 |
| Photo credit: craft*ology |
Once upon a time, seals and salmon lived in harmony in the ocean and rivers without the interference of upset anglers. But this isn’t once upon a time and there is not a fairy tale ending for either the seals or the salmon.
The presence of California Stellar sea lions hunting and consuming the precious salmon near Bonneville Dam in the Columbia River has fueled years of debate and controversial claims. Seeing them lounge near the dam has proved to be enchanting for many. With the population growing annually, they sparked numerous claims from stakeholders as to how to best handle the situation. Oregon, Washington, and Idaho collectively filed an application to kill nuisance seals with support of the anglers. This application would then fuel numerous lawsuits and controversial statements both supporting the removal as well as advocacy for allowing nature to be left uncontrolled. The irony within the controversy is that the consumption of the salmon by the seals in comparison to the anglers is miniscule. Anglers and biologists make the seals out to be savage consumers doing irreparable damage to salmon populations. The seals only eat between 1 and 4% of the salmon. Considering the scale of the controversy, why are anglers, biologists, media personal and citizens convinced that seals are doing terrible damage to the salmon population? These stakeholders have consistently attacked the seals as the culprit while being unwilling to alter their own behavior to benefit the salmon populations. Instead they are much happier allowing the seals to act as a surrogate to be blamed and persecuted for the issue.
 |
| Photo credit: Paddynapper |
This clip is one of many demonizing the seals and supporting the anglers agenda to kill the seals. It was aired a few years ago before the controversy died down with stakeholders reaching an impasse. This cohesion was short lived as the controversy has been set ablaze once again by yet another approval to lethally remove problem seals. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association has approved lethal injection of up to 92 seals annually for the next four years as of March 15. A statement from Oregon Fish and Wildlife deputy administrator, Steve Williams claimed, “From the perspective of the states, we believe it’s an important piece of the puzzle for recovery of the salmon” (Valdes- Article on Approval to Kill Seals). This statement is the first of many surfacing inferring numerous factors are impacting the salmon. Interesting timing that coincidentally these claims are only surfacing after success in being granted approval to inject problematic seals. These statements follow years of claims listing the seals as the primary culprit. It makes you wonder about the significance of the seals effect on salmon population if there are suddenly numerous other factors and annually anglers are allowed increasing limits to the number of salmon they can catch.
Seal defenders have begun to vocalize their position asserting the seals should not be so forcefully targeted. According to Sharon Young, the marine issues field director of the Humane Society, “Non-native species of fish that are stocked in the river for recreational fishing eat young salmon. Furthermore, if recovery is the goal, fishing limits shouldn’t be raised if the salmon runs increase” (Valdes). Not only are non-native fish continually being brought in for the anglers the same fish are impeding the chances for survival of young salmon. Let’s note the hypocrisy, anglers are viciously arguing to lethally inject seals yet support non-native fish being brought in to fuel their hobby at the expense of salmon. The anglers are behaving no better than overindulged children demanding that everything work out in their favor removing all threats as well as increasing their personal enjoyment with the non-native species being brought in for them.
That being said let’s take a look at the damage incurred on the salmon population at the hands of our “supposed” salmon-friendly anglers shall we. The Humane Society, which seems to be the only rational and caring stakeholder on behalf of the seals published a recent press release on the matter. It states, “In 2011, sea lions consumed just over 1 percent of the salmon run at the same time that Oregon and Washington permitted fisheries in the Columbia River to harvest as much as 12 percent of the very same run” Humane Society Press Release. It seems to me that the biggest threat is none other than the anglers. Despite their claims otherwise, our most vocal stakeholders in the anglers are actually posing 12 times the threat of the seals on the salmon population. If every claim by anglers about looking out for the salmon was measured similarly to Pinnochio’s growing nose, I’m fairly confident our angler friends would have a close relationship with their otorhinolaryngologist (fancy term for a nose doctor) to keep growth in check.
The Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force is essentially a group of biologists, anglers and tribal spokesmen. Something seems a bit fishy about this alliance, no pun intended. A task force mainly of allies with a couple key opponents however has worked for them to create the illusion of a well balanced team. In a question and response statement on the NOAA’s website, the response to a question listed major conspirators, I mean partners, “Yes. We and our partners, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission and its member tribes, and the states of Oregon and Washington, continued to use all legal means available to non-lethally deter problem sea lions. The states will continue to pursue non-lethal alternatives that reduce both sea lion predation on salmon and steelhead, and the number of sea lions removed.” (Question and Answer NOAA). Many of these stakeholders coincidentally serve as members of a task force on the issue. More than half of the 2011 MMPA Sec. 120 Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force, either represented NOAA or one of its affiliates Task Force Members.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association clearly knows enough about politics to stack the odds in their favor while having a couple key opponents to seem balanced. They think of the seals as threats and target them with intent to kill despite the little effect the seals have. This irrational motive to solve the alleged issue has been extensively fought by the rational members. While the rational insight should win hypothetically it is well known that it is always the indignant person’s perspective that is always heard. At one point a mediator was needed to facilitate the heated conversation on the matter. One statement released claimed Humane Society representative Sharon Young was “the only task force member to vote last year [2010] against the killing” (Smith). This once again illustrates the strategy and games the NOAA are playing in order to fulfill their ulterior motives. The task force isn’t the only committee with members at odds, the House Natural Resource Committee was involved expediting application approval. Of all the things for the House of Representatives to take care of I’m ecstatic that the seals are at the top of their list.
Within the committee there were various perspectives and criticism about the relevance and need to take action against the seals. Claims included the belief if one seal is killed another will take its place and it would become a never ending cycle. Republican Ed Markey of Massachusetts felt the bill was implausible and irrational and had even suggested amending the bill to be named “‘Shoot Sea Lions for Eating Fish Act.’” He supported this with the claim, “This bill would have us shoot sea lions simply for being hungry, what crimes have sea lions actually committed here?’” (Freking). Honestly, since when has it become a crime for predators to eat their prey? While the proposed amendment was not meant to be taken seriously it served it purpose to force people to step back and think about the scope of the controversy being a miniscule issue blown extremely out of proportion. Biologists, anglers, fisheries service members, tribes, citizens and even the federal government have all been in vigorous debates over seals consuming salmon. It just seems ridiculous that a natural predator-prey process with minimal impact on the overall salmon run annually has fueled nearly a decade of debate and widespread attention on a local, state and even national level.
Looking deeper into the qualifications set forth by the NOAA for seals to become part of the list of approved seals for capture and either relocation or injection is absurd. As of April 25 in an amendment letter from the NOAA to the Oregon and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife there are 3 new seals to be added to the listing of approved seals for removal or lethal injection. To be worthy of the death penalty one would expect the seal to have been gorging on hundreds of salmon for years. This is not the case as the seals are listed in the appendix as following:
C018/IB358 - Observed at the dam on 42 days over a two-year period from 2011 through 2012
with 4 documented salmonids consumed.
C019/IB367 - Observed at the dam on 15 days over a two-year period from 2011 through 2012
with 24 documented salmonids consumed.
U159/IB327 - Observed at the dam on 7 days over a three-year period from 2010 through 2012
with 3 documented salmonids consumed. NOAA Amendment Letter.
 |
| Photo Credit: Yeimaya |
Consuming roughly a couple of salmon per year seems far from death penalty worthy for C018 and U159. Considering the low threshold in which the seals become qualified they may as well have declared all seals to be on the list. In comparison to the number of salmon a fisherman could catch within a two year time period the seals consumption doesn’t even appear to be worth considering and certainly non-threatening at a rate of one salmon per year in the case of U159. Whoa, 1 salmon per year! We need to get that terrorist under control ASAP! With the sparse number of salmons consumed by problem seals the shareholders need to take a step back to analyze their impact and the immorality of their current efforts.
The Humane Society has been the primary advocate willing to holistically look at the controversy without blindly persecuting the seals for a larger issue. In a statement by the chief operating officer of The Humane Society, Michael Markarian asserts, “Rather than address the real problems facing salmon recovery in the Pacific Northwest—fisheries, dams, competition with hatchery and non-native fish, and habitat destruction—some politicians have ignored sound scientific date and scapegoat the sea lions. It’s not only irrational, but dishonest” Humane Society Statement. He passionately delivers a statement in which he blatantly calls out the current problem in the flawed system that is using the seals as an easy solution to the problem versus taking any action against man made processes or influences on the dwindling populations. This highlights the hypocrisy of the entire situation as the seals are often blamed and made to appear to the public as a horrific predator destroying the salmon levels. Instead it has become apparent through the latest resurgence of events that indeed the controversial approval to kill the supposed problem seals is based on shaky ground.
By focusing whole heartedly on making the seals appear to be terrible culprits stakeholders have been able to bypass blame for their detrimental effects persecuting the seals for their own consequences. After swimming 140 miles from California it seems that it is not unreasonable that over a span of a few years the seals consume only a handful of salmon. While this is only the observed reporting it is doubtful that with the vigilant attention dedicated to setting up the seals as major culprits that much of their total salmon consumption could go undetected. However, I think the most important question we are asked at this point in the controversy is: if it is morally ethical to pursue killing seals when there are numerous other factors with substantially higher consequences and adverse affects on the salmon population? In moving forward our best option would be for more stakeholders to actively contribute to the controversy versus allowing the biologists and anglers to dominate the discussion. The most important goal to strive for is for seals to be unharmed and rather focus efforts to pursue reduction of the effects that anglers, hatcheries, non-native species and technologies in the area have on the dwindling population of endangered salmon in the vicinity of the Bonneville Dam. Besides the salmon would be just fine if it weren't for the NOAA and their meddling allies!
 |
| Photo credit: Chuck Rogers Now its just a matter of who will win, the bloodthirsty anglers or the unsuspecting sea lions. Either way, stakeholders need to speak out to protect the salmon from the anglers. May the odds be ever in your favor!
Works Cited
Craft*ology. Seal. N.d. Voices in the Wilderness, Bern, Switzerland.Flickr.com. Web. 11 May 2012.
Freking, Kevin . "Panel looks to reduce threat of sea lions to fish ." The Daily News - Longview, Washington. N.p., 5 Oct. 2011. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <http://tdn.com/news/state-and-regional/washington/panel-looks-to-reduce-threat-of-sea-lions-to-fish/article_9ccd068c-efa9-11e0-83c0-001cc4c03286.html>.
Hewitt, Bill. “A Roaring Battle Over Sea Lions.” Suzlon Energy Limited SWOT Analysis 69.22 (2008): 97-98. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H.W. Wilson). Web. 16 Apr. 2012
Markarian, Michael . "Saving salmon: Sea lions aren't the enemy ." OregonLive.com. N.p., 19 Oct. 2011. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/10/saving_salmon_sea_lions_arent.html#repete>.
McOmie, Grant . "Sources: NOAA to approve killing some sea lions | News | KATU.com - Portland News, Sports, Traffic Weather and Breaking News - Portland, Oregon." KATU.com - Portland News, Sports, Traffic Weather and Breaking News - Portland, Oregon. N.p., 13 Mar. 2008. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. <http://www.katu.com/news/16666251.html?tab=video>.
NOAA. "Sec 120 TF mbrs 11." Redirecting to new Site. N.p., 20 Oct. 2011. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Marine-Mammals/Seals-and-Sea-Lions/Sec-120-TF-mbrs-11.cfm>.
NOAA. "Sec 120 QA 2012." Redirecting to new Site. N.p., 15 Mar. 2012. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Marine-Mammals/Seals-and-Sea-Lions/Sec-120-QA-2012.cfm>.
Paddynapper. Seal. N.d. Scenery and Nature, Flickr.com. Web. 11 May 2012.
Rogers, Chuck . Sent to Bed Without Any Dinner. N.d. Santa Cruz, CA.Flickr.com. Web. 11 May 2012.
Smith, Quinton. "Sea lion task force to weigh in on whether to kill and remove sea lions feasting on fish at Bonneville Dam." OregonLive.com. N.p., 16 Oct. 2011. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/10/sea_lion_task_force_to_weigh_i.html>.
Stelle Jr. , William W. . "NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE." UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. N.p., 25 Apr. 2012. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <www.nwr.noaa.gov/Marine-Mammals/Seals-and-Sea-Lions/upload/Sec-120-LOA-2012-amend.pdf>.
The Humane Society of the United States . " The Humane Society of the United States and Wild Fish Conservancy File Suit to Stop Illegal Sea Lion Killing at Bonneville Dam : The Humane Society of the United States ." The Humane Society of the United States : The Humane Society of the United States . N.p., 19 Mar. 2012. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2012/03/HSUS_file_suit_sea_lion_031912.html>.
Valdes, Manuel. "Feds OK killing of sea lions in Columbia River." The Daily News - Longview, Washington. N.p., 15 Mar. 2012. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <http://tdn.com/news/state-and-regional/washington/feds-ok-killing-of-sea-lions-in-columbia-river/article_c6137a0a-6ef0-11e1-8fa4-001871e3ce6c.html>.
Yeimaya. Fishermen and Seals. 2005. 2005 Harbor Seal Observation, Flickr.com. Web. 11 May 2012.
|
