Wild Salmon vs Salmo Domesticus

[mhhigdon]

Paul Greenberg begins to learn about the aspects of fishing methods, bartering, and fish-farming when he is exposed to different ways of the Yukon River area. During his time there, he notices the decrease of salmon runs, which can affect the people who depend on the livelihood of fishing, when there is a decline in salmon. If there were plenty of salmon there, there wouldn’t be a need for Salmon domesticus. Regardless of this or the shutting down of commercial fisheries, natives of the Yukon are still able to gain enough substance for villages and their families. Villagers such as Harald Skjervold believed that the wild Chinook salmon had a high chance of thriving in the world with the help of Salmo domesticus. Salmo domesticus is when fish, like the Chinook salmon, is artificially bred in a controlled environment. However, Salmon domesticus is based on human control rather than the fish sustaining themselves. Yes, it has some excellent pros such as a greater supply of salmon to harvesting and more trade opportunity, but it also comes with some cons. When humans interrupt or change nature, there can be some life-long effects. When the “tamed” salmon escaped and went into the wild, they had an opportunity to demolish the gene pool of the wild Chinook salmon with parasites and diseases. With the domestic salmon on the loose, they can also starve out wild salmon when they can not reach the spawning grounds to repopulate. I believe that nature should evolve without the help or harm of humans. Instead of thinking what is best for us, or what can we do to get more fish, we should think, what can we do to help this species thrive and better itself for the future.

[svsanchezbutler]

In the book he explains how many livelihoods do depend on the harvest of not only Wild Chinook Salmon , but all Salmon. The fact that humans have started to depend on domesticated Salmon as a food resource means that our fisheries need help. I do agree with you that Salmon need to be able to thrive on their own without human factors changing their genes and creating competition.

[kmingo2]

I agree with these ideas that salmon should be able to support themselves as well as our fisheries need help. I think if we can eliminate the risks posed to wild salmon by the cultivation of populations of salmo domesticus and maintain wild salmon’s genes in the domesticated fish the sustainability of the fisheries and the health of thee wild stocks would drastically improve.

[kmwong]

I also agree with the statement you made about humans interrupting nature having a life-long effect. The domesticated salmon have their purpose but cannot survive in the wild and they effect the wild salmon population negatively.

[jltusten]

I agree that we should be looking to help species in their future success, but if domestic salmon were better managed to ensure they didn’t hinder the development of the wild species then I think that they could be an important resource to feed the growing human population. I think they would make a more reliable food supply because there are fewer factors to determine how many of them will survive a given year.

[alwhitney2]

I think that saying that nature should evolve without help or harm of humans is a bit unrealistic. There are over 7 billion people on earth, and after-all aren’t humans apart of nature, too? While I understand your sentiment, 7+ billion people to feed is a lot.The domestication of livestock, and the cultivation of the majority of plants we eat today, are why the population has grown so much. Without breeding animals & plants to be much more efficient than their wild counterparts, many humans would have starved. The domestication of fish is really the next step in humans manipulating the wild to produce more food. I agree with you that this has potentially very damaging effects, but it’s more complicated than simply saying humans should stop interfering with nature, because we already have for centuries, and it’s clear that it’s not going to stop.

[Author]

Posts