Pura Vida's Just Another Word For Nothing Left To Lose!

Pura vida is a phrase endemic to Costa Rica. The literal translation is, "Pure Life" and it's used in all contexts of conversation. The symbolic meaning, from what I've been able to gather, is something to the effect of, "Hey man, it's like pure life. It's like pure. Like real life. It's like don't worry about it because we live in beautiful Costa Rica. You know, life is good, man!" Ah, if only it were true.

From an outsider's perspective, I feel that these people have been coaxed into accepting and even loving something less than mediocrity. Of course this isn't true for every Costa Rican (Tico). It's only true for the vast majority of them.

How can I make such a generalization after only having been here for two months? Easy, I have superior observational skills. Actually, the factors that influenced me to feel this way are the same ones I've seen in most other third world nations that I've visited. That is, a lack of infrastructure, piss-poor planning and development, pollution in urban areas, pollution in rural areas, poverty, alcoholism, huge disparity between rich and poor, and a general lack of interest/motivation to change/develop the community. These are just simple things I've noticed. I'm sure there are many more to be discovered if I truly delve into the matter.

What I'm implying is that Costa Rica has remained a third world country - I mean "developing country" - because of these factors. They are more indicators, really. Indicating Tico mentality. It's a mentality that is satisfied with just enough to get by.

Some could say that it's a good thing to be able to find a positive outlook on a life that some wouldn't consider positive. If indeed your world sucks, why not find something to be happy about? It keeps them content with what they haven't got. But for the people I've met in other struggling communities, being happy for the sake of being happy isn't good enough. I know there are people here who truly desire development - that is, they want to see their community become better than what it is. These people aren't satisfied with just enough to get by and it breaks my heart that they don't have opportunities to succeed. At least, not opportunities as I know them.

I fully support folks trying to inspire change and betterment in their communities. For whatever that's worth. But what to do about the rest? Humor them? Some guy accidentally stepped on my foot the other night at a bar. I turned around to see what was going on and he apologized. I told him, "No problem. Pura Vida." And the smile that overtook his face was incredible. It was like he was blown away at my understanding of Tico life. "Nothing matters, man. Take it easy. Life is great." Yeah, fine and dandy when someone steps on your foot. But what about when government corruption is stepping on your life?

Why do Ticos settle for "Pure life" when they could have so much more? By more, I mean solid infrastructure - nice roads, erosion control programs, phones for everyone, health care, better food, the ability to afford to own their own land, and so on.

There are some nice places in Costa Rica - sure. However, for the most part, this country is poverty stricken through a severe unequal distribution of resources.

I've had conversations about "pura vida" with some friends here, and some of them completely disagree with me. "I've been to a lot of small towns in Costa Rica, and the quaintness of them gives them character. I like it." It's kind of along the same lines of an argument saying that the drunk bum, who hasn't showered in forever, also has more character than just another suit walking down the street. Hmmm. Perhaps it's just a conflict of perception. One is interesting to look at and ponder about, and the other contributes to developing society. I guess it all depends on your priorities in life. Be happy with what you've got vs. Improve your world. I like to think that I'm on a path towards both. Why hasn't anyone else figured this out?Pura vida, man! Don't worry!

Amendment
Upon posting this blog, a friend of mine reminded me of a text I had sent him a while ago completely contradicting this posting. Here is the text that I pulled off of a menu from a restaurant in Amman, Jordan:

The rich industrialist from the North was horrified to find the southern fisherman lying lazily beside his boat, smoking a pipe.
"Why aren't you out fishing?" said the industrialist.
"Because I have caught enough fish for the day," said the fisherman.
"Why don't you catch some more?"
"What would I do with them?"
"You could earn more money," was the industrialist's reply. "With that you could have a motor fixed to your boat and go into deeper waters and catch more fish. Then you would make enough to buy nylon nets. These would bring you more fish and more money. Soon you would have enough money to own two boats . . . maybe even a fleet of boats. Then you would be a rich man like me."
"What would I do then?" asked the fisherman.
"Then you could really enjoy life."
"What do you think I am doing right now?"

My point is this: My hat's off to anyone that finds happiness in their life; anyone who can truly be happy with what they have or do not have. That's a rare thing, though. So in writing about "Pura Vida" it seems like I'm making a case that they are happy with their state. But observations of the their lives lead me to a conclusion to the contrary. There are complaints about being poor. I get asked for money because I'm from America. I get cheated on prices because I'm a foreigner. Theft is a huge, huge problem here. These actions are not consistent with the philosophy of "Pura Vida".

My philosophy is, if you want something, you need to work your ass off in order to achieve it. Complaining, stealing, and asking for handouts aren't acceptable. Neither is being dishonest about your life, especially to yourself.

I Wish I Was A Little Bit Smarter! I Wish I Was A Scholar!

The structure of classes at the University for Peace is not exactly what I was anticipating. We have a single class for a few weeks at a time and then move on to another class. I kind of like it because I can focus everything I've got into one class at a time and then move on to something new. Thing is, it's quite intense! I've never read so much in my life!

Our first class, Foundations in Peace and Conflict Studies, finally finished last week! It was neat because for the first part of the day, all students were together for a lecture. Hearing different perspectives from people representing different cultures and backgrounds was incredibly interesting. The student diversity at UPeace is something truly amazing and it enriches everyone's experience.The second part of the day was spent in smaller groups where we had discussions over the lecture and the readings. During this course, as the title suggests, we studied concepts and theories of peace and conflict. We reviewed case studies over particular conflicts, analyzing all the various components of the conflicts, and then discussed potential solutions.

It was a pretty interesting course, however, my lack of background in this particular subject made the entire thing incredibly challenging!

In between classes was a 4 day break/weekend. To celebrate completion of our first class, some friends and I headed out to an island and then a volcano for some intense travel days of relaxation!Islita Cedros (Little Cedar Island) was an 8 hour trip away from where I live via two buses and two boats. It's a tiny island without cars or even roads. We hung out for two nights with some local folks that Becca knows.After the island we made our way to the town of La Fortuna, which sits at the base of Arenal - an active volcano. Two boats, two buses, and 10 hours of travel finally put us there. We wasted no time and hired a guide to take us to some hot springs. It was late at night, and the tourist host springs had all closed. Our guide took us to some hot river in the middle of the forest. It was awesome! The water was somewhere around 100 degrees and we hung out in it for three wonderful hours!Had to leave in the morning... We only needed two buses and seven hours to get home. Just in time to do my reading for school the next day, and then go to bed.

The class I'm taking now is Forests, Forestry, and Poverty. It's starting out great! So sorry for all the emails to which I haven't responded. Along with my struggle to keep up with school work, I equally struggle with keeping up with emails. More to come! XOXO!

I've started another online photo album of my activities in Costa Rica. If you want to see more images that go along with these stories, check out this address: http://picasaweb.google.com/00Judkins/CostaRicaUniversityForPeace!

UPeace - Save the Water!

The school has done a fine job in scaring me with punishments over plagiarism. In fact, for fear of being caught plagiarizing my self, I'm posting my essays as "rough drafts" from now on, to which I welcome your critiquing on my amazing grammar skills and word choices!

Save the Water

Andrew Judkins – NRP
Foundations in Peace and Conflict Studies
Key Challenges to Peace
September 14, 2008

A flood of tensions and tempers has been flowing over the last few years on the Columbia Plateau of Washington State. Stakeholders in the conflict over water usage and management are at odds over legal water rights and morale water dilemmas. The Columbia Basin Project redistributed the waters of the Columbia River to be used for irrigation over thousands of miles of main canals, laterals, drains and wasteways. There is now an increasing human population, with increased water demands, which is not soaking up enough justification for water usage when contrasted with decimated salmon populations.

The Columbia Basin Project, usually mentioned synonymously with the capstone components of Grand Coulee Dam and Roosevelt Lake, actually consists of several dams, reservoirs, and canals. A total of 331 miles of main canals carry water siphoned off the Columbia River, stored in reservoirs, pumped and diverted onward via 1,339 miles of lateral canals; this massive diversion sprinkles the high desert with enough water to create an agricultural empire based in central and eastern Washington State. Currently just over 670,000 acres of land receive irrigation waters from the Columbia Basin Project, with nearly 1,100,000 acres classified as irrigable within its boundaries (Bloodworth & White, 2008).

The typical Pacific Northwest climate contains a 3-month summer drought, which puts a great strain on the water needs of Northwest farmers. The farmers end up wanting more water than their water rights entitle them. Their demand for water puts a heavy burden on the water flow of the river. Less water in the river means an altered hydrology, which impacts the river ecology. It’s the river ecology that the anadramous salmon depend on to complete their life cycle and fulfill their niche in the greater ecological perspective.

Peak flow of the upper Columbia River usually occurs in mid-June, and water releases are made from dams in July and August to ensure adequate water in the lower Columbia River to enhance fish migration (United States Bureau of Reclamation, n.d.). However, these are the dry months that the farmers need increased water loads for irrigation. This is a region accustomed to 6 to 10 inches of annual rainfall, and it is receiving 40 to 50 inches of excess irrigation water (Bloodworth & White, 2008). This competition has the agriculture industry and farmers pitted against local tribes, fishermen and the fishing industry, as well as environmentalists.

The key challenges to peace in this water fight are pretty cut and dry. On one hand, there is a $3.1 billion a year agricultural economy that depends on irrigation water to flow from the Columbia River (The Columbia Basin Bulletin, 2008). On the other hand, there are environmentalists who keep emphasizing the need for increased protection of 26 species of salmon and steelhead that are already listed on the Endangered Species Act (Doussard, 2007).

Which is the more important natural resource? Is it the water that is responsible for an agricultural economy, hydroelectric power, and a watering source for countless species?
Or is it the salmon, which support centuries old cultures and traditions, provide a fundamental nutrient source for riparian areas, as well as sustains industry in the forms sport and commercial fishing in addition to being a crucial element of the river ecosystem? Asking the question, salmon or water, is a very extreme course of action and will not lead to a solution over this clash of ideologies.

It is evident that this issue is an environmental security issue. Increased fresh water scarcity is an obvious problem that Rolain Borel (2008) classifies as an invisible disaster. It produces conditions for human vulnerability as is clearly seen here as a major challenge to peace.

What if a better attempt was made to think outside the box was employed to end this water dilemma? Can we use Capra’s (1982) Turning Point to solve the scarcity of water issue? In his theory we can see that everything is interconnected and that a simple solution most likely doesn’t exist based on this complexity. He also states that all problems are fragments of one single crisis: a crisis of perception. Is it possible that a balance could exist between commercial fishermen and salmon supporters? Is it possible that we’re just looking at this conflict from a flawed perspective? Perhaps the mechanical thinking that leads us to this conflict with two opposing sides is extremely inadequate. Perhaps this shortcoming could be remedied with a bit of organic thinking. Considering all points of interconnectedness should influence possibilities that work toward breaking down the dams of challenge on the river of peace.

Delving further into these challenges to peace leads us to Quantum Theory and Quantum Peace. The interconnectedness of the world implies that although there is conflict over water between two opposing sides, it’s the relationships involved that can also make peace. The key challenges of this issue, when approached from a holistic point of view, seem solvable (Fontan, 2008). One example in action of this is recent Washington State legislation aimed at satisfying these quarrelling parties. The city of Kennewick received more than $1 million this year to explore ways to capture water during the winter and store it in an underground aquifer, then reuse the water during the summer months. At least one-third of any stored water would be used to support stream flows for fish migration and spawning (The Columbia Basin Bulletin, 2008).

Beyond the concept of Quantum Theory is Systems theory, which shows us that based on the principle of interdependence each system depends on the other for life (Fontan, 2008). This is a core challenge in achieving peace from this conflict. The river is clearly the base on which the conflict floats. The salmon supporters’ argument is based on the river. The farmers’ argument is based on the river. But how do they depend on each other? Both contribute to local economies – There is the sport and commercial fishing industry as well as the agricultural industry. One surviving without the other will not stabilize the economy. In fact, it would destabilize it. Combined, in this sense, it is crucial that they both continue and prosper in order for economic security.

If both points of view are valid, and satisfying both sides of the conflict would lead to a benefited human population as well as a happy population of salmon, why can’t we seem to find a solution? Perhaps we’re focusing too much on the demands of each particular party without focusing on a means that would allow both parties to flourish. What methods, then, should be employed to work towards a satisfactory goal in which farmers and salmon supports can both feel secure in having accomplished some kind of victory? Not a victory over the other side, but a victory that solves the conflict and allows each side to be independently pleased with a solution.

Using C.R. Mitchell’s model (2008) for types of solutions to conflicts, we can begin to analyze possible options to conclude this conflict that has continued to flow. Solutions of Separation are ineffective. Separating the two quarrelling sides doesn’t satisfy either of them. There may be slightly more water allocated for farmers by telling the salmon supporters to go jump in a lake. And it’s conceivable that there may be additional salmon in the river by telling farmers to go fly a kite. But isolating these two sides of the conflict isn’t a reasonable solution for the river communities.

Solutions of Compensation could be a possibility. If both conflicting parties were to make concessions and still meet their bottom lines, potential peace could flow instead of conflict. But how could this be achieved? Are these stakeholders capable of extending an olive branch in order to secure a solution? Can farmers increase the efficiency with which they reclaim and use the water in order to consume less of it? What exactly is the minimum amount of water needed in the Columbia River to ensure a healthy salmon migration? The possibility of a solution under the realms of compensation seems unlikely when the terms of the solution are reasonably and economically unavailable and immeasurable with today’s technology.

Solutions of Division offer another possible way out. Can a compromise be reached between farmers and salmon supporters? Is there a way to divide time and usage of the Columbia River? Alternating years, perhaps – One year the farmers get the water they need and a generation of salmon suffers. Though, it’s difficult to predict the impact that would have on the entire salmon population. The next year, salmon would prosper while farmers lose crops to the summer drought. This loss could potentially be governmentally subsidized, or even subsidized by taxes to the fishing industry. Some may consider this solution as a way out of tensions and tempers, but the solution does not really generate a real solid foundation towards a future peace.

Solutions of Distribution/Disbursement are not quite applicable in this situation as it deals more with the breakdown of power in a political conflict. Neither party in the river/salmon conflict has or should have more power than the other.

Solutions of Creation offer an interesting school of opportunities to resolve conflicts. Can water from the Pacific Ocean be desalinized and used for irrigation? Can farmers select less water dependent crops – after all, irrigating the desert doesn’t seem like the wisest use of resources. Asking more in depth questions as to the source of the conflict, asking why each party wants something, could potentially illuminate a solution that satisfies the needs of both parties. Perhaps there are common goals that can be reached.

The absolute bottom line is that the Columbia River has been over manipulated by human hands to perpetuate our own development. This manipulation has meant progress in terms of the economy and human societal development. Unfortunately, it has also meant disaster in terms of salmon species and riparian area ecology. Undoing what has already been done is not a reasonable thing. It would mean the sacrifice of a booming economy and the way of life for nearly everyone in the Pacific Northwest. It’s simply not an option. Can the impact that has already been made, be further modified and manipulated towards conditions that appear a bit more natural? Is it possible, through human ingenuity and resolve, to engineer a system that has the capacity to satisfy the water needs of the agricultural industry and still meet the water needs of salmon? A positive answer to that question will directly lead to a positive solution to this conflict. Better water management is key to providing this answer.

The comprehensive irrigation district management draft plan for the South Naches district, being developed with farmers and agencies by the Bellevue office of Jones & Stokes, proposes a variety of significant changes to the way the district manages water to minimize the adverse impacts on salmon. This includes improving a 90-year-old structure that diverts water from the river, installing a pressurized irrigation distribution system in some places, removing a dysfunctional fish screen, and developing alternatives to using herbicides to manage aquatic weeds that choke the system in the summer months (Earle, 2005).

For the majority of the region, however, this conflict remains as stagnant as the water behind all the many dams of the Columbia River. Communities and stakeholders continue to wait for an all-encompassing solution to get things flowing on the river of peace.
Bibliography

Bloodworth, G. & White, J. (2008). The Columbia Basin Project: Seventy-Five Years Later. White Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, 70, 98-105.

Borel, Rolain (2008, September 02). Environmental Security. Presented at University for Peace.

Doussard, Robin. (2007 August 1). The Fight for Water. Oregon Business Magazine

Earle, Christopher. (2005). Farmers, government team up to save fish. Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce, Retrieved on September 11, 2008, from http://www.djc.com/news/en/11170266.html.

Fontan, Victoria. (2008 August 29). Quantum Peace. Presented at University for Peace.

Fritjof, Capra. (1982). The Turning Point. New York: Bantam Books.

Mitchell, C.R. (2008, September 11). From Violence to Positive Peace. Presented at University for Peace.

The Columbia Basin Bulletin. (2008). Landmark Agreement Could Open Up New Water Rights For E. Washington Irrigators. The Columbia Basin Bulletin, Retrieved on September 11, 2008, from http://www.cbbulletin.com/288968.aspx.

United States Bureau of Reclamation. (n.d.). Columbia Basin Project Washington. United States Bureau of Reclamation, Retrieved on September 11, 2008, from http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/columbia.html.

It's My Party and I'll Turn 30 if I Want To!

My birthday celebration started out with a super sweet email from the gals I worked with in Bulgaria. They created a Happy Birthday message for me that stole my heart! They're such sweethearts!It really made me miss Bulgaria and all the people I know there. Then I got selfish and started whining about not being with my friends and family for my 30th birthday. I started being a bit depressed that I'd be with a bunch of strangers to welcome in my 30s. But I was able to use my positivitiy skills to change my attitude! I tricked myself into believing that there's nothing like celebrating your special day with a bunch of people you just met! Actually, the folks with whom I'm studying down here have really impressed me. They're a good group with lots to offer. And they're super smart! And they come from everywhere! There are 161 students from 42 different countries! And they managed to make me smile for the entire day!

At the moment, a friend is staying with me until she can find her own place. I met Becca six years ago in Switzerland. We've stayed in touch since then and have now ended up at the same grad school! She took note of me wearing my new white t-shirt, which was a gift, and devised a diabolical plan!

In the mornings, before school starts, the students hang out at this outdoor, covered cafeteria. We were sitting around chatting and Becca came up to me with a handful of pens. I asked what they were for and she told me that I'd find out. Then she took my chair away from me, stood on it, and announced to everyone that it was my 30th birthday and that I'll be carrying these damn pens around all day so that people could come up to me and write happy birthday on my new white t-shirt.

Well, it didn't take long at all for me to be surrounded by a bunch of kids writing all over me. In no time, I was covered in all kinds of colors and languages. It was a pretty cool feeling. That Becca... She's made it onto my sweetheart list, too.So the day went by, and people signed all over me. I heard a lot of, "No way, you're not 30! Wow!” which made me feel nice, I guess. It wasn't about the age, I figure, they were just telling me that I'm still pretty. I explained that it was my superior genetics that allow me to look so beautiful. Of course, at the time that explanation sounded more like, "Thanks!” You know... on account of language barriers and whatnot.

That night, some of the folks in my program let me come over to their house and make them margaritas from scratch. We spent the night singing, dancing, watching Obama's acceptance speech, and other things I apparently don't remember. It was just like a 30th birthday should be!If anyone is dying to send me a birthday card, postcard, or a big ole salami, here is my mailing address:

Andrew Judkins
Department of Academic Administration
University for Peace
P.O. Box 138-6100
San José, Costa Rica
Central America

If you're sending something my way - Thanks! Just don't use courier companies such as DHL or FEDEX! The package will incur extra taxes and fees...

UPeace - Save the Salmon!

Well, here is a copy of my first grad school assignment. It was a conflict mapping assignment and I chose a conflict close to home. I've decided to post my essays here in addition to my better stories because I know you're dying to read anything I write. I'll specify in the title with "UPeace" when I do this so you don't get stuck reading my homework if you're not into higher thinking. I won't feel bad if you skip these blogs.

Save the Salmon

Andrew Judkins – NRP
Foundations in Peace and Conflict Studies
Conflict Mapping
September 3, 2008

The declining salmon population has spawned a conflict between sport fishermen and sea lions in the rivers and on the west coast of the United States. For this essay, we’ll look at the conflict happening at the Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River.

Salmon swim from the ocean, upstream towards their place of birth to procreate. It is estimated that the numbers of these anadromous fish were around 16 million before 1550. (General Accounting Office Washington DC, 2002) Not all salmon made the complete journey to their place of origin. Predators feast upon them as their numbers were many, and their health benefits were great.

Unfortunately, around the turn of the 20th century, the salmon run began to dwindle. First, commercial operations over fished the salmon population (Oregon Public Broadcasting, n.d.) and later hydroelectric dams were built. (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, n.d.) At Bonneville Dam there is a fish ladder that is designed to help salmon pass by jumping from pool to pool. However, as the fish ladder is obviously smaller than the Columbia River, there is a bottlenecking of sorts in the salmon traffic. This results in large numbers of salmon waiting at the base of dam for a chance to continue upstream. (O’Connor, 2008)

Their brief sedentary period provides prime fishing opportunities for local sport fishermen, or anglers, who immensely enjoy fishing. All were happy until recent years when about 100 sea lions decided to leave their natural habitat and make the 150-mile journey from the ocean to the dam for an all-you-can-eat salmon buffet. (Espenson, 2003)

Fishermen are under strict limitations as to how many salmon they can take per day and per season, but the sea lions are obviously not bound by any of man’s laws. Each adult California sea lion typically eats 5 to 7 salmon a day. (Stiffler, 2008) But it’s their methods, not necessarily the quantity that escalates the conflict. The easiest fish for a sea lion to catch is one that’s already been caught.

Sea lions lay in wait while they watch the anglers go after their prize. Once a salmon is hooked, the anglers make obvious motions in order to secure the success of landing that fish. This alerts the sea lion that their next meal is ready. Before the fisherman is able to reel in the salmon, the sea lion manages to locate it on the end of the line, and steal it. All that’s left is the fishermen’s fury.

The conflict between fishermen and sea lions is the result of underlying causes, which are yet to be resolved. Breaking down this conflict according to the CR SIPABIO model of analysis (Abdalla, 2002) identifies the factors at play in order to get a better idea of how to proceed toward a resolution.

The dam at Bonneville, on the Columbia River, is a very specific ecosystem that has been altered for the benefit of human societal development. A hydroelectric dam, an unnatural construct, has been placed on the migration route of salmon. It is like a barrier to the fish that is only conquered by the salmon that are able to figure out the man-made fish ladder.

Salmon use their sense of smell to navigate the geography of Columbia River in order to locate their particular birthing location, or contributing stream from which they came. (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, n.d.) Fishermen use their knowledge of the river and area to find the spots that offer the best chance at landing a salmon. Sea lions left their saltwater habitat and made a tremendous journey to a new location to partake in a salmon feast. These aspects of the geographical factor contribute to the equivalent of “the right place at the right time” for a conflict.

On a cultural level, sport fishing in the Columbia River and its tributaries has been popular since the era of the first Euro-American settlement of the Northwest. (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, n.d.) Sport fishermen in the United States take this tradition very seriously, spending 44.5 billion dollars a year for fishing trips, equipment, licenses, stamps, tags, land leasing and ownership, membership dues and contributions, and magazines. (Dean, 2007)

We can also identify class as a contextual factor when considering the laws involved. Fishermen are stereotypically working class men who use the weekend to relax by going fishing. The law that affects them in this case is the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, which states that these particular species of sea lion (California and Steller) are protected under the law. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1972) This means that fishermen are legally without options in what they see as an unfair competition for fish. When portrayed in the media, the blue-collar working class stands together and supports one another in the mentality that this is an unfair law – and being an unfair law, shouldn’t necessarily be followed. This can be seen in television interviews of local fishermen, grinning ear to ear in satisfaction at the idea that someone had recently illegally shot and killed six sea lions near the dam. (Gregoriancant, 2008)

The historical significance of salmon in this region is huge. These fish are worshiped by the indigenous tribes who have relied on salmon runs for centuries. Sport fishermen have also enjoyed the thrill of the catch for many years. In 1877, a U.S. Army lieutenant wrote about fishing for trout: “Caught 400 (cutthroat) trout, weighing two to five pounds apiece. As fast as we dropped in a hook baited with a grasshopper, we would catch a big trout. In fact, the greatest part of the work was catching the grasshopper.” (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, n.d.)

When identifying the relationship factors in this equation, we can see a bit more clearly the complexity of the event. Bonds identify the connection between sea lions and salmon. That is there is a predator prey relationship. The connection between fishermen and salmon could also be a predator prey relationship; except that anglers don’t rely on salmon for sustenance, as do the sea lions.

The conflict arises from the connection between fishermen and sea lions. This is a competition relationship that is illustrated by a breakdown of the power involved. Fishermen obviously have power over sea lions. We can see this easily by the sea lion shootings. However, sea lions have power in an indirect sense, as they are protected by the power of law. The patters that develop to escalate the conflict are that fishermen are shooting sea lions. This may stop an individual sea lion, but it doesn’t solve the conflict.

Taking a closer look still, we can see that the real source of this conflict is a depleted supply of salmon. The last 25 years of monitoring shows salmon numbers down 96% from what they once were. (General Accounting Office Washington DC, 2002) The competition between fishermen and sea lion isn’t decimating the salmon population. But had the salmon population not declined with such intensity, perhaps the issues in this conflict would not be so relevant. These issues are, of course, 1) sea lions eating salmon off the end of the anglers’ fishing lines, and 2) anglers retaliating by shooting and killing sea lions.

The primary parties involved are the fishermen, the sea lions, and the salmon. The fishermen have a direct connection to the conflict in that they are losing out on something they want – the salmon. The sea lions are directly connected to the conflict, as they are stealing fish from the fishermen. Secondary parties are the families of the fishermen who wait for their beloved ones to return home, happy, with dinner. Conservationists are also considered a secondary party that endeavors for sea lion preservation by means of trapping and relocating. Commercial fishing operations and hydroelectric companies can be considered as tertiary parties because over fishing as well as natural habitat blockading are major contributors to the salmon population decline.

The conflict that comes about through the combination of these parties and each of their roles is one that creates tremendous negative feelings in the attitudes of the fishermen. The success that comes with landing a tasty salmon is just as delicious as the fish. If they are prevented from even remotely achieving this euphoria, ill tempers develop and their subsequent reactions ensue. In this conflict, some fishermen are behaving in a way that escalates the situation and brings in third parties. The third party in this case is law enforcement who upholds the law protecting sea lions. However if you look at this from the perspective of the sea lions, you see that they are simply trying to eat. Their feeling of hunger is more than adequately satisfied by the theft of salmon on a fishing line. But their behavior is having grave consequences. They’re being killed as they fill their bellies.

There are intervening actions taking place to reduce tensions between fishermen and sea lions. Law enforcement is responsible for making sure fishermen keep their cool and don’t kill any sea lions. Though, should they falter, law enforcement has the task of preparing the fishermen for judicial punishment. Conservationists play a role to aid in calming this dilemma. They have taken on the responsibility of setting traps in the Columbia River near the Bonneville Dam. The traps lure in sea lions and hold them until they can be relocated to zoos or sea parks. (San Antonio Express News, 2008)

There are also interventions happening to increase salmon populations. Fish farms are repopulating salmon numbers by breeding salmon in fisheries.

These interventions pretty much outline the current outcome of the conflict between fishermen and sea lions. Fishermen are breaking the law. Sea lions are being killed. Conservationists are trapping and relocating sea lions. And fisheries are breeding and repopulating salmon.

Do any of these interventions or outcomes resolve the issues? No. That is an easy statement to make because the issues of the conflict are still currently very apparent.

In May of this year, six sea lions were killed and presumed shot. This killing was thought not to be merely competition-based in that a fisherman was tired of these sea lions stealing his fish. These particular sea lions had all already been caught in traps set by conservationists. They were immobile and incapacitated. It was assumed that while they pondered the confines of their entrapment, unaware that they would soon be relocated, they were killed in a hate-based reaction. In fact, a few days later they were discovered to have died of heat exhaustion.

Assumptions were quick to fly because it was entirely possible that those sea lions were shot by an angry angler as has happened before. How then, should this conflict best be resolved? Should the Marine Mammal Protection Act be rewritten or amended so that this small minority of sea lions is eliminated from the equation? It could be an easy fix, but this action seems quite inhumane. However, authorities in Washington and Oregon have recently been granted federal authorization to capture or kill as many as 85 sea lions a year for five years at the base of the dam. (Associated Press, 2008)
Is it possible to improve conservationist efforts to trap and relocate the troublesome individual sea lions that unknowingly escalate fishermen’s tempers? Can they be dissuaded from swimming up the Columbia River in the first place? Methods designed to answer these questions are being researched and implemented. The problem is, they’re not having a desired affect with respect to the magnitude and urgency needed to resolve the issues.

None of these potential interventions can be considered a viable solution to the conflict. The source of the conflict that needs to be resolved is the dwindling salmon populations.

Why are salmon disappearing? It’s easy to say that commercial fisheries are over fishing the oceans and that’s what is causing only few salmon to remain. I could also make a case that hydroelectric dams impede salmon runs to a degree that it is significantly reducing their population. Fisheries are hard at work turning out great numbers of farmed salmon to be introduced into the river and ocean ecosystems. Is this a solution? No. This is a temporary Cartesian remedy. (Fontan 2008) Yes, it does increase the number of salmon, but these farmed salmon have been produced without the fundamental ecological concept of natural selection. (Darwin, 1859) This error introduces inferior individuals. These farmed salmon pass on their inferior genetics to wild salmon, further corrupting the natural salmon population. We need further analysis using ecological, organic, and system thinking to identify a holistic approach at determining a real solution.

The answer is in every aspect of the human impact not only on the salmon species, but on the ecosystems in which they live as well. In order to resolve this conflict we must fully analyze the processes of our lives that have any kind of connection to their existence. Understanding an ecological perspective, using Systems Theory (Fontan 2008), of the continuation of salmon existence allows us to model our lives in a way that preserves our own future. Preserving salmon equally as a resource and as an essential part of the environment will ensure enough dinner for fishermen and sea lions for many years to come. Or, as George W. Bush so eloquently put it in his 2000 campaign, “I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.”


Bibliography

Amr Abdalla, et al. (2002). Say Peace: Conflict Resolution Training Manual for Muslim Communities. Virginia, USA: The Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences.

Associated Press. (2008). Trapped Sea Lions Shot on Columbia River, Retrieved on September 2, 2008, from http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/05/05/sea.lions.salmon.ap/index.html.

Bush, George W. (2000). Bushisms Audio Gallery, Retrieved on September 2, 2008, from http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-fish.htm.

Darwin, Charles. (1859). On the Origin of Species, Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species.

Dean, Jeff. (2007). Economic Impact Of Sportfishing. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://ezinearticles.com/?Economic-Impact-Of-Sportfishing&id=835942.

Espenson, Barry. (2003). Columbia Basin Bulletin: More Sea Lions at Bonneville Dam Enjoying Salmon Cuisine, Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.bluefish.org/sealion4.htm.

Fontan, Victoria. (2008 August 29). Quantum Peace: Exploring a New Paradigm for Peace-Building. University for Peace.

General Accounting Office Washington DC. (2002). Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: Federal Agencies' Recovery Responsibilities, Expenditures and Actions, Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA405755.

Gregoriancant. (2008). Associated Content: Killing Sea Lions in the Columbia River to Save Salmon: Humane Society Vs. Fishermen, Retrieved on September 2, 2008, from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/754297/killing_sea_lions_in_the_columbia_river.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (1972). The Marine Mammal Protection Act, Retrieved on September 2, 2008, from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/mmpa.pdf

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. (n.d.). Sport Fishing, Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.nwcouncil.org/history/SportFishing.asp.

O’Connor, Anahad. (2008). The New York Times: Trapped Sea Lions Shot Dead in Oregon, Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/trapped-sea-lions-shot-dead-in-oregon/.

Oregon Public Broadcasting. (n.d.). History of Fishing in Oregon, Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.opb.org/programs/oregonstory/fishing/timeline.html.

San Antonio Express News. (2008). SeaWorld Welcomes Salmon-Fat Sea Lions, Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/MYSA050608_SeaLionRescue_EN_3c997f0_html8647.html.

Stiffler, Lisa. (2008). Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Culling Sea Lions to Save Local Salmon, Retrieved on September 2, 2008, from http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/environment/archives/134557.asp.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (n.d.). Salmon and Steelhead Life Cycle and Habitat Information, Retrieved on September 2, 2008, from http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/spawningbed_protection/life_cycle.htm.