The author of this article, Terry Garcia, is trying to convince us that if we are to follow the current system of dealing with salmon that we will eventually cause them to go extinct which would not only hurt the ecosystem but also the human population directly as well. The argument is based on a sense of urgency, that if we don’t do anything to prevent this tragedy irreparable damage will occur, damage we could have avoided. The "we" in the previous sentence is the residents of the Pacific Northwest who are all assumed to be interested in the plight of the salmon whether they may live near a population or not. This also assumes that by living in the Pacific Northwest humans are polluting the habitats that the salmon need to survive and this pollution can be stopped if we worked together to improve the situation. The article does not say that this pollution is an unavoidable byproduct of industrialization or urban development but instead gives the sense that the problem is readily solvable, but only if we all work together. Because the author ties the salmon problem to other problems that are directly related to residents of the Pacific Northwest it unifies those that are interested in actually saving and improving the salmon’s situation with those of us who may only be interested in fighting pollution in our streams. By pulling these two groups together it creates a stronger following for the argument.

Unity is a key factor in the argument. The author is constantly using regional specific words like Washington and Pacific Northwest. While it is true that these are the areas where the salmon are threatened it is also used to convey a sense of rapport. "I encourage you to draw on the vital leadership and citizenry that make Washington state so special." This is an example of how the author uses this sense of rapport with his fellow Washingtonians to build support. After all we live in a "special" state, why can’t we deal with this problem?

The author has included a paragraph filled with emotion that is designed to reach out to those who are not directly related to salmon. Such as those of us who are not fishermen or ecologists but only "regular people". To convey a deep sense of emotion Garcia switches from discussing the statistics of salmon population to the "spiritual" side of things. Garcia begins to describe the salmon’s relationship to our souls instead of our economy. To finish off the emotional paragraph, he poses a loaded question, "Do you wish to be the last generation in Washington state to delight in the wonder of these wild fish?"

Numbers are used in sections of this argument to back up the author’s claims. In one paragraph he claims that "… over 650 bodies of water in Washington are polluted." Also he gives findings on the population of the Chinook salmon, namely that commercial fishing catches have dropped sixty percent and sport catches have dropped eighty-five percent from the average of 1985-1993. He makes a similar claim about the Coho salmon. In a NOAA Technical Memo, Wietkamp et al. (1995) states that 35 stocks of Coho are in short-term risk of extinction in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California and additionally that 15 more stocks are already extinct in California, southern Oregon, and the Columbia River. The most convincing fact to back up Garcia’s claims of the Coho’s desperate bid for survival is the fact that in only 6.5 percent of the Coho’s historic range are the fish not extinct, declining, depressed, or facing imminent threat.

In the article Garcia states that "without cool, clean water, fish cannot co-exist with urban communities." This makes the issue too clear-cut. How exactly does an urban community produce cool, clear water for our fish to enjoy? If our politicians had found a way for a bustling city like Seattle to completely fix the pollution problems of its nearby lakes and rivers wouldn’t this problem be a moot point? The argument in the article makes it seem that if we all pull together and make a firm commitment to saving the salmon we can fix this problem of pollution but if all it took was just that in the first place why are we still here. This statement makes the argument look over-simplified. Garcia fails to mention the over-fishing problem and increased runoff into spawning streams that also affect salmon populations. He also supports the Endangered Species Act as a tool for saving the salmon populations without going into exactly how it proposes to achieve that. The article gives the reader a sense that this goal of saving the salmon population in the northwest is achievable. However, it only points out that we as stakeholders in this dilemma should fight it, but not how we should fight it, which is a more difficult question to answer.

Garcia, T. (1998). Everyone’s a stakeholder in salmon-recovery effort. Seattle Times. (November 8) http://archives.seattletimes.com/cgibin/texis/web/vortex/display?storyID=93943&query=Terry+Garcia

Weitkamp, L.A., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, G.B. Milner, D.J. Teel, R.G. Kope, and R.S. Waples. (1995). Status review of Coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. URL http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/pubs/tm/tm24/tm24.htm.