Return of The Salmon
Sunlit mist danced along the basalt cliffs while soft wind tangled through the grass along the hillsides during the transition from summer to autumn. Small rocks trickled down the steep slopes as mountain goats appeared to witness for themselves the beautiful early morning light, which would soon waltz across the daring rapids. As I was sipping my coffee on a beach eddied out along the Snake River, I had the overwhelming feeling of gratitude that consumed me as I was able to look upon such beauty. As the sun grew higher in the sky, petroglyphs carved into the basalt rocks came into view and I couldn’t help but ponder the history of these lands and the people who inhabit it. The Columbia River Basin at one time in history was one of the greatest salmon producing river systems in the world. But all remaining salmon on its largest tributary, the Snake River, are facing extinction. This is due to the four aging dams blocking the Columbia and several of its branching rivers. These four dams are known as; Ice Harbor, Little Goose, Lower Monumental and Lower Granite. Through documentaries, articles and by word of mouth, it is absolutely clear that the dams obstructing the Lower Snake River must go. Not only do these dams have a massive impact on the salmon population but reveal several other leading negative impacts on ecosystems, indigenous tribes, rivers, anglers, and Idaho in general. To better understand the issues surrounding this social dilemma, topics such as the debate on Indigenous communities as conservationists, TEK, Political Ecology, an ecology of life and finally the differing perspectives of globe versus sphere will help navigate a clearer image as to why action needs to be taken.
My dear friend Nate Farris, enjoying the smoky morning on the Salmon River
Before these great lands had been saturated with early colonization, it had been occupied by indigenous tribes that were originally the keepers of the land. Many people know them as the Nez Perce tribe, but had previously gone by the name of Nimiipuu, meaning The People. As stories were passed down from generation to generation of the time before human beings and when only animals were on the Earth, it is believed that the Chinook Salmon first offered itself to The People to nourish them and keep them alive. Thus the lifetime accountability and bond between the salmon and the Nimiipuu tribe, promising to always protect each other. Over time The People became very accustomed to the chutes and drops on the Columbia and Snake and their tributaries that made from productive fishing. The salmon can feed more than 130 species of animals, and their spawned-out bodies bring tons of nutrients back from the sea to the land, in a gyre of life, begetting more life. Before the treaty of 1855, declaring that the Nez Perce must give up their land, the Nimiipuu ate about 81 fish per person each year, acquiring about 50% of their nutrition from the salmon. That was when “10 to 16 million salmon returned to the Columbia River every year, including as many as 2 million salmon that swam all the way to the Snake, once the producer of more than 40% of the Chinook in the Columbia Basin” (Weiss, Steven). In recent years this hasn’t been the case, with only roughly 1,700 spring and summer salmon returning each year, less than one per tribal member. Throughout our culture it is believed that indigenous communities are guardians of biodiversity, although throughout this chapter it illustrates why this may be a fabricated fallacy. Ironically, without cultural diversity, biodiversity wouldn’t be as impacted. The most common argument that persists in regard to indigenous communities is that smaller communities like theirs protect biological resources for survival (the chutes and drops previously mentioned), utilizing it for subsistence and for the use of common traditional practices. Many of these practices result from the idea of traditional ecological knowledge, also known as TEK. This practice can be defined as, “a cumulative body of knowledge and beliefs, handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings with one another and their environment”. (Mulder, Coppolillo). The Noble Savage debate most definitely struck a chord throughout the general public of natural scientists, trying to portray indigenous people as natural conservationists in a caricature-like sense. Although the label of Noble Savage isn’t particularly considerate, social scientists and political analysts postulate the notion that indigenous people are the best conservators when it comes to biodiversity. In recent years, indigenous activists even question among themselves in comparison to western environmental practices if they truly should be viewed as conservationists.
With the numerous dams that have been strategically placed throughout the rivers, obstructing the river flow for salmon to travel upstream, the numbers for the Chinook have been plummeting. Loss of salmon habitat is not the problem in the Snake River Basin, the dams are. Removing them is the single biggest opportunity to restore salmon in the Northwest. However, projects such as this one can not be accomplished alone. Usually to make a lot of noise to draw attention to a campaign, political officials tend to get involved. This is known as Political Ecology and is one of the biggest conflicts of interest seen throughout this project. Political ecology has focused on phenomena in and affecting the ever changing world surrounding us. More specifically, political ecology focuses more on the political aspect of the environment. This practice normally involves the government, projecting power in contribution towards conservation movements. “Most fundamentally, political ecology springs out of a new engagement of social sciences with human rights and is linked closely to the field of environmental justice”, according to authors Mulder and Coppalillo. This can and has been very beneficial for several organizations, especially for many indigenous communities, as they have become a more influential force, often through political organization. However, there are also many issues in regard to political ecology that can be addressed. Having government power to help back up an organization can be beneficial, although matters can become dominated by actors and local politicians. This can be viewed as a major issue, because many of the policy makers and influencers can often face opposing viewpoints, which can be crucial when trying to help an organization. The dams were originally built by the Army Corps of Engineers in the 60’s with the sole purpose of flood control, irrigation, navigation, recreation and hydropower, yet time and time again failed to acknowledge the extinction of salmon due to their dams and almost seemed to have been brushing the issue under a rug. One of the biggest barriers faced today are stakeholders claiming that the restoration project will cost too much money to pursue. According to Congressman Mike Simpson’s campaign, “The Northwest seems to be caught in a status quo of fighting over salmon and the 4 LSR dams through lawsuits, biops, EIS’s, appeals, spill, press releases, etc. that have outcomes that generally pick winners and losers. It is a cycle that appears never-ending with neither side gaining leverage over the other anytime soon. Either the salmon will go extinct or the courts or some other body will step in and take drastic unilateral action” (Simpson, Mike). In addition to the indigenous communities and locals partaking in this project, Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson also wanted to spring into action to make a difference. With several proposals being made, such as Congressman Simpson's $33 billion restoration strategy that plans to breach the four Lower Snake River dams and reorder much of the fish, energy and commodity of transportation systems in the Pacific Northwest. If the bill is passed, Lower Granite dam will be breached in the summer of 2030 and the river that was once swallowed by slackwater 55 years earlier will reemerge. Until then it is absolutely necessary to make as much noise as possible until our voices are heard and the salmon are swimming freely.
Image taken from one of my friends on the trip, unsure of
who exactly.
Another conflict of interest that has impacted this issue from the beginning is the perception of opposing viewpoints in and surrounding this project. This can be examined more closely through examples such as the main topics of an ecology of life, globe perspective and sphere perspective. Before the definition of ‘an ecology of life’ was challenged by the author Tim Ingold, it was believed that organisms and environment were viewed as two separate entities. One of the biggest debates that encompasses the ideology lying within chapter one of Ingolds’ book, The Perception of the Environment, regarding the ‘steps to an ecology of life’ are that of mind and the environment. This allows a better understanding of the breakdown of how ‘ecology of life’ is understood today. The concept was originally borrowed from Gregory Bateson and later expanded on by Ingold, substituting ‘life’ for ‘mind’. However, Bateson originally thought that, “mind should be seen as immanent in the whole system of organism-environment relations in which we humans are necessarily enmeshed, rather than confined within our individual bodies as against the world of nature ‘out there’” (16). When the question of “organism plus environment” arose by Bateson, the original definition of ecology of life was then questioned by an opposing viewpoint sought out by Ingold himself. According to Bateson, ‘plus’ signified that organisms and the environment were completely independent from each other. However, Ingold believed that an ecology of life represented “the whole-organism-in-its-environment”, that it shouldn’t be classified as a compound of both but rather an entirety as a system. Examining the lifespan of a salmon, they are entangled not only within their own environments, but rather affect the livelihood of man surrounding their largest tributaries. Unfortunately many people don’t view nature as nature, but nature as something that can be conquered. According to author Dylan Tomine, “there is a deep psychological need or desire to control nature” (DamNation). Like many of the actors involved in this campaign with goals opposite to that of Simpsons and local tribes, they don’t see a need to value the lives of other organisms, only that of the benefit of man. Looking at a similar example that took place in regard to the Glen Canyon Dam, many people were furious at what this was doing to the ecosystems and the environments it was disrupting. When asked how he felt about people accusing him of altering the environment in a negative way, assistant commissioner of the United States Bureau of Reclamation Floyd Dominy stated, “I have changed the environment, yes. But I’ve changed it for the benefit of man”. Not only does this go against the concept of an ecology of life, looking at man as a separate entity of the environment in which he destroyed, it is also a great example of the difference between looking through the lens of a sphere or globe. In terms of viewing the world as a globe, this is a very western ideology, appearing as an object of contemplation, being fully detached from any form of living experience. Ingold describes that global environment, “is not a lifeworld, it is a world apart from life” (Ingold, 210). It also gives a rather colonial perspective, viewing the world as a blank canvas or rather something able to be concurred, ultimately for human recreation. Additionally, organisms live in close proximity to earth’s surface, being unable to attain the perspective of the globe to begin with. That being said, spheres allow for the perspective within, which is a concept that is more attainable. In the perspective of the sphere it is transparent and we are able to see organisms belonging to their environments and the ebb and flow of natural cycles. When looking at the environment in which the salmon inhabit, as humans we are also connected to that land. However there is a difference between being connected to it and concurring it.
After researching this social dilemma, it is quite clearly apparent that the four lower Snake River Dams must be abolished. Examining the cultural effects in regard to indigenous tribes, local ecosystems, rivers, anglers, farmers, etc. that this issue has provided, makes it very clear that action needs to be taken. Moving forward, it is important to continue making as much noise as possible, while political officials such as Mike Simpson expand his restoration project and the indigenous tribes affected also take action. This social dilemma isn’t going away anytime soon. As long as individuals continue to view the world as a sphere and practice what an ecology of life truly means, there still is hope. As an environment, where are all connected and viewed as a single entity. What we do to harm others ecosystems, ultimately we do to ourselves.
References
Barker, Erik. “Lewiston Morning Tribune: Study, Breaching Dams Would Pay Off” Save Our Wild Salmon
“DamNation | The Problem with Hydropower.” YouTube, uploaded by Ben Night, 24 Apr. 2020,
Mapes, Lynda. “Salmon People: A Tribe’s Decades-Long Fight to Take down the Lower Snake River Dams and Restore a Way of Life.” The Seattle Times, 1 Dec. 2020.
Ingold, Tim. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. 1st ed., Routledge, 2011.
Mulder, Borgerhoff Monique, and Peter Coppolillo. Conservation: Linking Ecology, Economics, and Culture. Princeton University Press, 2004.