2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I grew up in Alaska where we fished for sockeye, coho and chinook salmon. I know the difference when trying to land each and prefer the of flavor of chinook and coho to sockeye.

But discussion on salmon flavor sugguests one species of salmon may be more valuable than another. Are we capable of making such decisions and accurately calculating the broad contributions a species makes, or losses suffered if that species dies off?

But this discussion misses an important factor - salmon have a life cycle of 4 or 5 years. Thus when a salmon species has a low population in a particular year that species may not rebound to stronger numbers 4 years from now unless action is taken today.

Dain Nestel

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context