Animals in the Blogs & News: Sea Lions, Salmon, & Self-Criticism

Activists Pry for Truth at Sea Lion Killing Press Conference from Planetsave

Fish-eaters, take note. It's not just wolves in Alaska. It's not just mountain lions in Nevada. It's also sea lions in Oregon and Washington, sea lions who are being killed because they eat too many protected salmon, a part of the manner in which they must eat to survive--yet humans, of course, aren't being asked to decrease the number of salmon they unnecessarily kill and eat. A report from Portland IMC tells us this:

Activists were there to ask the hard questions that are not being asked by the corporate media. Questions like, "Aren't you again raising the fishing quota this year, at the same time that you are talking about the need to kill sea lions?" "How many years in a row have you raised the quotas for commercial and sport fishermen?" "Didn't you just raise the quota to 13%, and didn't you say in your own documents that a 13% take by fishermen would pose 'no significant impact' to the salmon population? How, then, can you tell the public that the sea lions' alleged take of 4% of salmon poses a significant impact to the salmon population?" "Haven't sea lions always co-existed with salmon on the Columbia river, without posing a threat to either species?" "Isn't it true that dams and over-fishing are causing salmon to go extinct, not sea lions?""Why are you not addressing the salmon crisis in a non-lethal, and far more effective, manner by curbing fishing?" And many other questions.

Bizarrely, the corporate "reporters" stood mutely by while these questions were blatantly skirted by the people who organized this press conference. When one activist demanded answers regarding the raising of the fishing quotas at a time when salmon populations are imperiled, Diana Fredlund of the Army Corps of Engineers leapt between the questioner and the government "expert" who could not answer the question. Diana brusquely told the questioner that "we are not here to answer questions." . . . At a press conference. The corporate reporters never even batted an eye nor asked a single relevant follow up question. The same thing occurred again and again, as activists and indy reporters sought answers to legitimate questions about this very misguided program.

On another note, we have The Importance of Criticism from L.O.V.E. I'll give you the conclusion here, but you'll have to go to the original post to get the rest:

Having experienced this fear [that my previous activism was not effective], I understand why the leadership of the animal welfare movement is so scared of challenges. The fear is so strong that they instinctively reject any criticism and often react by personally attacking those bringing up concerns as a way to avoid addressing the criticism. While understandable, this is unfortunate, as it results in an insular community that values the false comfort of self-deception over the continued critical analysis necessary for effective advocacy.

Criticism is valuable because it offers us the choice to face the fears that we might not choose to face on our own. If we opt to consider the criticism, we have the opportunity to test and refine our understanding and thereby develop a stronger, more confident, deeper understanding of the issues. It helps us pierce the bubble of complacency that forms when we listen only to opinions that match our own. And it helps us move from a reactive doing that may be satisfying but not necessarily effective to a thoughtful, considered action more likely to advance our goals.

So as not to overwhelm you with too much at once, I'll feature more in a second post later today.