The next time a fisherman tells you he let that big one get away you might congratulate him on his sustainability practice. The bigger the fish that got away the better, as indicated by the research publicized by OSU professor Mark Hixon, multi-award winning marine biologist. It seems that fishing folklore that enshrines the wily old fish too smart to be caught had something to it. As the research cited by Hixon indicates, larger and older female fish need protection in offshore reserves, since they are the ones most likely to breed-as well as to pass on the best survival genes.
Hixon is at the forefront of scientific research, but as chair of the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee, he grapples with the distressing anti-science mentality of the current US administration. He is not alone. The results of the survey released last week by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that over half of the 1600 EPA professionals who filled out the Union’s detailed questionnaire reported incidents of political interference in their work, in which they were pressured by superiors to skew their findings.
If he worked as a knowledgeable elder whose job was to oversee the delicate balance of human and natural (spiritual) resources in traditional Northern California, Hixon would have had more community authority and support. Yurok/Klamath elder Lucy Thompson explained the “laws of the fish dam” overseen by traditional leaders in a book she self published in 1916. In a report confirmed by an anthropological study, she explained how traditional fish traps were open on one side to allow a number of salmon to escape upriver. The shaman also mandated that the trap could only be used for a short period of time, after which was taken down so that the entire run could pass to its spawning grounds.
Thompson noted that US conservation laws had gone into effect on the Klamath River, but they weren’t working very well. These laws prohibited nets from stretching all the way across the river, but because they only applied to individuals, they didn’t take into consideration the overall picture, which yielded a gauntlet of nets very few salmon could make it through.
Without a more comprehensive conservation policy, she predicted that the young California society would not protect the salmon resources as her people had done for thousands of years.
Throughout the Northwest, native spokespeople for those that US culture rendered “voiceless’, as Siletz spiritual elder Agnes Baker Pilgrim puts it, spoke out on behalf of the salmon. In 1846 a Chinook representative at the mouth of the Columbia told treaty negotiator Anson Dart his people would not sign until the pioneer commercial activity that disturbed the salmon was removed from the mouth of the river.
His plea was ignored, though earlier fur traders like Alexander Ross, who was reliant on native resources and good will, could not ignore native strictures for taking the salmon with care and respect. They were strictures which native peoples all over the Northwest held the early whites to. Fur traders on the Columbia as well as on Grays Harbor and Puget Sound encountered native protest against the pioneer method of fishing, which seemed bent on “catching them all”– even if they couldn’t use them.
In the early 1900s, Henry Cultee witnessed a fish cannery operation that blockaded the Humptulips and backed up the salmon so thickly they couldn’t be canned fast enough to keep them all from spoiling. Thus the canners hired scows to tow boatloads of the rotted fish out to sea to dump them. “It would have done a lot of good”, Cultee remarked, if they had let these salmon run upriver instead.
Letting some go was the perennial strategy of the native people wherever the salmon ran in the Pacific Northwest, out of courtesy to the people upriver as well as out of fundamental respect for the salmon themselves. The native strategy resulted in the fish runs so prolific they “embarrassed” pioneer Ezra Meeker on Puget Sound, who could hardly move his boat through the millions of salmon he encountered in such a run there. In one Columbia River camp in 1805, Lewis and Clark counted 107 bundles of salmon that Clark estimated to weigh ten thousand pounds. Altogether, the fifty thousand Indians who lived along the Columbia took an estimated forty-two million pounds of salmon a year from the great river of the West. Notably, this take was at least seven times the contemporary harvest. This stunning pre-contact catch harmed neither the abundance nor sustainability of the salmon runs.
This did not happen accidentally. Native fishing practices were governed by the belief that the salmon were kin with whom humans could and should engage in interpersonal partnerships. This partnership has recently been re-asserted by Takelma-Siletz elder Agnes Pilgrim Baker. Others, like Nisqually elder Billy Frank Jr., have worked for years with Washington state officials and other fisherman to protect salmon resources in western Washington.
Grandma Aggie’s own work is paying off. Salmon runs have been coming back along the Applegate and Rogue Rivers, the traditional territory of her ancestors and the site of the salmon ceremony she recently revived. Her spirituality is linked to pragmatic action– “walking your talk”. She expresses satisfaction that the dam will soon be coming off the Applegate River just upriver from the salmon ceremony site–and another dam is coming off the Rogue shortly thereafter. She worked on a local citizen committee to help bring this about.
Letting the best go for the future was not only a strategy applied to the salmon. In the Willamette Valley, a pioneer witnessed a traditional Kalapuya hunt in which the people encircled the deer. Before they took any, they let the biggest and strongest go. This is the opposite strategy from hunting the biggest deer or elk to place its “rack” on a wall.
But the indigenous peoples who lived sustainably in the Northwest for thousands of years had the time and inclination to learn from nature. Theirs was not an attitude of domination of the natural world– or of gaining the trophies to express this. Instead, they worked to establish a reciprocal partnership with the other natural beings who share our lives.
That is as simple and wise a strategy as saving the best seeds for future crops– or passing on a better world for our children and their children.
To get involved in saving the Northwest’s fish resources:
Check out OSPRIG’s campaign in supporting marine reserves:
http://environmentoregon.org/action/oceans/marine-reserves-leg2?id4=ES
Coordinated through
www.environmentoregon.org
Or join the “salmon nation” working to protect inland fishing resources, at
www.salmonnation.com
UNESCO has a recent report on the importance of local knowledge in sustaining fisheries.
For a detailed scholarly report of the environmental strategies of the indigenous peoples
of California, see M. Kat Anderson’s Tending the Wild.
A detail historical analysis of indigenous ecological practices in the Pacific Northwest is here: http://holdenma.wordpress.com/culture-and-environment/indigenous-ecological-practises-and-beliefs-in-the-pacific-northwest/
You are always welcome to link to this post. Note, however, it is copyright 2008 by Madronna Holden.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to copy it in any other form than a link to this page. Thanks.
Filed under: Animals, Contrasting worldviews, Environmental ethics, Indigenous, Northwest History and Culture, Our Earth and Ourselves | Tagged: Kalapuya, marine reserves, sustainable fishing
I find it very disconcerting (although not surprising under the current administration) that EPA officials are being pressured to skew their reported findings. This completely undermines the purpose which, as I see it is to monitor, plan and act accordingly so the salmon remain and prosper. We only benefit from this. As with any resource we rely on, by securring the salmon’s future, we secure our own and future generations to come.
Yet hope remains when we partner with local elders, such as Grandma Aggie. Whose significant knowledge and experience can guide us into implementing more sustainable practices that will ensure the growth of the salmon population. We Westerners must really begin to heed the word of the scientists and elders around us who are on the front lines of endangered areas such as the Willamette Valley (and others across the country). The consequences only become more dire as time passes with out action.
Hi Kathleen,
Thank you for your thoughtful and caring comment. It is a hopeful point that, as you say, those of use concerned about these issues are not alone.
And speaking of the current administration, I hope everyone reading this is registered to vote. Your vote counts!
When I lived in Washington, as a chance to experience living on a boat and o be out in the ocean, I applied for the four month long fishing expeditions with private fishermen. However, destiny kept me on land. At that time, the ships were loaded with fish and seafood, unlike today’s miserable catches. That was twenty years ago, and there were no signs of dropping a few grenades to kill half the fish population of a lake. This is true in some states with ultra lax fishing laws.
One wonders how much longer will it take for our leaders to heed Native Americans’ advice on hunting and fishing. There is hardly a day passes by that there aren’t complaints from fishermen about the depleted status of the oceans. From New England to the Pacific Northwest, ocean reserves continue to diminish, and the rest are bought by increasingly limited number of customers. That is because seafood prices continue to rise as supplies decrease.
The fact that the Natives had the perception and the will to release the strongest animals, show how farsighted they were and how well their planning for the future. This is wisdom not taught in schools these days. Rather, we are sold heavily advertised hunting weapons and fishing equipment, complete with their own uniform.
The idea of sport hunting and fishing is a new phenomena. One wonders the percentange of animals on land and sea unnecessarily killed for pleasure. It is time to challenge the industry and the officials to pass laws to put a stop into such unwise practices.
Great points, Sayed. I certainly concur!
Dr. Holden, I also wanted to tell you that the indigenous people’s respect for salmon and the way they took care of the rivers, helped maintain the fish population and the rest of wildlife depending on them.
The good karma because of people’s ethical animal welfare returned to them doubled as a gesture of appreciation, as if the animals knew the natives’ concern for their well-being.
Thanks for reminding us of the natural reciprocity involved here. It is hardly a surprise that many of those on the mid-Columbia River who depended on the salmon in this way say reciprocity an essential part of their ethical systems.
Dr. Holden
As I embarked on my journey to become a fish and wildlife specialist, (my current college degree is in Natural Resources with a minor in fish and wildlife) I never really thought about many of the key points brought to my attention in these articles. Much of what I read, concerning the natural world and all of its natural resources directly relates to a Native American viewpoint. The concept of “letting the big one go”, to create better genes in the reproductive pool is something that many of today’s cultures would not even think of. Like the article says, it is about the “trophy” hunt and hanging the “trophy” on the wall. The bigger it is, the better the kill. The Native Americans thought just the opposite and it is clear to see that they had more of an earth friendly, you get what you give, attitude toward preserving the earth’s natural resources. That seems to be one of the major underlying problems of todays cultures and one of the biggest reasons that the earth natural resources are being depleted at such an incredible rate. Being an avid fisher and hunter, I think that there is a lot to be reminded of in this article, especially in todays day and age.
Amber Steinhoff, Philosophy 443
One of the familiar themes and conflicts to environmental responsibility and sustainability seems to be personal economic need (or the perception of economic need.)
This pressure may be exerted by a political group or body, as might be the case in the example of researchers being asked to bias their findings, or by an employer trying to boost profits in the case of the cannery example. In either case bowing to the pressure to compromise the long-term for the short-term can result from a person’s immediate situation.
Most sport fishermen that I know take very few fish, and many subscribe only to the catch-and-release strategy of fishing.
This type of recreation can be very time consuming and expensive, and those who enjoy it are not generally worried about the source of their next meal. In most cases, the ability to be a good sport fisherman requires an understanding and appreciation for the fish that are the subject of the sport. Many such fishermen are among the leaders of activist groups seeking to protect our watersheds, and prevent dams and other obstacles, which would impede the natural migration of fish.
Other factors that I think have contributed to the lack of a sustainable mindset by the dominant European culture in North America are both the ease of travel, and vastness of the country. Unlike the Native Americans, we can “take what we want and leave.”
The Native culture lived with the environment out of necessity because it was their permanent home.
We need to learn to do the same or we will find ourselves without one.
Hi Amber, thank you for your personal response and discussion of values. I hope you will take the chance to put your values into effect in your chosen career.
Hi John,
You might be interested in looking at the very eloquent words of this commercial fishermen:
http://www.salmonnation.com/voices/ralph_lohse.html.
Economic pressure/perception is an important point: I once asked my class of dislocated workers (ex-loggers) if they would choose to create clear cuts if their were an alternative economic course for them. There was an adamant consensus they would not. In fact, it is loggers who have currently led the way in developing models of sustained as an alternative to sustained logging. Part of the economic issue here is that several decades ago, Oregon economists predicted the decline of the logging industry–and resulting unemployment, but we as a community did nothing to respond to this. We need creative and caring community responses to our current environmental issues.
You bring up another key point in our sense of leaving behind the consequences of our actions: i agree that we indeed need to look at the land as a permanent home–and develop a real sense of belonging as a result.
Thanks for the thoughts, John.
I see in this article similarities to the situation in the Chesapeake Bay area where I grew up. Currently Maryland and Virginia are considering measures such as limiting the amount of bushels of blue crabs one can harvest, shortening the crabbing season for female crabs, and limiting catches of soft shell crabs. Since females mature in just one year, the population could likely be revived if guidelines are followed. It isn’t always easy though, to convince people whose livelihoods depend on fishing/crabbing that sacrificing for one season will benefit them in the long run.
Our society is definitely not geared around long term thinking. We have gotten so used to instant gratification that we have nearly forgotten how to plan ahead. Just look at the current credit situation. A few generations ago, our grandparents only bought what they could afford to pay for and still have money left over to put into savings. Now a lot of us tend to buy tons of things we don’t have the money for yet, and think that saving means getting 50% off at a department store sale.
I think Native American culture could teach us a lot about patience and respect for nature.
Thoughtful response, Karen. Thanks for the connections with issues in Chesapeake Bay. I think we obviously need to change the thinking that it is desirable to take the biggest or best for ourselves (as in trophy hunting and fishing) for that which cares for the future generations and those who share our earth.
I think this article did a wonderful job of reiterating the importance of maintaining a reciprocal relationship between humans and the salmon in our waters. I think that Grandma Aggie took great initiative in bringing about a citizen committee to actually promote the removal of dams in both the Applegate and Rogue rivers. I hope that others will realize her work to be an example of how all of us can in some way contribute to upholding our responsibility in preserving the animals and resources that nature has bestowed upon us. I will do what I can to support marine reserves through supporting OSPRIG’s campaign.
Also, from this article, I gained some insight on the element of sacrifice, which I now deem to be of considerable prevalence in Native worldviews and values. I say this both in regards to letting go of the largest fish to maintain the best genes, and also to releasing the strongest and best deer (a common practice of the Kalapuya). I believe the concept of sacrifice to be such a simplistic notion, an idea that should be a “no-brainer” according to biologists, if we want to logically allow the best genes to survive. I realize how this element of sacrifice actually does return to humans (aforementioned in another post as “karma”) because by releasing the larger fish we retain and spread better genes. In return we are blessed with even larger salmon. Unfortunately, people are normally more concerned with the pride that comes with capturing the largest fish in the present moment. It seems that this concept of sacrifice is just one component of a good reciprocal relationship between human beings and the natural world.
Hi Denise,
Thank you for such a thoughtful comment. I cannot say enough positive things for Grandma Aggie–and I am happy to see you add your own supportive comment here.
Thank you as well for following up your words by supporting OSPRIG’s campaign to protect our marine resources. It is important to realize how much each of our actions mean.
Your notion of sacrifice is a thought-provoking one. The interesting thing is that it is my sense that the indigenous peoples who practiced letting the largest deer and fish return to the wild did not seem to conceive of this as a “sacrifice”– but rather a practical matter that showed appropriately respect to these natural creatures who gave their lives to sustain human ones. And as you note, it returned a boon to them– in this case, in the striking abundance of natural resources along the Columbia River and in the Willamette Valley and throughout Puget Sound.
It says something pointed about ourselves, I think, that we might conceive of letting the best go to sustain the future as a sacrifice. Thank you once again for your thoughtful response!
I find it upsetting that EPA results have political interference. However, it’s reassuring that over half of the 1600 EPA professionals have stepped forward admitting the agency’s corruption. The purpose of the EPA is to protect the environment, not to allow businesses to have their way with it.
It’s amazing how fish populations have been exploited throughout the years. Businesses have the mentality that grabbing everything in sight is the best way to go and they don’t think about the impact that they have on the environment or future fish populations. Henry Cultee witnessed a salmon cannery toss out boatloads of spoiled salmon out to sea. Rather than the cannery taking whatever it wanted, it should have taken what it needed and let the rest of the salmon continue upriver to spawn and increase in population. This happened back in the early 1900’s. It’s now close to 2009 and fish populations are struggling due to overfishing, pollution, and industrial growth. Now people are seeing the devastating effects from fishing practices of the past. Elder Agnes Baker Pilgrim says that the youth of society is “voiceless.” I consider myself part of this demographic and I don’t want to be viewed as “voiceless.” Soon this group of people will be in charge and have to make important decisions about the present and future of the environment. The youth needs to be educated about past mistakes so we don’t make the same mistakes again.
I’m happy to hear about the removal of dams along the Rouge and Applegate Rivers. Hopefully salmon populations will increase with the major obstacles gone. We should be willing to protect our environment with Grandma Aggie as our inspiration.
Ashley, thanks for a great response. It heartens me that folks such as you will soon be in charge. Your being informed helps us all. Thanks again for your care!
Modern hunters and fishers certainly have a trophy mentality. I think this comes about because there is relatively little “need” for the actual meat and other parts of the animal. Also I think there is some bravado associated with getting a trophy that makes the person who caught or shot it feel like they have some particularly good wilderness acuity similar to their ancestors who hunted because they had too in order to survive.
At least in the United States, on the fishing side at least, a strong movement for catch, photo and release (CPR) has caught on. One advantage with fishing over hunting is that you can usually let the fish go in good condition and maybe even catch it again later. With hunting I don’t think this has caught on as much simply because the animal is always going to be killed. When talking to a hunter about their day in the woods, you will usually hear such statements as “I could have shot a small buck with stub antlers, but I figured it was early in the day, so I decided to wait in hopes of a big buck with a nice rack.” I’m personally fine with hunting as long as it is well managed. I never have agreed with the idea of trying to take the largest specimens though.
I find it interesting that indigenous peoples had no concept of gene pools and other advanced science. But when it came down to it, they knew from experience the appropriate level of harvest to extract from the environment and on a high level why it was the correct amount. They would hold to these principles because they were so ingrained into their cultures. Nevertheless, I would imagine even among native populations, there was probably some occasional “trophy” hunting. However, their definition of a trophy wasn’t what modern hunters would put on a wall. They probably occasionally needed an especially large and vigorous animal for religious or other special ceremonies that was part of their culture. They would hold this animal in reverence because of its attainment of perfection compared to others of its kind; perhaps in the hope that it would somehow transfer some of its strength to them A modern sportsman wouldn’t celebrate so much the greatness of the animal but rather the significance in their own ability to have killed it. They may admire the animal because it was such a large specimen, but it would be their pride that would come foremost.
Very thoughtful comment, John. Interesting idea of ritual use of “best” or “biggest”; I have never heard of such a thing among the cultures I have worked with. However, it is an interesting model for changing the attitudes (and perhaps understanding some underlying buried sense) in modern trophy hunting.
I have heard of the white deer dance among the peoples of Northern California (some white tailed deer very rarely are born with white coat– not albinos, just a genetic rarity). And I know of traditional Chehalis ideas that taking the first salmon was done with care (and patience) because this was the “leader” of the salmon people.
But the idea of using another as a “trophy” (from hunting to “trophy wives”) seems to contradict the “partnership” mentality with which
the indigenous peoples of the Northwest anchored their values.
The trophy idea, even ritualized in the way you express, always has a tinge of conquest in it–which contradicts the partnership mentality. The idea, for instance, that the animal consents to die for the hunter, that is part of many indigenous traditions– and if that consent is not there, no animal is taken.
That does not mean that personal challenge– and challenging oneself on a wilderness stage– has not been a part of all human cultures that I know of. Some (very interesting folklorist Michael Meade, who has worked with everyone from ghetto youth to prison populations: here is one of his events entailing veterans: http://www.mosaicvoices.org/) believes that we need to give young men initiation ceremonies so that they understand how to take such challenges as challenging themselves. Malidoma Some (from Africa, now in the US: http://www.malidoma.com/) has the same idea: and in addition, he states that a young man who does not yet know how to use his strength and anger needs an elder to stand beside him and teach him what to do with this important energy so that he can channel it for the benefit of others.
The fact that many indigenous hunters were constrained to give away all their hunt to others also helped prevent trophy hunting. Of course, this does not mean that one hundred per cent of members of any society follows its ethics to the letter. Once Chinua Achebe (a Nigerian writer and Nobel Laureate) was asked whether he thought the traditional Igbo society of his ancestors was perfect. His response: there are no perfect societies, only those that are better than others at fighting the human instincts of self-destruction– arrogance and greed.
Interesting ideas! Thanks for some deep thinking.
It is amazing to realize the ignornace that still remains within the world of “sport” (fishing, hunting, etc.) I think that people in general neglect to see the big picture when participating in these sports and what type of things can result from just one day of hunting or fishing. Just like all things, everything is best in moderation. But we also have to realize that even though everyone is participating in moderation that if too many people are fishing/hunting even in moderation at the same time, the numbers may be too much to maitain the sustainability needed. It’s a hard matter to find a balance to because of how sensitive it can be. Too much control and the population can become overgrown and hard to further control. Too little control and the population being hunted/fished could become extinct and a valuable resource could be depleted from existance. I think that if humans took more responsibility and didn’t just leave it to the activists to “fix” them problem and became more proactive with their own interactions that it would allow for the environment to maintain that balance at a more consistant level. Hopefully, rather than boosting the pride of the hunter with the latgest kill, if educated and allowed the knowledge, their pride could be from something much bigger than they realized by what affect they can have on the environments sustainability.
It is a complex issue, Debbie, but you share a very nice perspective. Interestingly, a column last week in the Olympian (Olympia, Washington) urged sportsmen to become more involved in conservation in just this way.
Great way of putting it that pride can be transformed from pride in getting a trophy bigger than the next fellow to pride in working for a better shared future!
It is highly disturbing to hear that over 800 EPA professionals were pressured to alter their scientific findings so that politicians could hear what they wanted to hear and pass the false information along. The current conservation policy of the U.S. government is seriously in need of some changing. Unfortunately, people are still over fishing and over hunting when they know that wildlife populations are depleting. There is still this mentality that to be a good hunter or fisher you have to kill as many animals as possible. These same people feel that the bigger the animal the better. People protest when hunting and fishing seasons are cut short because they feel cheated and don’t see the problems with the current wildlife populations. Although native populations have always voiced their concerns in this area, people have chosen not to listen and therefore we are losing out on some valuable wisdom from people who have lived on these lands for centuries.
When viewing wildlife sustainability, it is very important to consider the natural model of reciprocity that many native cultures follow. Rather than take as much as possible from the land, they take only what they need so that in return they will still have resources available to them in the future. This is an example that everyone should follow when taking natural resources.
I think that this article is a perfect juxtaposition of what I consider to be the main reason for continuous environmental degradation and over exploitation of Natural resources; the quality and sensor ship of information available to the common masses because of hidden agendas/conflicting interest and the long lost sense of “ environmental courtesy”, which is nothing other than the lack of a sense of responsibility to ensure sustainability through conservationism.
An essential point, Fernando, we can’t make ethical–or practical– decisions without knowledge.
This goes directly to Samatha’s point about the EPA. Samantha also brings up something related to the discussion of the problems with the NIMBY (Not in my backyard) attitude: what makes those who pressured these EPA officials think they were not ultimately harming themselves and their own families– as well as the community of life? I think the answer can only be that they were working on a me-first (and me-alone) attitude that thought they could profit even if the well being of others suffered.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
The examples in this article reflect something going on here in Sacramento. There is a salmon hatchery on the Americal River. The salmon are released and make their way downriver to the ocean, and return again to their spawning grounds. Just a few years ago I was taking my camera to the river where I could see numerous salmon, swimming upstream and leaping into the air as they made their way back upriver. During fishing season, many fisherman could be seen standing in the river, and they seemed to be completely outnumbered by the salmon.
This year, however, fishing season was over almost as soon as it began, as the numbers of salmon returning to spawn was dreadfully low. It was decided that even individual fly-fisherman could not take a few salmon becuase there were just too few fish. An article stated that ususally 80,000 to 100,000 salmon run the American River, but now it’s as low as 6,000 fish. This problem is blamed partly on warmer water temperatures and changes in ocean currents. In this case, perhaps, the blame does not lie in reckless over-exploitation, and the local authorities are taking small steps to preserve those salmon that are returning.
It does reflect, however, the idea of letting the big ones go, of allowing populations to reproduce instead of irresponsibly harvesting as many fish as possible. To see salmon populations decline so drastically in such a short period of time, just here in this one river, is shocking. To expand that view and realize that worldwide, there is unrelenting greed and over-exploitation that is occurring, and that the EPA is under pressure to provide false reports, is disgusting and discouraging. It’s as if we do not comprehend that if we deplete a resource, it will be gone. Does our government think that there is an endless supply of natural resources? I fear that without significant, radical changes in our worldview and actions, we will look around one day and realize that we have gone beyond the point of no return. In a way it is unthinkable that one day, perhaps, salmon will have gone the way of so many other species that have disappeared due to loss of habitat and uncontrolled harvesting. But if we do nothing, it could happen. Our shortsightedness is creating a condition in which we will eliminate our own sustenance. If we don’t adopt actions that work to sustain and protect wildlife and habitats, we too will find that we cannot survive as a species.
Thanks for your update on the American River situation, Terry. Not only are these resources not infinite, but over consumption combined with the assault on habitat can deplete them in a very short period of time.
You have hit the nail on the head when you state that our short-sightedness is eliminating our own sustenance! The next thing to think about is what cultural conditions cause us to be so blind, so that we can work to change these.
This is a great example of how we can increase the overall efficiency of a system by decreasing the upfront efficiency and generating sustainability. By simply letting some of the Salmon survive and run updstream, the native people ensured their food supply for rght now and the food supply for the future and for their kin/relatives farther upstream. I am hard pressed to think of a better way to manage fishing practices.
With fish stocks on the decrease the world over, using this example would be a boon to gloabal fisheries both freshwater based and seawater based. Taking only the amount that is NEEDED and letting the rest go has to be one of the fundamental ideas for all of us going forward. Withc the potential for world populaiton to reach more than 9 billion in the not too distant future, carrying capacity of the worlds ocans and streams will be heavily burdened.
Sustainability is just one method we will use to feed the world.
Thanks for your great perspective here, Joe. Interesting how focusing on short term goals works against us in more ways than one.
At what point do people realize that you resources are not unlimited. With the population boom in the world, how can we expect that there will be enough fish or even water for all of us?
Obviously there were huge mistakes made in the past about fish management (or any natural resource). People took more than they needed, and did not plan for anyone else’s needs. The idea of letting the “big one” get away is not something that our society endorses. It does occur to most people that this makes the gene pool stronger; it does occur to them that there is a reason WHY this animal is the biggest of the group.
I agree with Dan on this one – many want some kind of proof as to why we are a better hunter than Joe next door. I like the CPR idea (catch, photo, release.) I’m not opposed to hunting and fishing, I have respect for someone that is willing to go out and take a life for their own food –vs- those who eat meat and just think it appears under cellophane in their grocer. The picture can be a great alternative to the fish on the mantle, though we would still have to figure out how to release the deer (for those who hang antlers), maybe tranquilizers?
I’m sad to say that I am not surprised that over ½ of the EPA professionals have had political interference and been pressured to skew their findings. I’ve heard of situations similar to this in more than one area of government programs aimed at protection. Until the time comes when people are not punished for reporting the truth, or rewarded for manipulating the results we will continue to have corruption in all levels of our government. Why should we think the EPA is immune?
Very thoughtful response, Angie. Thank you!
A few years ago my sister was working on a project in Manzanita Oregon along the coast and in the bay. She was tracking fish (mostly salmon) to find what was killing them. I went with her to one of the sites where the radio tower was located that transmitted the data from the tagged fish. I was so uninformed there was even a need for this research. I think that the mass population is in the same boat (no pun intended). The mass population has grown up ina consumer driven society that lacks reciprocity in this way and does not understand native thinking.
I find the hardest idea to swallow is that Nonnative people have been living in this country for not even 300 years and we seem to have done more damage to the land and its inhabitants than the Native people of this land throughout their existence.
Hi Jessie, thanks for your comment. The time frame comparison is pretty striking: surely it should give us pause–and motivate us to change course. I’m glad your sister is involved in this research–and that she in turn involved you.
The example of the nets on the Klamath was very visual and made me think how simple it would be to increase the salmon survival by limiting the nets to just one side of the river. This would have allowed many fish to bypass the nets and continue on. The amount of fish that could be taken out without hurting the runs was staggering. I’ve wondered why we don’t close the runs for several years in a row to let the counts build back up. We could just use farm raised salmon and be slightly inconvenienced now rather then lose entire runs of wild salmon in the future. It is so sad to see how the pioneer behavior decimated so many species. Whether it was fish, or beaver, or bison far too many were killed and left to waste.
Hi Teresa, I hope that the sadness many of us feel at this history can be turned to the wisdom that comes from learning from history.
It seems such a simple concept to let the biggest and best survive to help ensure the future of a species. With the amazing Native fishing practice the yield was “seven times the contemporary harvest” and I would venture to say with less waste and affect to the environment. Numbers such as these should prove to people that limits to natural resources can be imposed through bad decisions and policies. This article brought to mind the plight of the plains buffalo and the frightening evidence of mass slaughter of buffalo for the skins alone. Furthermore, how many other species, known and unknown, are threatened by encroaching development of natural habitats. Yesterday’s decisions concerning land and water resources have profoundly affected what is available today and today’s decisions will certainly affect tomorrows. I see hope for the future as dedicated and knowledgeable people such as Grandma Aggie take a stand and help to educate the general public. Change begins with one person and a dream.
Hi Colleen. I love your point about one person and a dream!
In order to let the best go to seed the future, we would have to back off of the greed and arrogance that goes with the idea that we should take the biggest and best for ourselves.
Living in a society that values immediate gratification, and material possessions I don’t find it surprising that the EPA would be corrupt or that government would apply regulations to individuals before businesses. People have become very apt in ignoring the big picture especially when they’re profiting. It is astounding to think about the differences between the traditional values of Native Americans, who understood the importance of sustainability for all life in order for their children /humanity in general to continue and thrive, verses the self satisfying values of today which disconnect us from life, human and non-human in the near future.
Letting the “big one get away” is a way of achieving something far more important than a trophy fish, or a big rack to hang on the wall. Letting “the big one get away” is letting go of immediate gratification and trading it for the satisfaction of knowing that there will be more to catch in the future.
Great point about defining real achievement, Kristian!
This serves as another example of the immaturity of Western practices. It is difficult to believe that indigenous practices, like those of the Indians who lived along the Columbia, were not recognized and validated long ago. It is actually stunning that they were able to fish the salmon “at least seven times the contemporary harvest” without affecting the salmon runs. I think part of the problem lies in our society’s materialism; our need to possess, as well as dominate. I’m sure our competitiveness is also a component.
What Henry Cultee witnessed (the overfishing and dumping of the excess fish) is sadly still happening today. On the upside, some countries are opening their eyes to issues such as these, and attempting to influence other countries to do the same.
This reminds me of the plight of the abalone in Southern California. Growing up on the coast, I literally watched them disappear. Thanks to environmentalists, Marine Protected Areas, and aquaculture, many species of abalone are making a drastic comeback. I was looking at a website (http://marine-life.suite101.com/article.cfm/abalone_of_california) that addresses the progress being made. Like “The One That Got Away,” it talks of the “need to protect populations from fishing, allowing individuals to grow bigger, leading to better reproduction rates and bolstered populations.” Common sense, if you ask me!
Hi Mike, thanks for the thoughtful response and the info about abalone (which were a very important food crop to the indigenous peoples who lived north of San Francisco.
Let the oldest and biggest fish or deer go? Are they crazy? Many on the NW coast would think so. So many hunters and fishermen that I know and encounter here in Astoria would never think to do this. They would laugh in my face if I brought the idea to there attention. If only they could see the bigger picture. How if they let more fish go, they would have more to sustain them in the future. We have been overtaken by the idea of instant gratification to the point that we can not indulge in that way any longer. The fisherman here are just fighting to barely make a living. This is the same spot where Lewis and Clark witnessed 42 million pounds of fish taken from the river in a calendar year. I will be passing this history lesson along to some of my friends. We will see if it can open their eyes a bit.
Thanks both for your comment here and for passing this info along, Aaron. I still maintain that wisdom consists of being able to learn from past mistakes. How much more of a REAL trophy can there be than helping to create a more vital world for those who follow us?
Before European immigrants interfered this one salmon run was able to produce seven times what we can take from it today. This is at least the third article that I have seen this month that mentions reductions in the number of fish harvested from the wild. When we are confronted with facts like this, it is hard to believe that we have not made more changes sooner.
Our planet and the plants and animals on it are exceedingly prolific. We are able to take such a large harvest from our planet there is simply no excuse not to take this harvest in a forward thinking fashion. I recently read an article about the Pacific halibut fishery and was so happy to see a more sustainable approach to fishing. Most scientists think that this one species of fish is able to sustain its population even when humans are catching over 20,000 metric tons of halibut a year. This harvest if handled properly can be enjoyed for generations. Salmon are much the same if they are treated properly and allowed to reproduce without our interference there will be abundance that we can take a large harvest from for generations. I hope that articles like this and the examples of the first people to mange salmon populations will push all of us towards a more sustainable approach.
Thanks for your perspective here, Heath. It was actually several runs on the Columbia that yielded seven times the modern harvest. One key to this was attention to salmon habitat as well.
Let’s hope the new administration does a better job. I fished for salmon at the mouth of the Klamath with Yurok people. On one occasion, I was having horrible luck, and an older Yurok man walked up to me out of the blue and gave me a bright coho.
Just another example of a reciprocal worldview.
I’m hoping with you on this, Jason. Interesting personal experience. I’m not sure what is an example of a reciprocal worldview here. Can you explain?
This article intrigued me. I find it interesting that there is soo much information about managing salmon runs for the future. Yet, not enough of the right people are willing to step up and pass the laws or regilations that would help bring the runs back. One white hot glowing object that stands out to me is that people are generally focused on consuming in the “now” and worrying about the future later. It seems that not many people are willing to make sacrifices for the future. I am an avid fisherman but, I would still fully support a full closure of salmon harvesting for a few years while management efforts are being made to improve their habitat. The sad story of the salmon run to Redfish Lake comes to mind. People had placed wiers in the river to stop the salmon from making it up to the lake, which is a popular tourist spot, because the odors from the decaying spawned out adults was unpleasent. I had even heard that they went so far as to remove all the carcases from the river. I am currently living in Pullman Wash. right now but I grew up in western Oregon. I am used to seeing, catching and hearing about salmon. It seems that they might open up a salmon season this spring in idaho. I wish they wouldn’t; at least until run numbers show a dramatic increase. I think the fish that have made it this far have earned the right to be left alone to spawn.It’s interesting to hear people talk about the “good year for salmon”. This good year comes along only every once in a while. You think someone would say, “maybe we should let this years surplus of fish make it to the spawning grounds so following years may be as productive, if not more.”
Thanks for your thoughtful comment from one who has always lived close by the salmon. Perhaps you saw the stat on the essay here on “partnering with the natural world”– in which indigenous peoples harvested an annual take of seven times the modern one– without harming the runs. One thing they were aware of (as you indicate) is that there is substantial fluctuation between runs from year to year, in a three to four year cycle. One good year, in this context, does not mean the full recovery of the salmon. Interestingly, there were religious leaders among indigenous peoples who specified how many salmon should be taken in easy season–and when the nets should be taken down.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment from one who has always lived close by the salmon, Chris. Perhaps you saw the stat on the essay here on “partnering with the natural world”– in which indigenous peoples harvested an annual take of seven times the modern one– without harming the runs. One thing they were aware of (as you indicate) is that there is substantial fluctuation between runs from year to year, in a three to four year cycle. One good year, in this context, does not mean the full recovery of the salmon. Interestingly, there were religious leaders among indigenous peoples who specified how many salmon should be taken in easy season–and when the nets should be taken down.
This article reminds me of the proverb “less is more.” I feel instead that our worldview is shaped by the ideologies such as capitalism and consumerism, which permanently aim to make us live according to the slogans “The bigger, the better” and “The more, the better.” I have to admit I never thought that I might be better to let “the big one go” in order to harvest small ones, which are better the small harvested before. In fact, I guess it would be a highly difficult task to train a westerner to adopt such a thought, because we were trimmed to believe the opposite.
Thanks for your comment, Nick. Perhaps if we were trained to think of the longer span of time, of future generations (as well as past ones, for that matter), we would have a different perspective on things.
I have two great personal examples of this idea of letting the best ones go. A mentor of mine, who helped teach me to flyfish, drove it into me that to keep a fish was to taint the sport, and the art, of flyfishing. He once told me a story about fishing in Alaska and catching what almost certainly would have been the world record Chinook salmon if he had clubbed it, and he was allowed to as the guide service he went with allowed two fish to be kept every day, but Bill never kept a fish. He said his guide was furious that he wouldn’t club the monster and I asked him why on earth he wouldn’t make an exception for this record. He responded in a manner more harsh than I had ever heard from the mild mannered man, “now why the heck would I take such a gift from God, not just the fish but the amazing fight it put up, and after being so greatly blessed, ruin it with blood on my hands and a selfish heart.” Now, the magic of that day lives on rather than being made into a plaster statue on a mantle, and so does the monster fish and hopefully it’s grade A genes. Because there was no proof, I blew old Bill’s story off as just another fisherman’s tale, until he showed me a photo that evening of him cradling the largest salmon I’d ever seen, ever so gently and mostly submerged. Bill was beaming, but I can’t help but laugh when I think of the frustration on the guide’s face behind the camera.
The other story involves hunting, yes I killed a deer, if this offends anyone, I apologize, don’t read on. This weekend in October was my first deer hunt and we were on a friend’s ranch stalking a monster muley, it was a 4X4, but the spread was glorious, anyways, after hours of hiking and getting into position, I had a shot. I looked through the scope at this trophy buck and began shaking with excitement. “It’s not a shooter, don’t even think about it,” I heard my father say. What? This was the perfect animal, why would I not shoot it? I asked my dad. “If you shoot that animal, there goes the 10 or twenty perfect offspring it could have. You’ll get so see him next year, and you’ll be much more proud knowing you let him be than you would be looking at him on a wall.” It made sense and sounded just like Bill. We hung out for a while, just watching the noble animal, and then headed in for dinner. The next day I shot a 3X5 buck that was well into old age, the spread may not have been nearly as impressive, but now I not only got the excitement of two hunts, I get to look forward to seeing how that 4X4 is doing next fall.
One last comment, I know there’s a lot of work being done to remove dams for fish runs right now, but is this having a negative effect on the green energy we receive from hydro-electric power? How do we go about striking the best balance, or has our population already exploded beyond the hope of ever attaining an equilibrium?
Thank you for sharing these great stories, Mark. There are obviously more rewards for letting certain creatures go than for taking them. I am glad you had the good fortune to learn from two such wise mentors.
As for dams good question: it depends on the dam– and accommodations made for the fish to spawn. Monster dams that blockade and change the flow of a river are one thing. Low-head hydro with appropriate fish ladders are something else again.
First, let me tell you that I am an avid fisherman. I am not ashamed of that in the least. The key, I believe, is in balance. I believe there is a balance in nature. If I catch more fish than I need, then, I am breaking the balance of nature. I am just as responsible on the waters catching fish as I am “throwing garbage” out my window driving down the road. The Earth and her resources are precious. People who choose to stretch nets across a river for a commercial catch are no different than those disrupting the flowerous terrains in neighborhoods.
We must take OWNERSHIP of our part and educate those around us surrounding the end results. As I learn more from this class and my fellow classmates, I want to take more action where I can to help more and more.
Thanks,
Paul
Thanks for your comment, Paul. I don’t know why you would be ashamed of being an avid fisherman– I would think the more “avid” you are about this, the more you might care about the future of the fish. This is certainly truly in the case of those such as Billy Frank, jr. the Nisqually elder who has worked so hard to preserve the salmon runs– and received a special award from Ecotrust for his work.
I like your point about responsibility for each of our harvest and consumption. I’m not clear on your analogy about the nets and the disruption of “flowerous terrain”. Are you indicating all nets are bad/disruptive? This essay indicates the careful way in which they were used by indigenous Northwesterners. Do you disagree that that is possible? What kinds of net usage are problematic?
Certainly a key point on balance.
This was a good article; well written and I appreciate that. And it is good to see how much healthy influence Aunt Ag has on her community these days.
I’m admittedly very much a conservative person with conservative ideas as opposed to liberal ideas. With that stated, I will jump to the other side of things and say that my heart almost belongs with fish. Doesn’t that sound weird? Fish just bring emotive feelings for me.
I believe fish are our family in that what happens to fish, and not just salmon, will happen to us as tertiary consumers. They provide food for other fish and are key species where our waterways are concerned. But what about invasive species? We would not be so compassionate about the zebra mussel. But then again, those species are introduced.
This article expresses balance in our consumption practices as the indigenous peoples exhibited. The salmon provided food for copious amounts of people, but they were used as a spiritual being which is so important in our discussions. We, as human beings, need to express humility and reciprocity for these beings. Someone earlier expressed being an avid fisherman and I applaud him for that. Understanding a specie when coming into contact with it gives us thankfulness for such a being and it has been noted many times that the people who advocate for such beings, or land, have learned to appreciate it by being introduced.
Taking without compassion and reciprocity, in my opinion, is a crime.
Thank you,
Tina
Hi Tina, thanks for your own balance here. Your Aunt Ag is a powerful influence on many of us! I very much like your discussion of the salmon and your feeling of connection to it. I don’t see conservative and liberal as appropriate labels: I think they sometimes stop us from seeing the specifics of particular situations– not to mention, talking to one another.
Your last statement about the need for compassion and reciprocity is right on, I think. Robin Kimmerer (a native botanist) communicated the fact that some of her elders didn’t even believe it was right to take from the natural world– but only to receive what is given. A perspective that deserves some consideration, I think.
Well stated, Chris.
I think that maybe the controversy in closing salmon fishing might stem from the need to leave them alone vs. letting a few be caught to keep interests alive concerning salmon. You mention salmon in Idaho, is Lonesome Larry still around? My Dad used to tell stories of his parents talking about crossing the rivers on the backs of the reds in Idaho. That would’ve been in the 30’s, I suspect.
Last summer, I rafted the Boise near Anderson Ranch Dam and saw many reds under my raft. They were so great to see; too bad they were headed for the dam.
I took the salmon class at OSU and it seems the runs are making a pretty good comeback. Although, these runs vary widely and what one source states, the other may be opposite.
Thanks for you balanced view on this issue.
Tina
I’m not surprised the Indigenous Peoples would encircle the game and let the biggest and most healthy go. This would make sense then, wouldn’t it? I wonder when trophy hunting came into practice? If it were very long ago, and from wherever it came from, the game would suffer greatly.
Thoughtful question, Tina. The concept of trophy hunting is something we would do well to look at in historical context, as you indicate. I can’t trace it to a particular historical moment, but it certainly goes hand in hand with the worldview of domination.
I really enjoyed reading this article, because it shows how amazing nature can be, if humans just give it a chance.
First of all, it is very saddening the damage the white settlers have done, and how the administration would tamper with EPA official findings, but not suprising.
On the other hand it very promising about how the work is paying off and resulting in the salmon runs coming back along the Applegate and Rogue Rivers. Another good example, just like when a wetland is restored, I am always amazed about how nature will come back if it is given a chance. There is still hope if humans can change their ways.
Thanks,
Troy Jonas
Thanks for the balance in this comment, Troy. I too am amazed at the power of the natural world to recover if we manage human behavior so as to allow it–and don’t take our abuse of that world past the tipping point where a species can’t come back. It is indeed sad about the EPA– we can hope the current administration will set a better model for the EPA. I am also hopeful that many of you who are commenting here who are in or going into science professions–and will have an effect on changing this following the model of the integrity of the Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/.
For Philosophy 443 I wrote in my introductory essay about my experiences up in Alaska at a fish cannery. I was never on one of the boats but I am sure they used troll nets somewhat because the catches would include items like King Crab that would stretch a few feet in span or large halibut along with the salmon that they normally fished for. I once saw a halibut that was so big being carried up the dock that two men had to carry it in both hands gripped along its flat body like an enormous silver and white shower curtain. But much of the next year catch would depend on whether we allowed some fish to get up stream to spawn. If we tried to sit at the river entrances to prvent the fish from getting up to spawn, it would have dramatically lightened the salmon population for the next year.
Seems like common sense, doesn’t it, Richard? That we need to allow for the future of the runs if we expect them to continue. Thanks for your comment and sharing your experience here.
Thanks for your input. I was trying to express that people who stretch nets for commercial reasons and for profit only might affect the overall balance of fish in nature.
The reference to flowers was from an earlier post, by you, surrounding how others may affect a situation (your example was from a neighborhood) in damaging nature, (flowers in a neighborhood that went away).
I am seeing your instruction and direction in that you want more reference to each artlicle, even those you have previously written, in order to obtain “connectivity”.
I just assumed that you understood………..and we all know the results of most assumptions….:)
Pressing on,
Paul
Hi Paul, thanks for pressing on. There is a lot going on here, so that I don’t keep all my referents from all my posts and responses in my head– it is great that you are keeping some of them there. That for clarifying the assumptions!
Tina,
That’s really cool that you got to see the reds swimming under your raft. I remeber floating on the McKenzie River in oregon a number of times when I’ve floated over an unsuspecting steelhead and scared it. They always made a great splashing nois in the shallow water and it startles you when your floating at dusk. I haven’t heard of lonesome larry though. I just recently moved to this area last summer. Is it a reference to a single sockeye that showed up to spawn?
Having being a vegetarian for over half of my life, it is hard for me to understand the necessity to eat meat today. However, I do not push my own lifestyle choices, and I understand that eating fish and other animals is a decision most people make. I also believe there is a right way to do that, and that is by treating livestock with respect. In regards to this article, treating species of fish with the same respect is something that we have taken away from native people. Instead of using native methods of catching fish, as stated in this article, we simply throw away what we caught but do not need, ironically throwing them back to sea. Senselessness like this can be seen in many big industries, especially involving food. Companies waste resources and money in doing this, yet we are naive to it, as consumers.
Using methods like those described in the article is disrespectful to consumers, and more importantly, to the fish and other animals. I understand that the methods the cannery uses were created to keep costs low, and make it easier, but I do not understand why there must be such a disconnect between the company and the fish. Native people ate animals because it was a natural resource, and they did not waste any of it. They allowed the animals to be free and happy as long as possible before they killed them. Today, we keep animals in cages and overstuffed barns before we slaughter them, and waste most of the animal. It is sad and humiliating to the creatures, and we are doing it, mostly, because we can. I will finish my post with a quote that my cousin (also vegetarian) showed me. I think it describes how we abuse this power. It is so different than the respect native people showed to salmon and the animals they used as nourishment.
“If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons.” -C.S. Lewis
Hi Erin, thanks for your thoughtful post and for sharing your personal ethical stance here. Doing a thing just because we can has both moral and pragmatic consequences, as your C.S. Lewis quote indicates. Unfortunately, all too much modern technology is developed and used with that kind of attitude.
The least we can do for those who give their lives to support ours is treat them with respect and compassion. “Factory farming” treats animals in abominable ways that makes their meat unhealthy for the humans that consume it as well.
As someone who enjoys fishing I have been aware of the size requirement of fishing for specific fish varieties. Where I am from, Michigan, the Northern Pike can grow to six feet long. The minimum size has to be around 21 inches long to be a keeper. Nothing is said about it being too big to keep. It does make sense that the best and most productive fish should be allowed to keep on living and producing offspring. The White man’s concept of pride and boasting about the trophy shows that the real concern for food for your family to survive has lost its central emphasis.
The wisdom of the indigenous practices should be praised and the word wisdom repeated over and over. How did the White man get so ignorant in thinking he was so smart? I think they call that self-dillusion. The history of the fish cannery and blockading of the Humptulip was very sad.
Jim Jarrad
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Jim.
Having a fish too big to take is a great thought.
See another comment (Mark Reinhardt’s) in response to this essay which illustrates how some sportspeople (I think they were sportsmen in the true sense of the word) put this release of the biggest into practice in their personal experience.
Good thoughts about the difference between harvesting to care for our families and “trophy” hunting and fishing.
Pride isn’t going to take human survival through the next generations. I like your emphasis on wisdom– I agree. The Humptulips cannery example is sad indeed.
Im glad to hear that there is some head way being made when it comes to saving the salmon runs. My grandfather is the one who first taught me ti fish and one of the most important lessons I learned was we fish only for what we need. We caught what we would have for dinner and never more. Hearing how the canneries had so many fish that they were backed up is just disgusting, I dont know how authorities allowed this to go on. I thought the remark about how people today wish to dominate nature rather than to live and prosper with it seems to be quite true sadly. I hope people can take a lesson from the natives in learning to take only what you need. If not we could see these fish disappearing from our waters. =(
Hi Kevin, thanks for your comment– its seems that your grandfather gave you a gift. It would be great if the authorities always sided with the care for the natural world, but in a culture so aimed toward turning a profit in the easiest way possible, this is not the case.
Henry Cultee witnessed the wasteful practice of early 1900’s fish canning. This account showcases the wasteful nature of our society. Lewis and Clark spoke of the abundance of fish the Indians reaped every year without harming the sustainability of the salmon runs. It’s sad that a lot of the damage has already been done, but it’s reassuring that people are working hard to try to mend this. We should learn from the mistakes in our history and start following the sustainable practices the Indians have followed for years. We should treat salmon as our kin, an interpersonal partnership. If we don’t stop abusing these relationships with the environment, species and resources will continue disappearing.
Hi Jason, thank you for your comment. Good balance in your perspective: we need to be honest about what has taken place and how to clean it up–but there is hope. And a good part of that hope is the human history of treating salmon on kin with whom we sustain a mutual partnership.
How true this is, the bigger the fish or the hunt the more we want it. Its has over the years turned into something as being more of a man. If someone was to come back from a day of fishing and had a fish that weighed a pound he would get laughed at, even though it might feed all the people it needed. As apose to someone who came back with a 4 pound fish would be congradulated, but then there would be fish left over. i unfortunatly have been one to try and catch the larger fish. Sense i was a little by brothers and i would always have competitions with who could catch the larger one. This may not make really any difference as a whole but when you think about it, it has to start somewhere. I am going to take this essay to heart and will never be one to abuse this type of fishing or hunting again.
Great, Christian. Perhaps you may even begin a trend that leads to the understanding that allowing for the next generation is what makes “more of a man”. Interesting point about the links between ego and trophy fishing: it seems we should be able to rest our personal esteem on some other thing…Thanks for your comment.
I cannot say that I’m surprised by the (former) administration’s attempts to intimidate scientists in an effort to look after their own interests. Conservation and sustainability to two very important concepts, but unforunately they both seem to get in the way of industry and the “captains” at the helm of them. Once again, I can’t help but think what kind of world we would live in if those who make the decisions that impact ALL of our lives took these kind of factors into consideration. Imagine a river with so many salmon that ships would have a hard time navigating through them – unbelievable. I hope our new administration commits to science, sustainability, and other “earth-friendly” policies that will begin to reserve the damage done during the last 8+ years.
Great sum of the direction we need to take, Allison. The right use of science is an essential part to making the changes we need to make to secure our environmental well being. I agree that we have much to make up for after the last eight years. Thank goodness for a change in administration and the new directions we are already beginning to see.