T3 Seminar Papers for Week 7

Salmon without Rivers

The papers are all compiled below. Click on any of the names in the table below to jump to the selected student's paper, or just scroll through them. Do Not Print Papers from this page. If you want to print one, copy it into a Word document. Printing from this page will print all the papers and waste many trees!
 
Ali Dozier Amy Robertson Andrew Marr Anna Constance
Ben Shryock Beth Belanger Blake Kownacki Brian Mc Elfresh
Brooke Smith Bubba Rush David Bell David Jacobson
Dawn Curran Debra Joie Elise Sanders Elliott Ridgway
Geoff MacIntyre Glenn Burkhart Hannah Snyder Ian Kirouac
Jacob Wilson Keegan Murphy Kelly Cannon Kelly Stoddard
Kevin Long Kevin Reis Kevin Smith Lara Boyd
Laura Garber Leif Wywadis Linda Gibson Lisa Fredrickson
Mary Warner Matt Crawford Meagan Robison Patrick Coleman
Ray Gleason Rebecca Leach Richard Dunn Sarah Lowry
Si Bussmann Stacey Godin T. J. Merrell Thomas Kolb
Travis Loucks Tyler Knapp V.J. Gomez Will Dezan

Ali Dozier                                                                                                Top

No Paper Submitted
 
 

Amy Robertson                                                                                               Top

When the physical capacity of a given item is below the imposed physical tests placed upon it, the result is injury or exhaustion.  For example, if a person who only has the strength to lift a fifty- pound box attempts to lift a 100- pound box, they will hurt their body.  The same relationship can be seen between the salmon in their natural environment and the industry that removes them from their environment.  The problem here is duo-fold because both the salmon and their environment are stressed by the over-harvesting of the fish.

The salmon industry and the salmon life cycle and habitat function on many opposing assumptions, desired outcomes and needs.  The following are the two most defining problems inherent in the split.  Essentially, for the problem of eminent salmon extinction to be solved the industry must address these issues and adjust their stance to accommodate natural cycles.

First, the foundations are opposed.  The natural salmon life cycle is circular.  Because its goal is reproduction, the cycle is renewable.  The industry, on the other hand, attempts to impose square lines on the circle.  Its goal is maximum production, which in this case is based entirely on extraction.  Therefore, the process of maximum extraction limits the population growth of salmon by interrupting the cycle.  The industry removes as many adults and eggs as possible to increase profit.  Then the salmon suffer because they cannot keep up with the stress this loss of reproductive capacity places on them.

Furthermore, the industry is based on divisions of waterways that don’t exist in the natural world.  Different companies assume property ownership of different areas of rivers, creeks and other various waterways.  They in turn manage these areas differently and hence impose a series of unnatural restrictions on salmon which constantly fluxuate.  The salmon are forced into a new reality where their web of life is falsely created by linear constraints that disrupt the natural continuity or cycle of waterways.

Hence, we are left with a problem that can only be solved with industry adjustments to facilitate salmon population re-growth.  The salmon are disappearing too rapidly to genetically adjust or evolve to accommodate industry.  Therefore, the responsibility lies with those who have the power to make changes now, the industry.
 
 
 

Andrew Marr                                                                                               Top

No Paper Submitted
 
 

Anna Constance                                                                                               Top

No Paper Submitted
 
 

Ben Shryock                                                                                               Top
The follow is a collage of words and phrases that I collected throughout the reading of Salmon Without Rivers.  These words were particularly alarming or interesting, these were the words that really jumped off the pages at me.

fundementally Flawed assumptions
                                           Technology could overcome all problems
 
    culture’s worldview remains as the root cause of this disastrous salmon decline           those programs failed

 a costly illusion   pollution of streams by hatchery wastes
 

  hatchery technology had finally worked              private entrepreneurs began investing in the new hatchery technology                  "sea ranching"
    British Petroleum and Weyerhaeuser became involved in sea ranching            another version of private salmon ranching more closely resembled feedlots
       Salmon managers had looked for tangible evidence of hatchery success and found none
  the region could finally have, in the words of The Washington Department of Fisheries, "salmon without a river"
 

     the economic costs of the program would exceed the benefits by nearly $600 million                                "Thus it is disconcerting that after 15 yr we still are not sure which technologies will work and under what conditions"

Natural salmon habitats have been wrecked while we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on hatcheries, chasing the foolish dream of producing salmon without rivers

  bureaucratic salmon managers       still cling to    the status quo
the threads  of past assumptions, beliefs and values  are still woven through the fabric of salmon management today
 
 

control, simplify, dominate, and artificialize salmon and their rivers

ashamed                        give back habitat          single wild fish         genetic resource
       self serving       lies  corrupt      government waste       RIGHT  BEAUTIFUL
                       laser salmon               care for other living things

nature’s warehouse had  been looted

   like a giant octopus wit hits body setting on the Columbia River, the canning industry extended its tentacles to the large  and small rivers in the most

remote corners of the Pacific Northwest
 

          Fraser River canaries packed 25 to 35 million fish out of a total catch ranging from 35 to 50 million fish          the difference was largely waster
 
 
 
 
 
 

Beth Belanger                                                                                               Top

Jim Lichatowich does an excellent job explaining the many aspects of the pacific salmon crisis in his book Salmon Without Rivers.  Anyone reading this story will greatly benefit from knowing the facts that have contributed to salmon endangerment and extinction.  These pressing issues have come to a crossroads; conservation preservation of the Oncorhynchus genus must take prevalence over human’s self-serving practices.  The history of dwindling salmon populations are essential to understanding the ensuing crisis.
 The "Lords of Yesterday", as Lichatowich refers to them, have created extreme havoc on the environment.  Greed in a capitalistic society fueled the idea of unlimited extraction of natural resources; be it timber, gold, salmon or water.  Surely earlier settlers were not intentionally destroying the region rather they were molding it to suit their own needs.  In modern day, these motives prevail.  We still live in an individualistic society that strives to maximize personal wealth, usually ignoring the ecological repercussions.
Perhaps the answer to curbing these monetary ideals (in order to protect salmon) is to educate the current population and re-tell the history of the salmon.
 Some of the points in Salmon Without Rivers that stand out the most are the extreme logging practices, and the excessive waste of canneries.  A picture (p. 63) of a river saturated by logs, is forever ingrained into my mind.  I ask, how could anyone have thought that was okay?  Even pure ignorance does not justify the natural crimes that occurred to the watersheds of the Pacific Northwest.  Another aspect of the book that made me wince was how the canneries wasted extra fish by just throwing them back into the river (p93).  While decaying carcasses do have significant contributions to river ecosystems, it cannot be considered efficient when these fish where never allowed to spawn.  These salmon were needlessly harvested.
 Another atrocity committed against the keystone species has much to do with the lack of regulatory practices.  For so many years, European settlers practiced extreme capitalism with complete disregard for the species and its counterparts.  Even when regulations were instated, they were of little help because of the lack of enforcement.  In some cases, the new ideas of regulatory action caused more harm than good.  Case in point, the slaughtering of 20,000 eagles in Alaska (p.154) to kill off salmon enemies.  While this fact is unfathomable, it most definitely contributed to the further decline of the Oncorhynchus species, as well as the near extinction of the eagle.  Again, I ask myself how did anyone think this would actually help the salmon populations.
 Salmon Without Rivers is both educational and interesting.  Lichatowich effectively develops the economic, natural, and pioneer history that culminates the salmon’s history.  We also gain insight into the many aspects that contribute to the salmon controversy; such as timber, hatcheries, commercial fishing, agriculture, and irrigation.  Everyone needs to read this book!
 
 
 
 

Blake Kownacki                                                                                               Top
 

 This is the book I've been waiting for.  Things are coming together and this weeks reading has played a major role in my ability to make important connections between ecology and economics.  Honestly.

 By being introduced to the ideas of supply and demand, net benefits, social benefits, the individual vs. social, economic theories, etc. I now have a clearer understanding of what helps drive the processes that lead to manipulation and degradation of the earthsÆ resources.  These concepts being thoroughly illustrated in salmon without rivers confirm and exemplify portions of economic theory.  I am no master of the language of economics so itÆs hard for me to explain my examples with due justice.  but thanks to the book, I have a more connected understanding that I will learn to communicate in due time.

 I was intrigued to learn that the Indians had an economy of their own, one that was sustainable and balanced with the natural world.  The Euro-Americans managed to destroy a 7,000 year old sustainable economy in a time period of less than 150 years.  That says everything about our economic and ecological values, the greed that consumes our natural resources is born out of our theories of supply and demand.  The destruction was accompanied by a program believed to be the answer to an economic crisis caused by depleted salmon runs.  Hatcheries were designed to perpetuate salmon so that they could be harvested by humans for economic gain.  The idea never seemed to be correlated with the idea that the salmon need to be protected because they were an integral part too many ecosystems.  I am amazed at the amount of bureaucratic b.s. that went on for so many years.  It was never a case of the left hand talking to the right but a whole mess of hands just getting in the way of the salmon.  The irony to all this is that if everyone had listened to the earth and its cries since the beginning then the salmon runs which are so important to everyone would not be on the brink of extinction like they are today.
 
 
 

Brian Mc Elfresh                                                                                               Top

The world of salmon is a complex issue, which takes on great importance here in the Pacific Northwest and, consequently the rest of the world.  The view of salmon as a species of great power, intelligence, and beauty is rarely rivaled in our society.  Given the gifts the salmon leave humans and the environment it only makes sense to keep these fish swimming in our rivers.

After reading the text by Lichatowich I am left with a better understanding of the determination and skill in which the salmon struggle for their existence.  Lichatowich introduces the Lords of Yesterday and other prevailing attitudes toward the natural environment giving the reader a basis on which to base today’s philosophy toward salmon.  The salmon remain with us today; however, their very existence is increasingly becoming more dependent on our interactions with them.  With human involvement and awareness people are presently working to "undo" some of the problems those who have come before us have created.  The attitude towards the environment and the  species within it is changing, as is evident in the environmental movements around the world.  It is from this new, educated stance on the environment that will influence decisions of environmental disregard by policy makers and elected officials to help put a cease to the wrong doings of man’s continued manipulation of nature.

I feel the salmon will survive the battle of existence as they have over time.  The course in which they have come to be has encoded a strength and determination for their continued existence.  As stated on page 78:

"The waves of settlers divided the watersheds among themselves according to their economic interests.  The fur trappers took the beavers; the miners took the gold and gravel; the loggers took the trees and the riverbanks; the ranchers took the grasslands and riparian zones; the irrigators took the water; and hydroelectric dams took the river’s energy and vitality.  Each group took their piece of the ecosystem with little or no regulation by the government and with little or no concern for the costs imposed on others."

Man will begin cleaning up the rivers and environment more responsibly in the future or he, himself, will face an end to existence.  There is not much alternative to the situation.
 
 
 

Brooke Smith                                                                                               Top

Left Over Salmon

 After reading all the history regarding native salmon in the Pacific North West I’m surprised there is a single one left. That there is any left over from the horrible and long treatment that they as a species endured.  What really got me going though was the mentality and attitude that the Untied States had from square one and sadly believe its not much different now.  Eighty-six years for the government to finally realize that what was being done was not working. What is all that about? Why did the US ignore Canada’s bold move of closing all the hatcheries?  Instead they remold the hatcheries.  Personally this book just really pissed me off at the government or the US in general and its economic drive.  It’s all about the money and I’m sick to death of that.

I found the Indian’s use of the salmon and the way it tied in great.  That made me think of  "The Living" and the reference to the salmon then.  It was so beautiful to learn their customs and beliefs tied into the importance of salmon as source. The appreciation and respect they had for the fish was so beautiful.  Then there’s the white man!!!! Always have to take as much as one can and make money w/ the product. I really think the Indians should have taught the white man the "way of life" instead of the opposite.

I think its kinda funny how angry I can become while reading this history.  What really makes me sad is I was totally oblivious to all of this not long ago.  Its heart breaking to me that because I lived in a different area of the US I had no idea and I’m sure a lot of people don’t know the background of these wonderful living creatures which people have survived on for hundreds of years and now have almost depleted their existence.  But no worries, the hatcheries work now!  Do they really?  The main purpose of them really never succeeded and never will.  Something has to be done.
 
 
 

Bubba Rush                                                                                               Top

The story of Pacific Salmon is a prime example of a tragedy of the commons. A public resource is exploited by the "public" for private use. Perhaps the best example of overuse by individuals is by those Lichatowich calls the "Lords of Yesterday." These industries were and are dependant on concepts that have been debunked by science in more recent years. Unfortunately, due to the length of time they have been in the Northwest, and the amount of money they make, their political power is deeply entrenched.

The logging industry is the most prominent of the Northwestern Lords of Yesterday. Through its abhorrent practices and deliberate ignorance of science and facts as they are commonly accepted, it has done an impressive and irreversible amount of damage to Pacific Salmon. Modifying the breeding habitat of salmon or any animal, for that matter, will clearly cause severe damage to its populations. Imagine if one day, Industry came to your house, tore the wall off your bedroom and filled your bed with sawdust. Would you find it difficult to have sex there?

Commercial fisheries are also living in the past. It has become quite clear that there are far more fishers than salmon can handle. People must catch enough to support themselves, and as the salmon population declines and the cost of living increases, they are forced to do more and more with less and less. The days of bountiful harvest are over.

The industrial worldview promotes using natural processes to their full extent, to produce as much profit as possible. This view is much comparable to a straight line. It begins when extraction of the resource begins, and ends only when it is no longer profitable to remove the resource. Nature, on the other hand, very seldom follows a straight line. Natural processes tend to be curved, more cyclical, represented more accurately by a circle. A creature that follows a straight line, and extracts all its resources in one fell swoop, cannot support its own existence. The early people of North America found this when they over harvested seals. The straight, extractive line they had followed forced them to change until they found a way of living that could support them continuously, or cyclically.
 
 
 
 
 

David Bell                                                                                               Top

This week I would like to focus my energy on the issue of species management. Pacific salmon were the focal point in "Salmon Without Rivers", yet they are just one of many species that humans control and manipulate for economic profit.
 Humans tend to have the view that technology will cure all our worldly ills. We can continue to harvest timber, mine the earth, dam the rivers, and fill in the estuaries because we are technologically advanced to fix the problem. By fixing the problem we are looking at salmon as an economic resource rather than an integral part of the ecological fabric of the Pacific Northwest. We have chosen to mask the true problem, the destruction of habitat and chosen a band-aid approach, fish hatcheries. It has been proven for hundreds of years that hatcheries are not the answer yet we continue to almost exclusively fund hatcheries over resource management. Here I go again on my resource management tirade. Why are we unable to attack the root problems associated with this resource? Is it because the industry that benefits from manipulating the ecology surrounding this resource is too powerful? Or is it that our political pundits have a hard time admitting that policy doesn’t work and therefore we need to change that policy.
 In 1999 the Edwards Dam on the Kennebeck River was the first federally funded dam to be removed at the request of the federal government. The river now supports 10 species of fish; sturgeon, alewife, salmon and shad are now swimming in spawning grounds they were forbidden from since 1837. This is one of the first instances that our government has accepted the fact that hatcheries are not the answer to bringing a population back from the brink of extinction. It is necessary to look at this dam removal from an economic aspect. Edwards Dam produced one tenth of one percent of Maine’s electricity. It is projected to bring in millions of dollars of economic benefit to the sport fishing industry. There are presently 75,000 dams in the United States. Until we understand that resource management is the answer and science, which has declared the earth a vast warehouse stocked with uniform and interchangeable salmon parts, liars we will never be able to revive the once prolific salmon runs that dominated the Pacific Northwest.
 
 
 
 
 

David Jacobson                                                                                               Top

This book made me think a lot about similarities and differences between the native fish culture and the modern replacement. The historic fish culture, as the book theorizes, came into the new landscape and slaughtered the majority of the large game that existed here. The extinction of these major food sources must have greatly impacted their society. Many people most likely died of starvation before new food sources were found plentifully enough to support them. As aquatic opportunities developed it seems likely that it would have been fairly easy to convince people of the necessity to conserve the food which kept them alive. Several thousand years later, the culture they had developed, reflected their dependence on these same resource systems. Regulations of harvest and conduct kept salmon populations from being over-harvested and the gift economy helped to buffer them from the possible starvation of an inadequate harvest.
The modern replacement of the regions dominant inhabitants experienced similar processes as they intentionally trapped the beaver into extinction from many parts of it’s range. When we too turned to the salmon and the rivers, we continued our precedent of maximizing harvests. As this resource has turned towards extinction, there finally began an effort to recover what we had lost.
It seems like the main difference between the evolution of these cultures is that the native americans starved to death because they were fully dependant on the resources that they could harvest. Our dependence on the pacific salmon has never been a necessity, it has been a way to make money. The same thing applied to the beaver before them. The majority of people flocking to the west were not fur trappers, they were entrepreneurs. It didn’t matter what made them money as long as money was made. Money was the resource that has kept people alive in this culture because money has allowed resources from other lands be bought and used to sustain our populations. It has buffered us against the reality of resource dependence in the same way that the native gift economy buffered them from an inadequate harvest.
 
 
 

Dawn Curran                                                                                               Top

The book Salmon Without Rivers was really interesting.  I thought that I would be reading a boring 250-page book on salmon; I was proven wrong.  The novel provided me with geographical and cultural history of the Pacific Northwest, which I knew little about.  I was interested in reading the difference in cultivating salmon methods between the Native Americans and the Euro-Americans.  The idea that gift giving showed your wealth is foreign to our society today.  Wealth is showed in our society today through the amount of expensive ‘stuff’ that we own.  Today, Americans would rather buy themselves a Corvette rather than give an inexpensive gift to show their friendship and love to a person who was kind and generous to them.

Americans are intrusive beings that do not realize that they cannot fix all of the problems through technology.  "…We can see that our culture’s worldview remains as the root cause of this disastrous decline. We assumed that it was possible and desirable to maintain abundant populations of Pacific Salmon by simplifying, controlling, and circumventing the ecological processes that created them.  We assumed that we were not part of the Northwest’s ecosystems but stood apart from them as their managers.  We assumed that technology could overcome all problems." (206)  Now that we finally realize that we are part of the problem it is possible to step back and see how we can stop causing so many disturbances to the ecosystem.  The concept stated in this paragraph is the one major concept that most Americans need to understand before the mistreatment we impose on the ecosystem can be reduced.

North Americans are too economically greedy.  "Treaty negotiations continued unsuccessfully through the 1920’s.  Out of frustration, the Canadians even considered physically rearranging the mouth of the Fraser River-by cutting off the southern outlets- with the hope of redirecting the migration route of the fish away from American waters." (178)  The idea that it would be more beneficial to Canada economically to completely redirect a major watershed is unreasonable.  I am outraged that a group of people would actually consider completely destroying an ecosystem without considering the environmental impacts that would be had on the nature and the society.  This next quotation goes along with the ignorance of human impact stated earlier in the book; "…People came to regard cleared rivers with no large woody debris, beaver dams, or side channels as the standard for how economically healthy rivers should look." (64)  This sentence implies that a ‘healthy’ river is one which humans have gone in and crushed the beaver dams and blocked off all nonmajor streams.

This book proves that humans need to realize that the impact they impose on the environment is a negative impact and can only be reversed by stepping out of the ecosystem.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Debra Joie                                                                                               Top

No Paper Submitted
 
 

Elise Sanders                                                                                               Top

I think it is interesting that people still believe that fish hatcheries are a good way of increasing salmon stocks.  Weyerhaeuser is one of the major companies that think it can increase salmon stocks with fish hatcheries.  Even though the fish from hatcheries out compete the natural salmon stocks.  There are so many fish from fish hatcheries that actually destroy the ability for salmon to reproduce and continue in a natural and viable way.
 
One way that people can help increase natural salmon stocks is to actually create artificial rivers.  In Canada, I forget the name of the river, one of the most active fish spawning rivers is an artificial river made by people.  The rivers are built for ideal salmon spawning sites so that way there is just the right river flow, rock size, and water depth (so that way the sun doesn’t penetrate all the way and the fish feel safer).  These conditions all vary depending on the type of salmon, Coho, Chinook etc…  People can dictate which fish are allowed to enter the stream by blockading the entrance to the river.  Therefore fish that predate on the eggs and juvenile fish cannot enter the stream and this reduces the stock mortality rate.  The blockade can then be opened when the juveniles are ready to enter the saltwater environment.  The time of opening obviously depends on which species of salmon are spawning at the time.

This technique has proven to be successful at increasing the number of individuals in a given salmon stock.  It is a good alternative to fish hatcheries and I believe that if logging companies do not want to keep the existing rivers, that they are logging near, in healthy condition for salmon spawning then they should be mandated to provide these spawning fish an ideal artificial river for spawning.  However, I do not know all sides of this issue, there are probably some significant drawbacks to this system that I am not familiar with.  If any one knows of any drawbacks I would like it if you could share them with me.  But as far as I know artificial rivers is an excellent way to increase salmon stocks.
 
 
 

Elliott Ridgway                                                                                               Top

No Paper Submitted
 
 

Geoff MacIntyre                                                                                               Top

No Paper Submitted
 
 

Glenn Burkhart                                                                                               Top
The book Salmon Without Rivers by Jim Lichatowich was very educational. I learned a lot about the natural histories of the salmon and their plight. The book revealed many stories about how we have damaged the salmon’s habitat and what we have tried to do to reverse the effects of that damage without facing the real issue. I suppose this is the most frustrating part of the situation. I start to get really pissed of when I read about science that was ignored by lawmakers for seventy years so as to satisfy economical interests. I felt that legislators were not even concerned with the economic viability of the Northwest but catered more to the big business of timber, mining, and agriculture. Legislation is important but science should be the influencing factor, not business.

I liked the way that the author compared the Fraser River with the Columbia River in chapter 8.  It seemed as though the Canadians had the right ideas about how to restore vitality to their fishery. By using one entity to regulate the entire fishery the Canadians simplified the problem instead of complicating it. Having worked in this field somewhat I can see why our efforts have come up short. There are simply too many cooks in the kitchen, and the cook should know a little bit about what he’s preparing. In Washington State each sub-basin has its own entity that has to go through a gauntlet of review boards and comities to approve proposed work that may or may not benefit the salmon. We have the Fish and Wildlife people, Department of Ecology, Army Corp of Engineers, Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, Friends of the Cowlitz, Lewis County Public Works, Cowlitz County Public Works, and a host of others all working on recovery efforts within the Cowlitz Watershed area who often duplicate work and waste resources. We have so many agencies trying to solve this problem that all we do is spin our wheels and speed up the salmon’s extinction rather than prevent it. Often times different agencies have different agendas, some economical some ecological, which cause conflict within the effort slowing down progress and again wasting resources.

I really enjoyed the author’s epilogue starting on page 222. Throughout the book Lichatowich seemed to give a plethora of somewhat unbiased information based on historical events.  In the epilogue however he really lets go of this view and lets ‘em have it sort a speak. He unleashes on the governmental hierarchies that dominate the watersheds of the Pacific Northwest and calls for a change of views across the area. I agree with the quote that he uses from author Nancy Langston who wrote, "There are ways of living on the land that pay attention to the land, and ways that do not."  In other words listen to the land, listen.
 
 
 

Hannah Snyder                                                                                               Top

 I once read a book called Ishmael that dealt with the history of settlement and destruction caused by human dominance over nature.  It also dealt with the difference between the Givers and the Takers.  It implied that the native and primitive cultures are the Givers and white settlers, explorers and basically Europeans and the Takers.  The book Salmon Without Rivers confirms this theory.
 The Native Americans of the Northwest were Givers.  Their economy was operated on a giving system.  Tribes held formal gatherings called potlatches for big events such as celebrating a marriage or the naming of a child.  The host tribe would offer the invited guests plenty of gifts.  The receiving tribe was obligated to return even greater gifts.  According to the Native American’s believes animals and plants were equal to them as humans.  When an animal was killed, they believed it was all a part of their system based on giving and since the animal gave its life, they must return the favor by giving respect.  Tribes performed the First Salmon Ceremony and treated the first salmon caught with great respect and even returned its bones to the river.  They believed the salmon would continue to flourish if they continued to treat the salmon with respect.  What they didn’t count on was European contact.
 Settlers had an entirely different mind-set.  They came to the Pacific Northwest and to other parts of America and saw all of what was here and figured they could never run out of such an abundance of natural resources.  Who could ever use all these trees? Who could ever eat all these salmon?  They are what Ishmael called the Takers.  They figured everything found in nature was created for them.  Salmon Without Rivers states:  "The fur trappers took the beavers; the miners took the gold and gravel; the loggers took they trees and the riverbanks; the ranchers took the grasslands and riparian zones; the irrigators took the water; the hydroelectric dams took the river’s every and vitality.  Each group took their piece of the ecosystem with little or no regulation by the government and with little or not concern for the costs imposed on others"  (pg. 78).  Settlers were very much focused on what they could take from the land, not what they could give.
 I learned some interesting facts about salmon from this book.  I thought it was informative and well written and I could feel the author’s passion for the outdoors and salmon which I appreciated.  What struck me the most, as we’ve been shown examples of all quarter, was how much damage settlers imposed on American and it’s natural economy.
 
 
 

Ian Kirouac                                                                                               Top

Fish farms contribute to the continued abuse of pacific salmon habitat. I was surprised to discover that the mechanism that has kept biologist data sheets showing increases in salmon population do little but mask the problems by keeping our bellies full and our eyes closed. All the factors that have brought the salmon to their little fishy knees still remain: polluted waters, clear cuts, power plants and dams, just to name a few. When policy makers, politicians and constituents alike see the improved numbers they attribute it to a solution; Hatcheries are no more a solution to the salmon crisis than raising extinct species from the dead would be- they are dead because all their habitat is gone. We must protect the process and the habitat not just breed a bunch of fish in a tank. Why does this message only fall on deaf ears?

 One topic I found intriguing was that of the Native American gift economy. The respect shown to the first salmon caught, keeping its head, even in death, pointed always upstream and the removal and destruction of the weirs after only ten days. These concepts lasted only as long as Euro-man kept in the middleman business. When white trappers and traders had no such self-imposed limits it was open season on all resources. Eventually Native Americans had to follow this path as a salmon left was just one taken by someone else.

 It would be nice in at least one future seminar to read and write about some success, however small, and recharge the soul from all this negativity. Also what can I do on a personal level to help with the salmon problems? Turn off the lights, conserve electricity and what else? How do we protect the million year old salmon legacy and their habitat?

 
 
 
 

Jacob Wilson                                                                                               Top
This book was great because it was able expose a lot of relevant and valuable information and it sparked a couple real good questions that I will have to confront personally.  The author revealed himself to be a good scientist, historian, and a bit of the kind of philosopher that I like; one that asks lots of questions and doesn’t give many answers.  I think what he was ultimately trying to point out was that the dominant worldview of modern westerners is the source of our failure to bring relief to salmon populations, and that the only way to save the salmon now is to let go of the obsolete set of values that got us where we are.  I really appreciated how he took us step by step through all the relevant history and information to show his point, not just tell it.
 

Our societies dominant worldview was illustrated very well with the story of hatcheries.  The fact that results never materialized but the approach was nonetheless given full faith and support is all too revealing.  "Caught in the trap of techno-optimism, salmon managers became so committed to their worldview that they never questioned its basic assumptions" (199).  Here is the ultimate lesson for me.  Well beyond salmon and environmental issues all together, this lesson I want to take home with me.  To paraphrase Thomas Berry quoted in the text:  Our worldviews are sources of deep crisis when they no longer support the things we value.  To imagine myself experiencing what the collective consciousness of salmon managers of the past hundred years might have is just crushing.  To have the desire to preserve the salmon populations but to find all my efforts totally futile due to an inaccurate understanding of how all the pieces in the story fit together.  I think the people of the past cared about the salmon at least as much as folks today do, it’s just that the way they saw the world working, salmon couldn’t stand up to.
 

I don’t know if it possible or really a good idea to intentionally change your worldview to achieve a desired end.  I think that’s what the author is either proposing or is just stating, as an abstract point, needs to happen to save the salmon.  What I get out of this book is not that people of the past had the wrong worldview, which led to the salmon’s current state of fragility, and that we now have the long sought answers that are the keys to their recovery.  I believe that failures of yesterday are equally possible today, manifest in the same or different forms.  The real question for me is, "does my worldview jive with my values?  Why or why not?"  I think the salmon’s tragic story is just one symptom out of many that point to a greater illness.  I can’t come close to identifying that illness in society, but the story in this book has helped me to recognize it’s potential in my self, which is the first step to dealing with it, if necessary.  Don’t get me wrong now though, I’m not passing the salmon by with this, I know they are a symptom that is threatening the health of the whole system and must be dealt with.  But, these other issues are what I got out of the book the most.
 
 
 
 
 

Keegan Murphy                                                                                               Top

When Euro-Americans came to the northwest region their new practices of farming, timber harvesting, and fishing had adverse affects on the salmon, which eventually over time lead to the degradation of the salmon population.  I like how Lichatowich looks at Bairds flaw in reasoning " humans can control nature and destroy it at the same time", it seems to me that that this statement is the reason for the current salmon crisis as well as many other ecological problems that face our society today.
 
 I cannot understand how we have supported hatchery production instead of promoting habitat production and harvest restrictions.  This makes no sense, especially after Russell Foersters research concluded, " artificial propagation wasn’t significantly different than natural propagation."  After this research was released Canada closed its hatcheries and concentrated on habitat protection.  Yet we totally ignored all the signs and opted to continue with artificial propagation through hatcheries.  Lichatowich explains this ideology by saying that ecological ignorance and arrogant adherence to a dominant cultural ideology coupled with the lack of early fishery science when forming wildlife agencies lead to the myth that salmon could be propagated just as chickens were raised on farms.

 For me this book dug through the social and political bullshit to expose the true reasons why we destroyed the salmon population.  I think we are too busy with technological ideals and we have consequently denied our relationship with nature.
 
 
 

Kelly Cannon                                                                                               Top

 As I was reading this book over the weekend while working at my dad’s coffee cart, I was surprised at the amount of conversations that started over the title of the book.  By the end of the day I was amazed at the general lack of understanding all the people I spoke with had on the issues of salmon in the Pacific Northwest.  Understandings ranged from complete ignorance that salmon even have issues of extinction to having a general idea of the problems at hand but having a total lack of depth on practical solutions to the crisis.  I even had a lot to learn from this book and I pride myself on being familiar with salmon and the ecological issues at hand.  Before any type of restoration or solutions can be implemented it is important to assess the salmon and their history. This history needs to be addressed on levels of the salmon themselves as well as the cultural and historic need of and dependence on the fish.  To look at the history of the fish, which was addressed in the beginning of the book, it is important to understand that salmon and trout have been developing their genetic identity and migration patterns for thousands of years.  To know that it wasn’t until the oceans began to warm up after the last ice age that the fish actually became anadromous.  It took a long time to develop the skills to adapt to the different water types but it was necessary for survival so the fish adapted.  Other adaptations happened over the course of the last several thousand years to put salmon at a place of great abundance before the mid-eighteen hundreds.  Since the time of euro-American development and use of the rivers, salmon have been viewed as a commodity, which seemed utterly endless.  Idealized philosophies developed as to how to control the salmon and how to ensure future harvest after the returning numbers began to drop.  Human constructed devices to control the rivers as well as the fish were and still are to some degree expected to simplify and correct the affects of poor resource management.  If it took salmon thousands of years to adapt to climatic change as well as land formation change, it needs to be understood that we, humans are not going to be able to alter and transform something that time has so precisely and delicately worked out over such a a long period of time.  Living organisms viability directly reflect the environment in which they live.  To try to fit salmon into our idealized bubbles is like asking a person to live in an idealized world with no thought as to what that person’s individual needs are.   Basically, wild salmon are as necessary a healthy environment in which they as well as us people survive.  I would love to know how people in our class view salmon especially according to where they are from.  It would be interesting to see how someone from an area with out salmon swimming in their waters sees them opposed to someone from a salmon rearing state.
 
 

Kelly Stoddard                                                                                               Top

No Paper Submitted
 
 

Kevin Long                                                                                               Top
I wish I would speak up more often in seminar! I would like to challenge us all not to be so quick to demonize the commercial fisherman.  This is something I was guilty of myself until I spent the summer in Sitka, Alaska. I worked on the fuel dock and lived in the fishing community and as a result I got to know quite a few commercial and charter fisherman, as well as the industry and regulations.
I’d like to site the Seafood Producers Cooperative (SPC) in Sitka, as an example of a better fishery. it is owned and operated by the fisherman. The main issue I heard in seminar was the problem of by-catch and waste associated with nets. Members of the Co-op are trawlers and long liners only; they do not allow seiners or gill-netters as members. Similarly when SPC byes fish from non-members (a lower price is paid) they do not by from seiners or gill-netters, in other words, no nets. Although there is some waste with hook-based fishing, it’s minimal, and a very small percentage of that associated with nets.
There also seems to be a misconception about the fisherman’s knowledge of salmon and it’s life cycles. These people know more about salmon than I would have ever dreamed, some of them even formally educated in marine biology. They know all the seasonal and annual migration routes of all five species as well as the daily habits and a whole lot more. They’re very aware and concerned of the impacts of poor timber harvest practices, dams and pollution on the salmon, partly because they care about the salmon as part of their (the fisherman’s) pristine natural environment, and partly because their livelihood depends on it. It’s there job to know about the fish.  And although there are some that get rich, 85% of the fishermen in Sitka are very middle class, some less than that.  Just because you fish in Alaska doesn’t mean you get rich.

So! I’d like to have some feed back on this (if anyone reads it). My name is Kevin and I am in this class, let me know what you think about this.
Thanks!
 
 
 

Kevin Reis                                                                                               Top

With reading Salmon Without Rivers I couldn’t help but feel terrible with each turn of the page. I found the book quite disturbing. It seems everyone had a good idea, unfortunately the dominant ideas concerned money coming in not thought going out. Any regulations brought about were either quickly turned down, given no attention, or put money into pockets in a big way. These ideas and regulations were simply ways of getting around a bigger problem, keeping the salmon habitat alive and thriving. Man cannot conquer the Earth because in so doing the Earth will conquer him.

  The director of WA Department of Fisheries, 1953, Robert Schoeletter said, (p.65 top paragraph) "Just as automobiles need smooth roads to operate, salmon need clean, unobstructed rivers and streams…" Given more respect to resources and life, and less thought to money and wealth Mr. Schoeletter may have seen that the rivers and streams were naturally obstructed, for survival purposes, pre-white man. I believe he was thinking more of his logging friends and wallet rather than the salmon and other life that would be affected. With unobstructed waterways the logging companies could easily move the trees down to the mills and spend very little money to do so. This made it very profitable to be in the logging business, or friends of, in the earlier days.

  With the way these negligent actions persisted it is no wonder why there is only 40% of historic salmon range left (p.54 2nd paragraph). Each new era of farmer brought with them a new way of harvesting the Earth’s reservoir of life. Depleting little by little, more and more, until the complete liquidation of the land. As soon as heavy machinery such as gold dredgers started tearing up rivers and fleets of ships set out for the ocean the salmon and waterways of the Pacific Northwest were exhausted. The farmers of Yakima Valley caused the death of thousands of salmon per year.

  Of course with statements such as, "As there are about 100,000 people living in the Yakima Valley, all dependent on irrigation, I do not believe any serious argument could be made that the water should be taken from the farms and orchards to improve fishing conditions." B.E. Stoutemyer (p.75, 1st paragraph). The people really had no chance to think about the other properties that made up where they were living at the time. They were too busy with thinking about themselves.

    I feel that the Natives of the area had the better ideas if their surroundings. I loved the idea of the gift economy. It set the way of life for the Natives to a perfect balance. Only harvesting at very specific times, praising the emotions involved with receiving a gift, and allowing the fish to have rites as living entity and spirit. The Natives were able to live in this land for thousands of years without destroying it. The white-man came along and destroyed most everything in a matter of only a few hundred years. That makes me sad!!
 
 
 

Kevin Smith                                                                                               Top

No Paper Submitted
 
 

Lara Boyd                                                                                               Top

No Paper Submitted
 
 

Laura Garber                                                                                               Top

While reading Salmon Without Rivers, by Jim Lichatowich, I found that he addressed the topic of how people wanted to dominate the land, how they wanted to tame it.  I have found this to be a prevalent topic thorough out our readings.  Lichatowich says, "Agriculture and fish culture not only permitted people to increase their food production but also enabled people to assert their dominion over nature" (118).  Would Lichatowich say that it is almost human nature to dominate nature?  Would Cronon, Dillard, and Harris?  I believe that they would.  In The Living, the people coming west and colonizing the Pacific Northwest wanted to dominate the forest, they cut down the huge trees in order to manipulate the land to farm.  In The Last Stand, Hurwitz wanted to dominate the land in order to make money from it.  In Nature’s Metropolis, the lumber men and companies cut down thousands of trees in order to make a living and also in order for farmers to be able to live their way of life.  Lichatowich says " The fundamental goals of dominating, controlling,  and manipulating nature for human use were deeply embedded in western culture" (128).  I believe Lichatowich is correct in making this point and also that this point is made throughout our previous readings and throughout history.
 
 

Leif Wywadis                                                                                               Top

The overwhelming demise of the native salmon can be attributed to a number of issues. Over the broad range of these issues the story of how magnificent these salmon are seems to take a backseat. Through evolution highly developed survival skills helped the different salmon species thrive until human beings became involved. Is science to blame for developing hatcheries or did this help us discover and become more involved in the life cycle of these wonderful fish?

 However we view the impact of humans on salmon the fact still remains that we must live together.  If we separate ourselves from our natural environment then wild salmon have no chance of survival.  To let people or issues that are detached or have know ties to these species of fish decide their fate is to cut their gills and to let them bleed in the pile of paperwork left on some desk.  As long as humans continue to manipulate and play god with the salmon the amount of wild fish to return will diminish over the years.  There should be no problem of leaving things alone and letting nature take its course.  Wouldn’t make sense that the less we do the less impact we would have.

 Over the past twenty years I have seen a rise and a fall in the populations of the salmon species.  This is a false assumption that the overall condition of the native salmon is in good shape.  Hatchery fish can never take the place of a native fish!  That would be like comparing Old Growth forests to toothpicks.  With the abundant amount of information available to us we all seem to be experts but with this information we seem to be stalled as to finding a solution to the ongoing problem.  So much to do, so little time,  the awareness about salmon is growing by the minute but the demise of the native salmon species is declining by the second.  The solution to these problems  the salmon face can lead to a lot of finger pointing. A panel or collaboration of different sources and viewpoints need to be gathered and then action needs to be taken for the fishes sake.

 To a majority of the people in the Northwest the salmon means a variety of things.  To some it may be a livelihood to others it may be something they heard of but whatever the situation I hope that the generations of evolution can help the salmon survive beyond any of mans manipulation.  If the is one solution that can maintain the survivability of the salmon may it’s  time.
 
 
 

Linda Gibson                                                                                               Top

I found this book was extremely relative to forest ecology/economics since the salmon’s current state is due to the same human-induced resource blunders that threaten our forests today. And likewise, a fair portion of the salmon’s problem are contributed by timber harvests. Page 131 explains "splash dams and log drives were two of the most effective destroyers of salmon habitat ever devised by humans."

I find it incredible that people can decimate a resource so completely with no real intention toward that end. From all aspects of resource exploitation, the salmon, as well as the resource, were negatively impacted. From fur trade to dams, the effects on salmon were exponential.

Although salmon seemed to be relied on for food, they did not seem to be appreciated until the late 1800s. Even then, other needs came before consideration of this key species. I believe this is due, in part, to the same ignorance and greed that consumed the "old growth" forests of this same time period. The land was so raw, resources so plentiful and the newly arrived Pacific Northwestern white population were so enthralled with the abundance that they didn’t, at first, consider their impact upon the ecosystems. These resources were considered "warehouses of commodities."

Once they became concerned, their steps to "improve" the situation actually made it much worse. It seems that biologists believed that the salmon could adapt to our changes to their habitat, in that the biologists "cleaned" up the rivers upon realizing what damage the splash dams had done. In doing this, shelter that harbored juvenile salmon was removed creating yet another impediment to their survival.

Politics also played a part in the destruction of habitat for the salmon. Politicians represent the voters, not salmon, and many jobs and lives were positively impacted by the industrial changes that have occurred. More regulation for the salmon’s benefit would have meant losing votes for the ecologically-minded politician.

There are numerous reasons for the issue here and I’m not sure that there are any practical answers. But, hopefully, whatever changes that we make, in regards to salmon and their lack of habitat and all other situations regarding the environment, we really consider what impact these changes might make before adopting them.
 
 
 

Lisa Fredrickson                                                                                               Top

No Paper Submitted
 
 

Mary Warner                                                                                               Top

I really enjoyed this week’s reading and thought it was an incredible book that was very well written.  In looking at it quickly before, I was sure that it was going to be really hard and boring to read but it wasn’t at all.  Except for a few minor details, I thought the information was well organized.  I think it would have really helped with the overall picture if Lichatowich could have made sort of a time line figure to reference through out the chapters.  He did a lot bouncing around in the historical sections of this book- first talking about 1883 then on to 1936, then back to 1910, and next to 1989.  It got a little bit muttled…

 Anyway, I thought the over all book was very impressive.  I think one line that the author wrote in chapter 8 on page 194, pretty much sums up the entire book/problem with the salmon’s survival.  Lichatowich writes, "Through the years, more and more money has been thrown into the problem (with the salmon), but the approach remains rooted in the nineteenth-century myth of universal benefit from human control over natural ecological processes- in the myth that human could have salmon with out healthy rivers."  When looking at this statement, everything in the book seems to me to be proof of it.  It is supported also by the "case studies" he does on each of the watersheds.  The Frasier river project worked because it basically had no other option that to improve that natural environment for the salmon.  The Columbia River project didn’t work because it just tried to hide the problems with the band-aid of hatcheries, and it never did do much to restore the rivers- the salmon’s natural habitat.

 One thing that is incredible to me is how long it took people to actually get their acts together on how detrimental the salmon hatcheries were to the natural salmon and the economy of the industry.  Lichatowich points this out so many times but one statement that really caught my eye was just about how long it finally ended up taking- "After eighty-seven years of undocumented claims of success, federal authorities finally mandated an evaluation of the effectiveness of hatchery programs."  Eight seven years!  Wow, how did this happen and how can we stop something like this from happening to our natural resources that we have left?
 
 
 

Matt Crawford                                                                                               Top

No Paper Submitted
 
 

Meagan Robison                                                                                               Top

I found this book to be really interesting, and I am glad we had to read this because salmon is what my research paper is going to be about.  This novel has given be a lot of back ground, not to mention a good foundation to start from.  Even though I am from the Northwest, I do not think I ever fully understood the controversy surrounding the salmon, but now I think I do.
 
 I really enjoyed learning about the history of the salmon and how they evolved into the present day salmon.  It was also interesting to learn that they were not a staple food source for indigenous people in the beginning and how that evolved into an integral part of their lives.  Along with that I really liked learning about the native's relationship with the salmon and how they were so highly revered.  I really enjoyed the story about the salmon king and the five houses of salmon under the sea.  This story reminded me of a nursery rhyme or folk tale.  I though it was interesting how superstitious the Indians were and how many of their stories were revolved around salmon.  I admire the fact that they were gracious with other living things, but was it because of fear or because they really cared?

 I also thought it was interesting to see how the settlement of Euro-Americans brought so much negativity to salmon, including pollution of waterways, degradation,  deforestation, and loss of habitat.  But despite of this the salmon are still hanging in.  The only question is, for how long?  I am not sure if anyone knows, but there definitely needs to be something done.  I used to think that fisheries were the answer until I read this novel and discovered that they are not helping a great deal. So maybe we need to go back a couple hundred years in time and simplify the way the Native Americans did and maybe we would see the salmon numbers increasing.
 
 
 

Patrick Coleman                                                                                               Top
This book really went into depth on the factors that led to the reduction of pacific salmon runs in the rivers along our coast.  By reading it my knowledge base, not only of the five pacific salmon species, but also the history and magnitude of the crisis of the salmon was tremendously expanded.  Out of all of the factors that have led to the depletion and, in some cases, extinction of salmon runs the building of hydroelectric dams is the one that interests me the most and has been most apparent to me in my life.

The book talks about concerns of fish run disturbance stemming from the building of dams as far back as the early 20th century, but even as late as the 1960’s dams were still being built in our area on rivers with large native salmon runs.  The river that I am specifically talking about is the Cowlitz River that was briefly mentioned in the book (pg. 189).  Tacoma City Light built two dams that not only eliminated salmon runs to the upper Cowlitz, and it’s two main tributaries above the dams; the Tilton and Cispus rivers, but they also flooded three towns that were in the valleys that are now lakes.  They then built a huge hatchery below the dams to try and balance the loss of runs above the dams.  Which we all know to be a sham.  This all happened in the 1960’s, and it’s only been the last few years that Tacoma City Light has started to transport salmon around the dams and that’s mostly to appease the fishermen when their contract was coming close to being under review.  So there are starting to be a few spawning salmon above the dams, but nothing like it used to be.
 
 
 

Ray Gleason                                                                                               Top
This book was by far my favorite reading so far in this program; it touches on some very important issues in modern day and future natural resource management.  The flow from prehistoric salmon and their problems being mostly geologic change, then to the age when the Native Americans were beginning to use salmon as a resource. Then through out the human usage of salmon the was that some types of management were more sustainable than others and the sustainable seem to be from the social types that truly value and respect the resources.  The natives in my opinion had some useful values in their society to keep themselves from over using the resources; especially those that helped them live so well.
 

When European culture began to become a controlling factor on the rivers in the timber, mining, ranching, and commercial fishing industries the environment that the salmon live in changed drastically.  Logging using splash dams and log-runs to move timber must have been indescribable in the influence on the river habitat from the riparian vegetation to the sediment load moving yearly.  The mining with dredges that tilled the river bottom as they move is the only thing that I could imagine being more destructive than the log-runs.  One type of harm that I had never thought of was the irrigation, and the way many fish were being dispersed into fields without much immediate action it seems like such an easy fix.  It was estimated that in 1916 that about 20 fish per acre were being put into fields in the Yakima valley concluding that 4,500,000 fish were being killed in the basin that year. In the first 90 yrs (22 Chinook salmon generations) it was estimated that 50% loss in fish had already occurred.
 

This book went into detail about the harm that fish hatcheries have done to the salmon that they are supposed to be helping. I have taken some fisheries and water quality classes that talked about this but I had never really understood like I do now after reading this book.  The genetic loss must be extreme in the hatcheries were in some cases that I have seen only 5 males will be used to fertilize many female’s eggs instead of being sure to use more to get a better genetically diverse offspring. It is also strange to hear how long it took for managers to figure out that the salmon needed to be a few months old before release to get good survival.
 

Salmon have a difficult hand dealt to them it is amazing that they have survived so far hopefully we can learn to change and use policies that will help return some of their habitat and make sure that they are able to survive in the future.
 
 
 

Rebecca Leach                                                                                               Top

No Paper Submitted
 
 

Richard Dunn                                                                                               Top

The Columbia River constitutes much of the border between Oregon and Washington.  It is a central artery with a convoluted path that runs parallel to I-80.  Its scenery and gravity of time is reminiscent of the Southwest, supporting such beautiful places as the Gorge.  Its industrial potential was lucrative enough to lure the Manhattan Project to Hanford.
 This is the extent to which I know the Columbia River.  Being so centrifugal to the Northwest and integral to the salmon runs, I needed to know more.
 The river originates in Columbia Lake on the western heels of the Rocky Mountains in British Columbia.  It twists and turns for over four hundred miles in Canada before crossing into eastern Washington.  After joining with the Spokane River the Columbia is forced westward by lava beds, constituting what is know known as the Great Bend.  It turns south upon hitting the eastern foothills of the Cascades, continuing until embracing the Snake River (its main tributary) near the Oregon border.  From here the river heads west composing the beautiful Columbia River Gorge, traverses Portland, and filters into the Pacific in Astoria, Or.
 An American explorer named Robert Gray navigated the waters in 1792, naming it after his boat Columbia.  Lewis and Clark lead settlers to the region in 1805, commencing the turbulent course of human influence in the region.  Homesteaders realized that harnessing the power and resources of the Columbia was essential to the development of the Northwest.  The Columbia River became a beacon to pioneers, and with them came intensive grazing, logging, polluting, and commercial fishing.  Hundreds of minor and eleven major dams have been erected to provide irrigation, flood control, and hydroelectric power to the region.  In 1942, atomic engineers chose the seclusion and powerfully convoluted course of the Columbia to cool their nuclear reactors.  Now, "In the highly developed Columbia River, even the simple channel to sea is too dangerous because of mainstream dams, so in the hatchery juveniles are loaded into barges and shipped to the estuary."
 
 
 

Sarah Lowry                                                                                               Top

An interesting point came up in the comparison between the Fraser River’s approach to salmon management and the Columbia’s approach.  Both Canada and the United States did cost benefit analyses of potential future development strategies on their rivers.  Canada’s analysis clearly showed that the costs of dam building, in the form of damage to salmon and fisheries outweighed the benefits in the form of energy.  With regards to the Fraser river’s development, "The commission [IPSFC] pointed out that the economic cost of destroyed salmon runs would make the power produced by Moran Dam too expensive" (196).  Furthermore, Canadian economist Peter Pearse determined that "over its lifetime the economic costs of the [hatchery] program would exceed the benefits by nearly $600 million" (213).  The United States, on the other hand, did nominally the same analysis (i.e. both analyses called themselves cost-benefit analyses) and came up with exactly the opposite results.  In 1947, the U.S. secretary of the interior signed a memorandum saying   "’It is therefore the conclusion of all concerned that the overall benefits to the Pacific Northwest…are such that the present salmon run must be sacrificed" (189).
 To me, the different results of cost benefit analysis seem like an example of how preliminary assumptions make all the difference in determining the results of any analysis.  In he case of the Columbia river, pretty much everyone involved already had it in their heads that "progress" was inevitable, that even if they wanted to stop the dams from being built there was nothing they could do.  This stands in stark contrast to the mentality expressed by IPSFC commissioner, Roderick Haig-Brown, who "asserted that the salmon’s value went beyond economics: the whole attempt to have an ‘objective’ discussion of salmon and dams…’was a betrayal of the salmon and their meaning.’  To balance the salmon against human ‘needs’ that could be met in outer ways revealed an ‘insensate arrogance that has no place in modern thinking,’ he argued, that preserving the salmon was ‘an act of faith in the future’" (196).  Three Cheers for that sentiment!  It is particularly revealing that such a strong biocentric idea as that one was able to find its way into the discourse surrounding the development of the Fraser river, whereas all such opinions were necessarily toned and recuperated into dam-friendly jargon in the discussion of the Columbia.
 
 
 

Si Bussmann                                                                                               Top
The connections between salmon and forest ecosystems explored in Salmon Without Rivers creates a strong argument for the protection of both.  We could look at the forest ecosystem and the salmon run as a mutualistic relationship.  With the points presented in the book and in class demonstrating the impact of Euro-American settlement, we might expect some major changes in forest ecosystems over time.  The biology receiving nourishment from salmon includes practically every living organism in and around riparian zones.  It is of no surprise that they are linked to the growth and health of the trees.
It seems any environmentalist whose main concern is in the Northwest forest that they should also support the protection of salmon.  With the health of a forest so intricately linked with the salmon, I wonder whether the absence of salmon runs caused by dams and resource extraction reduces the sustainable strength of a forest.  Is it possible that the continued reduction of nutrient inputs and increase of resource outputs from further inland might at some point leave those areas unable to support forests?
We are stuck for a solution that allows the salmon to survive as a species without the continual support of hatcheries.  The risks in current patterns may only sustain salmon populations for given amount of time before they are further reduced by disease or environmental changes.  We are unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to allow restoration of large salmon runs that nourish forests, although it may carry huge benefits to timber companies and the fishing industry.  Even were we willing, it is a possibility that we have decimated these populations beyond recovery.
A case can be made that the health of many industries is affected greatly by the health of forests and their health is affected greatly by that of salmon.  Timber needs salmon, salmon needs a healthy waterway, and a healthy waterway depends greatly on the forest.
 
 
 

Stacey Godin                                                                                               Top

The different avenues of habitat restoration is an important issue for salmon.  We need to focus on the ability for humans and salmon to coexist within a natural, sustainable environment.  The book talks about hatcheries, fish ladders, transporting juvenile salmon in tanker trucks to lower portions of the rivers, and breaching dams.  However, I feel that these ideas are not creating solutions, but rather just momentarily fixing the problem.
 Sustainable harvesting of fish, just like any other industry, needs to be applied.  Perhaps taxes or tariffs on salmon are needed so society can fully appreciate salmon as a resource.  Also, the restoration of salmon habitat needs to be addressed immediately.  Riparian zone laws need to be managed and enforced.  Lichatowich on page 224 states, "Regardless of how much money we spend on salmon restoration programs, unless we change the story of our relationship with these fish, we face the real possibility of losing them."  I agree.  We need to look at salmon as an important indicator species for the overall environmental health.  Salmon is an indication that we are destroying our land.  I was glad to find in the book that polls in Oregon showed that 85% of citizens believe that it is important to preserve and restore salmon and steelhead runs in their state.  Wide education and awareness is indeed encouraging people to listen to the world they live in.
 Unnecessary dams need to be removed or breached so we can let the rivers heal themselves.  Rivers, we left to their own will seem to be able to rebuild their natural physical structure so that the salmon and other species can once again regain their diverse life histories.  Salmon are such strong species: surviving mountain uplifts, volcanoes, massive lava flows, centuries of drought, and thousand of years of glacial ice.  The salmon’s only struggle now is if humans would "…stop creating insurmountable obstacles."
 
 
 

T. J. Merrell                                                                                               Top

No Paper Submitted
 
 

Thomas Kolb                                                                                               Top

Silver fished salmon of the Pacific Northwest fill my body and mind.

I am from the Pacific Northwest.
Grew up on the water.
"The salmon are dying Thomas."
What dad?  What do you mean they are dying?
"You left your lights on again."
Lights, power, dams, and fish.

Stephen’s dad was a fisherman.  I say was.
Sold his boat a couple years back.
No more fish, no more reason to go to Alaska.
It was a big boat, tall walls of aluminum towering over the driveway of a childhood memory.
"Can’t make enough money up their anymore, gotta sell the boat and license."
Boats, money, fishermen, and fish.

Last winter my dad and I went to watch the salmon run.
Magnificent silver muscle thrashes in clear shallow water and I am mesmerized.
What drives you my friend?  Where are you going so determined? Where have you been?
"Used to be more fish, so many you could walk across their backs."
Looking back to the river I see another flash, but only one here and another there.
Rivers, silver, spectators, and fish.

Salmon are a symbol of this region.
Filling the rivers, streams, lakes, sounds, and oceans they swim into the logo world of humans.
An icon of their power these fish flop into our conscious mind and yet not far enough.
Left hanging we realize their importance but only in the sense of a symbol, and yet we cannot stop ourselves.
Ingrained to deeply are the ideals of use to the point of destruction, and we will not let them go.
Emblems, water, ideals, and fish.

And fish.
Oh yes, and fish.
An afterthought forever, these magnificent creatures, so adapted to their natural surroundings are left to flip and flop on the inhospitable beaches of human society.
From big corporate towers people who believe they control look out and see this death.
"And fish," they muse as another page is turned in the bank ledgers graphing the rise of monetary man over the rest of Gaia.
And fish.
 
 
 

Travis Loucks                                                                                               Top

No Paper Submitted
 
 

Tyler Knapp                                                                                               Top

I found this book to be very interesting and astounding, answering many questions that I’ve had about the Salmon crisis, and given me new inspiration, answers, and questions to solve it.  A key point that I grasped from Lichatowich was that the decline of the salmon is not just one single thing, like logging, but instead it is all of the various players that have an effect, and they are all interrelated, and all need to be changed.  In addition to damaging logging practices, problems have arisen from grazing, irrigation, fishing, fur trappers, miners, and dams.   And it is not just a species that is being decimated, or as 40% of the original subspecies, decimated to extinction, it has been a culture, and a gift economy that was more aligned with nature’s economy than our present wasteful industrial economy.
 I do have hope for the salmon, and think that they can make it through, but humans need to make a lot of changes for that to happen to the largest degree of success.
 
 
 

V.J. Gomez                                                                                               Top

Gift Economies Rule

 I appreciate the way Jim Lichatowich expresses himself through his writing, especially when talking about the impact Euro-Americans had on the Native American culture and the ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest.  He speaks calmly, logically, and rationally, and this is a nice change from other authors I have read who are overtly disgusted with the way this nation was formed.  It is a nice change of pace.  It is clear however that he despises the impact white settlers made on this region, and the destruction they caused to the Native American gift economies that had been taking place for thousands of years.
 The Native American gift economies were intricate and utterly amazing webs of selfless communities who put their natural surroundings above themselves.  In today’s society receiving a gift is receiving a new piece of property, a new possession to use and get rid of at one’s own discression.  In the Native American economies gifts were something to be given back or passed on.  People accumulated "wealth" and stature by the size and value of the gift given.  They were in turn expected to give in return a gift of equal or greater value back to the person or community from whom the gift was received.  In my mind this is without a doubt the way things should still be today.  Native American communities helped each other out, and invented a truly sustainable way of maintaining their livelihoods while still preserving the natural environments from which their livelihoods were sewn.
 Potlatches were a common social event for different villages.  These potlatches often involoved massive ceremonies and gift-giving.  In the book the author makes the comparison of a salmon’s lifecycle to that of a gift economy.  The young salmon makes his way to sea where he grows and accumulates biological wealth, and then returns to his native stream and gives himself to the perpetuation of a new generation of salmon.  These spawning salmon transfer nutrients back into the environment around them, and even do so after they have died.  The gift economies were much the same.  Villages accumulated wealth over time, and then gave great gifts to the communites surrounding them, thus carrying on the cycle of giving that was shown to them by the salmon cycle.  They were in true harmony with nature.
 Native Americans truly understood what sustainablity meant.  For centuries through trial and error they were able to learn how much salmon they should catch without ruining or hurting the salmon populations.  A tribe was able to do feed its own people and still help surrounding communities achieve their food goals.  For example, a tribe downstream of a river would place their hand made nets in the water for only a certain number of days to catch a certain number of fish.  This way, the salmon could swim farther up-river and the tribes upstream would be able to catch what they needed as well.  It was truly cooperative.  They were not about catching as many salmon as possible just to say they could.
 I won’t even get into the level of hostility I have towards the Euro-Americans and the havoc they created for these Native Americans.  Our economy today, our natural environment, and our overall taste for love and life would be infinitely greater than what it is today had we learned from the Native Americans what they had been doing for thousands of years.  But I won’t get into it, cause you’d never hear the end.
 
 
 

Will Dezan                                                                                               Top
Salmon Without Rivers helped me understand the geologic formation of the Pacific NW in recent time.  Prior to the reading I only knew there had been an ice age sometime in the not too distant past.  The scale of it and importance in shaping our area is astonishing.  Most impressive to me was the impact of lake Missoula on the local watershed.  The image of 3,000 square miles of water rushing towards the ocean from Montana is incredible.  And I can only imagine what the landscape would look like after each of the successive floods.
 
The gift economy of the Native Americans was significantly more sustainable then any system I could see us using ever again.  The respect that it entailed, and overall gratitude in acknowledgement of all gifts originating from the earth sounds more humane then anything we Euro-Americans have ever conceived.  The native’s economy balanced their relationship with the earth and its resources as well as interactions amongst each other.

Salmon management still seems to me misguided.  The fish are looked at as a economic resource instead of as a organism that belongs in the rivers and streams more then we do.  The use of salmon in our economy is necessary but I see little respect returned to the fish for what they provide us with.