Comments on: Ready for the name “Salish Sea” to become official?

By: daveygoliath

daveygoliath — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:14:50 +0000

Salish Sea describes the inland waters like Washington describes the entire state.
Not at all.
Faulty reasoning would encourage the renaming of all the dozens of inlets, bays, straits and sounds into one encompassing word that tells nobody nothing.

By: BlueLight

BlueLight — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:36:10 +0000

So, if the area is considered one ecosystem, does this mean there is no such thing as “Puget Sound Chinook”? Maybe the status of the “Salish Sea Chinook” should be evaluated to determine whether or not listing on the Endangered Species Act is still warranted.

By: Sharon O'Hara

Sharon O'Hara — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:08:11 +0000

A prude? Oh, we should be so lucky!

Why not give credit when and where its due?
Adding an unnecessary name to something isn’t the way to ‘honor’ those who came before… and there are those who came before them. What silliness should we provide for those peoples?
Sharon O’Hara

By: Scrawny Kayaker

Scrawny Kayaker — Wed, 20 May 2009 16:39:44 +0000

Excellent. We do need a convenient term that means “Washington’s Inland Marine Waters,” and throwing in British Columbia makes sense as the tidal currents in the San Juans are due to the varying levels of the Strait of Georgia and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. I’ve always hated hearing things like “the San Juan Islands in Puget Sound,” when Puget Sound is nowhere near the San Juans. These names do have defined cartographic meanings, you know.

Extra credit for it being a hat-tip to the earlier culture to inhabit the area. Almost literally the least we could do after invading and stealing most of the land from them.

And the fact that it sounds a little like ‘salacious’ is the final gravy. Don’t be such a prude! Not that it’s at all fitting. A rare sunny day at Alki can’t hold a candle to Miami Beach, etc, etc.

By: Ron

Ron — Tue, 19 May 2009 10:45:01 +0000

wait..if we are going to spend tax dollars on this..then lets spend some more and name the tunnel..also..I would like to name the state “cloud” and also the state……..

By: Tom Rosendale

Tom Rosendale — Tue, 19 May 2009 05:47:18 +0000

It obviously isn’t necessary or some name for the whole area would already be in place. If it is for scientific ecological reference, fine. Why does it have to be made “official” if it serves that purpose without being “official”?

Somebody simply wants holy water sprinkled over this politically correct name.

By: Sharon O'Hara

Sharon O'Hara — Tue, 19 May 2009 02:31:00 +0000

“Officially adopting the name “Salish Sea” does not change any existing names, he noted, and the name probably won’t appear on any Washington state maps, because it describes an area not fully contained within this state. It could be useful when talking about cross-boundary issues, however, he said.”

The name ‘could be useful’ -?
Why spend the time, taxpayer dollars and energy adding a name that COULD be useful, when names are already in place?

The Washington State Board on Geographic Names must be tax supported – why not spend the time on useful projects of worth?
Sharon O’Hara