Fish contaminants through the tribal perspective : an ethnography of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community's tribal fish harvest

It has been well documented that many tribal populations and minority groups across the nation have been identified as being at high risk of the adverse health effects created by consuming fish that have been contaminated with mercury, PCBs, DDT, dioxins, and other chemicals. Although fish consumption advisories are intended to inform fish consumers of risks associated with specific species and water bodies, advisories have been the subject of both environmental injustices and treaty rights’ injustices. This means that understanding fish contaminants, through community perspectives is essential to good environmental policy. This study examined the fish contaminant knowledge, impacts on fishing and fish consumption, and the factors that contribute to harvesting decisions and behaviors in one tribal nation in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. Using ethnographic methods, participant observation and semi-structured interviewing, fieldnotes were kept and all interviews were fully transcribed for data analysis. Among seventeen fishermen and women, contaminants are poorly understood, have had a limited impact on subsistence fishing but have had a substantial impact on commercial fishing activity. But ultimately, all decisions and behaviors are based on their own criteria and within a larger context of knowledge and understanding: the historical and cultural context. The historical context revealed that advisories are viewed as another attack on tribal fishing. The cultural context revealed that it is the fundamental guidance and essential framework associated with all harvesting beliefs, values, and traditional lifeways. These results have implications for advisories. ‘Fish’ and ‘contaminants’ appear differently based on the perceptions and priorities of those who encounter them.

THE HYDROSOCIAL COSTS OF HIGH-VOLUME HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: A TALE OF TWO COUNTIES IN MICHIGAN

Although natural gas has been praised as a clean and abundant energy source, the varying impacts and uncertainties surrounding the process of extracting natural gas from unconventional sources, known as horizontal high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) or “fracking,” have raised important concerns. The practice of HVHF is expanding so quickly that the full impacts are not yet known. This thesis project, using a grounded theory methodological approach, explores the risks and benefits associated with HVHF as recognized by the residents of two Michigan counties, one that currently produces natural gas by HVHF (Crawford County) and one that does not (Barry County). Through an analysis of media content related to HVHF in each case study site and interviews with stakeholders in both counties, this study examines perceptions of risks and benefits by comparing two communities that differ in their level of experience with HVHF operations, contributing to our understanding of how perceptions of risks and benefits are shaped by natural gas development. The comparative analysis of the case study counties revealed similarities and differences between the case study counties. Overall, Barry County residents identified fewer benefits and more risks, and had stronger negative perceptions than Crawford County residents. This study contributes to the social science literature by developing a richer theoretical frame for understanding perceptions of HVHF and also shares recommendations for industry, organizations, regulators, and government leaders interested in effectively communicating with community stakeholders about the benefits and risks of HVHF.