9 ms·

I just happened to be reading The Emigrants' guide to Oregon and California. It was the guide that the Donner party used to take a short cut. The book doesn't

I just happened to be reading The Emigrants' guide to Oregon and California. It was the guide that the Donner party used to take a short cut. The book doesn't embellish. (The Donner party took one sentence out of that guide, and made a mistake.) My reason for posting here is when the author was describing California; it was almost like reading fiction. The amount of wildlife was staggering. We were all told about the Bufflo, but there were so much more wildlife. Wildlife that we destroyed. One sentence really got to me. It stated, 'Salmon are 10 lbs. to 60 lbs.' I thought 60 lbs--it must be an exaggeration, but I think it's true.

npongratz 11y ago
> Wildlife that we destroyed. Who is "we"? I didn't do any of the destruction. Did you?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- hsitz 11y ago
  This comment is symptomatic of a lot of modern-day problems, especially in U.S. "We" are a society, a community. "You" don't exist alone. You couldn't exist without the benefits from human societies you live in. It's hypocritical and immoral to take the benefits of those societies, and then to disclaim participation in actions that society takes (or has taken), which are in part responsible for those benefits. American individualism is all well and good, but it gets carried way too far. For America is also a single society, and members of a society can't rationally accept the benefits of that society while disclaiming all participation in the actions that produced those benefits. I'm not saying "you" destroyed any wildlife. What I am saying is that (if you're American) you are reaping the benefits of a society that exists as it does because it dominated a continent, destroying much of the existing landscape and natural inhabitants. There is some level of responsibility that individuals have for prior actions taken by their society. Surely not as great a responsibility as if you'd done the actions yourself, or approved of the actions at the time they were taken. But some level of responsibility nonetheless (and when adding up the small responsibility of each current member the responsibility to do something as a group to rectify past wrongs may become quite large indeed).
  - Spooky23 11y ago
    You are reaping the benefits of slaughtering the Neanderthals and wiping out the mammoth. Shame on you.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    > What I am saying is that (if you're American) you are reaping the benefits of a society that exists as it does because it dominated a continent, destroying much of the existing landscape and natural inhabitants. Every society on Earth exists as it does because it destroyed much of the previously existing landscape and natural inhabitants, most definitely including the Native American societies. If you read Over the Edge of the World, a fascinating book about Magellan's voyage around the globe, you'll find that as he traveled the straits at the southern tip of South America -- the most miserable, cold, dreary, and awful environment that could be imagined -- he met a miserable and starving aboriginal tribe: a tribe that, it turns out, had been pushed all the way to the tip of Tierra del Fuego by succeeding waves of "native" migration across the land bridge from Siberia to Alaska. The sin of the United States is not original with the United States: it is the sin of every society. > But some level of responsibility nonetheless (and when adding up the small responsibility of each current member the responsibility to do something as a group to rectify past wrongs may become quite large indeed). You could smuggle an elephant inside that parenthetical clause. For starters, how specifically is one to "rectify past wrongs" that were committed against people who have been dead for hundreds of years? And are the remnants of those societies that still exist today also obliged to "rectify past wrongs" against the people they aggressed on even farther in the past?
    - simonh 11y ago
      I think you're blowing the comment put of proportion by deliberately interpreting a very qualified statement in an extreme and maximalist way. The poster dodnt say every wrong against everyone and everything ever has to be rectified. There are many concrete and affordable steps we can take to remediate much of the damage our societies have done and are doing to each other and the environment. I agree with the poster that we have an obligation to take as many of those steps as we feel we can afford.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure you know who "we" is and are just trying to make some point, but it would be nicer if you could just come out and make that point directly.
- littletimmy 11y ago
  The species of despicable primates of which you are part.
Agustus 11y ago
The issue with books like this, when you start to question validity, is who was the writer and what was their goal. In this case the writer of "The Emigrants' guide to Oregon and California" is trying to entice individuals to move to the West, but also using their book. Doing this could be done by pointing to larger than life situations, beautiful landscapes and plentiful fish, surely this entices and could drive people to leave the less than 10 lb salmon on the Atlantic for the easier and more plentiful "10 lbs to 60 lbs."
samcheng 11y ago
Huge Salmon were once much more common up and down the west coast. However, they were easy to harvest (as they congregate in the river during their spawn and can be caught with nets or weirs) and so many stocks were decimated. In other rivers, hydroelectric dams destroyed the ability for the salmon to reproduce. The Elwha river in Washington State once had salmon topping 100 lbs! http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/will-giant-chinook-salmon-return-dam-removal-project-opens-the-door/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/will-giant-chinook-... Many of the salmon now spawning in west coast rivers were bred in hatcheries - with significantly different genetics than those wild monsters of yore. http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/dec/hatcheries-change-steelhead-genetics-after-single-generation http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/dec/hatcheries-c...
- RyanMcGreal 11y ago
  Not only that, but one of the unintended consequences of the policy of only allowing large fish to be caught is that you create selection pressure for smallness in the fish population.

npongratz 11y ago

> Wildlife that we destroyed. Who is "we"? I didn't do any of the destruction. Did you?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
hsitz 11y ago
This comment is symptomatic of a lot of modern-day problems, especially in U.S. "We" are a society, a community. "You" don't exist alone. You couldn't exist without the benefits from human societies you live in. It's hypocritical and immoral to take the benefits of those societies, and then to disclaim participation in actions that society takes (or has taken), which are in part responsible for those benefits. American individualism is all well and good, but it gets carried way too far. For America is also a single society, and members of a society can't rationally accept the benefits of that society while disclaiming all participation in the actions that produced those benefits. I'm not saying "you" destroyed any wildlife. What I am saying is that (if you're American) you are reaping the benefits of a society that exists as it does because it dominated a continent, destroying much of the existing landscape and natural inhabitants. There is some level of responsibility that individuals have for prior actions taken by their society. Surely not as great a responsibility as if you'd done the actions yourself, or approved of the actions at the time they were taken. But some level of responsibility nonetheless (and when adding up the small responsibility of each current member the responsibility to do something as a group to rectify past wrongs may become quite large indeed).
- Spooky23 11y ago
  You are reaping the benefits of slaughtering the Neanderthals and wiping out the mammoth. Shame on you.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  > What I am saying is that (if you're American) you are reaping the benefits of a society that exists as it does because it dominated a continent, destroying much of the existing landscape and natural inhabitants. Every society on Earth exists as it does because it destroyed much of the previously existing landscape and natural inhabitants, most definitely including the Native American societies. If you read Over the Edge of the World, a fascinating book about Magellan's voyage around the globe, you'll find that as he traveled the straits at the southern tip of South America -- the most miserable, cold, dreary, and awful environment that could be imagined -- he met a miserable and starving aboriginal tribe: a tribe that, it turns out, had been pushed all the way to the tip of Tierra del Fuego by succeeding waves of "native" migration across the land bridge from Siberia to Alaska. The sin of the United States is not original with the United States: it is the sin of every society. > But some level of responsibility nonetheless (and when adding up the small responsibility of each current member the responsibility to do something as a group to rectify past wrongs may become quite large indeed). You could smuggle an elephant inside that parenthetical clause. For starters, how specifically is one to "rectify past wrongs" that were committed against people who have been dead for hundreds of years? And are the remnants of those societies that still exist today also obliged to "rectify past wrongs" against the people they aggressed on even farther in the past?
  - simonh 11y ago
    I think you're blowing the comment put of proportion by deliberately interpreting a very qualified statement in an extreme and maximalist way. The poster dodnt say every wrong against everyone and everything ever has to be rectified. There are many concrete and affordable steps we can take to remediate much of the damage our societies have done and are doing to each other and the environment. I agree with the poster that we have an obligation to take as many of those steps as we feel we can afford.
mikeash 11y ago
I'm pretty sure you know who "we" is and are just trying to make some point, but it would be nicer if you could just come out and make that point directly.
littletimmy 11y ago
The species of despicable primates of which you are part.

Agustus 11y ago

The issue with books like this, when you start to question validity, is who was the writer and what was their goal. In this case the writer of "The Emigrants' guide to Oregon and California" is trying to entice individuals to move to the West, but also using their book. Doing this could be done by pointing to larger than life situations, beautiful landscapes and plentiful fish, surely this entices and could drive people to leave the less than 10 lb salmon on the Atlantic for the easier and more plentiful "10 lbs to 60 lbs."

samcheng 11y ago

Huge Salmon were once much more common up and down the west coast. However, they were easy to harvest (as they congregate in the river during their spawn and can be caught with nets or weirs) and so many stocks were decimated. In other rivers, hydroelectric dams destroyed the ability for the salmon to reproduce. The Elwha river in Washington State once had salmon topping 100 lbs! http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/will-giant-chinook-salmon-return-dam-removal-project-opens-the-door/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/will-giant-chinook-... Many of the salmon now spawning in west coast rivers were bred in hatcheries - with significantly different genetics than those wild monsters of yore. http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/dec/hatcheries-change-steelhead-genetics-after-single-generation http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/dec/hatcheries-c...

RyanMcGreal 11y ago
Not only that, but one of the unintended consequences of the policy of only allowing large fish to be caught is that you create selection pressure for smallness in the fish population.