Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDreaming of Barbecued Salmon? Save Water for Its Return
Will you eat salmon at your Fourth of July barbecue? How much will you pay for it? Will you even be able to find it?
There is no salmon fishing season this year, so there may be no wild salmon for your party. If you think that's bad, imagine how it feels to the commercial fishermen, fishing guides, seafood shops and all the local businesses that rely on salmon for their livelihood.
As you slap farm-raised tilapia on your grill Friday, give a thought to our rivers.
The disappearance of wild salmon has many causes, and most of them relate to rivers. This year the salmon population in the Sacramento River collapsed. In previous seasons, fishing was restricted because there were so few salmon in the Klamath River. And don't even think about the choked-off San Joaquin River.
Rivers have been dammed, diverted and drained for so long and so often, there is barely a free-flowing river left in California. The 1,400 large dams blocking our rivers did amazing things for the state, but 100 years of dam-building has taken its toll.
We have lost 95 percent of our salmon and steelhead habitat. We have destroyed 90 percent of our river environment. Toxic algae blooms in stagnant reservoirs. Once-mighty rivers sputter to a dry end.
We have learned a few lessons. We have preserved a small portion -- 1 percent -- of our rivers for future generations, and two bills working through Congress would set aside more. We operate our dams to better simulate natural river flows that salmon and other species rely on.
Unfortunately, we threaten to repeat our mistakes. In the midst of this drought, developers and corporate agribusiness want us to build even more dams. They couldn't generate support among everyday Californians, so they are looking for help from powerful folks.
They have asked Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to support a proposal for the November ballot to build more dams. They have the ear of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who continues to push for dams that cost billions of dollars each, even though no one has figured out who would get the water or how they'd pay for it.
Dams were modern marvels 100 years ago. Today they are low-tech answers to problems that require innovation and common sense. Groups like the California Clean Tech Open, based in Palo Alto, are encouraging new ideas on smart water use for the future. With the technology we already have, we can reduce our water use and take less out of our rivers.
California has cut its per capita water use by 50 percent over the past 40 years, even as the state has boomed. There's room to save even more. We can use rainwater and recycle our wastewater. South Bay Water Recycling already distributes about 15 million gallons of recycled water each summer month.
If we use less water at home, at work and in our fields, we can take less out of our rivers and the delta. If we do that, maybe the salmon can make a comeback.
So as you clean those remnants of tilapia off your grill, turn your tap off between scrubbings. Then maybe you'll be cleaning wild salmon off your grill next year.
Tony Bogar works with Friends of the River, California's statewide river conservation group.
Copyright © 2008 - San Jose Mercury News
11 Comments so far
Show AllNo more sashimi...?
I think I'm going to cry.
I have heard that a lot of the water diversion in northern California is to support vineyards in the SF area. Does anyone know to what extent that is true?
Eating salmon may offend vegans, but deliberately drying up the wild salmon streams and thus shutting down the fishing industry precipitously and accidentally in order to support wine drinking (or golf courses, or spacious green lawns, or private swimming pools) is misguided. Drying up the streams also has a ripple effect on all wildlife in the area, obviously bears and eagles but probably a lot more including plants and trees.
Since there is no fishing this year, the entire far northern coast of California is experiencing sudden severe unemployment and all of the depression, crime etc. that goes with it. Balance must be restored.
Guess we shouldn't have cut down 98% of the trees. Hmm, maybe I'll go read that book about Victor Schauberger again or maybe I'll just watch "The Extraordinary Nature Of Water" and learn about fixing that good old web of life...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1598503208400404583&q=filmstream+water&ei=UXNrSJrHBpaMrgOJxtGi...
That's a good place to start.
Just let me speak in place of the salmon, just this once: Fuck you Schwarzenegger and Feinstein! When we are all gone, what then? What exactly do you think you'll be eating then, huh? And do you think we are here just for you to eat anyway? We were here long before you sh*theads showed up, and then you had to screw the place up for everyone. Let me give you a warning: you are next. You are the next species to be eliminated from the planet, and it will be your own damn fault. Arrogant sh*ts.
I will take food over needless dams anyday. Undam the rivers and let the salmon run; with 300 million Americans and counting, loosing a fabulous food source is inhumane not only for the humans, but the bears and birds who depend on the salmon to get them through the winter. Until then, when I can afford it, farm-raised salmon and other fish will have to do.
joneden: interesting website, thanks.
Who needs meat when one can eat lentils in place of it all ? GEESH !
There is no better reason to save wildlife and support nature conservancy than the fact that wild game (if relatively free of contaminants) is the healthiest food for most human beings to eat -- the fat content is much lower than domestic livestocks.
Going vegan or vegetarian for health reasons makes sense for some folks. For as many others, eliminating meat/fish as the main source of protein is a recipe for weight gain, nutrient deficiencies and illness.
That doesn't mean we should only be motivated by the dietary utility of wildlife. Respect for nature and the environment as a whole can result from lots of different viewpoints. However, an absolutist moral argument against carnivorism has never been convincing because it implies that moral considerations can and should be at odds with our nature. Furthermore, the standard they use to divide animals from plants has no stable moral ground. Why should only "sentient" beings be afforded "rights" but not non-sentient living things? Just because we don't believe that a carrot or a head of lettuce can "feel" doesn't tell us anything about their ethical status. If the carrot could bite back, I suspect it would. At some point ethical theories have to square themselves with human nature. And like it or not, humans have evolved as meat-eating omnivores.
The essence of the article can be summed up by the line "We have destroyed 90% of our river environment". Reference to salmon eating is just one example out of many the author chose in order to make his point. Let's help him clean up the rivers then we can discuss whether we'd like to eat the salmon or not.
North West maps of : dams, dead zones, and areas where there are Salmon exstinctions:
www.StudentsForTheEarth.org/nwdams.jpg
www.StudentsForTheEarth.org/nwdeadzones.jpg
www.StudentsForTheEarth.org/nwextinctions.jpg
Ugh. We should save wild salmon to ensure that they're available to be eaten??? With "Friends" like these, rivers (and salmon) don't need enemies.
I hope Mr. Bogar reconsiders his pitch. Surely he can come up with better reasons to preserve these magnificent creatures, and the rivers that sustain them.
Dont eat meat!
Its unnecessary. Why kill when you can avoid it?