Pretend with me a minute. Let us say that a group of workers, perhaps they cut down redwoods, or capture rare owls, or make their living harvesting areas of rare algae, are finding their work more and more difficult as their resource dwindles. They are following in the footsteps of their ancestors for generations, and therefore, politicians have given them a percentage (>70%) of the area that the resource is in to continue their work and feed their families. The other 23 or so percent is set aside to keep the environmentalists happy and is put in sanctuary where only scientists can collect data for research and allow the resource to improve the environment. Now imagine that pollution, climate change, and disease is shrinking living redwoods, flying owls or nutritional algae in both the harvest areas and the protected areas. The workers are having a difficult time making a living and must take a second job. They think this is unfair. They feel the land owes them this harvest as it did their forefathers and they go to the politicians and say they realize that they must rotate their harvest to allow the product to replace itself, but they feel the politicians must also allow them a legal permit to harvest a rotational portion of the sanctuary part as well---up to 10% for now. The environmentalists see this as a slippery slope to total extinction in a decade as the wild resource is at 1% of what it was 50 years ago. In the state next door many of the citizens have sold their industry harvest tools and some have taken to growing the redwoods, owls, or algae as farmers. The result being that they have actually turned the situation around and are making money and increasing the tax base substantially by farming and increasing the availability of the resource in farmed areas. Unfortunately, the harvesters see this as a "cop-out."
One wonders why the "harvesters" in my state cannot see the light. This in reality is about oysters. Hubby testified at the State House building last week to keep the sanctuaries as sanctuaries and hopefully the delegates will see the light.
My nephew is a marine biologist. For several years he worked in the Chesapeake Bay area. The oysters were dying off from some disease (I don't know if this is still the case) and the state was spending a lot of money repopulating the beds so the oysterman could continue to harvest oysters. My nephew opined that if they just stopped harvesting for a few years, the oysters that were resistant to the disease would soon take over and the oyster beds would be healthy and would continue to be so with traditional controlled harvesting. Not sure if he was correct, but he is a pretty smart guy, especially in this area.
ReplyDeleteHe is very smart and that was the argument that my husband made during his short time allotted.
DeleteSadly I know nothing...
ReplyDeleteSo many people live in the "right now", or the past. It's hard to handle change when your livelihood depends on keeping things as they are, but eventually change will happen whether you like it or not. We have to adapt as people just as nature adapts. Yes, we must preserve what we can on our natural environment, and not sacrifice it all to "keeping my job and my way of life".
ReplyDeleteAdapt, adapt, adapt. We've seen it here in the Pacific Northwest with the fishing and logging industries. The "the way of living" always changes.
ReplyDeleteThis debate will happen again and again as the effects of climate change continue. We are not in for an easy ride!
ReplyDeleteIt all seems so logical that it's hard to understand why some people just don't get it, or worse, those that don't care.
ReplyDeleteThere is also one other aspect of change that is often overlooked: population increases. I think the land and harvest becomes depleted as we have to find someplace for all these people to live. Fifty years ago we didn't have this problem but we knew it was coming.
ReplyDeletePeople don't care about the future, not even the future of their lifetimes.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's worth a shot. California is doing a pretty good job of saving resources in the face of population increase and has a booming economy to boot.
ReplyDeleteThat is a pretty broad brush to paint with, the harvesters have been adapting for years. If you want a cause that can truly make a difference, stop Indian gill netting on the Columbia.
ReplyDeleteHattie dear lady, California has done an abysmal job of just about every thing it has done, and the state is deeply in debt! Oh but Moonbeam & cronies can spend BILLIONS on a bullet train to no where, instead of vital infrastructure. Please, a little do-diligence.
The state to the south has adapted and is using aquaculture to harvest the same crop rather than trying to get rid of all the oysters in the Bay. I do not know anything about the gill netting problems, but I do not think gill nets are environmental or sustainable.
DeleteI meant to type NOT environmental or sustainable. But there may be other laws on sovereign rights that apply since we have confiscated much of the land that was theirs.
Delete