Save the Salmon
- This topic has 10 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated Jul 4, 2007 at 4:42 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
Trout Unlimited is currently working on a Pacific salmon campaign.
I beleive the issue of Trout (the TU mag you get for your membership) had an article in the recent past about why we should eat wild trout.
I feel I need to make one more quick comment for the sake redeeming whatever credibility I may have (assuming I have any at all).
2) The four factors affecting how many salmon successfully return to sea each year in the lower 48 are (1) commercial fishing takes, (2) habitat degradation, including the building of dams, preventing access to spawning water, (3) recreational fishing takes, and (4) natural mortality.
3) The most major of the four factors in terms of fish prevented from reaching the ocean (or ever being born) is the presence of hydroelectric dams blocking access to spawning water in significant numbers. However, offshore commercial fishing, particularly by non-American fishermen in international waters, is a large factor preventing rebound.
Zach
Zach, for fear of being politically incorrect, I think you left out “Subsistence Fishing” by native American tribes as a major factor. They take a huge toll of salmon and steelhead every year. No one wants to deny them their historical rights, and many groups don’t really care about the future. They TAKE what they can get with nets, and nets, and nets. Having seen tons of Steelhead turned into Fertilizer by Indians on the Pullayup river in the 1970’s and witnessed subsistence fishing in Alaska, these folks take alot of fish out the system and they want their’s first before any other group can lay claim to them.
Additionally, the Eating Wild Salmon idea might be a good idea to develop a constitutancy, but the inclusion of statements like:
3. Free-flowing rivers – That wild salmon and steelhead have access to and from spawning and rearing habitat, and that dams and other barriers be modified or removed to allow fish access.
8. Water conservation. – That state water laws and municipal, industrial, and agricultural water-users conserve water so that salmon and steelhead streams flow year-round.
with no regard to the economic impact, dooms the Bill of Rights for me. For many, dams are such evil things, but the following statement about some Alabama Power Dams built in the 1920s portends otherwise.
Prior to 1912 only seventy-two Alabama communities had electricity, but by 1928, when Jordan Dam went into operation, Alabama Power served four hundred twentry-one communities in sixty-one of Alabama’s sixty-seven counties. The company also provided power for coal and iron mines, cotton mills, cement plants, quarries, steel plants and rolling mills, foundries, pipe plants and machine shops, ice plants public utilities, and electric furnance installations, industries that put thousands of [Alabama] citizens to work. – Jackson, Harvey H. III, Putting Loafing Streams To Work, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, page 187, 1997.
Although some dams may have served their useful life, most haven’t. I have no desire to go back to living in a 1920s world with food shortages, gas lamps and no air conditioning. Most of those who talk about tearing down dams wouldn’t either.
My two cents
Slapout Mike
Yes, the article in TROUT appears in the Winter ’07 issue, which is also available at http://www.whywild.org, on the left-hand margin of the home page. Its focus is choosing wild salmon as food, not trout. Our treatment of salmon in these conversations is limited to those fish that are generally targeted commercially, so it’s not applied to steelhead or resident trout, although the conservation implications for steelhead and even trout in some cases are very evident.
I really appreciate the questions. They’re all fair and good ones. At the risk of launching into an endless monologue, let me try to address some of the rationale behind this effort, address some of the questions, and then allow for more feedback.
TU works tirelessly every day to recover wild stocks of Pacific salmon and steelhead across their historic range, and we do so addressing every H – habitat, hydro, harvest and hatcheries – with programs ranging from the smallest remnant population of steelhead in southern California to stopping what would be the largest open-pit gold mine proposed for the pristine spawning grounds near Bristol Bay, Alaska and dozens of points in-between. We’re not going to stop that work a single bit; in fact, we’re increasing it steadily. Our efforts to maximize the legal protections for imperiled or listed stocks, to improve fish passage by modifying or removing dams and other impediments, to protect headwater and floodplain habitat, to reduce the risk to wild stocks from hatchery practices, and to keep the harvest of salmon sustainable are still running full bore, as we speak.
But we realized that we may need more help too to get to where we need to go. Whether we like it or not, salmon is big, global, corporate business. And the consumers who buy salmon – and the businesses who act on the whims of consumers – have a voice in how that commerce and the management of salmon play out. And at this point in the game we feel we’re at a crossroads: the consumer public can either send the signal to business, industry, and the decision-makers on salmon that they demand wild salmon in their rivers and oceans and therefore their markets and menus if they choose, or they can send the signal that they’ll settle for less. Settling for less could mean a wholesale dependence on farmed salmon and all of the direct threats such as pollution, sea lice infestations, and genetic risk from mass escapes that current salmon farms pose to wild salmon and steelhead, OR a demand for wild salmon from the public, meaning free-flowing rivers, high-quality habitat, sustainable fishing, clean water, investments in restoration, et cetera that are REQUIRED to have enough wild salmon to eat one occasionally. To our thinking, that economic incentive to do the right things for wild salmon and steelhead provides a boost in boardrooms to our other more targeted program work on the ground, in the legislatures, in the courtrooms and wherever else we can find.
And this is not about being a shill for the commercial fishing industry. We believe in engaging all of those who have an interest in seeing wild salmon stay around for a few more generations, and we count commercial fishermen among that group, just as we do recreational fishermen, tribal fishermen or anyone else who loves salmon and steelhead. The evildoers who don’t have an interest in a future with wild salmon all love to see divisions among fishermen; we’re about a unified voice for fish, and see the infighting that plagues us as being a counter to our goals. It’s also not about increasing the take of commercial or any other fishermen, to keep up with demand either; rather, it’s all about increasing the supply. Only Mother Nature can make more wild fish, but she can surely use some help from us.
Here’s an example. The mine I mentioned earlier, which threatens the tremendous all-wild sockeye runs of Bristol Bay. We’d like to see that mine stopped. Traditionally, the bulk of the sockeye catch in Bristol Bay ends up in cans headed for Britain. We know from the Copper River phenomenon that the demand for good, wild, Alaskan sockeye in the lower 48 is huge. We also know that as a result of that investment, Copper River has some of the most cutting-edge conservation provisions in place in the world. We figured, hey, if we can take some of that Bristol Bay sockeye that’s already being caught and redirect it to markets down in the lower 48, we’re creating investement in that resource, and thus a whole new constituency with an interest in keeping Bristol Bay whole.
So we did.
In a couple of weeks, here in Portland a local chain of natural food markets – New Seasons Markets – is hosting a Bristol Bay salmon day at all eight of their Portland locations. They’re flying in Bristol Bay sockeye for their customers, and TU will be on hand at every store explaining the value of the fishery, the fish, and keeping Bristol Bay pristine and not the location of a gigantic open pit mine smack dab in the middle of its spawning grounds. We’ll be asking customers to sound off, and let legislators and others interested know that they have a vested interest in Bristol Bay as it is, without the mine.
We will be working this model elsewhere, wherever we can, to celebrate the VALUE of wild salmon and to APPRECIATE and PROMOTE the conservation measures that make it all possible.
A couple of words on harvest. We understand that there’s a great deal of suspicion and even hostility among recreational fishermen and others in conservation toward commercial fishing. We choose to do something about it, however. That’s why we were deeply involved in the Pacific Salmon Treaty (which governs the catch from the Pacific NW to southeast Alaska) last go-round in 1999, and we are engaging fully in the negotiations as the treaty heads for renewal in 2009. The goal this time is not so much refereeing the fights between Alaska and the US regarding who gets what fish and how many, but in ensuring the habitat provisions, sustainable harvest and equal accountability on all sides to keep these fisheries strong where they’re strong and help them out where they need help. We believe that engaging the commercial fishing industry in conversation and giving them an equal voice in these talks gives us a better chance at a good outcome for fish than lobbing bombs at one another from afar.
And on the Pacific Northwest, yes, it is different here than it is in Alaska. That provides us a forum to talk about what we could have here if we take care of the fish. We have fought, and will continue to fight till we don’t have to any more, for protections for the stocks in the NW that are in trouble, and we’ll strive to get them help in any way we can. We are not talking about wantonly harvesting the last few fish of the endangered stocks. We are hoping, however, to engage the public in appreciating the value of healthy wild fisheries, including, if they choose, having one for dinner every now and then, and to energize the public in seeking the conservation measures that 1) will keep the currently available wild salmon they can buy now strong, and 2) hopefully securing enough of those measures in the NW to someday again have more strong populations that we could eat one here every now and then too if we want. But we’ll need those depleted fisheries strong again before we’d even think about talking about harvest on them.
Whew. I apologize; the monologue happened anyway. Please read our materials at whywild.org, read the TROUT piece, read the Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. We realize this is controversial, and we understand and appreciate the concerns about fishing. We believe that an educated, engaged and energized consumer public who appreciates what is needed CONSERVATION-WISE to be able to enjoy wild Pacific salmon – be it on a plate, on a rod and reel, or just watching in a stream – can help us reach our lofty goals of recovered, self-sustaining, healthy and fishable populations of wild salmon and steelhead all throughout their Pacific range.
Sorry for the long-windedness. We appreciate very much all of the interest and questions. Have a great fourth everyone. I’m hoping to go fishing. For wild Pacific steelhead, which I will release carefully and not think about eating, should I be fortunate enough to encounter one.
Amoore –
Thanks for the reply; you may want to identify yourself a little more to clarify where your comments are coming from.
I read your response in detail and I still have several questions.
1) How are commercial fishermen offshore being regulated in order to prevent them from catching, as you point out, endangered variants of salmon in the Pacific Northwest, when they are out to sea and indistinguishable from other salmon which home in to less sensitive rivers?
I know it’s probably my limited IQ, but after wading through the “endless monologue”, the arguement still seems to be based on a logical disconnect. How can the further exploitation of a diminishing resourse help to restore that resourse? Perhaps if you could provide some emperical evidence that any such campaign, in the history of man, has worked. Maybe you could start with the passenger pidgeon and the american buffalo.
I fear you are placing way too much confidence in the long term outlook of the American public.
Think Bob is more or less right here. It reminds me of one of my outfitter friends on the White whose conservation philosophy is, and I quote him, “Eat them all, save the big fish for last.”
The difference between farmed and wild salmon is probably lost on most folks.
Happy Independence Day,
Scott
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.