Terry D. Garcia, in his editorial entitled, "Everyone’s a stakeholder in salmon-recovery effort," attempts to raise awareness of the diminished chinook populations in the Puget Sound. This piece was originally a speech given to a leadership conference, but was then published in the editorial section of the Seattle Times. The editorial is more than just informative, though. Mr. Garcia employs many persuasive techniques to convince his readers, presumably the general public, that the salmon problem affects everyone in a very direct way and requires immediate attention and teamwork from all citizens of the northwest.

Inherent in Mr. Garcia’s argument is the belief that no single group of actors in the salmon dilemma takes precedence over others. Where timber companies might argue for private land rights, power companies for the importance of dams, commercial fishermen for the protection of salmon stocks, ecologists for the cessation of all harmful activity, Garcia stresses partnerships. He assumes that given the right information, the public will agree that salmon survival is of utmost importance. He believes that productive change will only come about with cooperation between groups, and that natural habitats need not be restored completely, just made habitable for salmon. This differs from the more extreme groups that view the problem from very opposing angles, who may not see room for compromise. Garcia includes many emotional appeals, and talks about the quality of life of the northwest being tied to the salmon. However, he does not talk about ecological importance of the salmon, the jobs that may be lost if protection is implemented, or the broader implications of compromise in effective decision making.

The first and most striking technique Garcia uses in persuading his readers is his personal and absolutist approach. He seems to drop both the fact that the salmon problem exists and the responsibility for solving the problem in our laps in his first paragraph, "There is no doubt about it. The status quo is driving the salmon runs to extinction. This means you have critical choices to make." Direct, second person language and short absolute statements grab our attention and occur throughout the article. Garcia argues that sustainable salmon runs and sustainable economies are tied inextricably, and writes, "there is no choosing between them in the struggle to save your streams and salmon." He also writes, "there is no other road map for recovery," and "without partnerships, the salmon will be gone." By referring to the salmon as "yours" and creating these stark, urgent descriptions, Garcia tries to convince his readers that the salmon are an asset that they should have personal stake in protecting. He also evokes this sense of responsibility by making numerous emotional appeals throughout the piece by treating the salmon as a legacy that must be left for future generations. The fact that he addresses the reader as ‘you’ also bolsters this tactic, "What you decide will affect your very lives and livelihoods, the quality of life in the Pacific Northwest, and the legacy you leave for your children and grandchildren." In this same vein of persuasive writing, Garcia includes rhetorical questioning, "Do you wish to be the last generation in Washington state to delight in the wonder of these wild fish?" Of course, any right-minded person reading that line would answer ‘no,’ but put in context of the complex issue, the answers (and questions) are not quite that simple. Another way that he augments his emotional appeals is through rapport-building. He often speaks of "Washington state’s residents" and makes assumptions about what they want. These statements are also a bit rhetorical, "I do not believe that Washington residents want to live in an environment where salmon can’t survive- and children can no longer swim." After extolling the spiritual virtues of the salmon, writes, "[these] are the reasons people all across America dream of moving to the Pacific Northwest. Sacrifices sometimes need to be made, but I am sure that sacrificing your wonderful quality of life is not one of them." Indeed, Garcia attempts to reach a common ground not only through promoting compromise, but through his language choices and his rapport-building techniques.

Garcia’s factual claims are well cloaked in his conversational editorial. He puts them all at the beginning of the piece in order to establish the fact that there is a problem so that he can get on with the persuasive emotional appeals and cooperation encouragement. He tells us that from the early 1980s to ‘recent years’, commercial chinook catch has dropped about 60 percent. I checked a government document to verify this fact. Between 1981 and 1990, the commercial chinook catch dropped from 22,426 to 4,083 pounds. This is a 65 percent drop (Tsunoda, 63). In gathering these numbers, I realized how tricky statistics can be. What exactly does he mean by the commercial chinook catch? Was he referring to number of fish, weight, ocean or river catches? The numbers I gathered were ocean commercial fishing boats between southern B.C. and Cape Flattery, Washington. In this case, his numbers check out fairly accurately. Another fact that Garcia included was that the average annual chinook sports catch from 1985-1993 was 13,000 fish, and in 1998 was 2,000 fish. In the section where he talks about water quality, Garcia tells us that over 650 bodies of water in Washington are polluted. Again, I wondered, by what standards? How polluted are they? How does this impact salmon populations in terms of data?

Bibliography