In an era of increasing concern for fish species and habitat restoration, the search for renewable energy can often conflict with the best interest of fish.

Seven new hydro plants are in the planning stages in Scotland, in an effort by the country to move to more renewable sources of energy.  It’s hard to understand why such development is being considered in Scotland while Americans are spending tons of money to remove dams because of their effects on fish.  The hydropower plans are opposed solely because of concerns for the Atlantic salmon and brown trout populations they have the potential to effect.  Dams are known to impede, and sometimes completely eliminate upstream migration of fish, and anadromous fish such as Atlantic salmon need to move upstream from the ocean to spawn. 

See the story here

While dams can benefit anglers in certain situations (especially in streams where migration is not necessary to support a fish population), and can provide substantial benefits to the public, they can often cause significant damage.  To support such development, I think the conservationist and angler alike should be confident that the designs of such dams result in minimal impacts to fish populations.  Furthermore, I think alternative sources of energy should be further pursued (such as wood biomass, wind power, solar power, and nuclear power) if the public is seeking a replacement for traditional energy generation.