Anadromous Fish versus Modern Civilization
Who has priority?
Question: When nature and modern civilization disagree, which one has priority? If a hydroelectric power dam will provide electricity to light thousands of homes and power to operate industries that provide hundreds of jobs, but block the migration of salmon that have provided critically needed food for indigenous people for thousands of years; whose needs prevail? What if the question involves a proposed mining project that would provide tons of copper and gold and eliminate the need to import these minerals from nations ruled by extremely authoritarian dictators who ignore basic human rights? Can ecological principles provide answers acceptable to all parts of society, but totally destroy much of the best salmon spawning habitat in North America? Do corporate economic factors outweigh ecological considerations? What about political considerations?
The Old Professor responds: These questions are very real in our present-day world, but the history of human effects on natural systems is much longer in time. Before humans organized small family or tribal groups into villages, cities and other modern forms of society, questions about ecological principles did not provide dilemmas for decision makers in those hunter-gatherer populations. Technologies were simple, populations were small, and Mother Nature’s unwritten rules provided sufficient guidance to prevent serious arguments and resource abuses.
When variations in climate and/or local weather conditions led to violent weather, such as floods, tornados, droughts, or even ice ages, these early humans simply moved to more favorable areas. If responsibility needed to be assigned, they blamed themselves, or at least some members of their community, for making their gods angry; so angry that the gods punished them with an array of catastrophes. Ecological principles existed, but not in the minds of human beings. Humans were a part of nature.
Those ecological principles still exist, but the economic and sociological concepts and beliefs typically override Mother Nature’s rules. Few people, far too few in my opinion accept responsibility for their part in destroying nature’s carefully evolved balance. There is a long history of humans placing greater importance on economic factors than ecological factors. Development of agriculture and the needs of humans who had congregated in town and cities started to take place at least 6000 to 7000 years ago. Human religious beliefs changed about the same time and the concept that humans held dominion over all of nature became a widespread belief. Property rights and economic principles promoting profit oriented activities provided additional emphasis on beliefs that humans had escaped the “tyranny of nature”.
As the industrial revolution and scientific discoveries carried human cultures to new levels of comfort and escapement from the limits of natural systems, humans came to believe that they were no longer dependent on nature. From corporate headquarters, to government offices, to private homes humans had grown apart from nature; and they ceased to believe that they are a part of nature, not apart from it. Now, let’s take a quick look at three present day situations that focus on human interactions with anadromous fish and human developments. The proposed Pebble mine development in southeast Alaska and adjacent area of British Columbia would provide thousands of tons of copper and gold as well as thousands of jobs, and enormous profits to the developers. BUT,,, thousands of miles of streams and thousands of acres of adjacent watersheds would be totally destroyed. Stream flows would be reduced and toxic wastes would flow downstream all the way to Bristol Bay. One of the most productive salmon spawning areas in North America would be gone forever; all for some temporary jobs and a temporary supply of gold and copper. BUT… the developers would rake in hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of dollars.
A few hundred miles south of the proposed Pebble mine development an unrelated event involving anadromous salmon made global headlines a few months ago. Photos showed thousands of dead salmon littering the dry bottom of the Neekus River. The salmon had made what once appeared to be a successful spawning run, BUT…the river dried up, What little water was left flowing in the gravel river bottom was far beyond the temperature limits of the salmon. No salmon smolts will be returning to the ocean from the Neekus River this year. Why did this disaster occur? Apparently the Neekus watershed was a victim of drought brought on by global warming and the associated climate disruption. Humans did not act directly to destroy the salmon in the Neekus River system, but human caused pollution of the Earth’s atmosphere led to the drought conditions that left the salmon “high and dry”
Salmon spawning runs in the Klamath River system in northern California and southern Oregon have been blocked for more than 40 years by 4 dams generating a small portion (perhaps a little as 2 per cent) of the electricity needs the utility system requires to service the homes, businesses, and industries in the area. Recently a decision was reached to remove these dams; an action that will be the largest dam removal project in American history. BUT… will the salmon spawning runs that once fed the indigenous people in the area and provided thousands of hours of recreational fishing return? Perhaps, eventually salmon will spawn in the soon to be accessible headwaters and newly hatched fry will thrive on the invertebrate fauna of those headwaters before heading out to the coastal ocean waters to feed on forage fishes and reach maturity before returning to their natal waters. We can only hope that the effects of the irresponsible dam building of the past can be eliminated and that once again anadromous fish and modern society can exist in harmony under Mother Nature’s rules.