FTT Prompt due September 21by 11:59pm

After finishing the opening section on salmon in Four Fish it is time to do some reflecting. In your post of at least 250 words, share you thoughts on what the chapter suggested regarding our goals in managing salmon? What are our objectives? What would be lost if salmon in nature disappeared and salmon only existed as Salmo domesticus?

Are we working to just sustain food security the ability to fill our bellies, or something else as well?

Submit your comment by 11:59pm on Tuesday night and by Wednesday contribute to the discussion online by responding to at least 2 other posts.

46 thoughts on “FTT Prompt due September 21by 11:59pm”

  1. Greenberg seemed to take an approach regarding the management of salmon in his book Four Fish that emphasized the importance of the presence of salmon in streams and rivers where they exist currently as well as previously. There was not an agenda to completely outlaw commercial fishing or to allow the fishing industry to fish irresponsibly. The tragic demise of the Atlantic Salmon was used as a warning for what could happen to the Pacific Salmon if the fishery was not properly managed. Greenberg seemed to be ok with management practices that used salmon, like the Donaldson kings, to populate streams that had once been inhabited by salmon in the past. I liked Greenberg’s reflection that salmon at one point salmon had to adapt to inhabit the streams they do naturally today. Although, I can see where this sentiment could be dangerous regarding what extent we become comfortable with altering ecosystems. I am also curious as to what these practices would look like if used in the pacific? Overall, I would describe Greenberg’s approach as one where he values the presence of salmon in a stream and is ok with possibly drastic human intervention to achieve it. I struggle with this approach simply because I do not fully understand what the consequences could be, and I am generally unaware of the implications of introducing salmon like the Donaldson salmon into an ecosystem.
    I think our goals regarding salmon management should be to preserve salmon in the streams that they exist and to ensure that they’re genetics are not being altered by man. Where I see the water getting muddy is where we conduct practices that may alter the natural gene pool whether its stocking or introducing salmon like the Donaldson king. Are these practices worth the risk of altering the gene pool if they produce a population that does well and is able to return to the river to spawn?
    If natural salmon disappeared and we were left with Salmo domesticus, we would lose diversity. Therefore, salmon would likely all be more susceptible to disease. Also, it would just be plain sad to see such an amazing creature that has evolved over thousands of years lost and replace by something designed in a lab. This makes the topic of whether the farm raised salmon are a good fit for helping provide global food security a difficult one. There could be serious consequences if Salmo domesticus polluted the natural gene pool, and that should be taken into consideration. However, feeding people needs to be a priority. If farm raised salmon is a viable option that can be farmed efficiently and responsibly is should not be ruled out as a possibility.

    1. I do see your point, in what ways do you thinks other scientists can alter the genes in(farm ) salmon? Also what ways do you see the sales prices be for the (farm) salmon(expensive?) or (cheap?).

    2. I agree that they didn’t want to use it as a way to completely ban fishing, but as a warning. I think Greenberg did an amazing job at describing ways that managing fish can be beneficial & preserve many populations ! I also agree that humans should not genetically change the wild salmon, but preserve the genes instead.

    3. You have said a lot Bryce, I want to point out how devastating Donaldson salmon, could be to indigenous genetics if escapement on the west coast occurred. These fish are meant for colonization in other parts of the world. if you want to see how they affect environments that did not originally have them, I suggest you do research on the ones in the Great Lakes, southern tip of South America, and New Zealand.

    4. I agree that if we lost the natural Salmon, we would lose diversity. I like the points you made in regards to the gene pool risk. And i to believe that farmed fish should be done responsibility because if done carelessly it could have devistating consequences.

  2. Greenberg acknowledged two separate goals concerning salmon management: the preservation of natural salmon habitats and diversity and providing food for people. The possible solution of farming genetically altered fish does have benefits, but it also carries great risks. While it can help feed people without directly taking from wild salmon stocks, the farmed salmon can escape into the wild and greatly upset the salmon runs they invade. If all wild salmon were wiped out, likely by some combination of escaped farm salmon, overfishing, and destruction of salmon runs, there would be massive consequences for both the wild and for people. Salmon prey upon (and are preyed upon) by many different species, and their disappearance would alter the food web of their habitats significantly. As for people, many different groups depend on wild salmon for their survival. Greenberg showed the Yupik nation as an example of such a group. Without wild salmon, they could not exist as they currently do.
    As for what our goal should be, it really does need to be both the preservation of nature AND keeping people fed. Humans have destroyed much in nature, and further destruction of salmon runs isn’t something I want to see added to the list of what we have destroyed. However, there are people who depend on salmon, people who would likely die without continued access to them. We cannot ignore these people. I think that even though farmed salmon does pose potential risks to wild salmon, we need to see if it works. If the possibility of escape was negated and these genetically altered salmon never saw the wild, I think that farms would be a great solution. While that remains difficult and expensive, I believe it would be worth the time and effort to look into it. If it does work, lots of people could be fed and strain on wild populations would, at least in theory, be reduced.

    1. It seems like the general consensus is that the farmed salmon could be good if done responsibly. I appreciate that you also want to see natural stocks of salmon preserved as well as increase our ability to feed people. Though, I do see the validity of folks arguments in our previous FTT discussion about increasing our efficency with the food we already have.

    2. What type of fencing do you think the farming fish have? Do you think they might have enclosed gates only be open by humans, or do you think they will have small open gates?

    3. I agree Zephaniah. We have the capacity to handle this situation correctly. We can use safe practices and animal care to ensure the aqua farming is done in a healthy manner. There have been practices we know we need to fix but all agree that the Salmon are a vital resource around the world. In this case I feel we need to focus on repairing the slightly askew system we currently have today. Great post.

    4. Hello Zephaniah,
      I agree with what you stated our goal should be and we need to do everything we can to prevent salmon runs from going on the list of things humans have destroyed in nature. I also agree that preserving these salmon runs is vital for certain groups of people however I would not say that the people would die without access to them. Humans are able to move and they would most likely move away to an area were food is more readily available. However, this does not justify destruction to the salmon population as this would mean an end to tradition and a way of life to them for countless generations.

    5. Zeph, I totally agree that you said that there are people that will die without continued access to salmon . Looking at this issue we definitely need to take into account the people who have had access to salmon for hundreds of years–and think less about everyday people in the lower 48.

  3. In his first chapter, I believe Greenberg focused on our current management of salmon fisheries; he explains the over-exploitation they have suffered, and how sometimes entire stocks died due to human interactions that did not even had anything to do with fishing. He also explains the relation of wild salmon and native populations, and how the increasing demand of salmon in the rest of the world is affecting these people who rely so much on wild salmon. If wild salmon disappeared completely, I believe that these communities, who are not even responsible, would be the ones affected the most. The rest of us can always choose to eat anything else. However, he also includes some background about farmed salmon and how sometimes it creates issues of its own in regards to feeding them, and maintaining these farmed fish from escaping into the wild, where they would still be able to out-compete wild salmon in their early stages, but being incapable of surviving in the long-run, thus having both wild salmon losing to competition, and farmed salmon being dying in this new environment.

    As for our goals and objectives, it seemed to me that wild salmon is being over-exploited to satisfy a demand of people concerned with farmed fish. As morally dubious as it seems, GMO’s seem like a good way to help wild salmon stocks, since this demand won’t simply banish away. While I still don’t see it as something that would “solve” world-hunger, I do see how it could help wild stocks. And yeah, we do get more food. That being said, it is still important to make sure we have a balance between our production and the environment. It would be pointless to shift to GMO’s if we manage it in an unsustainable way and go about doing more damage than good.
    I also find it really interesting to use genetics not for consumption, but to re-introduce wild salmon. Maybe that’s even harder and could have bigger consequences, or maybe it is indeed a solution. Reading all of these and being exposed to my peers’ opinions, sometimes I don’t even know what we should do.

    1. I think you brought up a good point Cesar! It would be pointless to shift to GMO’s if we are not going to do it in a sustainable manner. I thought this was a really profound thought! It makes me wonder how often things are rushed in the hopes of making a dollar quickly. Something that could have been beneficial could be soured if rushed.

    2. Cesar, I agree with you that if salmon populations did cease to exist that many innocent people who heavily depend on them would disappear as well. It’s sad to think about, many who eat salmon do not actually need it to live, whereas many natives rely on it to feed their family & make a living.

    3. It’s definitely a question whether we should use genetics for farmed or for wild. But I think at the point at which we’re trying to edit a wild species, it’s not really wild anymore. Salmon have moved around and changed and lasted for millions of years. They don’t need our help to stay wild genetically. However, if we are to domesticate them, it would be solely for us, for food, and not to change anything about a wild animal and expect them to stay wild. The domesticated will stay domesticated. The idea of them being sterile is also a boon for wild populations. Sure, everyone thinks of Jurassic Park and “life finds a way” but this isnt Hollywood or a novel, this is real and sterilization works. If we want salmon, we need a solid, constant way of getting it and, like other animals, domestication is the key.

      1. I 100% agree, we found a way to still continue having salmon through domestication, although some might not be comfortable with the idea it’s the solution to keep the world fed and have the fisheries just like how we have our chicken in our cows.

    4. I think you brought up a great point about who suffers the consequences. The people causing or amplifying the problem are mostly just inconvenienced, but those who have long used salmon sustainably are the ones who could face starvation. Just another layer on this particular problem.

    5. You brought up a lot of good points! I agree that if the natural Salmon disappeared so would many of the native communities. I really liked the point you made of if we mange the GMOs in an usustainable way then we are basically right back where we started facing the same problems.

  4. It seems in the opening of the chapter SALMON, Greenburg shared that many scientist are considering to farm the salmon to make it easier to produce for human consumption. The problem with farming salmon, is that if they escape they won’t be able to survive in the ocean as a wild salmon would. The objectives of many people are trying to find cheaper ways to produce the farm salmon, which is not likely to happen because they are expensive to feed and enclosed off from the wild salmon life. Eventually they want to reduce the cost over time. If salmon in nature were completly lost we wont have much picked up soil which helps hide out spawns of fish, which would cut of production of more salmon, and all we would have is farmed salmon, which maybe in the long run hurt us in the long run.
    We are trying to keep our stomachs full by catching more salmon, than we need too, there is others that rely on it more than us , although we have some guidelines in place that need to be enforced more.

    1. I agree Killie. There are over fishing in areas where there need to be moderation. One of the things I was considering was separation of fish farms from naturally occuring streams. I know there are arguments as to why the fresh water is needed in a healthy fish stock, but it comes at the cost of the other plants and animals in that ecosystem. Great post.

  5. In the first chapter of Four Fish, Greenberg suggests many important ways to manage salmon populations. The first being for the native people’s lifestyle and the second being the presence of wild salmon in the world. The native people depend on the salmon runs for food, money, and life. When salmon populations decline, times get tough for the people who heavily rely on them. Greenberg says on page 63, “I couldn’t help but think that in a way the future of wild salmon and the future of the Yupik people were somehow sadly parallel to each other.” Which is quite true, the Yupik rely heavily on what they catch to sell for money and to also feed their families. Many generations of their families have relied on this process to survive. Other people can live without salmon, it is not as big of a dependency as it is for the Yupik. Basically, the objectives for managing salmon are to keep populations increasing so the native people who base their life on them are able to survive. Not only that, but protect salmon populations so they can thrive. If salmon ceased to exist, all the people who depend on them would also not exist. Generations on generations of natives have fished salmon as a lifestyle, it is familiar to them. Secondly, humans built dams to control water flow, which was a beneficial move for them but not for the fish that spawn there. Salmon return to the rivers where they were born to start a new generation, with the dams blocking the flow, they cannot get to their spawning grounds causing them to be unable to reproduce. The dams also deplete oxygen levels in the water, moving water equals more oxygen. Few companies have found a way to genetically modify salmon to make them grow bigger and faster without ever being in the wild, these companies keep them far enough away from rivers or water so they cannot escape and damage natural ecosystems. However, hatcheries that raise salmon and then introduce them into depleting populations tend to help save that population.

    1. We’ve tried to modified the wild so much that we are actively harming it. Damsespecially are killing off genetic variations of salmon that we haven’t had a chance to document before they died, and that we will never see again as a result. We don’t need to keep trying to modify them for wild release. Salmon have changed genetically and survived for millions of years. We should remove barriers and leave them be. Let us leave the domestication and genetic modification to solely our store shelves. This way the wild stuff can also be a part of the market, and the indigenous folks can make money and subsist off of what exists in the wild. While people out there who want salmon for a new recipe or for their bagels or because it’s on sale can consume the cheaper domesticated salmon. Everyone wins in the end.

      1. Yes , the natives that will have the right to the the natural wildlife salmon will benefit from the domesticated fishes .They will sell for a much higher price since it’s a natural resource that’s not farmed. But will this eventually cause the further damage to the wildlife salmon left in our sea?

  6. I do appreciate how at the end of the section, Greenberg seems to have come out with a completely new appreciation and viewpoints on salmon. I have, too, gotten a new view on how indigenous cultures view salmon, as well as how this fish affects people’s daily lives. Many people just think of salmon as a frozen hunk of pink flesh in the seafood department. I always like having a new take on something that had been normalized in my view. I am looking forward to the other three sections on other popular fish. I’m especially interested in cod, as someone who lives in the North Atlantic area. Even though I’m not a native, I’ve heard so much about it in this area.
    Having wild salmon replaced by domesticated salmon would be a huge loss, just as extinction of any species would. However, I do believe that fish domestication is just the next step in taking fishing pressure off of these threatened species and allowing them to thrive while providing a cheaper source of healthy salmon to the masses. This reduced fishing pressure is another boon to domesticated fish, allowing for indigenous people to continue to subsistence fish and also allowing fisheries sportsmen industries to thrive. This has widespread effects, including tourism income for more remote and indigenous communities who may host salmon fishing opportunities. Overall, domesticated salmon has many boons for the world and I would love to see it improved and spread to other wholesome and popular species of fish.

  7. By the end of Salmon in Four Fish we can see the necessity and hardships that correspond to fish farming. On one hand the tribes and villages can successfully harvest from the land and have a subsistence tie to the yearly salmon run for their own personal needs. Vast number of farming operations have produced adverse effects on the environment as well as other fish species in the area. The global hunger and resource quest has led the industrial pursuit of the Salmon food option that it has scarred these opportunities in natural habitats and fish populations. AS Greenberg reflects on his past trips to fish farms and village operations, he could see the drive in to industrial sites and how much the traditional style had changed. As his exploratory nature had lead him out of his secluded pond, he has now begun to explore the different impacts and influences of commercial fish farming on natural habitats. We have pursued the Salmon in a way that has been successful for the time being. I do not feel aqua culture and preservation of fresh rivers and streams can be achieved in the same body of water. Similarly, we can not dam up a salmon run and wonder why we are losing salmon abundancy. The loss of the wild Salmon would wreak havoc on the immediate as well as extended eco systems.

    1. I feel like you touched on a really great point. Many practices aren’t inherently damaging to ecosystems, it’s just the scale on which we do them that makes them problematic. Fishing is fine, overfishing isn’t. Industry is fine up until it covers the entire river. If we scale back some of these issues, it would certainly improve the issue at hand.

  8. In the first part of the book Greenberg goes over a broad spectrum of history and fisheries to capture the current situation of salmon. I take it that we shouldn’t just maintain and farm salmon just to fill our bellies, but to give back to the salmon. I was told that humans are supposed to be the stewards of the Earth, not its masters. The management of salmon is just tiring to make sure that they don’t go extinct and hatcheries and farmed salmon are a big part of that. We are just trying to understand them better, we all want them to improve. Some people want them to come back like the old times and have that simple way of life where natives and non-natives can subsist off them. Other people just want more of them so they can fish them more to make a profit.
    Our objective or at least my personal opinion of the objective for salmon should be a sustainability/ expansion of wild salmon back to their historical numbers and range. I believe that in a century of hard work and doing our best to undo the damage of the spawning habitat, ocean environment, and general well maintenances of our fresh water that it is possible to see a fraction of that dream. The Donaldson kings for however much damage they may do to existing stocks genetics, is just what we need to seed new areas like New Zealand, Patagonia, and even The Great Lakes. That melting pot of genetics from every strain of king in one stock that is able to adapt to any environmental condition ready to reseed the natural range incase the wild stocks cease to exist is a comforting back up plan. The same concept can be applied to Salmo domesticus. If all else fails I rather have some salmon than none.
    This all ties back to us (humans), as we grow our civilization destroys salmon and consumes them, but if we don’t we face starvation. If that comes to be, we will have war, death and destruction, that’ll only exacerbate the problems because no one will care. We will be to busy destroying each other and trying to survive to care.

  9. We got to follow along with and track Greenberg’s thinking throughout the first chapter, SALMON. I appreciated his time spent in Emmonak, and his realizations that Native Alaskans have a much deeper and more personal relationship with salmon (and wild game in general) than the majority of Westerners–or people that have the luxury of having access to cheap and easy food. I feel like the chapter suggested that our goals in managing salmon should be on keeping/making salmon stocks sustainable, even if that means needing to genetically modify fish, or take other potentially disastrous measures to “save” the species or allow us to keep harvesting them. Greenberg does discuss, in length, AquaAdvantage and the benefits it holds. At one point he says that if we are going to continue to eat wild salmon we must “eat them sparingly,” and then continues to make the argument that GM salmon would be cheaper and more accessible.

    I think our overall objective is to feed the world, and not take away something that we have previously had access to. I think as humans we let our greed and power shine through when we demand that we keep having access to a resource, even if the resource is limited or running out. This doesn’t just apply to salmon, but rather all natural resources–why should we have to stop eating something just because it’s no longer sustainable? We’ve had it all these years, we can’t stop now. That is clearly not my opinion, but an underlying issue that I think is happening. Humans feel entitled to certain food sources, resources, things regardless of environmental status.

    If salmon disappeared from nature, cultures would be devastated. I grew up going to fish camp, I grew up seeing fish harvested and every smoke house in the village filled with fish that sustained us throughout the winter. It’s a tie to nature for Alaska Natives, it’s rooted in their culture for as long back as is memorable. It seems so wrong to me that people in Iowa who have never even seen the ocean get to eat salmon, when Alaska Natives culture is suffering because of some white man wanting to eat his bagel and lox.

  10. In Greenberg’s chapter on salmon I think his main point was the management of the salmon, and the sustainability of the fish. He discussed with AquaBounty and fish farming the possible alternatives to wild salmon ( which is costly in the long run). Another topic Greenberg noted in this chapter was how much the Native communities depend on these salmon, and how greatly the lack of salmon impacted these communities.
    If all the salmon were to disappear and only if Salmo domesticus we would lose diversity in the ecosystem. There would be a shift in the food web as well; and since the farmed salmon is partly domesticated they would have a tougher time out in the wild, and wouldn’t strive.
    In regards to our objectives; it would be to find a way to satisfy the needs of the public while also keeping a stable environment; this is finding to be quite difficult as these two seem to be conflicting forces ( overfishing, economy, fish from fish farms escaping etc. ) I think we are trying to find sustainable resources by looking to sciences and genetics, but I don’t think that it will be as sustainable as we hope for.

    1. Hey Tyra,
      I just want to share that I find it interesting how many people are stating that these farmed salmon, being domesticated, would not be suited to live in the wild and would not strive even though another common concern in regards to farmed fish is them escaping. Many say that if these fish were to escape, since they are bred to get bigger faster they may be able to out compete the other fish and salmon species and negatively affect the environment. I guess we will never know until a situation like this ends up occurring.

  11. The concept that the chapter was giving was that scientists are in favor of having more in-house fish. Greenberg says that all the fishes in the fishmarket are unusual to what he had back then when he would go to the market. The consequences are that if some do manage to wiggle out, maybe the interbreeding within the natural wildlife salmon could cause some awful genetics passing down on the future generation to fish, that’s the one downside. Given that our overfishing or natural resources has been stretched out then, I believe the primary goal is to feed the world to be more efficient with what we have and what can we create out of the circumstances, because quite frankly the demand is going to keep going up it’s never going to change so we must adapt to ways how we can distribute and find a way to still keep being fed.But there’s also a factor that really can’t be undone of what we’ve done to our wild fisheries more has been taken out than what we can put back to regrow, i believe this is the next wave length of domesticated fish. Certainly something that we all have to accept as the new norm for generations ahead of us. It’s very hard idea to just except with the world that we’re living in now is changing and changing fast maybe there could have been something done differently back five years ago or 10 years but I believe it’s a little too late and they come up with solutions because we are already at the end of the line and this is what we came up with this is we will have left.

  12. The first chapter of the book highlighted an important point that there is not a single unified goal of all those involved in fisheries science and management. Of all of the individuals that Greenberg met who are involved in salmon in one form or another, each one had different motivations behind their pursuit. One concerned himself with how declining wild salmon affected native communities on the Yukon, while another focused on modifying farmed salmon in order to maximize growth and end hunger everywhere. I think that it is important that our primary goal in managing salmon should be somewhere in between – preserving the environment and wellbeing of wild salmon is critical for so many reasons, and if the development of genetically modified salmon would help relieve some pressure from wild salmon, then it might be a worthwhile route to consider.

    If wild salmon disappeared and salmon only existed as Salmo domesticus, one of the most profound things that will be lost is the native communities that have relied on wild salmon and salmon rivers for centuries, both in Alaska and other places in the world. For many native communities the culture is heavily based on natural resources such as salmon, which they rely on for survival. To be truthful I do not entirely understand the genetic implications of losing wild strains of salmon, but it is not out of bounds to say that this could be a significant loss as well. In addition, the loss of wild salmon would most definitely alter ecosystems that include wild salmon.

    1. The loss of wild salmon to the Native Alaskan communities that rely on them would have a huge impact on them. It’s not just the physical need for food that these people value wild salmon for, it runs a lot deeper.

    2. Hi, Felicia!
      I thought that was very interesting of the book. You see all these different people working in similar fields, but with different motivations and outlooks as to what fisheries should look like. Even in our little small-time discussion board you can see people seeing the same things with different outlooks. It really makes you wonder where should we draw the line, but I think going somewhere in between, as you mentioned, should be something to take in mind.
      And I agree that losing wild strains of salmon could have unforeseen consequences in the ecosystem, even beyond all these communities that rely so much on them. And that’d be a problem big enough, as it is.

    3. Felicia, I agree that I don’t fully understand the genetic impacts of losing wild strains of salmon, and I hope I can come to a better understanding on that. However, I do believe that the loss of wild salmon will have detrimental impacts on our ecosystems.

  13. I think that the salmon chapter was very interesting, especially the part where Greenburg made the connection that if the wild salmon disappear so too would the native cultures that depend on them. That conversation comes back to genetically modified fish and whether or not it is wise to introduce them into everyday consumption. Another thing that was mentioned in the chapter was the dilemma of reintroducing take-reared salmon back in the wild. I don’t know why we need to reintroduce tank-reared salmon back into the wild. If we lessen the stress on the wild salmon by fishing them less then we would not need to do something, like reintroduce tank-reared salmon, and run the risk of it producing more problems. The waste that GE was dumping into the Mid-Hudson river is just one of the examples that the things we put the in ocean arent just going to go away. Greenburg also said, “…But unlike the Yupik Eskimo mentality, the Judeo- Christian mind is governed by a faith in improvement and transformation of the natural world.” I think that quote is a really big idea to grasp but one essential to forming a long-term sustainable salmon fishery.

    1. Hi, Linnea,
      I agree completely with what you’ve laid down in terms of explanations to the questions asked this week. I believe the quote you stated at the end of your post truly cements your point. The commercial treatment of this wildlife is so unspeakably wasteful, it’s vital to take a more holistic approach if we are to find a balance for proper fishery management. Listening to indigenous people who depend on the natural fish stocks as a vital resource, I feel, would greatly help this.

  14. After reading the opening section of the novel, Four Fish, the primary goals for managing salmon is to feed the people and preserve the way of life for tribes while also being able to maintain a healthy ecosystem. Greenberg dives into how the way of life for certain tribes revolve completely around the fishing for salmon as it is their predominant source of food and income as it is valuable for trade. In order to preserve this way of life, the goal of maintaining salmon stocks needs to be obtained. Various methods are discussed in regards to how these stocks can be maintained such as fishing regulations with how many fish you can keep from year to year. However, the major method to preserve these wild populations discussed was through fish farming. Fish farms are not necessarily good for the environment as they pollute water ways with high levels of nutrients and domesticated/ genetically modified fish could escape and affect the environment and wild populations. However though, these farms do allow the wild stocks of salmon to be better preserved as they face less pressure from consumption. Because of this I think our objectives should involve finding better ways to farm fish so we can prevent damaging the environment and help preserve the salmon in the wild.

    The objective now is to feed to worlds population without loosing our natural fish populations and to do this we need to find a balance for human needs/greed and what is best for nature. If we were to loose salmon in nature and only Salmo domesticus existed, the environment would be drastically different. Populations of marine life would be altered from the bottom of the food chain up to the top in a trophic cascade from this secondary consumer being gone. Even the environments on land would be altered as species, such as bears, are losing a vital food source and the vegetation would no longer be getting high levels of nutrients from salmon die offs. Even if the domesticated salmon were introduced into the wild, they are not well enough suited for the wild and in result would struggle and never become as successful as the wild type of salmon.

    As partially stated above, we should not just be working to sustain food security for the ability to feed our bellies, but we should also be looking out for our ecosystems and maintaining the way of life for indigenous people.

    1. I agree that there has to be a better solution to the farmed fish problem. As straight forward as it seems to raise fish, it is definitely filled with potentially catastrophic risks.

  15. Paul Greenberg gives great insight into what he saw in Emmonak and along the Yukon as well as in other places. It was interesting to read about possible solutions to food shortages, like AquaBounty salmon and how farmed fish could do a lot to contribute to the world. If a fail-safe management system was in place for hatcheries that raise genetically modified fish, maybe it wouldn’t be as controversial as it is.

    I think it would be a sad day if it came to be that the only salmon that existed anymore was Salmo domesticus. I’m always thinking about examples of things I’ve been witness to on a local level to understand these larger ideas. This makes me think of Sitka’s Crawfish Inlet Chum fishery, which is relatively new. Basically, NSRAA was able to obtain a permit from ADF&G to start a satellite hatchery in Crawfish Inlet with the idea of raising 700,000 adult chum salmon for common property harvest. Their first successful harvest was in 2018 with the returning four year olds and it continues to be a pretty big end of the year shootout for a lot of fishermen. NSRAA is obligated to mop up as many of those chums as they can to prevent strays into wild chum run streams. What I think is sad about this, is that what wild chum run there was originally in there will literally never exist again, as small as it may have been. Granted, these aren’t genetically modified chum, but they aren’t wild.

    At the end of the day, people are always going to want more and bigger and better things. I think that is a mentality that is repeatedly taught to us as we grow up, but if that wasn’t the case, I wonder if things like the goal of raising genetically modified fish would even exist. Maybe a balance would’ve been struck somewhere else regarding food security and the need for even more fish wouldn’t be a problem.

    1. That’s a good point, Payton, when is it really enough?
      I totally agree that there should be more focus towards balancing our food security and the resources we exploit in order to get them. If we focused more on feeding people with what we have already, would we really be looking into these GMO’s to keep satisfying demand for salmon? Sometimes we operate in a model of infinite growth, but there’s only so much we can grow our industry before it becomes unsustainable.

    2. I agree that it is sad to see the wild Chums be depopulated by the hatchery ones in Sitka. This year fishing from Biorka to the canyon that is Eastern channel for Cohos, half our catch was Chums.

    3. Hey, Peyton
      I feel the closing paragraph of your response to this week’s prompt presents a very potent, though bleak reality of the day and age we live in. You’re absolutely right, commercial greed / capital gain is, undoubtedly what has brought us to where we are today, with the depletion of natural fish stocks, the curation of genetically modified fish- all of it. It really begs the question: When will corporations and the general public be satisfied? When will this all.. meet an end, so to speak?

  16. Reflecting on the writing of this chapter, I found Greenberg’s account in his endeavor of the world of fisheries extremely engaging. When it comes to humanities’ goals and objectives with the management of salmon and fisheries in general, I feel it’s rather clean cut. Our goal is to curate a sustainable means of providing a food source for our vast populations while suffering as little environmental and cultural devastations as possible. The purpose of these fisheries is to keep the demand of commercial fish consumption met without destroying fish populations, the ecosystems they reside in, or the availability of these fish for those who depend on them culturally. To achieve this, as made clear in Greenberg’s narrative, reaching a balance between nature and farmed fish is vital.

    A complete loss of the natural population of salmon would be devastating in many aspects. As humans, the blow may not seem as extreme in a practical sense as it is emotionally, as we can rely on the genetically engineered Salmo Domesticus; however, I can only imagine how this loss would affect the ecosystems these fish are a part of. Predators lose a main food source, and thus their population is thrown into disarray. Similarly, the smaller species preyed upon by salmon do not have a predator to keep their population in check. Even if the domesticated species does cross over into the natural food chain and order of life in the oceans, it will undoubtedly still bring irregularities to the systems of the dynamics within these ecosystems.

    1. That worry is true because what if the influenced organisms react negatively to our natural environment and predators? It is impossible to run the amount of in-house studies required to know possible impacts… but also is it wrong to prevent us from trying? I think no matter what people will always think outside the box of normal and add what they think belongs – eventually when these non-natural species are exposed to the natural chain, the generations following will not know the difference of their resource.

  17. Management goals in Alaska are strict because the State is trying to prevent what has happened to so many other habitats where wild salmon used to spawn. Alaska’s Board of Fisheries members, for example, are compiled of the varied interests to conserve and manage Alaska’s fisheries. The seven-member board is appointed for a three-year term by a sitting governor and approved by the legislature. The objective of the procedure ensures that the board members must represent distinct attributes to craft regulations and proposals that reflect the need of all Alaskans, and prevents the board from being compiled of overweighing interests of the same opinion. This is just one approach to how our State government is attempting to sustainably manage fisheries.
    If salmon were to ever become a non-natural resource (as in the spawn have been influence by non-natural origin) the effect may be catastophic. People may not trust the salmon if it were geonetically modified, or imported. Perhaps over time the guilt of this fate would eventually wash over into acceptence of what was. I do not think the people that live of the resources of Alaska rivers would say “”to hell with it” (p.79) like Greenberg accepted while fishing the Donaldson salmon. If the natural salmon dissapeared to the people who have relied off their natural return since time immemorial, it would be just as bad to lose them to the toxins, invasive species, and deconstruction of their environment like what has impacted most other natural salmon fisheries throughout the world.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.