The recovery of salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest has cost billions of dollars that have been paid for by taxpayers and electric ratepayers. Salmon recovery programs are controversial because they have affected the lives of many people by affecting fisheries, farming, the price of electricity, cattle ranching, property rights, forestry and mining practices, and shipping. Most of the attention in salmon recovery has been about the 4H's (Hydropower, Habitat, Hatcheries, and Harvest).
This web site links viewpoints about salmon and steelhead recovery in the Columbia Basin and along the Oregon Coast. In salmon recovery issues, there often appears to be too much polarization, blaming of others, and listening only to those who support one's own viewpoint. It is healthy to listen to and to be aware of differing perspectives because the future of salmon recovery may depend upon opposing groups understanding each other and working together.
Introduction for Salmon Recovery Viewpoints
Citizens of the Pacific Northwest Have Standing in Salmon Recovery Issues
Politics Affects Salmon Recovery Viewpoints
Caveat Emptor (Buyer/Reader Beware!): Self-Interest Profile
Science in the Salmon Recovery Battleground
Latest Viewpoints in Newspapers or Newsletters about Pacific Salmon Recovery
Sites with Extensive Links to Online Information about Pacific Salmon
Sites with a Variety of Pacific Salmon Recovery Viewpoints
State Salmon Recovery Plans
Results of Scientific Committees about Pacific Salmon Recovery
Viewpoints about Societal Conflict in Pacific Salmon Recovery
Viewpoints by Groups or Individuals about Salmon Recovery:
Religious
Legal
Politicians
Scientists
Native Americans
Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC)
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA)
Federal Caucus for Pacific Salmon Recovery
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Oregon State University Extension Service Viewpoint Compilations Not Given Elsewhere
Coalition of Business, Industry, Agriculture, Forestry, and Ports
Industry & Commerce
Port Districts
Agriculture
Forestry
Mining
Coalition of Environmentalists and Businesses
Organized Workers
National Taxpayer Group
Nontribal Commercial Fishers
Nontribal Recreational Fishers
Conservation Groups
Viewpoints Mostly About Dams
Viewpoints Only about Hatcheries
Viewpoints Only About Water Quality
Viewpoints About Other Factors
Students
Individuals
Viewpoints about Selected Issues in Salmon Recovery
Predation of Salmon and Steelhead in the Columbia Basin and along the Oregon Coast
There are many opposing viewpoints about salmon recovery in the Columbia Basin and along the Oregon Coast. Studying them is important in understanding the complexity of salmon recovery issues and the political process. It is healthy to examine differing perspectives because the future of salmon recovery may depend upon opposing groups listening to each other and working together.
Although Pacific salmon recovery is an issue in Puget Sound, California, British Columbia, and Alaska, this page is limited to a sampling of viewpoints for the Oregon Coast and Columbia River Basin because it is not feasible for me to include all areas.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Map of the Columbia River Basin.
This site presents viewpoints expressed on the Internet, although viewpoints are more extensive in journals, newspapers, and magazines. However, the Internet allows viewpoints to be more accessible because few people can usually access a particular newspaper or magazine after its publication.
At least three web sites already have many viewpoints: "A Snapshot of Salmon in Oregon" by the Oregon State University Extension Service, the Columbia River Pastoral Letter Project, and CyberLearning's Salmon Conflict Investigations. Links are included below to many of the viewpoints at those sites, but I have also added many additional perspectives.
Because there are so many groups involved in salmon recovery and web pages can be easily added or changed, this is only a sampling of all viewpoints. However, I have tried to provide a variety of perspectives. I found many of them by using online search engines (e.g., Lycos, Excite, Alta Vista, and LookSmart) to search for "salmon," by examining online newsletters and newspapers (see "Latest Viewpoints"), as well as searching web sites with many salmon links. But viewpoints of farmers, ranchers, miners, businesses, and property rights advocates were often not listed at salmon recovery web sites, so I also searched some newspaper articles for the names of organizations with viewpoints about salmon recovery issues. Then I could search for their online viewpoints.
If not noted otherwise, files are in HTML format that can be read by all Internet browsers; however, some files are given in other formats, especially in PDF, and, if so, they are listed as such to alert the reader.
The file size is given if it is larger than 150K and thus may take a long time to download via a regular telephone connection to the Internet. While some agencies have been exemplary about making files easily accessible by splitting large papers into small files (e.g., the Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service), others (e.g., the Bonneville Power Administration) make access more difficult by often putting huge files on their web site that are unwieldy, if not sometimes impossible, to access with a regular telephone connection.
My comments are given within parentheses or brackets.
Citizens of the Pacific Northwest have standing (i.e., the right to participate) in Pacific Northwest salmon recovery issues. I am one of those citizens. We have standing because salmon recovery is directed by governmental agencies and often occurs on public waters and lands. We have standing because salmon recovery activities of governmental agencies are publicly financed through electric bills and taxes. As citizens, we have a right to question governmental agencies and staff about their activities and to receive timely, honest answers. We have a right to be part of the decision-making process.
The four H's (Hydropower, Habitat, Hatcheries, and Harvest) are generally considered to be the most important factors in the decline of Pacific salmon. To make changes that affect any of the H's is challenging because each has a powerful constituency that tries to protect its own self-interest. Accordingly, much of the debate in salmon recovery reflects power struggles and politics rather than biological considerations.
Constituencies may employ six strategies to gain advantage in the battles about salmon recovery. First, a group can be very selective and present evidence that only supports its position. Second, a group can try to discredit any evidence that it thinks may hurt its side. Third, a constituency can try to divert attention from changes that would affect its self-interest by blaming other factors for the salmon decline (e.g., hydropower advocates may blame fishermen or predators). Fourth, a group can try to delay actions by creating confusion about all the other possible factors that may be involved; confusion leads to indecision and continuation of the status quo. Fifth, a constituency can try to "divide and conquer" by publicizing wedge issues that may split an opposing coalition (e.g., a coalition of all fishermen could be split by focusing on conflicts between commercial and recreational fishermen or between nontribal and tribal fishermen). Finally, a group can present speculation to favor its side and try to masquerade it as science.
Because there is so much money and political influence involved in salmon recovery, it is not surprising that some viewpoints are transparently self-serving. Accordingly, the reader should not just "buy" a viewpoint but prudently examine it. It may be helpful for a reader to use the following "Self-Interest Profile in Salmon Recovery" to help reveal if a group's or individual's viewpoint is self-serving and to look for its strategies in defending its position.
Self-Interest Profile in Salmon Recovery (also see strategies): 0=not important, 1=minor importance, 2=very important
|4 H's________________________ |Ocean Group's or |Hydro- |Hab- |Hatch- | |Condit- |Pred- Individual's |power |itat |eries |Harvest |ions |ators ------------------------------------------------------------------- Self-Interest_______|_______|_____|_______|_________|________|______ Blame for Decline___|_______|_____|_______|_________|________|______ Factor(s) to Change_|_______|_____|_______|_________|________|______ ---------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a lot at stake financially in salmon recovery, and "science" is in the midst of the debate because it can be used as a weapon in struggles to determine governmental actions.
Unfortunately, science has become very politicized in the salmon recovery debate, so that normal differences in interpretation or in hypotheses among scientists have become distorted in the public fishbowl. While differences among scientists are usually worked out over time with additional research to increase the certainty of the best hypothesis, such a process has been short-circuited by groups or individuals searching only for weapons to support their own agenda.
On one hand, some believe that some salmon recovery research may be politically influenced to not offend constituencies of the four H's. Such influence can be expressed in selecting what research is funded and how or which results are presented. Some scientists may consciously or unconsciously self-censor their results to not create friction within their agency, or their results can be shaped during editing within their agency to better fit the agency's position. While scientists do the research, their results are subject to review by supervisors who are more politically attuned. An example of this viewpoint is provided by Matthew Campbell, who wrote:
"Through their political power and, often, their funding authority over the kind of research projects and programs that are pursued, they [bureaucratic agencies, industries, and special interest groups] have controlled the way that fishery scientists specify problems and pursue solutions. In some cases control by these groups resulted in direct suppression of scientific findings, but in the majority of cases the control has been more subtle. Scientists do not want to criticize the agencies funding their research and are hesitant to recommend changes that run counter to the political and economic concerns of these vested interests. However, their silence has sometimes prevented them from advocating the very changes that might, in fact, have contributed to solving the salmon decline."
On the other hand, scientific reports regularly have pointed out salmon recovery problems resulting from Hydropower, Habitat, Hatcheries, or Harvest. Such reports have not pleased the four H's constituencies. Consequently, some have tried to discredit reports that do not favor their side as flawed (e.g., "junk science" (e.g., see Fox or Save Our Dams: Junk Science) and substitute their own views (e.g., The Great Salmon Hoax,or Save Our Dams: Good Science). But the "junkscience" sword swings both ways, so some of their "science" may be "junkscience."
The debate about using the available science in salmon recovery decisions is also discussed by the Idaho Chapter of the American Fisheries Society in "Why Isn't Science Saving Salmon?" (1995 Fisheries 20[9]:4, 48):
"The debate on Snake River salmon recovery has focused on the 'lack of adequate science" to support proposed options for changes in the operation of the lower Snake River dams. The most vocal criticism comes from elected federal and state officials and appointed agency administrators in the Columbia basin. Meanwhile, professional fisheries scientists, as individuals, have been largely absent from discussions because their work is funnelled through the industries, tribes, and agencies they work for. Furthermore, the recent change in state and local politics has silenced the government agencies charged with protecting and managing Snake River salmon. The result--an ideal forum for nonprofessionals to attack the science behind salmon recovery proposals without any accountability to responsible fisheries science... The salmon issue is not the only instance where special interest groups are using 'bad science,' or the more appeasing 'inadequate scientific information,' arguments to delay or derail actions on critical public policy issues. The best known is the tobacco industry."
The debate about what is "good science" has become common in issues such as whether Global Warming is occurring or not and in Evolution vs. Creationism. Because the sword of "science" is often used in these debates, groups can try to make their arguments appear to be science; for example, L. S. Roberts' (1999 Journal of Parasitology 85:996-999) writes: "Creationists have attempted to appropriate the terminology of science while undermining its very methodology." In his 1995 book "Science, Nonscience, and Nonsense: Approaching Environmental Literacy" (see reviews), M. Zimmerman also examines how pseudoscience can be made to look like science. Perhaps pseudoscience succeeds most, not by proving its claims, but by confusing issues so much that citizens or policymakers are not sure what to believe.
In conclusion, some groups and individuals define "good" science only as the science that supports their side. The reader needs to be cautious and sceptical and remember that if a proposal for salmon recovery sounds too simple or good to be true, it probably isn't!
Some files are PDF files that require the Adobe Acrobat Reader for viewing. It is available for free downloading at Adobe Acrobat Reader.
More viewpoints about salmon recovery appear almost daily, so checking the following links can help the reader keep current.
The following sites give many links to government agencies, fisheries groups, and conservation groups, but few or no links to many other groups that would be affected by salmon recovery policies (e.g., farmers, ranchers, industries, forest products, and miners).
The following are all from the Columbia River Pastoral Letter Project:
There have already been many lawsuits about salmon recovery, and there will undoubtedly be many more. Because of the large financial stakes and polarized viewpoints, much, perhaps most, of salmon recovery may be decided in the courts.