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 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.