Smells Fishy
If you are a fan of fresh West Coast wild-caught salmon, you might have noticed the tasty treat is increasingly hard to come by.
Me? Never noticed because I don't eat anything with a face. Ooops. Superior moment. Sorry.
The Klamath River's population of fall chinook salmon, also known as king salmon, has reached such dangerously low levels that last summer the commercial fishing season along 700 miles of America's west coast, including nearly all of Oregon and California, was almost completely shut down.
Please ask Congress to support a new bill to provide emergency aid to salmon fishermen, and to take immediate steps to reverse the decline of the Klamath River and other salmon rivers throughout the Pacific Northwest.
posted by kate @ 9:43 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
I had wild pacific salmon once. Im suprised that the story is not "Dangerous overpopulation of Wild Pacific Salmon causing concern; govt to subsidize more fishing to lower the population"
It was by far the worst salmon we had ever tasted, my wife and I were so excited to eat even more healthy salmon than the atlantic, and.... 3 bites later, we dumped it in the trash, and took the trash to the garage.
I cant believe that many people eat a fish that tastes that bad. We have decided to only eat Farmed Atlantic Salmon, which helps with the overfishing in the Atlantic for that wild salmon.
That just beats everything. Who chooses less healthy because it tastes better? Perhaps you got a bad piece of salmon? Perhaps you need to adjust your thinking that healthy isn't awful tasting, you're just used to crap? Natural Doritos *taste* better because they are better. Same with salmon. Same with organic milk and meat. Etc.
Free your mind and your taste buds will follow.
kate,
Both salmons are healthy, actually extremely healthy. Pacific is just more healthy than atlantic, both are healthier than most foods.
Ive also never eaten anything just b/c its healthy, as i dont eat vegetables. I just eat what i like, that is just good enough to keep my cholesterol at 200, and blood pressure at normal.
Ive actually been dieting since the beginning of january. I know, wow, no one ever starts a diet in january. But this one is working. I eat the same foods that i have always eaten, but limit my daily calories to 1900 or less, and I am down 12 pounds already, and my BMI is down to 25.0 already.
As I get older, i know i will have to slowly get healthier over time to maintain the same levels of health.
It's me again, harping on eat locally. If you eat a bad Pacific salmon in the Pacific northwest, then it was probably just an off fish. Anywhere else, it's going to suck.(Exception made for tasty smoked salmon, but that is a whole different kettle of fish health wise.) Newsflash to supermarkets, foodies know the difference between fresh and fresh frozen. BTW-Time magazine cover story "Forget Organic, Eat Local."
Kate-how about boycotting internet petitions for a while? Inneffective slacktivism I say, feh!
Great point about eating locally. I need to be better about that. (Here that? My family sighing because of yet another issue...)
You know who likes my posting of internet petitions? Family and friends who no longer get daily emails clogging up their inbox asking to sign this or that. I try to pick the ones that go with my own personal beliefs or the ones that might do the most good. I also try to combine these posts with meetings in the area, phone calls to elected officials, and other such ways to get involved. But they are a way for otherwise inactive people to voice their concerns, I guess. Which is okay, right? I mean, it's better than nothing.
Are you saying they are completely ineffective? The right has proven they're not. So talk to me.
Not completely ineffective, but nearly so. Some observations-
The ones you link to are at least linked to actual organizations that do good work, and some even swear off selling the addresses to raise funds, though most do not. Thus the primary impact of even scrupulous online petition drives is the accumulation of lucrative mailing lists for later sale.
Raising awareness is an often cited, and compelling, reason for circulating internet petitions. "If only people knew about X they'd do something about it." Not so, some people will know and not care, others will feel really good about caring when they click their mouse but having already "done" something they will forego doing anything more. (especially if it takes effort or a lifestyle change) This is where the right has been most successful. They know the petition itself is not that effective, but they use them as organization points to rally the faithful.
Finally, most internet petitions don't specify exactly who will get the end result and if that person/agency really has any authority over the situation. They simplify things down to one decision point that will make or break whatever.
Case in point. I support continued protection of gray wolves in the Rockies, but predator control is a major concern. Coming to terms over it requires a look at the total range management issue in the west, everything from grazing fees and rancher expectations to ranchers'and environmentalists' desires to protect elk herds. To hunt or not hunt wolves is only the flashpoint, sexy part of the issue. Which is why, though with you on protection, I did not click and sign. You don't live in a wolf area so you didn't have the opportunity I had to attend public forums on wolf management, but you can speak out when local agencies want to do things that will affect manatees. Act locally, but act, not click.
Post a Comment
<< Home