To be clear, rational people are not “for” the killing of California sea lions. The animals continue under protected status by the federal government. As recently as the 1970s, fewer than 1,500 California sea lions were counted around that state.
But there comes a time when the survival of one species (in this case endangered salmon) must be balanced against the survival of another (the predatory California sea lions, who have made a habit of devouring salmon near Bonneville Dam.)
That’s why the Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force was created and first met in March 2007. Their task was to recommend to the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration if and how some sea lions should be killed around the dam.
After a 17-1 vote of the task force, and after extensive legal battles, lethal control of the sea lions was approved by federal officials. This strategy has been authorized through June 30,2012. At the same time, relocating captured sea lions to zoos, marine parks and aquariums was correctly advocated as a preferred strategy. Our editorial stance on all of this was and remains: It’s worth a try, and it’s worth reviewing along the way.
The time for that review has arrived. As Erik Robinson reported in Friday’s Columbian, the task force will reconvene Oct. 25-26 and Nov. 9-10 in Portland. The group includes representatives of government agencies, Indian tribes, fishing groups, the Oregon Zoo and the Humane Society of the United States.
We’re glad this review is taking place, and we eagerly anticipate the findings that will come from these informed and knowledgeable stakeholders. William Stelle, National Marine Fisheries Service regional administrator, correctly noted in a recent letter to task force members that this issue is a “difficult and emotional wildlife management matter.” What should guide the task force beyond those difficulties is the balance that we noted earlier in this editorial.
In 2007, Fidelia Andy, chairwoman of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, told a House Natural Resources subcommittee that sea lions that spring killed at least 3,500 fish. “If we return to using the same failed tactics we use today, then it will be difficult to answer to the region, the region’s fishermen and the taxpayers who have invested in salmon restoration.” That is a balanced and rational perspective.
Since the lethal control of sea lions was authorized, state wildlife agents have killed 22 animals and relocated 10 sea lions to zoos or aquariums. Additionally, six sea lions were inadvertently killed in a trap in 2008.
For the most part, the intervention of humans in the natural world should be minimized. But there is no denying that such intrusion is real and widespread. To some extent, we empower ourselves to mitigate that effect, and the expensive salmon restoration efforts that Andy mentioned back in 2007 exemplify that potential.
The same responsibilities are seen today in the work of the task force charged with studying sea lion control. Clearly, the sea lions have become nuisance animals, but their predatory behavior should not be described as anything but natural. If lethal control is ruled effective and beneficial, so be it. If not, then other ways to balance the two species’ fight for survival must be pursued.
Let’s not look for winners and losers in this matter. Instead, let the experts identify the right thing to do.
