U.S. to let states kill sea lions to save salmon - Reuters

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

U.S. to let states kill sea lions to save salmon
Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:14pm EDT

By Teresa Carson

PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - Washington and Oregon
can start killing sea lions that feed on migrating salmon to
help preserve dwindling U.S. Pacific Northwest salmon
populations, a federal agency said on Tuesday.

The National Marine Fisheries Service granted permission
to the states to target as many as 85 sea lions a year
near the Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River. Oregon's
Department of Fish and Wildlife said removal will start
after April 1.

-snip-

Only sea lions seen gobbling salmon during between
January 1 and May 31 can be killed, according to the
order. Before sea lions are killed, they must be trapped
and held for 48 hours while fisheries managers try to
find them a home at a zoo or aquarium.

There is a provision, however, that allows sea lions to
be shot in the water if the animals are not easily
captured. The decision raised the ire of one animal
protection group.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1821709820080318

[phantom power]

1. That's special.

:banghead:

[jaksavage]

2. Killing 300 sea lions

out of a population in the multimillions is not a problem.

Repeat offenders, familiar faces, unfortunatly drawn to the dam base by a congregation of salmon and sturgeon.

I would rather remove the dams but that ain't goin to happen.

How about no commercial or sport fishing and no native american fishing for 5 years?
The current ban on commercial salmon fishing is from Tillamook south.

Drastic measures for drastic times.

[malakai2]

4. You know, most people are not realistic

They do correctly identify the problems-the dams, agricultural diversion, overfishing, and climate change-but when it comes to solutions reality goes out the window. Those dams are not coming down. Electrical demand and agricultural interests will see to that. Even if by some miracle a few of those dams did fail, the buildup of communities and economies based on what those structures provide would dictate that people with some astronomical pay grades order them rebuilt. I imagine fishing curtailments are about as much as we'll see, but just like in California now, the industry will not agree to meaningful cuts until severe and lasting damage leaves them with no other option, or until they can be scapegoated for other problems (water temps, delta water system, etc.). Removing the relatively few sea lions that have set up shop below the dam may make change the returns somewhat, but are we to believe that 1) those individuals are the primary cause for declines in those runs, and 2) other individuals won't set up shop in the same food-rich area that was so attractive to the animals currently occupying the dam outflow?

I'm at the point now where I feel if we aren't going to make an honest effort to do something correctly, we shouldn't throw money into an effort we know is going to fail. For instance, we know flow alterations and physical barriers are the problem in this case...if we aren't going to address those issues, and we aren't, what are we trying to accomplish?

[Nihil]

5. I agree with the numbers but not the principle behind them.

Killing 300 sea lions out of a million or so is not a problem
except that it will just open up a space at the trough for the
next 300, and then the next 300 ... until some politician decides
that the licenced kill limit should be increased ...

You have the nub of the problem here
> ... drawn to the dam base by a congregation of salmon and sturgeon.

If you put down a feeding trough, don't be surprised if animals notice.

> How about no commercial or sport fishing and no native american
> fishing for 5 years?

That would be far more effective than killing off some sealions
but it would impact *the ability for humans to make money* and so
it can never be considered until (and even after) all of the other
"kill quotas for xyz" alternatives have been exhausted.

I agree that it is incredibly unlikely that the real solution
(removing the dam) will be adopted but surely a more practical
one would be to fence out the sealions further downstream?
There is a significant difference in size between a sealion and
a salmon so we're not talking about moving the problem but this
way would avoid the problem noted at the top of this post: killing
the current feeders would only open up an opportunity for others.

:shrug:

[diane in sf]

3. Are the sea lions as big a problem as agricultural water diversion?

[hunter]

6. Why do we think they are OUR salmon?

It's absurd to think that sea lions are causing the rapid decline of salmon populations.

First we dam and divert the rivers, then we pollute everything and create dead zones in the ocean, then we pump the ocean full of carbon dioxide, and then the earth warms up, ocean currents change...

And then we blame a few sea lions????? :wtf:

So, how soon before we start shooting people? Oh wait, that's right, we already do.