A Letter to Mother

A Letter to Mother

          The film A Letter to Mother illustrates the realistic story of a Jewish family in 1939. The mother struggled to take care of her family, as her husband could not maintain employment. The family had to face unfortunate event after unfortunate event. The first of which was the father’s decision to leave behind the family and move to America. He had good intentions of becoming successful and bring his family to live with him, but his plan did not go accordingly and caused much heartache with the family being torn apart. The oldest on went to war and died, but had a friend send a letter to his mother for him. The daughter got married and the youngest son was abandoned in America after his father died. The mother, who was horribly sad by being torn apart from all of her family, went to America to find her son and escape the harsh war conditions. This family illustrated many Jewish traditions. For one, I noticed that the men wore hats almost all of the time. This is common of Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish traditions. Another thing that I noticed was that Jews tended to only associate with each other, especially for business purposes. This is something that is described in Jews, Christian, and Muslims. The book also says that Jews were often not allowed to have many types jobs when the empire was under Christian rule. This is consistent with the movie, where not all could find employment and many of them had similar jobs. They also had much more hope of living a prosperous life in the United States, partly because Jews were not so criticized there as they were in Europe. There were many other interesting tidbits I noticed about the Jewish community in this era from the movie, but I lost my notes and do not remember all of them. Letter to Mother was a very interesting and educational movie. I enjoyed it very much and would recommend it to others. I think that this film should continue to be used to in religion classes in the future, as it is both intellectually stimulating and interesting.

Salmon Without Rivers: A History of the Pacific Salmon Crisis

Salmon Without Rivers: A History of the Pacific Salmon Crisis

Chapter 1: Hooknose

This chapter examines the evolutionary history of pacific salmon. The salmon contain life-history diversity that has been created by a series of geologic and habit changes over millions of years. Understanding of the salmon’s story is essential to the prevention of failing management of the fish, and to prevent their demise. There are seven species of salmon; five live in North America, two in Asia. The Pacific Northwest has undergone more habit and environmental transformation than any other region of the world. When trying to understand salmon, one of the first questions that may be asked is why they take on the enormous strain of going to the ocean and back to the river again. This is a difficult process for them, but has many benefits for salmon and for the river. It makes them strong enough to move up parts of the river that they otherwise could not, it allows them to produce larger quantities of offspring, and it brings nutrients into the streams and riverheads. During the ice age, salmon occupied rivers farther south, such as in California and Mexico. As North America’s climate got warmer it caused these areas to be less hospitable to the salmon, and the glaciers farther north began to melt. The salmon migrated northwards the rivers were not a good environment for them yet. Forests eventually flourished, and improver the habitat of rivers and streams of the Pacific Northwest.

The evolutionary perspective is a new way of looking at salmon for me, and I think that it is an important way of understanding how our actions affect them. I thought the information on the ice age was very interesting. It is amazing to imagine the release of Lake Missoula, and that the Portland area was covered with 200 feet of water. The Pacific Northwest was a hostile environment with lots of sediment, unstable water flow, and few refuges for fish. Only the strongest and most adaptable fish could survive. The saber-tooth salmon is an important part of salmon’s history. The extinction of this species shows that salmon are vulnerable to their changing environment, and that we need to be careful when we do thing that changes it.  This book seems to be much more scholarly and detailed than Salmon Nation. I think that reading this book will give me a stronger knowledge base of salmon and their relations to the world.

                                                                                                                              

Chapter 2: The Five Houses of Salmon

        Indigenous people have always treated nature with great respect.  It was commonly believed that all living things, from rocks to humans, were equal parts of community and must be treated with respect. Rituals, taboos and traditions became important to their relationship with the salmon, as it increasingly became a part of their diet. One of the beliefs of a group of Native Americans is that salmon are “super natural beings” living under five houses. When they were underwater they transformed into their human form, but each year they would turn to their silver form and gift themselves to the Indian people. Unlike modern American culture, “death did not signify human dominance over nature. Rather, it was understood as a gift of food or fur, given by the animal to the man.” These beliefs and practices were essential to their development of sustainable reliance on salmon. They had the capability of depleting entire salmon runs, but did not because of these beliefs and practices.

I really enjoyed learning about how the Native American myths and culture, and how they were so important to the health of the salmon run. Many nonindigenous people see the myths and taboos as ridiculous, but they were actually created through generations of experiences, and prevented mistakes from being repeated in future salmon runs. The human-salmon relationship was so different and better then. The salmon were caught on a smaller scale, but were an important part of the diet of many people. I really liked learning about their gift-based economy. It would be a much different place if our modern economy functioned like that! I think that we should take lessons from how the Native Americans fished, and try to apply their ways to modern fishing regulations.

Chapter 3: The Values for the Land and Water

This chapter compared the differences between the Native American’s relationship with nature with that of the Euro-Americans. The Native Americans had lived off the land for over 3000 years. During this time, they developed sustainable practices that put them in harmony with the natural economy. They still altered it, but in better ways than the Euro-Americans. When the Euro-Americans came into the region, they restarted at zero years of practice maintaining the natural economy. The Euro-American’s money driven economy has a goal of maximizing profits. This is much less effective at maintaining the natural balances than the Native American’s gift based economy because they are seeking more than what they need for their personal use. In the market driven economy, the capitalist in charge were often distanced from the effects of their business; “The social costs-depleted salmon and unemployed fishermen-were left for the local communities to absorb”. If the money-based economy is to remain productive, it needs to find a balance with the natural economy.

This chapter explained a lot of the things that we have discussed in class. It was interesting to read another perspective about it. The most interesting point made in this chapter to me was that the Native Americans had over 3000 years of experience to learn how to live in harmony with the local habitat, where the Euro-Americans were starting from scratch. Salmon went from being a central part of culture that was respected, to simply being a source of economic wealth. This was an unfortunate transition and caused the salmon and the Native American’s who were dependent on them to be devastated, which was seen as a necessary expense for the capitalists who used the fish as wealth.

      Chapter 4: The Industrial Economy Enters the Northwest

When Euro-Americans reached the great Northwest, they implemented many changes that had negative consequences on salmon. It all started when Captain James Cook bought furs from Native Americans and sold them for an enormous profit abroad. This sparked the interest of entrepreneurs and brought them to the area. The exposure to the money economy changed the native’s attitudes towards trade and lead to the demise of their gift economy. When the entourages of explorers like Lewis and Clark came into the region it brought an unforeseeable amount of commerce and change to the landscape. People wanted to get ahold of the valuable natural resources before others. This “successive interests, with their lingering power over the land and water” have been called the Lords of Yesterday” and hold power to cause the delay of development of a balance between the Euro-American’s industrial economy. These Lords of Yesterday that damage salmon include the fur trade, mining, timber harvest, grazing, and dams.

It was really interesting to read about the explicit examples of how each of these Lords of Yesterday damaged a salmon population. The part I found to be the most unacceptable was the irrigation that poured fish onto fields were they were left to dry up. Thank god that laws were enacted and enforced to put an end to that! It is crazy how government has done so little to prevent these things from having devastating consequences on the aqueous ecosystems. If the salmon did not have such astounding diversity, they would not be around today. As hatcheries continue to ruin this very survival mechanism that is keeping them around, I’m afraid that they will not continue to survive.

Chapter 5: Free Wealth

During their initial time of settlement, Euro-Americans bought salmon from Native Americans for consumption purposes only. After it was theorized that salmon could bring in more wealth than agriculture could in America, fisheries became more abundant. With the rise of industrial fishing, salmon had to undergo pressure from both fishing and destruction of their habitat from a variety of sources. Some planed on using Indians to catch fish for their canneries, but Hudson’s Bay Company did otherwise. The poor taste, among other reasons such as shortages of salt and barrels, caused the salmon industry to not flourish for many years. After the invention of canning, that changed. Canned salmon tasted much better and the demand for salmon increased. The regulation of fishing and canneries became more difficult. Canneries took advantage of the cheap price that they could get salmon for, as it was better for them to have too much than too little. There was too much salmon for the canneries to process and much of it was wasted. Some rotten salmon with maggots was actually canned. There was a need for regulation to prevent the waste of, and the eventual demise of salmon. It was left up the states to regulate it for a very long time, and they did not do well.

This chapter sparked up some questions for me. It said that there were many petitions and laws were passed in Oregon to regulate the fishing of salmon, but that they weren’t very effective. I signed a petition to stop gill netting the other day, and I want to know if that petition will actually do any good if it is passed. I also thought that it was interesting that the federal government did little more than threaten to intervene on the poor fishing practices. If the states have been doing such a horrible job at regulating the fishing, then why not just make federal legislation about it? The chapter does not really explain this. The poor salmon should mean more too people than to be treated as only a commodity. The creation of hatcheries with no scientific evidence of what it would do was an absurd decision of history. The worst part of history that this chapter brought to light again for me, is the creation of Indian reservations.

Chapter 6: Cultivate the Waters

The chapter Cultivate the Waters made it clear how ignorant and foolish humans have been regarding nature. Fish have been propagated by humans for about 230 years. Salmon have been around much longer than that. No one imagined that the management of salmon would end up the way it did, but through a series of ignorant decisions it became this way. Humans thought that they could control nature, and they were wrong. The establishment of hatcheries was an exciting time for many, with hopes of replenishing the diminishing salmon populations, introducing Pacific salmon to other regions, and feeding more people. They soon found out however, they can’t do as good of a job as nature does. With hatcheries becoming more common businesses, it made the transition to regarding all salmon as commodities easy. Hatcheries, which have never been started to begin with, are larger and more common now, even though we know their devastating effects.

It aggravates me how our country is run my money, and that money is more important than anything else. If they had taken the time and studied the salmon before they went and did all those thing to them, it would have changed a lot of things for the better. Also, we had listened to the wise suggestions people had to save one river as a salmon/nature preserve, we would be in a much better place. The cultivation of water has a lot of great purposes and made some people really rich, but it is not okay to do such things without scientific inquiries. Nature holds a delicate balance, and it is important to recognize that when we do things that have strong impacts on it. When constructing a dam for instance, it should be built where it has the least impact on salmon, weather it be farther up stream or there is a way to bypass it. I think that in some ways humans have become less ignorant throughout the years, as we have become more educated and have learned from past mistakes.

Chapter 7: The Winds of Change

The same main point is made in this chapter as the last: humans made ignorant decisions, money was more important than nature, and that the science was there but it was ignored. For quite awhile fisheries were managed without any trained fish biologists of scientific studies. When people did start to get degrees in fish sciences, management agencies did not hire. This is because the management agencies were so caught up and invested in the idea the cultivating fish was a good idea, and the people who actually studied the fish questioned that. A lot of people who actually knew what they were talking about made appearances throughout history, but the management agencies and government did not listen to them. Many myths and fallacies were still believed long after they were proved incorrect by science. Also, many of the recommendations that were made, were not implemented until many decades later.

It does not surprise me that the fish management agencies were so ignorant and ignored all the scientific information that they had. If there is one-thing humans have proved themselves to be good at, it is just that. The part of this chapter that I found to be the most interesting is that “The government saw the Pacific Northwest and the hydroelectric potential of its rivers as the solutions to the nations economic problems” during the great depression (pg. 169). This was a new piece of information to me that I really found interesting. I knew that there were a lot of dams that were built during that time period, but I did not realize that they were build out of economic desperation. I am sure that there was an alternative that they could have taken that would have been less destructive to the rivers, but I can understand the logic behind why they were build.

Chapter 8: A Story of Two Rivers

Different restoration strategies have been implemented throughout the years on a variety of different rivers. The two most important salmon rivers in the Northwest, the Columbia and Fraser River, are prime examples of these differences. Overfishing was a problem on both of the rivers, as well as issues related to logging. Fishermen on the lower Fraser River caught a lot of fish and left few for the Canadian fishermen and spawning. For a long time there were may attempts to create treaties between the Washington and Canadian fisheries, but were not passed for many years. After many diminishing salmon runs, Washington had a particularly bad run as the Canadians had their all-time high run on the Fraser. After this bad season, Washington finally gave in and signed a treaty with Canada to share the fish and restore the run. The Fraser River fishery management based their regulations more scientifically than the Columbia River management did. They were careful about dams, saving the salmon populations. The Columbia had several dams that were poorly built, which contributed in the loss of the coho population and the decline of the Chinook population. Their cultivist attitude towards salmon management was ignorant and destructive.

Particularly interesting to me was that these two rivers that are so close had such contrasting management methodology. It was true in both cases that money was more important than the salmon runs. It is quite ironic that in their attempts to make more money, they actually lost many millions of dollars in the destruction of salmon. The Canadians took a much better approach than the Oregonians, but just as the Americans did, they still logged and overfished. However, I appreciated that they based their decisions on science. The saying “ignorance is bliss” came to mind while reading this chapter. Americans were so sure that their tactics were working, they did not even try to evaluate their progress. I am glad that this has finally changed, and that we have qualified scientists contributing to the mission of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Chapter 9: The Road to Extinction

When the Endangered Species Act was created, it saved many salmon populations from becoming extinct. People were not surprised that the Sockeye and Chinook of the Snake River were put onto the ESA, but they were surprised that the Coho were. There was not a full understanding of why different populations of salmon were becoming extinct, but it was realized that it was related to human impact and development. When hatcheries were started, cultivists thought they could be self-sustaining and last forever. When the populations collapsed they released more fish, but numbers dwindled smaller each year. One year they had a giant run for reasons they did not understand. Many saw this as a success, including British Columbia, and more hatcheries were made and modeled after this “successful” hatchery. Hatcheries, which have been around since 1872, have been known to be detrimental to wild salmon for a very long time, but they continue anyway. Hatcheries were started in Newport to help bring sport fishermen into the area, but were not economically sustainable and had to shut down. The fish from these hatcheries were estimated to cost $5000 each.

The most interesting part to me was the reasoning why biologists continued to let fishermen to catch both wild and hatchery salmon. They did this because they did not realize that many wild salmon casualties happen before they make it to the ocean, and of the salmon that make it to the ocean a much higher proportion return to their spawning grounds than hatchery fish. Salmon Without Rivers was an excellent and very informative book. I learned a lot from it and found it to be of great value. Salmon hatcheries were thought to be the key to restoring fisheries for far too long. Some changes have been made towards the good, but still not enough has been done. At least it has become common knowledge that hatcheries are not an acceptable replacement for the stresses humans put on the salmon and ecosystems. It is essential that the remaining biodiversity of salmon be protected, if salmon are to survive.

Oceanic Conservation

Oceanic Conservation

Change We Can Believe In

            Wildlife conservation is not a new concept to Americans. The United States’ first national park was established in 1872, and many other national parks and monuments followed. In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson established the National Park Service to protect the new parks. Throughout several generations, a lot of dedication and sacrifice has been put into creating and maintaining our system of national parks, state parks, and nature preserves. These wildlife sanctuaries are the reason why many species of animals such as wolves and buffalo still exist today. Oregonians have realized the importance of creating  hunting, logging, and mining free zones, but have not yet seemed to realize the importance of ocean conservations. There are arrays of regulations that have been implemented to protect specific species, but they often are not completely successful because they do not take into account pronounced interdependence of wildlife. The only way to revive and protect an entire ecosystem is the creation of nature preserves. With the ongoing depletion of many species and harm to ecosystems, Oregon must not wait to construct marine preserves and conservation zones.

            We are dependent on healthy ecosystems and the many functions they play. They provide us with many fundamental things including nourishing food, clean water, raw materials for factories, and opportunities for outdoor recreation.  People influence the health of almost every ecosystem in the world, including those of the ocean. Proper management is essential to protect ecosystems, so that we can continue to rely on them for generations to come. To do this well, the impacts of human activity must be fully understood so that the best ways to relieve it can be discovered.

            Bottom fish are valuable commodities on the marketplace. They represent approximately 23% of Oregon’s commercial seafood profit, only behind that of crab (US Department of Agriculture, 2011). They have tasty white flesh that is very desirable, and thus there has been a large demand for fishermen to catch as many as possible. The technology to catch these fish has advanced faster than the knowledge of how to protect them has (Green Fire Productions). This has lead to the unforeseen and rapid decline of their population. The rockfish populations in Oregon’s ocean have been recognized to be at depleted levels (Green Fire Productions). Depleted level is defined as 25% or less than the level before human impact. The amount of money commercial fishermen made on bottom fish topped out in 1994 at $81,297,000, in 2002 it bottomed out at $21,109,000, and in 2010 made a slight recovery to an estimate of $38,066,000 (US Department of Agriculture, 2011). The depletion of these fish has negative impacts on the fishing industry, people who eat fish, and the ocean’s ecosystem.  Bottom fish are not alone either, many other types of aquatic life are undergoing great stresses. These problems will only become more prominent, unless dramatic changes are made to reverse species depletion.

            There are many destructive things humans do to marine habitat and ecosystems. Bottom trawling is among the worst of them. When nets are dragged over the bottom of the ocean they destroy coral reefs, rock formations, other habitat, and stirs-up the silt on the ocean floor. Bottom trawling also catches many fish that the fishermen do not have permits for or even any commercial use.  Most of this bycatch does not survive the quick assent from the bottom of the ocean, and of what does survive, most is not thrown back into the water quickly enough to recover. Another factor that adds to aquatic population declines is the fisherman’s focus to catch large fish. Large female fish produce an exponentially larger amount of eggs than smaller fish. The offspring that they produce are also stronger, grow faster, and are more resilient to the dangers of their environment. Some fish species such as rockfish and halibut do not reach reproductive maturity until they are several years old, and produce more significant numbers of offspring as they age. To maintain a healthy population, the protection of large female fish is essential. There are many other human factors that cause the decline of a population. The problem with most solutions has been that they only stop one factor while others continue.

            Oregon takes unique approaches to managing its oceanic ecosystems. The most popular and effective approach that the state takes is the regulation of fishing. Petitions regarding fishing regulations are frequently implemented by politicians or voted on by the public.. This approach has had some successes, but is not a perfect solution. Much of the public does not know about the harms and benefits of different types of fishing or understand how certain laws will affect people’s lives or the ecosystems. Often the most important and beneficial laws are not passed, and less important laws are passed. Petitions do sometime make changes for the good, but are typically not powerful or efficient enough to completely change aquatic management systems. They generally represent the special interests of a group or industry. One petition that is currently active is for the banning of commercial gill netting. Gill netting is not a sustainable practice and it may be beneficial for this law to be passed, but there are other options that would be more beneficial to aquatic ecosystems. Another way regulations are put into place is through the government. Fish and Wildlife Departments, so long as they do not have pressure from political or popular interest groups, can create more complete and scientifically studied solutions. The government is also in charge of creating the seasonal fishing regulations of how much fishermen can catch, what size they can keep, when they can fish, and how long they can fish for. Although the government’s solutions may be better for the ecosystems, they do not always represent the people’s needs. With the decline of fish numbers, these regulations have created hardship for many fishermen.

            As fish numbers have declined, fishermen have struggled to make a stable income. Not only has it become more difficult to catch fish, but there have also been an array of regulations added that limits the fishermen’s capability to catch fish. Commercial fishermen must obey the regulations that are given in an approximately 50 page long yearly report written by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. This report gives details on what type of boats and gear can be used, how much each species of fish should be sold for, what types of fish can be caught, which permits need to be purchased and how much they cost, where the seafood can be harvested, the possibility of permits being suspended or revoked if ecological standards are not being met, and an array of other regulations. There are several other regulatory reports about specific fisheries that include when they can fish and how much can be caught. These reports had an increasing number of regulations over the years, making it more difficult for fishermen to make a living.

            In compliance with these regulations, many fishermen have had their permits suspended or revoked because of declining fish populations. Permits can be suspended for days, seasons, or years, depending on the severity of the problem. This causes the fishermen to be out of work and have to find other ways of making money. Some go on unemployment, some find jobs, and some alter their business strategy. One way that fishermen have learned to make a profit during this period is to give guided fishing trips. A commercial fishing fleet in Newport, Oregon has adapted this method. Most of the captains would rather be out fishing than guiding, but have found that to not be an option with the constricting regulations and suspension of permits. They do not get a large number of customers to guide due to the economic contraction, but have gotten enough to sustain the company and feed their families. Fishing is an important industry in Oregon that helps feed our entire nation. It should not be so difficult for fishermen to make a living.

It is however true that many of the laws set in the last decade have been lifted, mostly due to ineffectiveness. One law that has been eased is the catching of yellow-eye rockfish. Yellow-eye are considered overfished, and were banned from harvest. It is common that these fish are accidentally caught when fishermen are trying to catch other fish, and usually do not survive the accent from the bottom of the ocean. The law has changed so that yellow-eye caught by halibut fishermen can be kept, instead of being thrown back into the ocean already dead. I think that the easing of this law will be good for everyone, as long as it is not abused. With the creation of more effective marine management including marine conservation sites, many other ineffective laws will be softened or removed. This could make the fishermen’s work much easier.

Unfortunately, declining fish populations sometimes occur because of factors outside our sphere of influence. Foreign long-range fleets of long-line fishermen and trawlers are difficult to control. Pollution and habitat degradation elsewhere can affect our local fish populations. A recent example is that of elevated radiation levels in bluefin tuna. These tuna had migrated from the area of last year’s Japanese reactor disaster. This shows how even events outside the local ecosystem can affect the fish here.

Although there are many regulations in place and there are constantly more being created to help protect fish, they have not been sufficient. It is difficult to change and create new regulations, because someone always thinks it will be unfair to them. Marine preserves are no exception to this dilemma. Conservational preserves are most effective when they are established in places that fish naturally thrive, which are often fishermen’s favorite fishing spots. Upon hearing about Oregon’s proposition to set up preserves, many fishermen became very upset. Officials had to explain to the fishing societies how conservation is actually the best option available to them. Many conservation sites have been established in California and Washington, where many of the same species live as in Oregon. These preserves have been extremely successful, with the fish significantly gaining in numbers and health. Even though fishermen may not be able to fish in all of their favorite spots, the amount that they catch has actually increased. The big fat females protected within the preserves continue to produce an immense amount of healthy offspring throughout their lifetime, much of which drift to other areas. There are an immense amount of benefits that marine preserves provide other than an increase in the number of fish. To name a few, they act as good sources for scientific data on how human activity affect the ocean, they are a sort of insurance against unperfected management in other areas, and are easier to enforce than the regulations in other areas. Marine conservation sites have the potential to replenish the diminished species such as rockfish, and would overall make Oregon’s ocean a more thriving ecosystem. Because of this, marine preserves could help Oregon’s coast become economically prosperous again.

In 2008 Governor Kulongoski directed the Ocean Policy Advisory Council to begin the process of building of marine preserves and conservation areas. So far OPAC has established two pilot sites to evaluate management plans and prepare for the creation of the larger conservation areas. Four other sights are under consideration, and “scientists and the community teams are working in coordination to examine the general ecology and oceanography of the proposed sites” (Oregon Legislative Assembly, 2010). With the scientists, government, and community working together, everyone will be more pleased and compliant of the project. The locations and regulations of each site must be carefully and scientifically chosen, and monitored to determine if they are sustainable. Four sights are not enough to fully replenish the depleted species throughout Oregon’s coast, but at least it would make a start at protecting them and their ecosystems. Oregon is far behind in the process of building the preserves, in comparison to California and Washington who already have many marine preserves. There is little information available on how the process has been going in Oregon since 2010. This is most likely because it is going through a slow legislation process. The general economic recession has likely contributed to this. Political backbone is easier in good times. There has been several council planning meetings that have discussed the project’s strategy and have gained feedback from local community members. This feedback includes the location, the regulations within and around the sites, and an array of other details. City council has been considering the feedback as they move through the phases of legalities. Hopefully the legislature will pass soon and everyone will be ready to implement the plan.

If the process does not go through, many consequences may occur. Without conservation sites it is likely that many species will become depleted or extinct. This will have effects on other species in the ecosystem. Through trophic cascades many species will become over or under abundant, and the natural balances of the ocean will be thrown off. There will be less biodiversity and species genetics will be altered by the stresses humans are putting on them. The ocean will continue to be altered by humans, and there will not be any natural areas remaining within Oregon’s unique terrestrial ocean. Without these natural areas, scientists will not be able to properly evaluate human impact, and following generations will not be able to experience the same ocean that we do. The livelihood of fishermen would continue to worsen, and many would leave the business. The availability and selection of fish on the market will go down while the prices go up. Recreational fishing will also become more difficult and regulated. Recreational fishing, which is pastime in many families, would be lost to many and Oregon will lose an important part of its culture and heritage. All of these potential problems can be prevented if appropriate and scientifically sound changes are made to our fish management system.

            Marine conservation zones and preserves are the best route Oregon can take to improve the fisheries management system. They have an array of benefits that will make positive changes to not only the marine wildlife, but also to the Ocean at large, to fishermen, fish consumers, and coastal communities. Oregon is on it’s way to creating this superior method of marine management, but has a long way to go. It is important that change is implemented quickly, but it also must be done properly. Ocean ecosystems are complex and not fully understood. Because of this, the best way to protect them is by creating zones where human impact is minimal, and let nature manage itself.

Bibliography

1.     Common Ground: Oregon's Ocean. Green Fire Productions, 2005. Film.

2.     http://oceansonline.org/cg/common_ground.html

3.     National Park Service History. National Park Service, 2008. http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/history.htm         

4.     Berg, Neal: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Telephone Interview. 01/06/2012.

5.     Lackner, Bill. Oregon’s Coastal Fish Species: Oregon’s Rockfish.

6.     Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). Native Fish Conservation and Recovery: Oregon Marine Reserves. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/marinereserves.asp

7.     Biological Monitoring and Research Documents. Oregon Ocean Information. http://www.oregonocean.info/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&Itemid=0&gid=129&orderby=dmdate_published&ascdesc=DESC

8.     Oregon Legislative Assembly. Marine reserves. Salem, Or. : Legislative Committee Services, 2010.

9.     United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service Oregon Field Office. 2010-2011 Oregon Agriculture & Fisheries Statistics. 2011.

10.   Anthoni, Dr J Floor. "Marine Conservation." Sea Friends. 2001.

Shock Doctrine Essay Two

9. Discuss “The Rise of People’s Reconstruction”.  How does Klein see resistance to the Shock Doctrine?  Analyze this response and discuss your sense of its success or failure.

No Fear

The impact of Milton Friedman’s shock doctrine can easily be seen everywhere it has been implemented. The increasingly wealthy upper class and the increasingly poor lower class are the most visible signs. The shock doctrine key players were incredibly successful, but this success came at a high price. That price is the prevalent loss of faith in free-market capitalism and a yearning for justice.

For many years, Friedman and his followers managed to hold onto a respectable reputation. It took several economic invasions and a towering amount of disparity-creating legislation for this to change. They eventually lost the respect that they so desperately clung onto, as their evil intentions were revealed. Key players from the scandals were faced with charges and jail time, and the neocon movement lacked leadership after Friedman’s death.

Friedman’s central claim which he based his shock theories on is that “capitalism and freedom are part of the same indivisible project” (Klein; p.565). The possibility that people could demand the combination for more control over the markets and stronger democracy would therefore be the largest threat to his legacy. That is exactly what has begun to happen in exploited countries around the world. The fear that was instilled with disaster and war took time to wear off, but now people have begun to revolt. The most evident changes can be seen in Latin America because they have had the most time to recover. Nation leaders in South America have teamed together to abolish Friedman’s strategies from the continent. To do this they have been working to nationalize natural resources and gain economic independence from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization; tools of Friedman and his Chicago boys. Not only is recovering from previous shocks taking place, but the world has also learned from situations and is becoming shock resistant.

Shock resistance can be seen in the recovery of many recent disasters. One of such was the 2004 tsunami of Southeast Asia. Although many coastal areas did not resist the invasion of foreign investment, some did. The exploitation plans partially failed; as some villages in Thailand reclaimed their property from the developers. Also, they did not settle for handouts, but demanded that their aid come in the form of tools so that they could reconstruct their own village. This undermined the very essence of the shock doctrine strategy. These villages set a powerful example for others. Leaders in New Orleans used them as a model after hurricane Katrina, helping some of the lower class regain what was rightfully theirs. As time rolls forward, the world can only become more aware and distrusting of the shock methods.

Klein ends The Shock Doctrine on an optimistic note. With increasing awareness and resistance, an end can be put to the neoconservative shock doctrine theories. The process of its demise has already begun. The entire globe has been severely altered by the shock doctrine, but it has not gone unnoticed.  People worldwide have stopped believing in the free-market and are resisting shock.  These people are helping elect better leaders and create better political and economic systems in their countries. There is more attention being put on nationalization, social services, and lessening the disparity between the classes. Most importantly, many people have realized that free enterprise does not coincide well with freedom, democracy, and equality. 

Shock Doctrine Essay One

How is the shock doctrine applied to New Orleans after hurricane Katrina?  To developing countries after the Asian Tsunami?  How does this demonstrate Milton Friedman’s shock doctrine?

Since the rise of the Chicago Boy’s neo-conservative methods, shock has been used to implement free-trade decisions on societies in many different situations. In each case, these decisions are against the will of the general society, and are favored by wealthy people and large corporations. Neocons have used natural disasters, terrorist attacks, wars, and economic distresses as opportunities to implement the shock doctrine. After such shocks occur, the society is too chaotic and focused on immediate needs to be able to resist adverse economic decisions affecting them. This method of using shock as a tool for gaining “free-market” advantage is based on Milton Friedman’s disaster capitalism theories and practices. In the case of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, and in Southeast Asia after the Tsunami, the shock caused by the natural disasters was used to implement shock doctrine.

New Orleans, Louisiana, is a city located in dangerous hurricane territory. The state applied for the development of a hurricane contingency plan in 2004, and was denied. Instead, a private company was hired that completely failed at making any concrete preparation for hurricane disaster. The following year the powerful Hurricane Katrina hit, which caused massive destruction in New Orleans. The shock and crisis of this event gave neo-conservatives the perfect opportunity for implementation of the disparity-creating reforms they had been wanting. Some of these reforms included the building of charter schools to replace public schools that were destroyed, removal of corporate taxes, and suspension of wage laws. Companies including Blackwater and Halliburton, who made significant profits on the reconstruction of Iraq, also benefited from the disaster of Hurricane Katrina. These companies were hired because they claimed they would be the best at the reconstruction of New Orleans after their experience in Iraq. As a result of poor disaster management, the lower class was at a disadvantage while the upper class benefited. Many lower class citizens were stranded on their rooftops for days, lost their homes, and were economically forced to move out of the city. The upper class, on the other hand, just called their insurance companies, got on a plane, and used the disaster as an excuse for an out-of-town vacation. As a result of the overspending and underachieving of private companies, the funding of social services was decreased. The poor were further hurt by this because they needed them most. Hurricane Katrina was a perfect example of privatization, deregulation, and classism, which are classic elements of the shock doctrine.

A similar process took place following the tsunami that hit Asia in 2004. Like New Orleans, the city of Sri Lanka was a desirable location for corporate investment. No significant industry was able to develop before the tsunami because of an ongoing civil war and because fishing villages inhabited the coastline. When the civil war ended, both tourists and local fishermen crowded the oceanfront. The Government supported the booming tourism industry, which did not wish to coexist with the fishing villages. US investors, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, all pressured the government to support the tourist industry, and wanted a piece of the profit. The villagers would not allow this, until they did not have a choice. When the tsunami tore-up the coastline, it killed 250,00 people and left 2.5 million homeless. The survivors were sent to refugee camps, and were banned from returning to their villages because of safety concerns. The real reason was of course not safety concerns, but because they would get in the way of the reconstruction plan. The vulnerability of the situation presented investors a magnificent opportunity, which they quickly seized. “Aid” was abundantly donated to the disaster, where much of it was not spent on the people’s problems, but on building hotels. Foreign companies that had previous experience in disaster reconstruction, and the shock doctrine methods, were hired almost immediately. Foreign companies made significant amounts of money through the construction process and hotel ownership. The fishermen and villagers lost their way of life, their homes, and did not get any share of the profits. If the villagers were not fighting for survival during a  crisis, they would have revolted and not allowed the reconstruction to go the way it did.

In both New Orleans and Sri Lanka, people were faced with crisis and devastation. The blank slates that the disasters left behind were extraordinary opportunities for investors and corporate gain. Preoccupied with meeting their daily needs, the lower classes did not have a chance to fight back against the injustices that were occurring. How the investors in these situations thought making a profit was more important than the well-being of the lower-class is sickening to any person who has a conscious, but I’m sure that Milton Friedman would be proud of how well his theories were played out.