Under the rationale underlying the endangered species act, it's hard to say why. The ESA was targeted at preserving species, not habitats or ecosystems. Accordingly, it's perfectly sensible to ask, as former Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth (R-ID) once did, "How can salmon be endangered if I can buy a can of it in the grocery store?". A look at streams in her home state would have provided an answer, though perhaps one that would have flown over her head. The logic behind her question renders fish a commodity which can be sacrificed for a more profitable one.
Steelhead are as much a part of the Pacific Northwest as brook trout are of the Lake Superior watershed. Take away one species from a place, and you diminish it. It becomes somewhere other than it was. Sometimes this will happen naturally, though the exploitation of resources in the industrial and post-industial age has made it happens much faster. People aren't just fouling their nest or killing things off--they're dis-placing themselves. I'd prefer to live in and visit places that still resonate strongly with the animals, plants, rivers, and cycles there. Taking steelhead away and settling for river rainbows weakens that resonance. I can identify with Thoreau's desire to "know a whole heaven, and a whole earth." It may be too late for that (and I'm not sure how you'd gauge one in the first place), but I'd still like as rich an earth as I can find.
Tags: Fishing; Conservation
No comments:
Post a Comment