« Forest Fight III | Main | Am I Dense? »

April 20, 2005

No Fish For Fishing

Chinook2 Quick update to last week's post on salmon scarcity in the Lower Columbia River: managers are closing the lower river to sport fishing for the endangered spring Chinook (and also steelhead and shad). As of Monday, just over 1,500 kings had made it to the Bonneville Dam, compared with an average of 50,000 at this time of year over the last decade.

I don't mean to sound insouciant, but something is odd about this closure. Namely, why on earth is sport fishing allowed for an endangered species in the first place?

No, I'm not a fish-hugger. I'm an occasional sport fisherman myself. And yes, I know that sport fishing is not the only, nor even the biggest, threat to wild spring Chinook. The fish is also impaired by dams, river traffic, erosion, predation, pesticides, commercial fishing, irrigation... The bad news for the Chinook, of course, is not only that it faces a lot of threats, but that everyone can keeping avoiding meaningful reform by blaming the declines on everyone else.

Call me crazy, but it's hard for me to believe that we're very serious about restoring an endangered species when we kill it for sport.

Posted by Eric de Place | Permalink

Comments

One reason to allow people to keep fishing -- within strict limits dictated by the abundance of fish each year -- is that it maintains a constituency for the species.

Species survival isn't just a biological issue, it's a political one. Keep people from catching salmon, and before long, salmon will have as little political support as snail darters.

Likewise, conservationists in Africa have found that the locals support the conservation of elephants much more enthusiastically if they can derive some measured economic benefit from them. If they just see them as pests who are apt to rampage through their crops, poaching goes way up.

The biggest drawback to the spring chinook fishery is that the lower Columbia is what fisheries biologists call a "mixed stock" fishery. It targets a mixture of runs, all congregated together en route to their spawning grounds. If the run of salmon from the Sandy River or the Deschutes is weak, but the run from the Hanford Reach is strong, there's no good way to allow anglers to catch as many of the Hanford fish as is warranted without catching too many of the Sandy and Deschutes fish.

But all that is detail. Your question was about the big picture. And the big picture is this: people care more about things that matter materially to them. Maintain that connection, and they're more apt to keep caring.

Posted by: Seth Zuckerman | Apr 20, 2005 10:07:06 PM

Hey Seth--

I just knew I could count on you for a smart and insightful perspective! I even partly agree with you...

Keeping a constituency for a species is certainly important. But salmon are already woven deeply into the fabric of Northwest culture (partly because they're so tasty). And the Columbia Chinook are sort of the godfathers of salmon. So it makes me wonder whether sport fishing of this particular stock (or at least at the time when the kings are running) is really necessary to maintain a constituency.

I guess my point is that salmon aren't snail darters. And I doubt we'd ignore them, even if we couldn't buy a sport license for them.

To ramble on a bit, I recently returned from southern Africa where I interviewed several conservationists. The species constituency issue--and the role that hunting, in particular, plays--is a very volatile issue there. Some insist that it's necessary for species preservation; others insist that it's a red herring. But you're absolutely right, locals must see tangible benefits in order to have an interest in preservation. The tourist industry and conservationists there are just starting to figure out how to do this. It seems we're wrestling with the same issues here!

Posted by: Eric | Apr 21, 2005 3:59:55 PM