I was listening to Neal Boortz the other day, and he was trying to provoke his audience and Belinda, one of his show producers, by saying he was glad that the Bald Eagle was being removed from the endangered species list so that he could hunt one for the purpose of eating it.
This rubbed me wrong on so many levels, but that's what Boortz was angling for. I simply couldn't eat the bird that is the symbol for our nation. I also couldn't eat a creature that was so recently on the verge of extinction.
Then I read a Washington Post article that suggests that maybe I am doing exactly that. I was stunned, because I eat salmon at least three times a month, grilling it at home, even as the snow flies. From the Post article:
In 2004, federal and state governments spent more than $160 million to preserve that salmon species, commonly known as chinook -- listed by the federal government as endangered in the early 1990s. And that doesn't include the millions spent on other kinds of salmon, such as sockeye, coho and chum.I don't believe I've ever had chinook salmon, but I seek out sockeye and coho for the health benefits of eating the Pacific varieties. Besides, salmon is the only fish Ame will eat. But I never thought of sockeye salmon as endangered. I buy it at Jonah's Market in the Geist area, and even at my local Target store.
It begs the question- Are these varieties of fish truly endangered, or, is this so much more money tossed out the window to appease a special interest group? Also from the Post:
The report, which regularly invites controversy, provides information to Congress so lawmakers can make decisions on conservation spending, according to the service.This is as it should be. If salmon is truly endangered, I'm not going to eat it. If it isn't, what are we throwing our money at? The money could be better allocated on real needs, or even returned to the taxpayers, perish the thought!