Federal Agency Supports Killing Sea Lions
Sea Lion Slaughter On The Columbia
By Joseph Friedrichs, 1-18-08
They tried to scare them with explosives. It didn’t work. So their next step is to slaughter them.
Federal officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are calling for the killing of up to 85 sea lions annually in the Columbia River in order to save salmon. Each year sea lions gather near the Bonneville Dam to feast on salmon as they run upriver. The feedings are great for sea lions because the fish are essentially pinned by the dam and easy prey. The problem for humans is that the government spends millions of dollars to protect these salmon.
For several years attempts have been made to scare sea lions back to the ocean using what are known as “seal bombs.” These bombs are underwater explosives thrown by hired crews who chase the sea lions in motorboats. Although the project showed early signs of success, it ultimately proved to be inefficient.
The NOAA’s new strategy would allow the trapping and then killing of as many as 85 California sea lions annually, or as many as it takes to so the creatures eat no more than 1 percent of salmon that pass through the dam. Crews must still attempt to scare off sea lions before killing them. In other words, they can only kill the troublemaking sea lions. Early estimations show that about 30 sea lions will be killed each year.
NOAA’s report comes after a request from Oregon and Washington to get a handle on the swimming mammals.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
Marine mammals needed protection as long as their oil was used in critical lubrication areas, people ate whale meat, and air breathing sea creatures were being exploited. Killing a few sea lions that are killing the most valued sturgeon in the river, the oversize gravid females, make sense. That the sea lions do that while they wait for the spring chinook salmon to arrive is recently learned behavior on their part.
Native Americans are forgoing their Creator's given right to fish in order that the runs might strengthen. Sea lion predation negates that sacrifice.
The population of those critters is over a quarter million, and increasing. They are good at catching and eating fish. But they have lost their fear of man for the first time in millennia. Shooting a few is probably good for their overall population health, as it will reduce further sea lion conflict and contact with man. Nobody bemoans the fact that great white sharks kill them. Or orcas kill them. But if man, for the first time in thousands of years, now allows them refuge on land and in rivers, free from shark and orca threats, what good are we really doing the orcas and great whites? All early journals and diaries from Oregon Territory mention seal eating by the local peoples. Seal and sea lion bones were the primary non shellfish detritus and remains we found in middens examined for a college course I took on geology of the OregonCoast. Man produced the middens, and man killed those seals and sea lions. I have to wonder if not being directly involved in killing sea lions for food, oil and skins is harmful for the critters in the long run. When they are a resource, they have value that demands protection. I am well aware the SPCA or PETA would not buy that argument. My question is whether absolute protection is, in fact, more harmful than no protection at all. My mind says there is value in limited protection, as in limited exploitation. The one fishery, and seals and sea lions were once considered a fishery, in the world that is healthy and well regulated is the North Pacific Halibut Fishery, which has been internationally regulated, and is limited entry by ownership of shares of the fishery. That fishery has been regulated for close to 70 years, and is being constricted as I write due to fish census results being lower than expected.
On the Columbia River, the first incantation of Bonneville Dam was sans fish ladders. The collective ire of Astoria Finns and Slavs, the net fishermen of the lower river, and the very real threat of their intention to burn Oregon's Capitol Building if fish ladders were not a part of the design, is the only reason one salmon exists on that river today. It was not Native Americans, not the Sierra Club, but commercial fishermen who demanded that fish be spared a most certain demise that a dam at the head of tidal influence without fish ladders would bring about. A constituency of fish was about making a living. It was not about species conservation, recreation, the thrill of seeing a fish jump. Those people could have given a hoot. Gillnetters gave a hoot. They were prepared to go to war to save their salmon runs, and their livelihoods. And I suppose, they were the last really strong resource user group that would go to the ends of the earth to preserve their way of life. We have become a nation of wishy washy wimps, and the whine about "sea lion slaughter" is wimpese for "don't hurt me, though I am weak." It is not a slaughter. No more so than shooting barred owls that are having their way with spotted owls in that they are bedding spotted owls and producing bastard off spring, or just taking over their habitat because the spotted owls have been fed so many mice by biologists for so long they won't eat unless they are fed by the government. When you ask the government to do it all, they do do it all. Including the killing of sea lions. On the Columbia River, that used to be done by the old Oregon Fish Commission seal and sea lion control officer, a Finn, who shot them, or at them, in the River and all the estuaries. It kept them out of the gillnets and eating salmon right out of the nets, which is so rampant today that netters and trollers alike can lose hundreds of fish a season, each, to marauding seals and sea lions. Occasionally, someone goes bananas, and some dead sea lions with bullet holes in them float up on the beach. Some frustrated fisherman did that. Just like the old man on the Columbia last spring who put a bullet in the snout of a sea lion that had taken the only fish he had on his line all season. The sea lion was never recovered, but the guy still got a ticket.
Or, the Feds could just not do anything like they did at Ballard Locks in Seattle, while the sea lions ate the Cedar River wild steelhead run to extinction in the fish ladder. Got 'em all. Oh, a couple of sea lions got put in an aquarium in Florida out of it. I remember one or two they caught in a cage on a buoy, and hauled down below the Columbia, 300 miles away. They were back eating steelhead in 48 hours, none the worse for wear. Almost beat the boat back. Probably followed it. But even I know they can't out run a well placed bullet. We owe that to the salmon, but more so to ourselves. If we can write law with elected representation to conserve animals, we can also have them killed. Either way we are playing God. We might as well play for the benefit of the many for the greatest good.
If total cloud cover from a nuclear war brings eternal winter, then so should the particulates and gases from burning the forests and the coal to produce electicity until we get to global winter. That would be the best way to avoid global warming.
Maybe that is the USFS reason to not fight fire. It will eventually be a cure for global warming. The smoke will block out the sun, which will stop photosynthesis, thus not growing more trees to burn, there will be no worry about logging, and this mineral ball can go back to what it was in the beginning.
Besides, they fish in packs, I have observed them congrigate at the fish ladders and pool up the salmon. Then it is a feeding frenzy.. where is the "nature" in that!! I have been on the river for over 40yrs, and have seen the predation of seals increase many fold. It really wasn't until the last 10 years that it really became a problem. Just think, they travel close to 120 miles up stream to gather at the mouth of the Bonneville dam. Pretty incredible, Now when the salmon are gone, it is sturgeon harvest season. I remember biologist writing articles, that "seals don't eat Sturgeon", and shortly after that, there was a picture of one with a large oversized fish in its mouth. Guess we are really smart about that one eh???
I think the MMA has done a wonderful job. In fact to wonderful, thanks for a great job, now it is time to review the dynamics and work towards some equalization of this situation. an average seal will much out 20-30 salmon a day, when they are in abundance, I am under the impression, they will strip the roe, and leave the carcus to float to the bottom. so you work the numbers, 85 seals, avg 25 fish equals 210 fish a day more or less. The run goes from Feb through the end of June 5 months, or 150 days, or close to 40,000 salmon on a spring run of say 100,000 fish.. and obw, what about all the seals that hang out along the river, I have counted many throughout the river as far down as cathlamet, wa. So the numbers may be skewed even more if we could get a comprehensive count.
Sport fishermen, they catch the fish, but are only allowed 1 a day, and they don't have the mobility that the seals do, they usually troll around and if lucky find the right combination of product to dangle in front of a salmon and if they are skilled enough that they can muster the ability to land one with out loosing it. believe me, i have spent the hours and hours of trolling and anchoring in the columbia in the eventful hope of catching one. If I am lucky, I will leave the year with 4 or 5 salmon per season to put in my freezer. Truthfully, it is cheaper to buy one at the store, but the economy I generate by fishing on the columbia is far greater than a seal can contribute. hmmm let's see. 45K$ boat, 10K$ elctronics, 35K$ truck to pull it with, a 25K$ camper for the truck, all the fuel to run it, the insurance, the interest paid on the loans for the high dollar equipment, the fishing tackle, the hotels and taxes paid.. etc, etc, etc....
So what does a seal do... hmmmm ... oh that's right, they desimate the fish run with simple hunting tactics at a captured point at the mouth of the Bonneville dam.... make sure you tell that to the fishing / sports store and the boat dealer, and the truck dealer and the camper dealer, along with the DFW when all the fish are gone, there is not a season left, and we get rid of all our toys, because the hope of a catch opportunity is shot because we didn't shoot a few "FAT" returning seals and their buddies.
OK< I am off my soap box now.
Now some comments from one who will represent the sea lions as well as the salmon.
First of all it is man/humans that have caused the depletion of these endangered salmon not the sea lions. We humans have built the dams and the fish ladders that have made the salmon so vulnerable.
Second we humans dump raw sewage as well as dangerous chemicals into the ocean and lets not forget the occasional oil tanker that spill 100's of 1000's of gallons of the good ol' crude into our suffering ocean waters.
Third we humans have caused global warming that has contributed to the dead zones in the ocean.
It escapes my sensibilities how anyone can wonder why so few of the salmon are returning to the Columbia River or any other river for that matter.
I am fully behind protecting the salmon populations and bringing them back to healthy numbers, but not with bullets and slaughter.
We humans are quite capable of doing and creating wonderful things we are also adept to problem solving. If we are clever enough to propel satellites into our orbit for GPS, intelligence or projecting video images on our television sets then I am quite confident that we can create a fish ladder that can serve the salmons final run up river and not serve them to the sea lions for dinner.
I urge a cruelty free and humane solution to this problem. I realize the sea lions are not endangered but killing one animal to save another is wrong and lacks broad-minded thinking. We are smarter than that so lets prove it.
The same scenario plays out with the seals. Every humain effort has been tried over the past several years, however, the scene each year becomes more devestating. Unfortunately, in your effort to thwart my commentary, you lacked the fundamental thinking of the few for the many. I don't always subcribe to this rational, but as a steward to the natural way of balance, this may be one of the best "short" term solutions. There has been millions upon millions upon millions of dollars spent to "save" the salmon species, unfortunately, the success has vasilated from year to year. However, overall, if you look at the records kept since the late 40's, the numbers are quite impressive, and actually have grown considerably. What has really happened, is the MMA has done a superlative job encouraging the lively hood, and reproduction of the Seal family, this growth has caused a food supply shortage for the population, and they begin to follow the food chain as they migrate, the crux of the issue here is the "dam". But not the Dam itself, but the methodologies used to help aid the salmon through the barrier. We the "humans" desperatly at this time, need the dams to have adequate and cost effecient supply of electricity for our communities.
So I would still consider forcefully removing the seals through human predation, so that we can save the cause of the salmon. After all, it is the law of supply and demand. Unfortunately, the supply is low, and the demand out weighs that supply. Both human and biology.
The salmon along with many other species on this planet eventually go extinct, it's natural. I can't say killing sea lions is natural, unless of course you're a starving eskimo or indian. This whole arguement makes about as much sense as trying to justify killing trout b/c they are eating too much of our commercial fishery crawdads at Timothy Lake.
Would you kill a cat/dog for eating a mouse/fish? It's backwards, salmon are just a species of fish. We need to let go of certain species, and in this case the obvious answer would be the extinction of wild salmon. The real problem here is salmon fisherman and the competition for the fish vs sea lions. Should we also kill some of those pesky fisherman that are catching too many fish? Why not making keeping sturgeon illegal? Sure ther'es a size limit but why keep a dinosaur? Let nature do it's thing. Fish are just fish, wild salmon or largemouth bass. They are *Just Fish* let's not ignore the Facts:
More Sea Lions Will Return After You Kill All The Ones Labeled As "Trouble-Makers". They are sea lions, they are doing what they do best, they eat fish that is what they do best. Nothing more nothing less, killing mamals to protect a dying breed of fish is senseless. Of all the different species of fish living in the Columbia River: Smallmouth, Largemouth, Walleye, Crappie, Bluegill, Warmouth, Green Sunfish, Catfish, Perch, Trout, etc, etc. there's no reason to cling to the wild salmon & sturgeon. Isn't that fish racism -or- fish species xenophobia? (j/k) Squawfish obviously aren't a desirable gamefish. Fish are fish, let's keep it in perspective.
Newly (in the future) introduced fish species like Sauger, Saugeye, Musky, Pike, and all the other species found on this continent could and will eventaully end up in Oregon lakes n' rivers. New species will take the place of our *precious dinosaur-sturgeon & wild salmon*. There is no reason to cling to species that are clearly going the way of the dinosaur.
Poles shift, climates change, stuff happens, there's no need to try (and 'try' is the right word to use for this) to control stubborn mamals that are just trying to survive and feed their young. It's wrong to kill sea lions b/c they are eating baitfish, I'll say it again *Salmon are BAITFISH*. Sure salmon aren't arkansas shiners, but by the way everyone talks about salmon you'd think they were wild german shepard puppies. I don't know, but I think sea lions resemble puppies more than salmon do. Food for thought.
Everyone wins if we switch to wind and solar power. The only debate that could arise would be from all the Californian transplants. There could be whining about wind turbines not being pretty enough. But with the over-populated situation that we're in, it's inevitable.
Dam turbines that grind up wild salmon at a higher rate than anything natural -or- wind turbines that help us and the fish. As seen here http://telosnet.com/wind/images/zondtex_revm.jpg wind turbines are pleasant looking and unobtrusive. Today people are more open to alternative forms of energy.
Dams used for power grind up more fish per hour than most are even aware of. It's a shame how wasteful Bonneville Dam is. The water turbines have sucked up millions of wild salmon, just as a fish vacuum would. Solar and wind power is the future. In Europe, Germany mostly is the leader in solar energy. By layering the solar panels, it's possible to use different kinds of light. ie moon light, sunrise, and sunset, using hyper sensitive solar panel layers below with the less sensitive panels placed above. High tech materials, nano technolgy is here the possibilities are endless.
All it takes is a small group at the dam, large numbers don't matter. It's the man-made Bonneville Dam, that is the problem. There aren't even that many sea lions on the Columbia River it's a small group that traveled upstream. It's beyond rare to even get a glimpse of a sea lion on the Columbia River. Even for people that live on the river in houseboats. Even if there were more great whites, it wouldn't change the fact that small groups travel into freshwater. It makes no sense to think more shark would change anything.
It is the dam that traps the salmon, and makes them easy prey for all marine life. It is the dam that grinds up millions of fish. Sea lions don't even compare to the wastefulness of Bonneville Dam. Contact the head honchos at Bonneville Dam and ask how many salmon get sucked into the underwater turbines each day. More white sharks will only decrease salmon numbers. Sea lions have a more varied diet than the fish-eating (*salmon-eating*) sharks.
It might sound logical but the truth is it isn't. More sharks mean less salmon, marine mammals, and humans. More of the first two, less of the latter. But still who wants more shark, do you surf the Oregon coast? Shark work to control numbers of fish, but only if there were less humans. Shark are not necessary predators, there are no disease infected rodents in the ocean. Maybe if sharks were field predators like cats or owls. That's not the case, sharks do more damage than they do to balance anything out. It's not like sea lions only eat salmon. Fish make up only a fraction of the diet that marine mammals, such as the sea lions depend on.
Sharks have no real purpose, and higher numbers would not change the fact that Bonneville Dam traps and kills more fish than the sea lions do. The dam kills more fish than most are even aware of . It's not even comparable, the dam is the problem. If you want to blame an animal or fish for low salmon numbers, that title goes to the squawfish.
The Salmon Shark of the North Pacific (Oregon Coast): http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/shark_profiles/l_ditropis.htm
Ever wonder why sea lions aren't called Salmon Lions? Is there a Sea Lion Shark? No. Less sea lions & seals would mean more shark targeting the salmon. It's the LARGER sharks that eat mostly the baby and weak/slower sea lions. They are easier prey than larger ones that can scratch out an eye. Baby and sick sea lions and seals are not up at Bonneville Dam. It's the adults, and they are not easy game for shark. On occasion a shark will pursue a large sea lion but it's not that common. If it was, more surfers would be attacked. Sea lions and seals obviously aren't a main dish on the shark's menu.
ALL of the fishing interests need to step back and curb their greed to save the salmon, including the tribes.
It's human over-fishing, and it's dams that are causing the salmon to go extinct. Leave the sea lions out of this. They and the salmon are co-evolved to live together in this river. The humans, however, take more than they need and their greed and aggression tends to kill everything around them. Humans are the problem, not sea lions.
Let me assure people, sea lions are native to the Columbia, and belong here. They are not "overpopulated," they are NOT the cause of the very real and troubling salmon crisis, and they are not the enemy.
Sea lions are a natural predator that has always been in the Columbia, and the fact that you see more of them simply means that the ecosystem is returning to its healthy, natural balance. (Prior to being exterminated for more than a century by hunters, sea lions were even more numerous on the Columbia than they are now, and not-so-coincidentally, so were salmon. There were once more than 300,000 of them. Then they were hunted down to less than 1000 left on the planet. You are simply seeing them coming back to normal, but we are so out of balance with our own environment that we can't even recognize that.)
The one factor keeping the system from actually returning to a healthy balance is us. We are still killing too many salmon. This is why the salmon runs are down to a horrifying 1 percent of their historical numbers. Sea lion predation is a natural part of the life of this river. Because we, humans, are killing far too many of them. If we had stopped killing salmon in 1972, when we stopped killing sea lions under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the salmon would be coming back too. But we did not. We just kept killing them, and this is the result.
As for the 4% of salmon that they eat, in the first place it pales in comparison to the 12% that fishermen catch, not to mention the 59 to 75 percent killed in the dams. In the second place, sea lions also eat pike minnow, which if not kept in check by sea lions, would consume countless baby salmon. The pike minnow would kill more than the 4% being blamed on sea lions. So you see, you can't just start bludgeoning around with nature and think you can do better. Nature knows what she is doing, and she has encouraged sea lions and salmon to live together on the Columbia. It is to the benefit of both species, and taking out sea lions would bring on more pike minnow, and then what?
What we have here is a fight over a scarce resource. Right now, sea lions seem like an easy scapegoat. But anyone familiar with this issue knows that each fishing faction is also hysterically blaming each other. The sport fishers hate the commercial and tribal fishers, the tribal hate the sport and commercial fishers, and the commercial hate the sport and tribal fishers. Once they kill off the sea lions, and the salmon don't come back, will they start killing each other??? Why not just stop killing so many salmon?
Maybe if fishermen could live together with the rest of the wild community, instead of battling for more resources than they need to survive (which is what we are doing), this area could return to the thriving ecosystem that it once was.
Stop scapegoating sea lions.
I would wage a guess that sea lions were aboriginal prey, and as such, the sea lions would have had avoidance behaviors they do not have today, nor need to due to the MMA. There are lots of relationships in the environment that were not present 200 years ago. And, I would guess there were relationships between predator and prey before humans got here in the last 20,000 years. Recognizing there has been change in the past, even before the recorded past, we should expect change in the future, if this inter glacial period were to end in a time sequence similar to those that have come before. Man is an agent of change, not unlike the West Nile pathogen is an agent of change in the West today. Both are relatively new, and the extent of the damage has yet to be ascertained. By observation, West Nile is knocking the crap out of sage grouse, but all the environmental hue and cry is to manage man's activities. Like that is going to make a difference to an wind spread pathogen.
I see the opposition to the sea lion controls on a short stretch of the Columbia River to give credence and support to salmon recovery to be short sighted, wrong headed, and anti-salmon recovery.
Quick and clear breakdown: The main cause for lower salmon numbers; 1. Fisherman, 2. Bonneville Dam TURBINES & FISH LADDERS, 3. Pike Minnow (aka Squawfish), the Sea Lions are only a small fraction of the real problem. Bonneville Dam needs to be taken down, the fish ladders and turbines are the main problem. Solar & Wind power is the future, but it will probably take 10+ years for them to take down the dam. Human greed always takes highest priority..
Every bit of the electricity produced by the dams is used. And if they were not there, with 150% of normal snowfall in the Rockies, Portlanders would be up to their collective butts in water about Memorial Day. Maybe sooner if the predicted 90 degree temps show up and stay a couple of days. Take out the dams and then it all becomes coal fired plants, or nuclear, and the whining still will go on. And don't give my the crap about solar and wind. Wind grinds up birds and bats like a food grinder. Makes a lot of noise. And the river runs all the time, and wind does not. Solar works half the time, at best, while the river runs every day. The world has been devastated by mining for lead and its smelting, so batteries come with a cost, and do need to be charged. All that easy answer, greed crap is just that. Juvenile wishful thinking. So we will live with the dams because the majority is not going to tear them down at a time when they can't afford to vacation because of escalating fuel prices. Only the rich can find the dough to drive or fly to the National Parks, the vast and isolated great wildlife preserves, the game refuges. It ain't about greed, dude. It is about cheap. Hydropower is cheap. There is enough money left over for draconian land use regulations and high priced housing. It is all connected, and salmon is not the glue that holds this place together. It is the cheap electricity. The clean air. Flood control. A barge moving a ton of wheat 500 miles on a gallon of diesel as compared to a truck moving the same amount only 50 miles with that same gallon of diesel.
And, if you look north to British Columbia, they have a similar sized river in their Fraser, which has no dams, and also a very troubled salmon run. Go figure. Have all those BC Packers canneries, terminal fisheries, fish farms, had anything to do with the failure of the Fraser River salmon runs? It ain't dams that have done those fish in. So what is it? All those people in town crapping in the river? Irrigation? Industrial pollution? Or just plain overfishing for generations, and no dead salmon in numbers high enough to have the rivers fertile enough to have healthy runs of prior size?
Solar panels,.. these are not what they used to be. Technology using the smallest amount of moon light is available now. Layered panels of varied sensitivities can be used to run 24/7. Expensive? Ask the Germans, they're leading the way in solar power. In a few years the prices could go down, just as most things do eventually. Dams are the past, they grind up more fish than your once a year bird/bat casualty you seem to care so much about.
Oil prices were inflated not because we have a lack of oil. It's a lack of money these pigs can't and won't ever get enough of. If they volunteered to fund the removal of all the dams and invested in green technology..then pge wouldn't be able to milk the middle and lower class anymore.
If you want some thing to get done in this country dont let the government or any of these educated idiots and experts to get involved.
I don't eat beef but do eat salmon and find baby cows, horses and seals are all cute and deserve to be treated humanly.