A February 16 letter to Bert Webber from Janet Mason, the chief toponymist with >British Columbia Geographical Names bureau, confirms that the Canadian province has accepted the Salish Sea as an official place name that will appear on maps and charts. Webber is the retired Western Washington University professor who requested the designation in both BC and Washington.
Being a bilingual country, the Canadians have also approved a version for French speakers: Mer des Salish.
This follows the acceptance of the name by Washington and the United States last fall. The approval is important because the body of water, like the Great Lakes, is an over-arching term that straddles the borders of two countries, stretching roughly from the Campbell River of BC to the southern reaches of Puget Sound. This means that makers of maps and charts will now be on the same page. The designation changes no existing names. The move was expected as British Columbia and Canada had indicated that it would follow Washington and the U.S.'s lead in the matter. If Washington state had rejected the name, the whole effort would have died.
British Columbia made the announcement at the opening of the 39th session of the province's parliament as part of the Liberal Party's "throne speech." It was tied in with a number of announcements including the government's goals of working closely with First Nations peoples, improving the environment, and working cooperatively with neighbors in the region on economic development and climate issues. Too, the occasion of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games offered a chance to introduce an international audience to the the world and concept of the Salish Sea.
In her letter to Webber, Mason acknowledged his efforts on the Salish Sea's behalf. The concept in Canada has not always met with a friendly reception, especially when it was proposed to replace of the name of the Strait of Georgia. But by leaving existing names alone and with a growing awareness that the Puget Sound-Georgia Basin ecosystem was distinct and worth recognizing, the most recent proposal seemed to benefit from a tip in the balance of public, academic, scientific, and government opinion. Yet it would not have happened without a champion: Webber first proposed the name in Washington in the late 1980s.
Wrote Mason to Webber:
Your interest and involvement in the geographical naming process, and your active role responding to media reporting about the scope and intent of your naming proposal, have been appreciated.
There are many residents of Cascadia who feel the same.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!

Print
Email






Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Sat, Feb 20, 5:08 p.m. Inappropriate
Looks like the AP's using the name in headlines, even where it may not belong: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011137181_apwawashingtonstatequake.html, "USGS reports small earthquake in Salish Sea." The quake took place in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. "Salish Sea" doesn't help here. I didn't think this "overlay" would cause confusion, but if the AP's getting it wrong,...
Posted Sat, Feb 20, 5:46 p.m. Inappropriate
The Strait of Juan de Fuca is in the Salish Sea. The headline is correct.
Posted Sat, Feb 20, 9:39 p.m. Inappropriate
Yes, but the Salish Sea includes a lot more than just the Strait of Juan de Fuca. So it's not inaccurate, but it's not very specific, either. "Earthquake in Salish Sea" could mean anything from, well, "the Campbell River of BC to the southern reaches of Puget Sound." "Earthquake in Strait of Juan de Fuca" is much more specific — even better would be mentioning that it was just offshore of Victoria.
They of course did get more specific in the body of the article, but I thought the new name was supposed to be used when referring to phenomena that affected the entire, border-spanning body of water, or when the continuity of that body of water was to be stressed.
Posted Sat, Feb 20, 10:10 p.m. Inappropriate
Well, it isn't really a "sea" according to my understanding of the term. If anything, it's the imposition of a political agenda that stretches back to the dominance of the inland waterways by a more aggressive, warlike slaving culture (i.e. the Salish).
There is Puget Sound, and then the Strait of Georgia. Neither is a sea. Together they are not a sea. Simply calling this part of the Inside Passage a sea doesn't make it a "sea."
Perhaps it makes some people feel righteous, but even that's a fraud anthropologically speaking. I'm sure there are a lot of white guys who feel some mystical connection to the Salish (probably due to consumption of indigenous fungi), but why they think they have the authority to fool with a perfectly functional system of names is beyond me.
Frankly, it strikes me as the same kind of elitist decision that made King County (without voter approval) Martin Luther King County. I mean, maybe some of you guys think that's a good idea, but did you really ask anyone else, or was it all done in some incestuous little committee meeting in the bowels of Suzzallo?
Did you ask any fishermen? How about the guys who pilot the ferries to Alaska?
I didn't think so.
Too many wannabes playing Captain Vancouver all these years after it's all been charted. Just like some smartass Bolsheviks turned loose on Russian maps. That's nothing to be proud of, fellas.
Posted Sun, Feb 21, 1:25 p.m. Inappropriate
King County is still King County. All they did was "redesignate" its namesake.
As for the Salish Sea, I don't see the problem. No old names were changed. It's just like taking Lakes Huron, Ontario, Michigan, Erie, and Superior, and slapping "Great Lake" on top of them — the individual lakes' names still remain.
Speaking of which, I could probably have summarized my earlier comment thus: what headline makes more sense: "Oil spill in Great Lakes" or "Oil spill in Lake Erie"?
Posted Sun, Feb 21, 4:26 p.m. Inappropriate
Hey wfprice, there was no popular or local vote on the state being Washington, either, Vancouver (who belnged to a warlke slaving culture himself, without even bothering to dominate the local waters) designated the ground as New Georgia- which he did without asking the other local mariners or inhabitants either. This region is full of names applied by passerbys, most if not all smartass white guys themselves. Other modern white guys just like to feel righteous denouncing legislatively approved (you know, the representatives of the popular will assembled to make laws on behalf of the entire state, ie those that hold such authority) using their authority as prescribed by law. By the way, the fellow who put up the idea is a geographer himself, someone who is paid to understand what a sea is, so just maybe his understanding of the term trumps yours. Maybe not, he's human too.
Now if this small name change leads to our becoming the "Soviet" of Washington in fact then perhaps I could agree with your point. But who remembers Farley these days?
Posted Mon, Feb 22, 3:50 p.m. Inappropriate
Being the Pacific Northwest and considering the people involved I think a more fitting term is the P-Sea.
Posted Mon, Mar 1, 10:53 a.m. Inappropriate
Wfprice: Just for the record, the geographic name boards of the US, Canada, Washington and British Columbia cast a wide net for feedback on the name proposal, including from cities, counties, tribes, citizens, historical societies, and organizations and government agencies. The vast majority who responded supported or raised no objection to the designation. Among those who officially were unopposed: the US Coast Guard, the Pacific Pilotage Authority, NOAA, US Fish and Wildlife, the Defense Dept., the Marine Exchange of Puget Sound, etc. etc. The notion that the decision was made without contacting and soliciting input for a wide variety of official, and unofficial sources is not accurate. There was no "incestuous little committee" in this case.