Sentiment Analysis of Residents of the Puget Sound on Indigenous Fisheries

Sound Perspectives: Sentiment Analysis of Residents of the Puget Sound On Indigenous Fisheries By Hailey Kehoe Thommen A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Natural Resources, Forest Ecosystems & Society (Honors Associate) Presented May 24, 2019 Commencement June, 2020 AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Hailey Kehoe Thommen for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Natural Resources, Forest Ecosystems & Society presented on May 24, 2019. Title: Sound Perspectives: Sentiment Analysis of Residents of the Puget Sound On Indigenous Fisheries. Abstract approved:_____________________________________________________ Kelly Biedenweg Indigenous management and coordinated co-management of natural resources is an emotionally filled topic, especially for those within the Puget Sound region of Washington, but has yet to be studied in depth from the emotional perspective of residents. This research used sentiment analysis to find the overarching sentiment of indigenous fisheries, how it varies by demographics and level of trust in governance, and frequency of reported fishing. I also sought to identify which primary emotions were most evoked by respondents. From this I found that when people chose to make a free comment, the sentiments were predominantly negative. Demographics did not vary significantly between those evoking positive or negative sentiment, although the few people of color within the sample evoked positive sentiment. Primary emotions evoked by respondents within the negative sentiment group were sadness and disgust, while those within the positive sentiment group expressed trust and joy. These primary emotions of the sentiments groups are directly opposing according to the psychology of emotion theory. There were various words respondents used frequently when expressing themselves, and these indicating words matched with their sentiment can lead to a better understanding of the misunderstandings and misconceptions of these two user groups. Utilizing these insights of the respondents emotions underlying this topic can lead to more effective ways to communicate co-management and improve perceptions between sovereign indigenous nations and non-indigenous fishing groups. Key Words: Sentiment analysis, Qualitative study, Puget Sound, Salmon, Native, Indigenous, Fisheries Corresponding e-mail address: [email protected] ©Copyright by Hailey Kehoe Thommen May 24, 2019 Sound Perspectives: Sentiment Analysis of Residents of the Puget Sound On Indigenous Fisheries By Hailey Kehoe Thommen A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Natural Resources, Forest Ecosystems & Society (Honors Associate) Presented May 24, 2019 Commencement June, 2020 Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Natural Resources, Forest Ecosystems & Society project of Hailey Kehoe Thommen presented on May 24, 2019. APPROVED: _____________________________________________________________________ Kelly Biedenweg, Mentor, representing Fish and Wildlife _____________________________________________________________________ Reem Hajjar, Committee Member, representing Forest Ecosystems and Society _____________________________________________________________________ Gail Woodside, Committee Member, representing Fisheries and Wildlife _____________________________________________________________________ Toni Doolen, Dean, Oregon State University Honors College I understand that my project will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University, Honors College. My signature below authorizes release of my project to any reader upon request. _____________________________________________________________________ Hailey Kehoe Thommen, Author Introduction History of Indigenous Fisheries In the 1850’s, governor and superintendent of Indian Affairs for the territory of Washington, Isaac Ingalls Stevens, secured what is known as one of the most peaceful land exchanges of the US, as the indigenous people of this area ceded approximately 64 million acres of land (Blumm & Steadman, 2009). Although it is purported as a peaceful exchange it’s crucial to note that these treaties constructed and implemented through force and coercion, with the aim of disenfranchising and exploiting indigenous populations (Allen, 2000; Asher, 1999; Spirling, 2012; “Indian Treaties”, n.d.), and in this particular case this treaty left the tribes with less than 6 million acres, broken up into reservations (Chrisman, 2008; Richards, 2005). This land was ceded to the US government with the security of a treaty signed by various tribes which stipulated clearly that the tribes have the right to continue fish at all “usual and accustomed” places (Crowley & Wilma, 2003; Lewis, 2002). Furthermore, Blumm and Steadman report that is was known by federal officials including Stevens that the tribes were solely dependent on salmon for multiple aspects of their livelihoods at the time of signing these treaties. Not only are salmon used to preserve livelihoods in an economic sense, but they are also used in trading with others to promote good relationships, and are deeply rooted in tribal cosmologies and known as kin to some (“Tribal Salmon Culture”, n.d.; “Against the Current”, n.d.). The treaty tribes of this time included: Lummi, Nooksack, Swinomish, Upper Skagit, Sauk-Suiattle, Stillaguamish, Tulalip, Muckleshoot, Puyallup, Nisqually, Squaxin Island, Skokomish, Suquamish, Port Gamble S’Klallam, Jamestown S’Klallam, Lower Elwha Klallam, Makah, Quileute, Quinault, and Hoh (“About Us”, n.d.). The distinction between non-indigenous citizens rights and those belonging to indigenous sovereign nations is important to make before proceeding, because they are commonly misunderstood by the general public. As reported by the National Congress of State Legislatures (2013) and by the National Congress of American Indians (n.d.), the U.S. Constitution recognizes treaty tribes as distinct governments, separate from common American citizens, and have the right to govern themselves. Tribal governments hold the power to form their own structures of government, pass and enforce laws, and implement their own police and court systems. Within the treaties constructed that established the exchange of land with tribes was that they gain protection from the U.S. to protect themselves and all that them they had retained from encroachment or diminishment (Van Ness, n.d.). Nonetheless, the time following European colonization led to an influx of white settlers to the area, bringing more non-tribal and commercial fishermen to the waters. The competition for salmon as a resource was made more intense by the increase in population and grew substantially when the global market for salmon increased as well. With knowledge of the connection between the tribes' livelihoods and salmon, this precipitous decline in fish stocks and health of fisheries unsurprisingly created turmoil between Indigenous and non-indigenous user groups. The root cause of controversy between indigenous and non-indigenous fishermen can be ultimately blamed on broken treaties rights, as with time tribes were no longer able to harvest their right of fish and were often arrested for their practice of fishing, completely dismissing their sovereignty and the lawful rights they were guaranteed (Chrisman, 2008; Carson, 2014). This controversy was further accentuated by the effects of human population increase, more efficient harvesting from fishing technology, and industrial advancements which led to a tremendous amount of environmental degradation (Bisson et al, 2009; Wilkinson, 2005). As urbanization increased the impacts of land conversions and development negatively affected salmon habitat, similarly agriculture impacts of nutrient runoff became more intense, and the number of fishermen and their efficiency greatly increased (Zwang, 2014; Pollock et al, 2004; Peterman and Dorner, 2012). These factors coalesced into habitat degradation, which led to the decline of salmon populations and over 40 years of controversy. With the mounting pressures mentioned above the tribes struggled to obtain their rightful share of fish due to their treaty-protected rights no longer being upheld. In 1884, Tribes began what would turn out to be a long road of litigation, pursuing justice on various aspects of their rights which were being infringed upon. This arduous battle with the legal system and various interest groups would continue until 2007 and still, there are rumblings of court cases proceeding. Consequently, tribes pursued litigation for their lawful share of salmon, ultimately leading to their right being quantified and set as law by Federal District Judge Boldt in 1974, allocating 50% of Washington's fish catch to confederated tribes and creating a co-management system between the state and tribes which transformed their sovereignty in this matter from a promise to a concrete law. However, for non-indigenous Washington residents, salmon had also become a mainstay and icon of Pacific Northwest culture, and many non-indigenous citizens felt this ruling to be unfair (Tanner, 2016; “Backlash to Boldt,” n.d; Wilkinson, 2005) . Accompanying this monumental decision was the creation of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) and the beginning of a collaborative approach to co-managing salmon fisheries between the

Load more