Hundreds Comment on States' Application to Kill Sea Lions 

Columbia Basin Bulletin

June 8, 2007 

An application for state authority to lethally remove salmon-hungry California sea lions from the Columbia River has drawn literally hundreds of comments from fishing interests, animal rights groups, tribes and others.

"The vast majority of the comments are one sentence supporting or opposing the application," said Brent Norberg, a fishery biologist and Marine Mammal coordinator for the NOAA Fisheries Service's Northwest Region.

NOAA is charged both with enforcing the provisions of the MMPA, creating in 1972 to protect what were, at the time, struggling pinniped populations, and sea-going species, such as 13 Columbia River basin salmon and steelhead stocks, listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Most of those short notes are charged with emotion, ranging from "get rid of those killer sea lions" to calling lethal removal too simplistic a solution "for such a complex problem created by man."

Some described threats the huge and hungry marine mammals posed to humans, as well as to salmon on which the pinnipeds prey. Others say the use of lethal force is uncalled for and improperly focuses blame for salmon declines sea lions instead of human development.

"You get emotional reactions from 90 percent of the people" during such comment periods, according to Garth Griffin, a supervisory fishery biologist and branch chief for the Northwest Region's Protected Resources Division.

That does have value, in terms of judging "temperature" of any particular issue, he said.

The Jan. 30 Federal Register notice of the comment period asked for specific information that might help consideration of the application, such as observations of sea lions and predation, information on where sea lions may congregate, and dates where sea lions have been observed up and down the lower river.

But little such information was received via public comment.

"It's a quandary that we go through," Norberg said of comment periods that allow public expression but often don't yield desired data that could help an investigation.

More detailed submittals did explain what commentators feel is wrong, or right, with the states of Idaho , Oregon and Washington 's application for a lethal take permit under Section 120 of the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Comments filed by the Humane Society of the United States say the entire process is premature and in violation of the MMPA. The Humane Society and other organizations challenged in court the only other attempt to implement the act's legal take provision, at Seattle 's Ballard Locks in the mid-1990s.

"The MMPA allows the lethal removal of a limited number of individually identifiable animals who are having a significant negative impact on the decline and recovery of ESA listed stocks," the Humane Society comments say. "Yet the applicants cannot identify 83 specific individuals, which is the number their application requests for the first year alone, and instead erroneously assert that individual identification is not necessary."

"While they have documented predation rates, the applicants have not shown that the impact of sea lion predation is significantly negative, particularly in light of commercial and recreational fishery removals.

"The have provided no evidence that killing 83 animals a year for an unspecified period will have any appreciable positive affect on the decline and recovery of the fish."

Several comments offer nominations for members to serve on a Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force that would eventually recommend what can be done about sea lions that have been taking bigger and bigger bites our of the basin's spring chinook salmon runs in recent years. Once formed that panel would evaluate whether or not the lethal removal of particular marine mammals by the states is justified.

The MMBA Section 120 process was triggered by the states' December 2006 application to the Commerce Department/NOAA Fisheries. It requests authority to remove a limited number of California sea lions annually from the six miles of river below Bonneville Dam, as well as marked animals that have been observed preying on salmonids that often congregate at Bonneville Dam prior to moving upriver. It says any lethal removal would be preceded by a period of non-lethal deterrence activity to give animals a chance to leave the area, and would be followed by an evaluation period.

The application asks permission to remove as much as 1 percent of the California sea lions "Potential Biological Removal" level, which is the sustainable level of human caused mortality allowed under the MMPA that is judged not to be harmful to what is a robust population. That PBR is now calculated to be 8,333 animals per year; 1 percent would be 83.

NOAA, in its 2000 biological opinion on Columbia/Snake hydrosystem operations, called for an evaluation of sea lion predation on listed salmon and steelhead at the dam. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began studies in 2001 to evaluate how many pinnipeds were present and how many salmon they consumed.

The number of sea lions grew from six animals that first year, topping off at 111 and 105 in 2003 and 2004 and numbering 85 in each of the past two years.

The Corps study indicates that the sea lions' predation on salmon has also increased, from 0.35 percent of the total upriver spring chinook run passing the dam in 2001 (1,010 salmonids) to 3.4 percent or 2,920 salmon in 2005. Last year the lions consumed an estimated 2.8 percent of the upriver run just in the area immediately below the dam. Preliminary estimates this year indicate about a 4 percent impact.

"Preliminary bioenergetic modeling, for example, suggests that California sea lions could be consuming 13,000 salmon each spring (based on 100 sea lions consuming a 100 percent diet of 8 kg salmon for 100 days),"according to the states' application.

The Marine Mammal Commission, charged under the MMBA with protecting and conserving marine mammals, agreed with the Humane Society regarding the application's lack of specificity regarding sea lion impacts on salmon, and questioned the state's envisioned scope -- removing as many as 83 animals per year. But it said that the act allows for legal removal, and it might be necessary in the Columbia River .

"If the issue boils down to a choice between conservation of endangered and threatened salmonid stocks versus removal of individual sea lions from healthy stocks that are contributing significantly to the problem, then we believe the MMPA gives clear direction that conservation of the salmonid stocks takes precedence," the MMC comments say.

Its recommendations suggest that the task force ascertain if the predation represents a "significant negative impact" as the law requires before lethal removal and decide if lethal removal should be restricted to certain identifiable individual pinnipeds that have been documented as having the most impact.

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission comments supported the application. Its member tribes – the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs and Yakama – have treaty fishing rights in the Columbia .

"The Tribes' goal is not to kill sea lions, but to ensure safe passage for spring Chinook salmon," according to comments signed by CRITFC Executive Director Olney Patt Jr. "Spring Chinook salmon are very important to the Commission's member tribes. Unfortunately over the past few years, the spring Chinook runs have been so low that the Tribal first salmon ceremonies are going without sufficient salmon to feed everyone. CRITFC and its member tribes are working very hard to restore spring chinok and this action is one of many important measures to bring back the salmon."

Animal Welfare Institute comments say that "sea lions are not the problem" and lethal removal is merely a "temporary fix that might make a few more salmonids available to fishermen."

"The actual causes of the decline of the Columbia River salmonid populations are likely cumulative and include pollutant loading of the river, human overfishing and the fish ladders of the Bonneville Dam. These ladders serve to concentrate the salmonids, exposing them to the sea lions.

"We recognize that this makes for difficult planning since without the ladders, the fish migration paths are obstructed, however, it is absurd to think that human beings can train wild animals to avoid their natural prey," the institute's comments say. "The application states that 'nuisance' animals will be targeted in the cull, yet given the readily available food source that the fish ladders present, any healthy, hungry sea lion has the possibility of becoming a 'nuisance' and therefore a target."

Comments submitted by Salmon For All, an organization of commercial fishers and related businesses, admits that, although "sea lion predation is only one small part of the problem facing the Columbia River's once great salmon runs, it is one part for which no attempt at mitigation is currently in place."

"The states' Section 120 request is a reasonable and prudent step to address the situation. I urge you to support it," said the comments signed by Hobe Kytr, SFA administrator.

The Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association says that "lethal interactions between pinnipeds and the sturgeon, salmon and steelhead staging at the base of the dam is growing every new year, and must be addressed before our fishery resources are decimated, much as the steelhead were in the Ballard locks." NSIA is a coalition of sportfishing businesses, fishing organizations and clubs and individuals. The comments pledged a commitment of resources to find solutions through the MMPA process.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Source:  http://www.cbbulletin.com/Free/218149.aspx