User:Alexwarren89/sandbox

Coordinates: 49°47′00″N 121°27′00″W / 49.78333°N 121.45000°W / 49.78333; -121.45000
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hell's Gate, British Columbia
Hell's Gate, British Columbia
File:Photograph of the Hells Gate slide rock clearing (191-).jpg
Hells Gate Slide Rock Clearing

Hell's Gate is a 35 metre (115 ft) narrowing of British Columbia's Fraser River, located immediately downstream of Boston Bar in the southern Fraser Canyon. The towering rock walls of the Fraser River plunge toward each other forcing the waters through a passage only 35 metres (115 ft) wide. It is also the name of the rural locality at the same location.

History[edit]

The first recorded history of Hell's Gate is found in the explorer Simon Fraser's journal from 1808, where he describes this narrow passage as "a place where no human should venture, for surely these are the gates of Hell."[1] Long before the arrival of Simon Fraser and as early as the end of the last ice age, Hell's Gate was a First Nations congregation ground for settlement and salmon fishing.[2] Archaeological evidence from old occupation sites and isotope analysis of human skeletal remains suggest that settlement and migration patterns for indigenous peoples in the Fraser Canyon correlated with the seasonal migration patterns of Pacific salmon.[3] During the last deglaciation 4000-6000 years ago, long tongues of ice formed wedges and dams in the basin above the canyon, resulting in the formation of large reservoirs and new lakes—creating optimal spawning grounds for salmon.[4] During this inter-glacial period, salmon began to populate the Fraser River and used Hell's Gate passage as their route to upstream spawning grounds.[5] Constricted by two steep subvertical granodiorite walls, the incredibly narrow passage and high water velocity made this part of the upstream journey by salmon extraordinarily difficult.[6] Salmon would closely hover along the shores of the river or rest in its back-eddies.[7] As a result, Hell's Gate’s geology provided the indigenous fishers with superb opportunities to readily catch salmon congregated at the river’s edge attempting to elude the strong currents and rough waters.[8] Hell's Gate became one of the most popular fishing stations along the Fraser River— pre and post-colonial contact— where large numbers of natives, and eventually European settlers, congregated during the summer months to fish for migrating salmon.[9] Standing on adjacent rocks or on specially constructed wooden platforms extending from surrounding cliffs, fishermen would use long dip nets to snatch the salmon.[10] As Matthew Evenden asserts, the native culture along the Fraser River was built on a “salmon economy.”[11] After Simon Fraser explored and charted the river in the early nineteenth century, it became (and Hell's Gate with it) an established corridor between the Pacific Ocean and the interior of what was to become British Columbia.[12] As Fraser discovered, Hell's Gate would be a point that was passed by, but never through.[13] Safe water transportation through the 115 foot wide opening at Hell's Gate proved virtually impossible.[14]

The fur brigade trail of the Hudson's Bay Company passed over the shoulder of the Cascade Mountains high above the east bank of Hell's Gate. The Trans-Canada Highway through the Fraser Canyon roughly parallels it today. Beginning with the Fraser Canyon Gold Rush of 1858 Canyon a usable mule trail was built through the Canyon towards the 'Eye of Morello', a route which the new colonial government invested in heavily to build the Cariboo Wagon Road. The Cariboo Road was completed in 1864 but destroyed by CPR construction in the 1880s. A road through the canyon was not opened again until 1922 as the Cariboo Highway.

Hells Gate Slide[edit]

By the 1850s the Fraser Canyon was transformed from a First Nations and fur trade corridor to a busy route used by gold rush miners seeking access to the upper Fraser Basin.[15] The route formed what was called the Caribou Road.[16] During the 1880s, the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) was building a new transcontinental railroad to unite the far-flung provinces of the young Dominion of Canada.[17] As a result of this nation-building project, new railroad tracks were constructed on the west side of the riverbank at Hell’s Gate, connecting the British Columbia coast to the Interior (and the rest of Canada) through the Fraser Canyon.[18] Some assert that rocks and debris dumped into the river during construction of the CPR constricted the river flow and impeded salmon passage, though there is no documented historical or physical evidence to support this claim.[19] By early 1911 a second transcontinental railway—the Canadian Northern Railway (CNR)—was being built along the south and east bank of the canyon and was completed in a year’s time.[20] While carving into canyon walls to create new rail-bed, rock and debris were again dumped into the river in significant volumes at various locations-including Hell’s Gate.[21] In early 1914, two years after the completion of the CNR and during construction of a new tunnel, a large rockslide fell into the river just above the Hell’s Gate portal.[22] Debris dispersed on the river bottom caused a 5 meter vertical drop in water depth and increased water velocity from five cubic meters per second to 6.75m/second.[23] As observed and noted by local residents and later by biologists in the aftermath of the slide, noticeably higher water velocity seemed to exceed the swimming capacity of the salmon, resulting in premature mortality and reduced populations of salmon fry in the subsequent year.[24] In an initial attempt to redress the ecological and physical changes at Hell’s Gate that impeded migrating salmon, tons of rocks and debris were removed from the river during the winter of 1914-1915.[25] By early 1915, Hell’s Gate was pronounced clear.[26] While government officials declared that the river at Hell’s Gate was fully restored, many biologists maintain that the slide permanently altered the river’s ecology.[27]

Environmental Impacts[edit]

The main focus of this section would be damage to the local environment due to the slide. It would address the impact the Hells Gate slide had on the fish habitat, particularly focusing on the sockeye salmon runs disruption. It would then explore the decline in the salmon population due to the incident and would focus on the relocation of the salmon, which was unable to reach the spawning grounds, into other rivers. --AnastasiaU. (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Social and Political Impacts[edit]

Not only did the slide alter the river environment and threaten the salmon population, but this in turn created tension between the Canadian government and the Aboriginal peoples of the area. The crisis at Hells Gate triggered changes in Aboriginal fishing rights in the canyon.[28] In July, 1914, the Aboriginal fishery of the Nlaka'pamux arrived to commence their traditional fishing season.[29] Upon arriving at a traditional fishing spot that they considered to be on their land, they were prevented by the Provincial Public Works from fishing board, as they were were clearing the post-slide debris from the river. They wrote to the Department of Indian Affairs about the unfair treatment they had received in not being able to exercise their rights to fish.[30] A commissioner monitoring the clearing of the dam told the native fishermen that the slide had many causes, but that the main concern was to protect the fish[31] The Nlaka'pamux people blamed the Canadian Pacific Railway for the scarcity of fish, pointing out that "all the fish we Indians would catch in the year would not equal the number caught in one day by the white men at the mouth of the river."[30]They had lost six days of valuable fishing and wanted the Departmentto be reimburse them for the damages. The Department of Indian Affairs notified the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and informed the Nlaka'pamux that no action would be taken until an official report had been written. This angered the Nlaka'pamux further who then took action by leaking the story to the press.[30] The Aboriginal fishers applied more pressure by leaking the story to the press, but this did not save them from a four-day-per-week fishing restriction, imposed by the federal Fisheries Officer, F.H Cunningham, or face arrest.[28]

The post-slide corrections to Hells Gate carried out by the Department of Fisheries officials were viewed by the natives as unsatisfactory. In 1916, a group of Aboriginal people offered suggestions and improvements to the Gate's restoration, however Fisheries officials dismissed them as ridiculous.[32] Evenden notes that this incident reveals "a strong suspicion that matters of environmental regulation were not simply set by fisheries officials, but related to a complex industrial and aesthetic politics."[32] Through regulation and decreased runs the native populations experienced local famines whilst the commercial fisheries continued to operate downstream.[33] Fishing became less of a contributor to the native economy and the natives were forced to turn to the Skeena River system and intensify their moose hunting in order to adapt to the restrictions on fishing.[32]

The commercial fishery had a more detached relationship with the issues surrounding the slide. They supported the endeavors put in place by the government to remove the physical obstructions, and also their decision to prevent the natives from fishing.[34] The commercial fishery experienced a four year delay and did not feel the effects of the slide until 1917 when the total catch was 6,883,401 compared to the 31,343,039 Sockeye caught in 1913. The decrease was attributed to the Hells Gate slide and a pioneer canner Henry Bell-Irving, while investigating the fishery in 1916 stated that the Fraser fishery was "practically a thing of the past."[35] The commercial fishery diversified their product lines as a result of the slide's impacts at the same time as intensifying fishing and looking for alternative products.[35]

The International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission (IPSFC)[edit]

After decades of dispute over who should get what quantity of the Pacific Salmon catch, Canada and the United States successfully negotiated a joint management and catch agreement, called the Pacific Salmon Convention (PSC) of 1937.[36] This convention created the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission (IPSFC) (now the Pacific Salmon Commission), which was to carry out the convention’s mandate and conduct an eight-year study of pacific salmon. [37] The Commission would shape their mandate based on findings from this research.[38]

American researcher William Thompson headed the research team for the Commission, which tagged fish at various upstream locations, from which data could be collected for analysis.[39] One of these sites was at Hells Gate, where scientists captured salmon along the banks with fill nets, tagged them, removed some of their scales for racial analysis, and then released them back into the river.[40] In 1938, the Commission discovered what appeared to be a blockage of Fraser sockeye salmon at Hells Gate.[41] Fish were turning up in tagging nets more than once, being held up behind the narrow passage of river, and re-appearing far downstream after being tagged. Based on these findings, Thompson decided to place increased emphasis on Hells Gate beginning in 1939.[42]

In 1941 something exceptional happened with the Fraser salmon migration. Whereas in previous years it appeared that the fish were blocked for up to a week each spawning season, this year the blockage lasted for months, spanning from July through October.[43] Thompson took this opportunity to significantly increase tagging operations, exclaiming with pride that his was “‘one of the most extensive tagging programs of its kind ever undertaken.’”[44] By reviewing historical research data Thompson set his analysis of Hells Gate in a wide historical context,[45] and using his own studies he concluded that the rock obstruction at Hells Gate was the primary cause of the decades long decline in salmon in the Fraser River.[46] As a solution to this problem, the construction of several fishways began in 1944.[47] (For more on these, see: Government response)

Hey Isaac, Great job on this section! Here are some minor suggestions I have: Paragraph #2, sentence #2- Was it all types of fish being captured? Or just salmon? Maybe make it more specific if the latter. As well, I am not sure whether "racial" is the right word. I tend to associate that word more with mankind, rather than other species, however, I may be wrong about that. Paragraph #3, sentence #2- Perhaps "each" instead of "per"? Perhaps "spanning from July through August"? Danilar (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again for the suggestions! Racial is the scientific term, and the term used in all the sources.--Eye101 (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

International Dispute[edit]

The decision to build fishways was not uncontroversial. Canadian zoologist William Ricker, who was one of the original scientists with the IPFSC and who quit one year later,[48] became an outspoken critic of this decision and of Thompson’s research. Ricker challenged the foundational finding of Thompson’s research: that only 20% of fish could pass through Hells Gate. He claimed that these data were so selective that they were unreliable and misleading.[49] Two reasons for this, which Ricker believed could have been easily overcome with adjustments to research methods,[50] were that the fish tagged would have been from a highly selective sample of weaker fish than average, and that tagging itself may impede a fish’s ability to subsequently swim through the rapid water at Hells Gate.[51] Ricker stated that Thompson did not properly address these issues, and that therefore “they may be sufficient to completely invalidate the conclusion that” Hells Gate is a serious obstacle for salmon migration.[52] Ricker also challenged other aspects of Thompson’s research, including his assumptions about the casual relationship between water levels and successful passage through Hells Gate[53] and that there appears to be evidence (based on sex ratios above and below Hells Gate) to suggest that no significant obstruction existed after the initial clean up.[54]

Ricker’s criticisms and Thompson’s subsequent response sparked a major controversy in the fisheries research community, what seen by both those involved[55] and those in the wider community[56] as a battle waged along national lines. Some believed Ricker had a grudge against Thompson and the IPSFA because of their success in discovering the Hells Gate blockage and the shame this brought Ricker and the Biological Board of Canada, of which he was formerly a part.[57] One such colleague of Thompson’s, Richard Van Cleve, labelled Ricker’s criticism as the expression of a “personal grudge” against Thompson and the IPSFC, and “an attack on all biological fisheries work on the Pacific.”[58] Thompson, too, believed that Ricker’s motivations were not based on scientific grounds, and that he therefore had a duty to expose them for what they were, so his response shifted the debate away from Hells Gate to the merits of Ricker and his fellow Canadian fisheries researchers. He argued that the Fisheries Research Board of Canada had intentionally or unintentionally overlooked the fact that something was amiss at Hells Gate after the initial cleanup. Either possibility was an insult to Canadian scientists: “they were fools, or lackeys, or both.”[59]

Beyond these criticisms of Ricker and Canadian fisheries science, Thompson based the majority of his defence on spawning returns after the construction of the fishways. He claimed that as fish numbers were improving, the fishways were a success and clearly necessary.[60]

The two sides to this dispute each advocated for different remedial action. Thompson argued that environmental factors were to blame for the decline of Pacific salmon, and that the best remedy was to repair the damage to the migration pathway. Ricker on the other hand believed that over-fishing was the primary threat to the Fraser salmon run, and that it would be a “gamble,” to rely solely on the fishways as a means of conservation.[61] Instead, he argued, stringent regulations should be placed on salmon fishing lest they be threatened by over fishing.[62] And worse, he claimed, conservationists and fishers alike may take the construction of the fishways as an excuse to relax their vigilance, which would consequently threaten the survival of the Fraser salmon.[63]

Once again, great job Isaac! Just a couple minor suggestions: Paragraph #1, sentence #1- is it necessary to include that Ricker quit one year later? Paragraph #2, sentence #2- "fame" not "same". And perhaps "of" after part? Paragraph #3, sentence #2- I feel like switching the word order slightly from "the fishways were obviously necessary and a success" to "the fishways were a success and clearly necessary," or something along those lines might make it flow better. Paragraph #4, sentence #2- Perhaps "decline," not "decrease"? Paragraph #4, sentence #3- add "on" in between "solely" and "the" and an "a" between "as" and "means". Danilar (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the editing! I included that Ricker quit to make it clear that he was done with the IPFSC quickly, but if you think it's unnecessary, it can go. What do you others think? Actually, "shame," haha. The reason there is no "of" at the end of the sentence is because it is before "which." Grammatically sentences should never end in prepositions. Made your other changes :) --Eye101 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Government Response[edit]

This section will deal with the response to the slide - building of fishways, etc.

Today[edit]

Hell's Gate Airtram

Today, Hell's Gate is a popular tourist attraction, with access to the canyon and river crossing provided by an aerial tramway since 1971. Its promotional literature claims it is the only airtram in the world which descends to its destination; as the initial point of departure (and parking facilities, road access, etc.) is located above the attraction.

Only local indigenous people are legally allowed to fish the river; however, fishing is prohibited one mile (1.6 km) north and south of Hell's Gate.[citation needed]

It is not clear what you are referring to by "current situation". Avoid dating the article by re-naming it from "Today" to whatever theme of this section is. maclean (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Aerial Tramway[edit]

Hell's Gate Airtram starts at the parking lot of the Trans Canada Highway and descends to its lower terminal on the opposite side of Fraser River next to the pedestrian suspension bridge, where there is an observation deck, a restaurant, a gift shop and other tourist attractions. It was built in 1970 by the Swiss manufacturer Habegger Engineering Works and opened on 21 July 1971. Its two cabins take 25 persons each plus the cabin attendant. Each cabin travels up and down along its own track rope at a maximum speed of 5 m/s (18 km/h) over an inclined length of 341 m. The horizontal distance between the terminals is 303 m and their difference in altitude is 157 m. The track ropes have a diameter of 40 mm, the haul rope connecting the two cabins via the drive bull wheel in the upper terminal has a diameter of 19 mm and its counter rope 15 mm. The track ropes are anchored in the upper terminal and are tensioned by two concrete blocks of 42 tons each suspended inside the lower terminal where the blocks have a leeway of 7.9 m to move up and down. The haul rope and its counter rope are tensioned by a counterweight of 3.5 tons, also in the lower terminal. The total carrying capacity of the aerial tramway is 530 passengers per hour (one way).

The tourist area can also be accessed at no cost via a trail head located just south of the upper terminal. However, this is a difficult descent/ascent with rock slides easily triggered, and not less an hour is recommended to be given for the hike down and up combined.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Matthew Gardner and Alison Bigg, Western Canada Handbook, (Canada: Footprint Handbooks, 2008), p. 208.
  2. ^ William E. Ricker, “Hell’s Gate and the Sockeye,” The Journal of Wildlife Management 11, 1 (January 1947): 10. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3796036 (accessed 12 February 2012).
  3. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, Fish Versus Power: An Environmental History of the Fraser River (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 21.
  4. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 20.
  5. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 21.
  6. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 21.
  7. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 21.
  8. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 21.
  9. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 21.
  10. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 21.
  11. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 21.
  12. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 24.
  13. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 24.
  14. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 24.
  15. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 24.
  16. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 24.
  17. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 24.
  18. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 24.
  19. ^ Thomas P. Quinn, The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout, (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2004), p. 81.
  20. ^ William E. Ricker, p. 10.
  21. ^ William E. Ricker, p 10.
  22. ^ Thomas P. Quinn, p. 82.
  23. ^ Thomas P. Quinn, p. 82.
  24. ^ Thomas P. Quinn, p. 81.
  25. ^ William E. Ricker, p. 10.
  26. ^ William E. Ricker, p. 10.
  27. ^ William E. Ricker, p. 11.
  28. ^ a b Matthew D. Evenden, p. 38.
  29. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 36.
  30. ^ a b c Matthew D. Evenden, p. 37.
  31. ^ Cole Harris, p. 134.
  32. ^ a b c Matthew D. Evenden, p. 41.
  33. ^ Mary-Ellen Kelm NEEDS MORE
  34. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 44.
  35. ^ a b Matthew D. Evenden, p. 47.
  36. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 50.
  37. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 50.
  38. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 56.
  39. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 56.
  40. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 56.
  41. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 50.
  42. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 56.
  43. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 63
  44. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 64.
  45. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 69.
  46. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 71.
  47. ^ Derek Ellis, “Construction - Hell's Gate (Canada)," In his Environments At Risk: Case Histories of Impact Assessment (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1989), p 26.
  48. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 89.
  49. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 106.
  50. ^ William E. Ricker, p. 12-3.
  51. ^ William E. Ricker, p. 12.
  52. ^ William E. Ricker, p. 13.
  53. ^ William E. Ricker, p. 15-6.
  54. ^ William E. Ricker, p. 16-8.
  55. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 107.
  56. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 109.
  57. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 108.
  58. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 108.
  59. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 108-09.
  60. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 109.
  61. ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 107.
  62. ^ William E. Ricker, p. 20.
  63. ^ William E. Ricker, p. 20.
  • "Hells Gate (canyon)". BC Geographical Names.
  • "Hells Gate (locality)". BC Geographical Names.
  • "Hells Gate Tunnel". BC Geographical Names.

External links[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Hell's Gate, British Columbia.

49°47′00″N 121°27′00″W / 49.78333°N 121.45000°W / 49.78333; -121.45000

Category:Fraser Canyon Category:Aerial tramways in Canada

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Alexwarren89/sandbox&oldid=485117212"