Extinction’s Voice
Posted by: allitab on: May 19, 2010
In a recent Seattle P-I article published by Joel Connelly, Scientist and author Dr. Carl Safina made it a personal goal to bring salmon preservation to the attention on the Pacific Northwest. At a breakfast meeting with People for Puget Sound he went as far as to say that the Pacific Northwest, a place known for its salmon is actually the “world’s extinction epicenter for ocean-going fish.” This comment comes after researching the world’s fisheries and realizing that more than half of them are not substantial or productive anymore.
Safina takes makes it his duty as a citizen to actively use his public voice. He chooses to publicly express his views on this public matter being a citizen engagement through public voice, as described in Zukin’s “A new engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing American citizen.” He uses this as a way to bring more attention to items of importance that some may not be looking at. He knows what he is talking about so it is informative and is speaking to an audience that can understand and relate to what he is speaking about.
Nisqually River Delta
Although there have been positive moves in towards better preservation and restoration of habitat including work with the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, Safina shares how it is not an inland issue as much as it is an ocean issue. He announced how the way that the ocean is changing is affecting the lives of the salmon return and reproduction claiming that this is due to the acidity increase in the ocean around the Pacific Northwest. He explained this to be occurring because of pollution and global warming leading to rising water levels.
He compared changing the world’s energy preservation to that of whales at one time being slaughtered for their oils showing how time has changed and even though it may take time, change is possible. Through careful planned changes the world can become more eco-friendly so not to hinder the survival of the salmon as well as the other species that live in the vicinity. He uses his public voice of engagement to bring more relative topics to the minds of the other citizens in his presence. He is encouraging others to make a change in their lives and share their knowledge of what they are gaining.
Safina most likely has chosen this approach to citizen engagement as a way to reach to a greater group who can do more in the community as an already established group. This was an audience that he knew would listen to what he had to say with open ears and eyes. This is an approach which will hopefully accomplish movement in the People for Puget Sound organization as well as influence to look at the larger picture as to what is harming the salmon of the Pacific Northwest.
-Allison
Straight from the fish’s mouth
Posted by: Hang on: May 17, 2010
- In: Salmon
- 3 Comments
Here is an entertaining video about the importance of NOT polluting our water from a local salmon. People for Puget Sound is using a creative mass media approach to remind the public about how we affect the water. Since the Gulf oil spill there has been a rise in concern regarding water safety, livelihood of fishermen and their families and the marine life. So do your part in keeping our waters healthy and alive by not trashing the water!
Neat Idea…
Posted by: heatherpetie on: May 5, 2010
Although this doesn’t have anything to do with the purpose of this blog…to create awareness of our water and Salmon in the Pac NW, I saw this video and thought it was awesome! It’s a pretty cool idea to get people to take the stairs instead of the elevator!
Skagit Salmon reach the desk of U.S. House Representatives
Posted by: salmonrunblog on: May 4, 2010
Skagit Watershed Council has been advocating for years the Middle Skagit Initiative. In this initiative, a grant-funded project has been created that would protect a portion of the Skagit River between Sedro Woolley and Rockport. This is an area that is supreme for restoration, not only for its quality and conditions but also for the Skagit salmon that live in these waters. This plan will help restore the designated area and provide a direction of efforts for the community to engage in.
This project began in January 2009 when it was proposed to Senator Patty Murray. It wasn’t until October 2009 that the House of Representatives approved the project and gave the 14-mile long tributary a boost in cleanliness and restoration for the salmon. According to an article from the Seattle PI, dated from October 2009, the Skagit River and its tributaries are the “largest producers of salmon and steelhead in Washington outside the Columbia River.” Therefore, it comes as no surprise as to why the House of Representatives would care to help protect this area and keep salmon healthy. The activities causing such an impact to this section of the river is mainly logging. Since the House of Representatives have passed a grant for efforts to clean up, new laws have been laid down, specifically in regards to logging. People can still log near the river, however, they must abide to the news laws.
Downstream along the Skagit River
According to Professor Wells, strategic communication can be defined as “using communication to inform, persuade, or influence a selected audience in order to achieve a specific outcome.” It’s important to understand that in this scenario, the Skagit Watershed Council did indeed use strategic communication to successfully gain a grant to help restore a portion of the Skagit River and help increase awareness to the community and help the life of salmon. The audience is mainly those who use the river for fishing, camping, and live near the 14 mile stretch, thus it’s a very selected audience who should care for their local waters and its inhabitants. SWC used one of the three strategic campaign strategies, ‘influencing policy,’ to execute their initiative into a larger public sphere. However, I also believe they used another one of the strategies, which would be ‘influencing individual behavior.’ Not only did this get local attention in the media, but also the initiative was passed through the House of Representatives, so it received national attention. I think two strategies were used in effort to pass this initiative, however, I do think one was stronger than the other. By influencing policy, SWC and others who were for the project, get government support; financially and in the new laws. This is an extreme form of help for the council because they don’t have to worry about protecting the new laws by themselves, they have the authorities to help back them up as well. In addition, because these new laws on logging have been created, locals are being educated on the importance of this river, the salmon, and our environment. To me, influencing policy, was the strongest strategy to use in this situation because for an activity such as logging, you need more than just a council to keep people accountable.
Logging is the number one cause for destruction in the Skagit River
By having new policies in place and exposing the consequences of damaging an ecosystem, to me, is a very strong form of communication. The other strategy, influencing individual behavior, is less powerful but nonetheless very important. Since this area is greatly affected by its locals and those who use it as recreation, individual behavior is very influential to its health and progress. The advantage in using this strategy is that it’s very easy to do: citizens near the Skagit River will be well informed and should look out for this portion of the river. The disadvantage is that we need everybody’s cooperation to make this effort succeed, and in this case, it’s not a huge problem to get everybody in on the plan.
-Suzy
Salmon Are Off The Hook…
Posted by: heatherpetie on: April 28, 2010
Recently, while looking through the Seattle PI, I discovered a piece of journalism that caught my attention for this specific blog. The article discusses the increase in Salmon survival and population in the Yakima River Basin. What attracted me most was that this increase in salmon was not the result of recent actions being taken, but rather, actions that were taken 30 years ago. The coverage of this particular article talks about Quakenbush Decision which was a once controversial federal court case. The article claims that without the Quackenbush Decision, salmon would not be in the Yakima River, as the river water would have receded, causing the salmon to struggle for survival. Long story short, the ruling assured that for the first time water would keep flowing in the Yakima basin during winter months and is now credited with the steady comeback of the region’s once-decimated spring salmon and steelhead.
So…the survival of salmon lately has not been exactly up to par, at least for what it used to be in the past (even thirty years ago salmon were being threatened) and… that’s obvious to see. Salmon are becoming more and more rare, and the Northwest is clearly taking steps as a society to save them and “correct environmental damages and put the land back in its proper order.” Both of these articles provide plausible solutions to help to save our salmon! Not only do they provide facts and information as to why the salmon populations are decreasing, but they also provide solutions for the steps being taken to fix the problems.Habermas Saves Our Salmon
Posted by: laurenadams418 on: April 21, 2010
Scientists have recently noticed not only the decline in salmon each year, but also a decrease in diversity of the fish. There has been a dramatic drop in the return of freshwater salmon. This dilemma has posed the unthinkable question to many fisherman: can the Pacific Northwest strive without its salmon? No seems to stand as a unanimous answer to the unimaginable. The American Scientist states, “In the past, activities related to fishing generated about one billion dollars in personal income annually and provided as many as 60,000 jobs.” This is not the case today however because almost everyone in the Pacific Northwest is indirectly competing against salmon wildlife. A few examples of this “competition” are dams, mining, logging and cattle grazing. This proves that the simplest human-induced changes to our environment can affect much of our wildlife.
The article seems to put a public blame on the issue of preserving salmon. Although some activist groups have tried to alert the public, nothing so far has been very effective. Many different factors are necessary when trying to find an efficient solution. Following Habermas’ public sphere, the article does not put blame on anyone in particular—rather suggests ways of solving the salmon dilemma.
In another article, the Seattle P-I blatantly blames humans for climate change and destruction to the environment, “Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced.” The article explains further that with global warming, our rivers and streams will run dry. These are two vital areas of spawning for salmon. With increased climate changes, not only will the diversity of salmon decrease, but more importantly the species will become entirely endangered. As stated earlier, this in no way will help the lives of those in the Pacific Northwest.
As the American Scientist discusses, salmon cannot be categorized with all other endangered species. Salmon in the Pacific Northwest affect almost everyone, whether it is direct or indirect. Easily put, fish are quintessential to life in the Pacific Northwest. Salmon preservation is seen as a public problem because the disappearance of such fish can alter the Pacific Northwest as a whole. Both articles have similar approaches to Habermas’ public sphere—solutions to the problem were addressed without pointing too many fingers at who is to blame. Habermas’ public sphere was more concerned with finding a solution to a problem, rather than figuring who is at fault. The articles also include all humans living in the Pacific Northwest. There is no specific group of people in charge of developing an answer to the issue; instead there is the idea of a collective collaboration from the entire Pacific Northwest. Hopefully with the efforts of all Pacific Northwest residents, we will be able to preserve habitats throughout the region.
-Lauren
Jack Johnson – Traffic in the Sky
Posted by: salmonrunblog on: April 20, 2010
Serve, protect and honor thy Salmon
Posted by: Hang on: April 14, 2010
The Pacific Northwest is a strong proponent in preservation and population stability of salmon. There is an endeavor to consume and fish responsibly through carefully monitoring salmon yearly returns to the basin. The Seattle Times recently reported that Chinook salmon have returned in disappointingly low numbers, which causes concerns among commercial and sport fishing businesses. Coastal communities are struggling with the new salmon plan that will restrict commercial and sport fishing along the west coast. The Pacific Fishery Management Council, comprised of members from California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington, is mostly concerned with the current state and plan to rebuild the salmon population. They are also keeping in mind the local fishers and salmon consumers who will be affected by any changes in fishing regulations. Although restricted fishing will be implemented, the council views this as a chance to allow salmon to spawn so that regular fishing practices can commence.
Another form of regulating salmon consumption and ensuring growth is by controlling who eats the salmon. Human beings are not the sole consumers; in fact some people argue that sea lions are to blame. Sea lions are camping out by the Bonneville Dam devouring large quantities of salmon and steelhead. As a result the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission is taking matters into their own hands by “hazing” sea lions, or sometimes euthanizing them. Even though hazing has not provided a solid number of salmon saved, the Commission will continue hazing until May.
Salmon is a valuable commodity and it seems like if human beings can’t have it, no one else can (i.e. sea lions). Councils and committees are doing the best they can to increase salmon population, but there is little result proving their methods and plans are working. The Seattle Times portray these bodies of power as noble, but perhaps on a “power trip.” Obviously salmon conservation is a priority, the methods in which groups are approaching it are questioned by the Seattle Times reporters. The goal is to protect the salmon, which is the only perspective that is reported on in this issue – the coastal population and sea lion advocates are omitted from these stories. Are these groups doing more harm to coastal communities and sea lions than good? The selection of material covered is only a sliver of the whole pie. Even though human beings are as much at fault
for overfishing, people are not conveyed in an evil way because they are also the ones who are trying to protect salmon. Whereas sea lions do not try to protect salmon, they simply “gorge” on the salmon to their heart’s content. This frames sea lions as a nuisance and bad presence in the water and any one against this method of preservation must not care about salmon. But clearly, human beings are not innocent in the mass murders of salmon and reporters need to address that issue through different lenses to fully understand why salmon runs are down and how people can help conserve salmon.
-Hang
Articles:
“Salmon Dance” Entertainment
Posted by: salmonrunblog on: April 13, 2010
“Salmon Dance” by The Chemical Brothers
salmonrunblog
Hang
laurenadams418
allitab
svlcek
heatherpetie
