Seminar at UW: The River Wolf and The Blue Pearl

I attended a seminar on December 2, 2010, put on by Olaf Jensen about the conservation of salmonids in Mongolia. The speaker, Olaf Jensen, graduated from the University of Wisconsin with a degree in Fisheries Sciences. A project was started while he was a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin that was set up to protect a species of fish, the taimen, in Mongolia. The project was and is funded by The World Bank, and it is set in the Eg-Uur Watershed in Mongolia. It is a non-governmental organization set up to develop recreational fishing in Mongolia as ecotourism, to fund aquatic ecology and fisheries research, to research conservation in the area, and to fund conservation law enforcement. Dr. Jensen studied whether recreational fishing is compatible with conservation and also evaluated taimen movements with respect to the river ecosystem. He found that catch and relsease fishing would have barely any impact upon the taimen population but that commercial fishing would have a high negative impact upon the taimen population.

His studies have implications for indigenous Mongolians because it shows that commercial fishing levels would decimate the population of taimen in the area and bring few economic benefits to the people actually living in the region. His studies will be used to protect the people native to that region of Mongolia, and the taimen will be protected so the people of Mongolia can continue to fish in a sustainable fashion.

-Janet Pasko

An Amazing and Inspiring Collaborative Fishery on the Columbia River between First Nations, a Public Utility, and Bonneville Power Administration

Recently, an amazing display of partnership between First Nations, the Washington State government, and private industry has resulted in an amazing accomplishment for the furthering of salmon populations. Since 1955, the Chief Joseph Dam on the upper Columbia River has completely blocked salmon migration. The many harmful effects of dams including reducing dissolved oxygen gases, reducing sediment flow, and blocking salmon transport have greatly affected the way salmon travel this part of the Columbia River for many years- resulting in negative impacts on the salmon population. Fortunately, the First Nation called “The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation,” Grant County Public Utilities District, and Bonneville Power Administration, are working together to establish a salmon hatchery on the upper Columbia.

Salmon have always been an integral part of the First Nations’ for reasons of tradition, culture, and sustenance. It is important to practice sustainable salmon management so that First Nations’ can enjoy the salmon fishing rights they were granted through treaties with European settlers in the late 1700’s to 1800’s. Salmon protection is also important to numerous stakeholders, including the U.S. government, fisherman, non-governmental organizations, utility companies, artists, recreationists, and many more. For this reason, a new salmon hatchery on the Columbia will benefit many people for many years.

Grant Public Utilities District will fund approximately 1/5 of the $40 million hatchery, with the Bonneville Power Administration financing most of the rest of the project. The “Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation” will manage and operate the hatchery. This hatchery will be a wonderful project, raising 1.9 million summer Chinook and 900,000 spring Chinook every year. I think it is wonderful that 3 organizations with different interests on many topics could come together and establish a very worthwhile project for the region, the fishing industry, and the First Nations of the Northwest.

Sources:

The Wenatchee World. November 16. http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2010/nov/16/grant-pud-to-help-pay-for-chief-joseph-hatchery/

The Wenatchee World. May 13. http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2010/may/13/40-million-chief-joseph-hatchery-wins-major/

The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Website. http://nrd.colvilletribes.com/

-Christina Heinlen

Surprising Research on Utility Companies that are Implementing Programs to Protect Fish (Salmon) on the Columbia River

Until now, I thought that all utility companies supported power generation regardless of its effect on salmon. However, in my research I have found a utility that is concerned about salmon and is currently implementing many programs to preserve and protect salmon so they can thrive in the same location humans do. The Grant County Public Utility District (PUD), located in Ephrata (Eastern) Washington, is making great strides to dissolve the nature-culture dichotomy by showing that humans have a responsibility to not only remain involved in the environment; they have a responsibility to protect it. This public utility is doing this by creating programs to protect salmon on the Columbia River.

In my research, I have been able to divide Grant County PUD projects into four main categories and several subcategories:

1. Projects that physically improve the structure and quality of streams and dams
• Funds habitat projects that benefit fish stocks on the Columbia
• Remodels stream culverts which are inefficient and harm fish
• Operates two fish ladders at each dam, to create a safe way for fish to travel upstream to spawn.
• Operates sluiceways (also known as spillways). Sluiceways allow for runoff of excess water, as well as another way for steelhead and Chinook salmon to pass through. Two sluiceways it maintains are at the Priest Rapids and Wanapum Dams.
• Runs four stations in the Priest Rapids Project Area to continually test the water quality and ensure it remains optimal for fish survival.

2. Projects that seek to maintain and increase the number of fish that live in the river
• Removes fish barriers as much as possible
• Conducts extensive research into fisheries to make sure correct and sustainable methods are being used
• Initiates a myriad of programs to protect and preserve fish, especially at their most delicate stages of life
• Currently co-funding a hatchery

3. Projects that monitor and record changes in fish populations for future reference
• Creates and assembles useful images of the upper Columbia
• Uses Passive Integrator Transponder (PIT)-tag detection equipment at fish ladders, specifically at Priest Rapids Dam, to make sure the fish ladders are operating correctly and survival rates of migrating fish are not decreasing.
• Counts the number of fish migrating through the fish ladders at the Priest Rapids and Wanapum dams. This critically important research helps Grant County PUD, Washington State, and other interest groups by providing knowledge about Columbia River salmon populations and how to better manage the river in the future.

4. Other projects
• Purchases land so it can be set aside for conservation
• Serves on the The Priest Rapids Coordinating Committee. This Committee has established objectives to increase fish populations back to sustainable harvest levels in the middle Columbia. It also brainstorms and initiates projects to combat fish mortality from pollution, overharvesting, and other causes.

My research both surprised and pleased me, because I previously thought utility companies were too invested in power generation to care about maintaining sustainable river environments for fish. But I was very wrong- Grant County Public Utility District has done just the opposite and made salmon conservation a priority. Despite all the environmental destruction going on, this one fact gives me hope that some citizens who do care about making a profit also care about preserving the environment.

Source:
Grant County Public Utility District's Website on Natural Resources: Fish, Water, and Wildlife. URL: http://www.gcpud.org/naturalResources/fishWaterWildlife/index.html

Thanks!

-Christina Heinlen

Glacial Melt - Social Impact and Adaptations

In our blog's last post, Rebecca looked at some of the physical and environmental actions and consequences of the worldwide trend of melting glacial pack. Her piece intrigued me, and it reminded me of some of Dr. Pena's lectures regarding the influence of the glacier at his acequia farming institute. He tells of how the glacier near San Luis (which has an aviary-themed name I am presently forgetting) is a device for the famers to judge their potential growing seasons, and is also the source of their irrigation systems. I was curious about other impacts of glaciers on the livelihoods of people across the world.

I looked up these two articles:
http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=9698
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS105071633920101116

Glaciers have huge implications! They provide water to the some of the most important rivers in the world - the Ganges, the Indus, The Yellow, not only do millions rely on these rivers today, but they have arguably the most historic significance of any rivers - literally the cradles of civilization.

The effect of climate change on glaciers will directly and negatively influence the lives of the people that have depended on them for centuries. People will could see (and have seen) their drinking water flood up and destroy their livelihoods, know as Glacial Lake Outburst Floods. Tragically, this is noted in some of the most impoverished and vulnerable places in the world. One of the tenants of Environmental Justice is to rectify the unfair disproportion of degradation on the underrepresented people of the world. The ethically correct choice is for nations to investigate climate change as a real and dangerous force. The climate change argument is highly politicized, but is the responsibility of the empowered to take on the challenge of climate change immediately.
--Danny Gibson

Melting Ice - Sea Level Rise

I read an article in the New York Times recently that really caught my eye. I think initially I was interested because it had to do with glaciers and I have spent a lot of time studying glaciology, but it also really made me think about what the future has to hold.
It seems as though the ice of the world is melting at an alarmingly rapid rate. Originally scientists believed over the next century the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet melting would raise the sea level about seven inches, but this is no longer the case. It appears that with current rates of melting, the sea level could rise by as much as 3 feet by 2100. This would have a detrimental effect to coastal areas. Some extremely influential cities that would be affected include: London, Bangkok, Venice, Cairo, and Shanghai.
Although climate scientists understand there is a strong chance they could be wrong about the changes over the next century, they are still urging government to take action on heat-trapping gasses. When the Greenland Ice Sheet is fully melted, it will raise the sea level 7.5 meters (which is equal to almost 300 inches), and that is something to worry about! Although this seems almost impossible to comprehend, the Antarctic Ice Sheet is almost 10 times bigger.
What many people don’t understand is how small changes in sea level can create huge problems on land. With only an inch or two change, the sea can cause massive amounts of land erosion which can affect many homes. The question isn’t whether or not climate change is going to negatively affect human life, but how fast can humans adapt to the changes?
The most recent estimates by climate scientists predict the sea level to rise about 3 feet by 2100.
Since the industrial revolution, the amounts of greenhouse gasses that have entered the atmosphere have been off the charts. Even though people have lived for at least thousands of years without these threats of warming, the threat is now moving at an exponentially rapid pace. People absolutely must see the urgency in the threats of climate change including the way in which it will directly effect them in the coming decades.

-Rebecca Teel

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/science/earth/14ice.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=science

Mercury Contamination in Amazon Region

A study was done in Santarém, Pará, Brazil about mercury contamination in fish. In this region of the Amazon lots of mercury is released into the atmosphere. It is generally accepted that the mercury comes from the goldmining activity in the area. The amount of mercury in the region is predicted to be as much as 70 to 130 tons per year based on the gold production from this area. Organic methyl mercury is the most toxic and is accumulated mostly by the large predator fish. This town this study was done in, is not that close to mining activity. However there is other commercialization there. The main questions that were trying to be answered were: What is the difference in contamination in the different species of fish? And what is the correlation between weight of fish and mercury concentration?
Santarém is located in Pará State, which as a whole has the most goldmining sits in the Amazon region. Furthermore, there are six rivers surrounding Santarém. Fishing is one of the most important economic activities in this area so whether or not the fish are safe for human consumption is very important. The fish that were used came from the local markets. The locality of the fish was possible to be determined by asking the specific farmers where they came from. There were 109 fish in total, both carnivorous and non carnivorous.
After the fish were tested, it was discovered that carnivorous species of fish have about five times more mercury in them than both herbivores and omnivores. One species in particular, Tucunaré, tested 2% above the legal limit for safe eating. The highest level in this species was 700 ng.g-1 of methyl mercury. In total, about 1% of fish had mercury levels above 500 ng.g-1 .
What the people in this region need to realize is consuming these fish on a daily basis may have a detrimental effect to their health. Particularly considering that about 90% of the mercury in these fish is toxic methyl mercury. Now that the high levels of mercury have been discovered, there will be more attention paid to the bioaccumulation process of mercury in the fish. It is not easy to avoid just the species of fish with high mercury levels because the area has so much biodiversity. Also, due to the amount that fish effect the Amazonian culture, from food to economy, limiting how much fish they consume is hardly an option. The best way to deal with this problem is by involving environmental politics. (de Souza et. al)

This just shows another way that anthropogenic effects are harming the environment. This is a particularly bad case since there are very few practical uses for gold in comparison to how much it is used solely for jewelry. The gold miners must be held accountable for what they are doing to the surrounding people. I would imagine that these miners are also eating the fish with mercury in them since they probably live somewhat close to where they work, and that makes even less sense.

-Rebecca Teel

de Souza, A, R Sarkis, de Souza, J, Nahum, C, da Silva M, Brabo, E, and de Oliveira E. "Mercury Contamination in Fish from Santarem, Para, Brazil." Environmental Research Section. A.83 (2000): 117-122. Print.

The Columbia Riverkeeper and Salmon

Columbia Riverkeeper is a non-governmental organization dedicated to “…restore and protect the water quality of the Columbia River and all life connected to it, from the headwaters to the Pacific Ocean”.  They deal with issues pertaining to the health of the Columbia River system.  They use methods such as grassroots community organizing, the law, and community outreach to help reach goals.  These goals are diverse, but all of them relate to the health of the river and the communities that surround and utilize the river system.

                  Columbia Riverkeeper has multiple programs to accomplish their goals.  They test the water in the Columbia River in key salmon habitats to make sure the water is healthy for the fish; they do this by sending out volunteers, proving that communities around the river care a lot about the health of the river and the wildlife in it.  They also train volunteers to rehabilitate sections of the Columbia River via the Adopt-A-River program.  Besides the volunteer work Columbia Riverkeeper's members do, they use laws to ensure the river is kept safe from illegal developments, and they also lobby the government to strengthen existing water laws to keep our river safe in the future.

                  One key project Columbia Riverkeeper is working on currently is the prevention of shipping sites being built in the Columbia River estuary.  There are four sites that have already been proposed.  The main purpose of these sites is to ship coal from the United States to China, which is extremely problematic for the entire river ecosystem because of the increased traffic, pollution, and construction on the sensitive estuary.  Shipping sites will harm salmon because pollution and boat traffic will increase in the area where the river meets the ocean, which is a critical point in the reproduction cycle of salmon.  

-Janet Pasko

http://www.columbiariverkeeper.org/

Makah Whale Hunt

http://motherjones.com/politics/1998/09/great-american-whale-hunt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR2MEI1CcsA


Danny:

 Here’s an interesting video and article!  A classic battle between two all important aspects of Environmental Anthropology – What’s more important, the ancient practices of the Makah or the security of the Gray whale population? It’s a debate with deep implications for preservation of culture and environmentalism.  
This article does a pretty good job with presenting plenty of information relevant to the debate; while I would say the short documentary has a pro-whaling slant.   However, it includes some insightful opinions from the Makah tribe members on what whaling does for their community. This is pertinent to our class focus on how humans interact with their environment. 
 I also believe that the positive spiritual and communal effects of the whale hunt are more important than the food that the whale provides to the Makah.  In the film, the role of the whale in the diet is shown to be very important to the community. The woman being interviewed says it is the biggest thrill of her life to experience feeding her grandchildren whale, just like her ancestors.  Yet, it seems that more important than the nutrition is the communal sustenance and togetherness of the whale feed. As highlighted in the article, the Makah right of whaling for subsistence is highly dubious.  The people have lived for many years without whale meat, and – like the article says – have done relatively well for themselves.
But the end of the whale hunt was forced. The Makah ceased hunting as the commercialization of their tradition drove the whale population dangerously low. The national whale hunt had been as low-impact as the Makah lifestyle, perhaps the whales would never had reached endangered status in the first place.
Legally, the United States government has a responsibility to protect the whaling rights of the Makah, as per the 1855 treaty.  Native American people across the country have these agreements, and what would it say about the word of the government if they reneged on an explicit entitlement of the Makah? 
 There is the fear of an uncontrollable resurgence in whale hunting.  Detractors say that there is no absolute place to draw the line for the cultural significance of whaling.  I believe that there is a way to determine who can and can’t whale, and in order to protect both the whale population and the cultural rights of the Makah, governments must honor the covenants that they have made with the First People.

Rebecca:

Another important aspect to note is that NOAA actually supports the whaling practices. Although it seems that many scientific and environmental organizations would oppose the killing of even if not endangered, somewhat rare species, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration does not. However, it appears that the main reason for supporting the Makah whaling practices is to avoid any further protest from other First People tribes.

From 1995 to 1998 the government gave the Makah people a total of $335,000 to aide them with their whale hunts. Although this is a small price to pay to maintain the integrity of a culture that has been around for such a long time, it seems that in today’s society, the economy is struggling so much, the cost might outweigh the benefit.

Whale hunting is a great example of how TEK has been passed down through generations. As Danny mentioned, the whale hunt makes present generations feel connected to their ancestors in a way that is much harder as technology continues to progress.

That being said, there are definitely some aspects of the whale hunt that haven’t been considered. These days, the whale hunt is hardly similar to the way the Makah tribe used to do it back in the day. After watching the video, I was appalled to see that they cooked whale meat the exact same way you or I would cook any type of fish, chicken or beef from a grocery store. They sit in the comfort of their homes using a typical stove and oven configuration. I would be so much more supportive of the whale hunting if they would use as traditional of means as possible. The way they are currently using whale feels like abuse of the system. It appears the Makah people are just doing the whale hunting because they can, and the government is willing to foot the bill.

-Danny Gibson and Rebecca Teel

Impacts of the Grand Coulee Dam and the Bureau of Reclamation on Columbia River Salmon

 I have begun researching salmon populations on the Columbia River because I am interested in how the presence of dams is negatively and sometimes positively impacting the salmon.  Here is a summary of my initial findings:

As the largest producer of hydropower in the United States[1], the Grand Coulee Dam critically impacts the United States’ economy and the Columbia River’s salmon runs. Construction on the dam began in 1933, and since then, salmon runs have largely diminished in size or disappeared altogether.  Amongst the many positive services the dam provides, such as flood control, water storage, irrigation, power generation, and recreation, the dam negatively and seriously impacts the salmon runs.  The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation recognizes the negative impacts of the dam, but insists that the positive impacts on humans outweigh these costs.

Many components of the dam have resulted in diminished salmon runs.  First, the dam is 550 feet tall; simply too large to create a successful system of fish ladders.  Approximately three miles[2] of fish ladders would be required to maintain the natural flow of salmon through the river.  As a result, many salmon runs in the upper Columbia River have disappeared altogether.  The dam also reduces water quality because the still water on one side of the dam is warmer than optimal temperature for salmon[3].  Also, the reservoirs created by the dam trap nutrients, supporting algae growth which leads to deoxygenation of the water.  Reduced oxygen can lead to hypoxia and fish kills.  Finally, the dam changes the ecology of the river by restricting natural flooding and causing silt buildup behind the dam.  All these changes make it near to impossible for salmon to traverse the river to their breeding grounds.  The National Academy of Sciences has warned the Bureau of Reclamation about the negative impacts of its Columbia River dams such as the Grand Coulee and other Columbia River projects, but it the Bureau does not appear interested in protecting salmon over the economy[4].

Fortunately, the United States’ President has requested a $10 million budget to implement “Biological Opinions for the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS)” in 2011.  This initiative forces the Bureau of Reclamation to address the 15 fish species its projects affect and ensure that they are not negatively impacting endangered or threatened species.  Hopefully this will promote positive progress and salmon protection.[5]

---

[1] “Grand Coulee Dam Statistics and Facts.”  U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.  <http://www.usbr.gov/pn/grandcoulee/pubs/factsheet.pdf>.  Accessed 29 November 2010. 

[2] “A History of the Grand Coulee Dam, 1801-2001.”  American Studies Department at the University of Virginia.  <http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug02/barnes/grandcoulee/evsc.html>.  Accessed 30 November 2010.

[3] “A History of the Grand Coulee Dam, 1801-2001.”  American Studies Department at the University of Virginia.  <http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug02/barnes/grandcoulee/evsc.html>.  Accessed 30 November 2010.

[4] “Weber Siphon and the Columbia Basin Project.”  CELP. <http://www.columbia-institute.org/weber-siphon/cbp/expansion.html>.  Accessed 1 December 2010.

[5] Bureau of Reclamation. <http://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/presskit/factsheet/factsheetdetail.cfm?recordid=1000> Accessed 1 December 2010.

-Christina Heinlen

Pacific Salmon

There are 7 types of pacific salmon. The most common type of fish in each category are Chinook, Coho, Sockeye, Chum, Pink, Rainbow trout, and Cutthroat. In order to maintain sufficient genetic variation in today’s society, these fish must be preserved. Furthermore, salmon are a keystone species, this means they have a disproportionate effect on the ecosystem as a whole. They are a source of food for many predators, and without salmon for food, the predator populations also drop.

            Currently, there are over 200 species of Pacific salmon that are in at least moderate danger of going extinct. Furthermore, unlike in the past, anthropogenic causes such as pollution and damns are speeding up this process of hurting the fish. In the most recent years, catches have declined by 50% or more, mainly due to climate change effects. Another detriment to wild pacific salmon comes from the aquaculture industry. Although aquaculture exists with the intent of feeding an ever increasing population, it spreads diseases to wild salmon that really hurts their population. Specific species of salmon are not in serious danger, but stocks of salmon are projected to have a continual downward trend over the next century.

            Understand the historical patterns of salmon runs can help project the future ones. In the past couple centuries records from harvesting and canneries as well as current field studies help. However before the 1800’s it is hard to know what happened. It is known that in the past 4000 years, prior to European inhabitants in the region, salmon stocks were on a continual increase. Aboriginal fishing techniques were extremely efficient and actually very similar to the practices we use today. The difference is that they didn’t take as many fish as we did. Although their technologies allowed for them to have many more fish than they took, they didn’t take them all. Furthermore, unlike today, aboriginals, as Lackey refers to them in his article, lacked the technologies that we have that harm salmon habitats. Some of these technologies include dams, development and motor-powered boats. When European colonization began to take place in the Pacific region, most of the natives to the area were decimated by Old World diseases such as measles and smallpox. From about the 1500s and on, the decline in salmon stocks are due to Europeans.

            Up until now, I’ve mainly discussed the biological factors affecting the declining salmon runs. As important as that may be, there are also ethical and cultural aspects that much be taken into consideration. From the general summary I gave of Pacific salmon, it seems apparent that salmon stocks were generally increasing up until the entrance of European influence. For thousands of years the salmon were fine, and now within the last couple hundred, things have taken a turn for the worse. It would be ideal if we could take lessons from the people native to the region. We are taking more salmon than we have, and we’re annihilating salmon stocks with our new technologies. We must have respect for the salmon so that they can begin to replenish.

 -Rebecca Teel

Lackey, R.T. 2006. Wild Salmon in North America: Historical and Policy Context. Chapter in Salmon 2100: The Future of Wild Pacific Salmon. R.T. Lackey, D.H. Lach, and S.L. Duncan, editors. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD. pp.19-28

Tualatin River gets a Clean-Up

http://www.beavertonvalleytimes.com/sustainable/story.php?story_id=128924914104586500

The above picture is of Oregon's Tualatin River. If you go read the past the first few sentences of the attached article, it becomes apparent that the Tualatin was only recently far from this idyllic scene.

The article explains how a careless attitude led to the nadir of the River, and how it slowed to small trickle that a human could stand over.  Not only did the negligence of the River's health directly  hurt its apperance and flow, it also turned into a disgusting liability for the surrounding area.  The article describes how the river was siphoned as a drinking water source, while simultaneously used for dumping municipal and industrial waste.

However, the story of Tualatin River is one that is working towards a happy ending!   It serves as an example of how "environmental gains can go hand in hand with — not conflict with — economic prosperity."  I know that much environmental good is waylaid because of monetary concerns, but looking to the Washington County's decision to enforce the Clean Water Act, it is apparent that cleaning up your own mess leads to economic benefits.

By elevating the health of their natural resources to a level of Municipal awareness,  the people living along the Tualatin have not only restored the beauty that once was, but have also discovered a touchstone for the entire community, a pride in their lovely environment.

~~Danny Gibson

Sustainable Fisheries, Consumers, and Choices

Every time we step into a grocery store to buy food, we are making a statement with our money.  Some consumers who have the funds and the will to buy sustainable foods will now be able to know whether the fish they are buying in Whole Foods is sustainable or not.  Whole Foods partnered with the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Program and the Blue Ocean Institute in order to start labeling fish according to its degree of sustainability.  The labels will be color-coded and include green for most sustainable, yellow for second best choice, and red for least sustainable fisheries.  These labels will provide consumers with another tool for protecting the environment and spending their money wisely.  Whole Foods instated the new system in September 2010, and has pledged to eliminate red labeled fish from their stock by 2013.

While Whole Foods is taking a step forward in the battle to protect our fisheries, most supermarkets do not label their fish.  Since many people cannot afford to shop at high end grocers such as Whole Foods, more grocers must join the movement to label their fish and eventually eliminate non-sustainable fish from their shelves. If they choose not to do their part to protect the world's fisheries, the selection of fish will rapidly dwindle.

-Janet Pasko

http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/products/seafood.php

Pollution Affecting Fish in Puget Sound

Puget Sound is home to scores of fish varieties, including Chinook, Rockfish, Ling Cod, Herring, and English Sole, just to name a few.  This diversity makes Puget Sound one of the most ecologically and fiscally valuable bodies of water in America.  Taylor's Shellfish in Shelton, WA, is just one of the many fisheries that depend on the Sound for income.  However, pollution has been a continuous problem for Puget Sound, threatening the health of marine plants and animals as well as the consumers who eat them.

In 2006, Puget Sound was termed a "toxic stew" by The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which revealed that Chinook in the Sound contained six times the amount of PCB's than the Columbia River.  Puget Sound fish also contained high levels of chemicals identified as flame retardants, drugs such as caffeine, anti-depressants, and hormones.  These chemicals cause developmental and fertility problems in fish, and high levels can cause fishkills.  Edward Furlong of the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver said that exposure to these chemicals was, "constant, direct, and unavoidable."

Although Puget Sound Partnership and other organizations have taken on major restoration of Puget Sound since 2005, pollution is still a problem.  As recently as October 5, reports of new toxins called PBDE's have surfaced; PBDE's are a major concern because they cause thyroid and brain development problems in humans.  Humans that consume fish containing these chemicals are thus put at risk.

The problem with the Puget Sound is that the water inside cycles around the entire Sound, so chemicals that affect one end will eventually disperse throughout the Sound.  The Sound is just large enough that water can cycle, but not large enough for it to be completely flushed out after a pollution problem occurs.  This is critical because the Puget Sound's current population of 6 billion people- increasing to 9-11 billion people by 2020, depend on fish from the Sound for their livelihoods.  Preservation of the Sound must become a priority, and soon.
-Christina Heinlen

Genetically Modified Salmon

The discovery of DNA and the advancement of knowledge about genetics has been an exciting and alarming development in science.  Chronic illnesses with no cures may be cured through research associated with genetics, but genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are threatening to overhaul the entire way our society gets its food.  GMOs are produced by inserting genes from a different species or deleting genes in a species.  Currently, there are a growing number of genetically modified agricultural crops that are resistant to certain pesticides and herbicides and thus can produce a larger cash crop with less monetary input.  These GMO crops are patented and drive smaller farmers out of the market.   

Now, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, genetically altered salmon could be sold in the United States in two years.  These fish are the same as farmed Atlantic salmon, except the genetic modification that allows them to grow twice as fast as farmed fish due to growth hormones.  It is awaiting approval from the Food and Drug Administration, and if approved, it will be the genetically modified animal to be sold for food in the United States.  It is uncertain whether the genetically modified salmon would be labeled as such in super markets. 

Environmentalists oppose the genetically modified salmon and call it a “Frankenfish”.  They say it may cause more allergies and are concerned about flawed safety studies, as well as a reduction in nutritional value.   Some farmers and the food industry support the genetically modified salmon and say it will allow more Americans to get proper nutrition because it will lower the price of salmon.  Personally, I believe the genetically modified salmon needs much more research before it is introduced to the market.  It needs to be studied by scientists that are not backed by the food industry.  There need to be multiple independent long-term studies, and even if there are, the possibility of a reduction in the nutritional quality of the fish leads me to disagree with the whole idea because many farmers will probably want to raise this fish because of the monetary aspect: they will make more money selling it and have to spend less money raising the fish.  The Food and Drug Administration needs to do its job and protect the citizens and small business owners of the United States instead of playing in to corporate interests.  

-Janet Pasko

Fish Farming

Aquaculture, also known as fish farming, is a highly controversial solution to food shortage problems. With an increasing population “The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that an additional 40 million tons of aquatic food will be required by 2030 — just to maintain current levels of consumption”. Fish farming will not only meet these new needs, but it also boost the economy. In British Columbia, Canada, farmed fish are actually the top agricultural export. Between that and the help alleviating world hunger, it is hard to even notice any potential problems that could arise from farmed fish.

However, there are many concerns that arise with fish farming. Not only are these fish taken out of natural environments and raised in cages, but due to their high concentration in a small area, disease is much more prevalent. Since these cages are kept in open water, the diseases still spread to the wild salmon, creating unfixable health problems such as sea lice. Furthermore, fish farming interferes with traditional practices of First Nations. So in this case, culture is affecting nature which is affecting culture. The ultimate solution is to improve wild salmon stocks, but if that doesn’t work, what is the next best option? I think fish farming is ultimately detrimental to both nature and culture, but decide for yourself:

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=16150

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Salmon+farm+battle+about+competition/3167822/story.html

-Rebecca Teel

Surprising Research about Traditional Fishing - Danny Gibson

Interesting Research on Fishing and Great Barrier Reef

As I was searching the web, looking for something to post for this first blog.  I wasn't quite sure what to expect, but certainly not what I found! If you read through the article, what is explained is that not only commercial fishing, but also traditional fishing has adverse effects on the environment, in this case, the Great Barrier Reef.  The study shows that even using native "tools such as spears and hook-and-line" kills off substantial predators of the Crown-of-Thorns starfish.  This leads to population booms of the coral-eating starfish, and the decline of the living reef. 

While I figured I would be pulling up articles about the co-evalness of traditional fishing, I imagine that this data put into context would show some more insights.  It would be awesome to see this study compared against one on the effects of more modern commercial techniques. I would guess that newer methods would lead to more fishing of Crown-of-Thorns predators. I'll keep looking.

-Danny Gibson