Within the article, “River Plan: Too Fishy for my Taste Buds”, its author Bill McEwen writes about the plan to restore the San Joaquin River, and about the details that seem to create more negative effects than positive effects. This author appears to be more credible, as he gives a wider view of the situation than merely who approves of the idea. He gives details of how the restoration idea would ruin what little river remains, and become a drowning waste of money. McEwen worked with the Fresno Bee for over 35 years, writing multiple articles and having a heavy understanding of politics that other writers do not. The Fresno Bee pulls in an average of 264,603 daily readers, and publishing occurs in the California city of Fresno. Fresno itself …show more content…
To start off, McEwen uses an ethos idea when he mentions “Stearns says. ‘We need more efforts to capture water – not to divert it.’” (McEwen, Too Fishy for my Taste Buds, 2), such exists the logic behind restoring the river. Within the theme of ethics, this acts akin to a strong and very logical idea, and may act to the public’s general opinion. It exists in the concept that water exists as a precious resource, not something to toss around, and those who have the power to decide how or where it ends up should choose to make sure it gets preserved, not averted to another place. This can go for a number of things, and most people would think to agree, making it quite ethical. Into a different stance of ethical thought, “you can’t escape the fact that Valley concerns are easily dismissed by leaders in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., says Tim Stearns, director of the Lyles Center of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Fresno State.” (McEwen 2). This appeal to ethics as, it works not only an opinion, but it can be a popular opinion. Not a lot of people actually appreciate government ideas and favors. This also comes from an educated person, since McEwen mentions specifically where this person comes from, and the man’s education appeals to him. It exists like a believable opinion, because the government as of late, …show more content…
Before even getting to the true science of things, “No one even knows whether salmon can even survive in the lower San Joaquin, which has temperatures more suitable for bass and bluegill.” (McEwen 1). This example stands to be logical, as different parts of a river do have different conditions, such like oceans and lakes. Temperature is important within water life, and if fish not used to those conditions get placed there, it either simply kills them all or forces immediate evolution; neither of which end up favorable. It appeals also, as even the most simple of people can know that different animals require different environments that best suit them. “Besides, scientific evidence suggests that California’s salmon problems have been caused in large part by oceanic conditions and the environmental mess that is the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta.” (McEwen 1), adding on to the disdain of the environment. With scientific proof, this truly appeals to logic and dashes the hazardous like delta that supposedly ‘helps’ the San Joaquin. It is also simplified for others to understand, if they do not quite grasp the idea. As this also contributes as scientific research, it helps guide the idea of true effects from already existing modifications to the river cause. In full, these logical statements tied up with a scientific