On declines in MDNs (marine-derived nutrients), Gresch et al. (2000): “We have estimated the historic biomass of salmon returning to the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California) to be 160–226 million kg. The number of fish now returning to these rivers has a biomass of 11.8–13.7 million kg. These numbers indicate that just 6–7% of the marine-derived nitrogen and phosphorous once delivered to the rivers of the Pacific Northwest is currently reaching those streams.”
Cederholm et al. (2000) tallied the species that rely on Pacific salmon as part of their diet and came up with 137, later amended to 138. Funny thing was, the list didn’t include humans, because they were looking at “wildlife.”
wowzers. quite a weird poster though - implying we should possibly all kill ourselves after creating babies so that our children can feed on that which feeds on our flesh. You see where unthinking biomimicry can get you? Soylent Green!!!
(also, let’s remember that it’s fairly argued that the first nation completely shaped the ecology of Canada - planting and reseeding Garry oaks, camas, and even deliberately spreading the salmon spawn to new rivers - it’s true, I saw it on the Discovery Channel. In fact, there it said that there is no record of the ‘native’ oaks or the bulbs existing here before human habitation. Also, like the first nation native Americans, and the Aboriginals, regularly burning off the bush)
“Garry oak ecosystems are not “natural”, but rather have a long history of human management. In contrast to today’s fire suppression, in the past, the Coast Salish First Nations peoples deliberately burned Garry oak meadows and woodlands to promote the growth of the camas flower – the bulbs of which were cultivated as an important food source. Now, many Garry oak stands are out-competed by Douglas-fir trees, which shade out the oaks, leading to the conversion of oak meadows to conifer forests.”
apologies for carrying over my ‘shouldn’t we question the 'isn’t nature amazing’ trope' from other recent conversations - I have deep respect for the symbiotic way the first nation peoples managed the land, even if some of it might seem brutally unecological to us - it was undoubtedly highly efficient, effective, and sustainable (until it wasn’t… would they have found their own natural calamity if the Europeans hadn’t arrived, I wonder?)
Yikes. We didn’t mean to appropriate your “carcass” so literally. Just to convey a spirit of responsibility, care for community, etc. (I worked on this poster, which was quite popular in its day.) One person’s metaphor is another’s isomorphism, i guess.
Background on salmon story, from a Cascadian.
On declines in MDNs (marine-derived nutrients), Gresch et al. (2000): “We have estimated the historic biomass of salmon returning to the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California) to be 160–226 million kg. The number of fish now returning to these rivers has a biomass of 11.8–13.7 million kg. These numbers indicate that just 6–7% of the marine-derived nitrogen and phosphorous once delivered to the rivers of the Pacific Northwest is currently reaching those streams.”
Cederholm et al. (2000) tallied the species that rely on Pacific salmon as part of their diet and came up with 137, later amended to 138. Funny thing was, the list didn’t include humans, because they were looking at “wildlife.”
137 species poster: http://www.salmonnation.com/fish/images/137species_poster_web.pdf
wowzers. quite a weird poster though - implying we should possibly all kill ourselves after creating babies so that our children can feed on that which feeds on our flesh. You see where unthinking biomimicry can get you? Soylent Green!!!
wikipedia on Cascadia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29 “critics argue that Cascadian independence is unlikely”
(also, let’s remember that it’s fairly argued that the first nation completely shaped the ecology of Canada - planting and reseeding Garry oaks, camas, and even deliberately spreading the salmon spawn to new rivers - it’s true, I saw it on the Discovery Channel. In fact, there it said that there is no record of the ‘native’ oaks or the bulbs existing here before human habitation. Also, like the first nation native Americans, and the Aboriginals, regularly burning off the bush)
“Garry oak ecosystems are not “natural”, but rather have a long history of human management. In contrast to today’s fire suppression, in the past, the Coast Salish First Nations peoples deliberately burned Garry oak meadows and woodlands to promote the growth of the camas flower – the bulbs of which were cultivated as an important food source. Now, many Garry oak stands are out-competed by Douglas-fir trees, which shade out the oaks, leading to the conversion of oak meadows to conifer forests.”
http://thetyee.ca/Life/2010/01/14/Wapato/ https://crd.bc.ca/education/our-environment/ecosystems/terrestrial/garry-oak-meadows http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/so06/indepth/nature.asp http://www.scilogs.com/expiscor/ten-facts-about-garry-oaks/
apologies for carrying over my ‘shouldn’t we question the 'isn’t nature amazing’ trope' from other recent conversations - I have deep respect for the symbiotic way the first nation peoples managed the land, even if some of it might seem brutally unecological to us - it was undoubtedly highly efficient, effective, and sustainable (until it wasn’t… would they have found their own natural calamity if the Europeans hadn’t arrived, I wonder?)
Yikes. We didn’t mean to appropriate your “carcass” so literally. Just to convey a spirit of responsibility, care for community, etc. (I worked on this poster, which was quite popular in its day.) One person’s metaphor is another’s isomorphism, i guess.
sorry - was just having fun ;-)