Salmon To The San Joaquin River Analysis

944 Words4 Pages

Bill McEwen does not only use ethos and logos to express and reach out to the reader, but he also uses pathos. With pathos, the author can get into the reader’s mind and make them feel a certain way with his use of words. An example of pathos in the article can be easily shown when McEwen says” The reality is, our federal and state government will spend hundreds of millions-if not billions- of dollars in coming years on a program that will yield a salmon exhibit instead of a substantial fishery”(McEwen 9). McEwen’s use of pathos can be clearly identified in this phrase by looking at the way he states what he is saying. Here, McEwen does not use any facts or famous experts, but he does say this in such a way that the gets the reader really thinking …show more content…

They also migrated down the river channel and the Chowchilla Flood Bypass system. Although the salmon did swim upstream, this plan had a negative impact as well. The farmers were mainly impacted by this plan. A great quantity of farmland will have to be taken in order to restore the 60 miles of river that has gone dry. We can see that even though the river restoration plan did have a positive impact, it is nothing compared to the size of the negative impact that this plan has brought us. The five year drought has not had a huge impact on the project, however, it does make it more difficult for this project to keep moving forward according to the article “Efforts to restore San Joaquin river endures during Drought”. El Nino, a huge rainstorm, can actually benefit the San Joaquin River Restoration project because it can revive all the dried parts of the river and this way, the project can keep on moving forward without much difficulty. El Nino can make the impact of this enormous drought to not be too hard on the project as well as the people. My viewpoint stays the same even after I collected this research data. I think that instead of trying to attempt to save salmon, we could use our time and money for something more useful and with a bigger positive impact. Sure it’s nice for people to consider the well being of the fish, but sometimes we have to ask ourselves if what we are doing is really worth it and how it will affect us in the long run. I am pretty sure these 1 billion dollars can go towards something more useful than the San Joaquin River Restoration