Summary Of Too Fishy For My Taste Buds

In “Too Fishy for my Taste Buds”, written by Bill McEwen, he suggests the idea to not use the River Restoration Plan. Similarly, I don’t believe in spending so much money, for a plan with no absolute guarantee. In my opinion, the Restoration plan is expensive and overall quite trivial. Although, I agree with McEwen, it isn’t only because of his great thesis but also because he is proven to be very credible. He’s given this title because of his 35-year career at Fresno Bee. This article was published on March 26, 2009. Being very expensive, I believe the Plan is overrated and there are many experts who agree, as well as many studies and people who have been touched emotionally by it. Experts have mentioned quite a few times, the dangers and misconceptions of going through with this plan. For example, Bill McEwen reports in his article, “Too Fishy For My Tastebuds”, that experts attending UC Davis have shown details that further describe the cons of the plan, “...California’s rapidly declining salmon populations; the fish are ‘exceptionally vulnerable to climate change’”(McEwen 1).
Our own government could play a big part in the population that is affected majorly, “...our federal state and government will spend hundreds of millions...that will yield a salmon exhibit instead of a sustainable fishery”(McEwen 1). They would end up wasting, almost billions, on a project with little to no results. The bill was also included in the legislative package, “...using special backroom rules designed to protect representatives of the majority party from tough questioning…”(McEwen 1). The only people benefitting from the project would be themselves. They would avoid any issues and most likely, keep everything hidden from the public. Emotionally, many families and farmers would not be able to keep their already low-income, and would be affected majorly from the rapid environment