerning the "reverends," all I
 can say is, listen or read the WHOLE
 conversation rather then one sentence from it.

You all have a good day now. 

         Mari (Leona Eckert) Leahy (65)

                               ~ ~ ~

Subj:   McCain!
From:   Steve Carson 58

McCain!  Through the first few primaries I kept
 an open mind and was sort of attracted to his
 maverick approach.  Then as I observed him in
 South Carolina and Michigan, lying with a
 straight face and his comments in his news
 conferences, I lost any traces of support.  I think
 we would go from having a President without
 any integrity to one who would throw temper
 tantrums and hold his breath if he didn't get his

On the "hero" status, he did show character by
 refusing to accept the special privilege to get a
 ticket out and, I'm sure that those years were
 pure hell.  AND he was not the only one there.  I
 has become my opinion that, lacking any
 outstanding  achievement in the military, I will
 respect his service but count him among a large
 number of heros who were POWs.

When you look at his leadership style, which he
 kept hidden for the most part during the early
 campaign, you have to wonder why the rest of
 his fellow Senators just don't like working with
 him.  His near tantrums on the campaign began
 to look like whining and his mantra of no tax
 cuts for the "rich (which has  been defined as
 making over $36,000 by the Clinton gang) does
 not resonate in my world.

McCain for Veep............No.   
McCain for Defense Secretary....You Bet.

Steve Carson 58
                                ~ ~ ~

From: (Jim Rice) ('75)

Please subscribe me.

Consider yourself subscribed, Jim.  Jump right in!

                                ~ ~ ~ 

Subj:    'Save Northwest Salmon'
             Gary Behymer ('64)

Sign the Petition to 'Save Northwest Salmon'.

To save Northwest salmon, four large obstacles
 must be removed...and they aren't dams.

There are at least four big obstacles to saving
 Northwest salmon.  But, contrary to recent
 claims, they aren't dams. They're mind-sets-ways
 of thinking that have led the region down false
 paths and brought about mistakes that have 
 been equally costly for people and salmon.

The Northwest needs a reasonable, balanced and
 fair salmon solution.  

Go to:

Click on the above URL. [Or paste this address
 into your browser.]  If  does NOT all fit on one
 line then go to:
...then to 'environment' to find 'Save Northwest

Gary Behymer
Class of 1964
                              ~ ~ ~

From: (john yes)

Hi.  I would like to be put on the subscription list
 for The Sandbox. Thanks.

Welcome, John.  Lots of room for everyone here.

                              ~ ~ ~

Just a reminder to some of our newer readers, 
 before posting the following item.  The Alumni
 SANDSTORM is an online publication about
 memories of our growing up in Richland. The
 SANDBOX, which you are reading now, is
 about Current Ideas, Opinion and Personal
 Experience.  From time to time readers have
 shared with us their feelings about where one
 thing or another ought to go, and we are always
 listening.  In any case, both publications are
 intended for your enjoyment, enlightenment and
 most especially, your personal participation. -ap

Subj:   Re: Snake River Salmon
From: (vegas68)

Gary didn't make any "statement" in the
 Sandstorm... he only posted a URL.... I
 didn't even go to the URL.

Bomber cheers,
This was in response to:
Ron Richards ('63) who wrote:

To: Gary Behymer (64):

I appreciate the effort that you and Maren make
 in producing the Alumni Sandstorm.  I also
 appreciate your right to take a political stand on
 an issue as important as saving the Snake River
 salmon from extinction.  And I  assume, from
 your message posted in the Alumni Sandstorm on
 March 26 regarding that issue, that your policy of
 excluding political messages from the Alumni
 Sandstorm has been abandoned - at least to allow
 rebuttals to the  message found at the Internet site
 to which we were referred by your message.

In a nutshell, Gary, we do need to avoid this "Us
 vs. Them mentality" that your Internet site
 suggests.  But it is extreme hypocrisy for the
 people at your Internet site to plead for the
 elevation of politics over science when it is they
 who ignore what the vast majority of scientists are
 telling us.

Your Internet site's reference to studies that "show
 increased survival under currnet (sic) river
 conditions" demonstrates just how blind to
 science they are.  What real science tells us is that
 the current conditions caused by the dams
 devastate salmon in a multitude of ways,
 including, but in no way limited to:

  (a)  the elimination of major spawning grounds;

  (b)  the direct killing of downstream migrants in turbines;

  (c)  the indirect killing of downstream migrants
 by the elimination of suspended silt in the  water
 column (which causes increased consumption by
 predator fish and birds);

  (d)  the indirect killing of downstream migrants
 because of the additional migratory time to the
 ocean (which causes increased mortality due to
 physiological changes occurring prior to the
 fishes' arrival at the ocean, and again due to
 increased consumption by predator fish and

  (e)  the indirect killing of downstream migrants
 through fish stunned by passage over and through
 the dams being deposited in concentrated
 locations where they become easy pray for
 predator fish and birds; and 

   (f)  the indirect killing of upstream migrants
 through the inefficiencies of fish ladders and the
 effects of dam reservoirs including increased
 water temperatures, reduced oxygen levels, and
 interference with homing instincts.

The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence
 simply shows that removal of the four lower
 Snake River dams is the only option that has a
 reasonable chance to save the Snake River salmon
 from extinction.

I will agree there is no "silver bullet" in every
 instance for the recovery of salmon.  But the
 elimination of the four lower Snake River dams is
 as  close to a silver bullet as you will get for the
 Snake River salmon.  One frequently hears that
 the "Four H's" (hydropower, hatcheries, harvest,
 and habitat) must all be addressed to preserve the
 salmon from extinction.  In the case of the Snake
 River salmon, however, it is hydropower that has
 caused the need for the hatcheries by eliminating a
 vast area of spawning grounds; it is hydropower
 that harvests the vast majority of the fish, and it is
 hydropower that has ruined the habitat by 
 changing the salmon's natural river habitat into a
 series of lakes.  In the case of the Snake River,
 hydropower and the Four H's are virtually

You are looking a gift horse in the mouth, Gary. 
 The large majority of the people in Washington,
 the large majority of the people in the Northwest,
 and  the large majority of the people in the
 country, want to save the salmon from extinction
 and they are willing to pay for it.  Instead of
 fighting dam  removal through association with
 those who make embarrassingly unintelligent
 assertions such as the labeling of the removal of
 the four lower Snake River dams an "unproven
 radical measure," you should embrace the concept
 and encourage your governmental representatives
 to mitigate any adverse impacts in a manner that
 guarantees a positive impact to eastern
 Washington.  Just as everyone in Richland has
 benefitted from the Hanford cleanup over the last
 twenty years, everyone in eastern Washington can
 benefit from a "Snake River cleanup" for the
 foreseeable future.

                   - Ron Richards ('63) -

                               ~ ~ ~

Subj:   Subscribe

Please add me to your distribution list!  
Gotta be some entertainment in there!

                             ~ ~ ~

Subj: The Harvest is Great but the Salmon are
   Few.  What's up with that?

From: Mari (Leona Eckert) Leahy '65
  I find it difficult to worry about the extinction of
 the Snake River salmon when I saw Indians
 allowed to sell many, huge salmon for a dirt cheap
 price, down at Columbia Point Park last summer.
 If extinction is a REAL possibility, why is that
 allowed and why are we still able to buy and eat
 salmon? Doesn't make sense to me. Sincerely,
 Mari (Leona Eckert) Leahy '65

                                  ~ ~ ~

Please add me to the sandbox mailing list so I can
 play too.
Alan Porter 67

                                 ~ ~ ~

Subj:    Salmon vs. People: 
           Which Species is Endangered Most?
From:  Sandra Summers '76

There is so much I would like to say on this issue,
 and so little time;  So Little Time in regard to my
 own hectic life and the lives of all of us, and So
 Little Time left within which to make carefully
 calculated decisions and study the impending
 implications of whatever IS or IS NOT going to
 be  done in regard to tearing down Pacific
 Northwest power and navigation dams with the
 hope of saving salmon runs.

I would hate to see things going all to hell just
 because too many of us, like me, are just to
 terribly busy with our own life challenges and
 interests to get involved in helping resolve matters
 so important as this. Maybe I'll have more time
 later, to say more.

Just let me say this for now: In the name of
 progress, comfort and need, and sometimes
 greed, we have made a lot of mistakes in the last
 two hundred years and more.  This includes what
 we've done with our dams as well as many other
 "civilized" developments and attitudes.  In many
 ways, it would seem, we have "shot ourselves in
 the foot."

I can only address one portion of the effect of
 tearing down these dams now, but let me tell you
 this, with all my heart.  If those dams are torn
 down, without first "putting in place," (not just
 planning and proposing), a system of Clean
 Energy Replacement for the power production
 that is going to be lost, we might just, in effect,
 be  "shooting ourselves in the head."   Replacing
 clean hydro power with the dirty burning of
 hydrocarbons not only will worsen the
 environment both for us and our native fish.  It
 will also put more of our national fate in the hands
 of foreign powers who do not necessarily have
 our best interests in mind.

As I see things in this world now, mankind is just
 as endangered as are the Northwest salmon runs.
 I hope we don't end up sacrificing either for the
 other, but if we don't first replace what we are
 getting ready to destroy, then perhaps the fish
 have far more practical intelligence than us and
 really deserve to have things as they were in 1492.

                   ~ Sandra Summers (76) ~
                                 ~ ~ ~

Thanks again for all of your contributions,
 everyone.  There are a lot more of your letters
 in the SANDBOX mailbox that I haven't been
 able  to get to yet.  But keep on sending your
 stuff in.  Your ideas, your opinion, your
 personal experience is very important.  So, let's
 hear from you in The SANDBOX.   More Issues,
 More Subscribers, More Things to Talk About, as
 the Year 2000 rolls on!  What you have to say
 here could benefit the quality of life for all of us,
 so don't hold back!

Reminder: Please include name:
               First (Maiden) Last (Class Year)
With all submissions and subscription requests.

  -Al Parker
 Your Sandbox Moderator
                                 ~ 57 ~