This is from the National Marine Fisheries Service's draft Enviro. Assesment proposing the sea lion killing, which the press release cited by the three articles ref'd above were summarizing .  Too bad none of those articles bothered to tell you any of this.  Too bad Grist didn't either.  C'mon Grist, you're usually great with the links!!

Please choose either of the first two alternatives (no action, or non-lethal deterrence only) in your project to protect salmon from sea lions near the Columbia River's Bonneville Dam.

Salmon are severely threatened and need our protection.  They need dams removed.  They need clear-cutting of forests halted.  They need erosion controlled.  They need new road construction halted in roadless areas.  They do NOT need you to kill any sea lions.

Killing sea lions would be an atrocious step, providing a minimal solution to only one small fragment of the array of threats facing salmon.  Even if you killed every sea lion on Earth, the salmon might still face extinction.

Please stop wasting your (and our) time on this distraction, and start working on the REAL threats to salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest.

NMFS's response, unfortunately, is a totally typical human response to human caused environmental problems.  Don't fix the cause of the problem, because we don't want to live more naturally.  Instead, attack a symptom of the problem and pretend you're doing something important.  This is exactly how most people are dealing with global warming; convince the government to make industries provide us with some magical technologies so that we don't have to change our ecocidal behavior.  Instead of consuming less electricity and reducing our population, we should just kill some sea lions.  Typical.

Alternately, working on similar logic, why not get rid of all salmon's predators? They could start with humans.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Then the salmon go up the restored river the natural way, and kills by sea lions and other predators are distributed along the length of the river instead of at a few key points where the fish are essentially trapped and easily ambushed.

http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/marine_mammals_news/sa ...

According to this, sea lions in Alaska take a large number of salmon, but that is not problematic.  Also, on the rivers in the PacNW, birds take more salmon than sea lions.

As you guys in the region must know far better than I, the issue of removing dams is highly charged and complicated.  Therefore, even though it is obvious that removing dams would be the best thing to do for salmon (and other wildlife), that will probably not happen any time soon.  In light of that, we should be prepared either to make a persuasive case for leaving the sea lions, the salmon and the situation alone, or to recommend a good, practical and effective method for removing the sea lions without harming them.

And we should certainly do nothing to encourage self-righteous vigilante fishers to take matters into their own hands and start popping off the sea lions.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

I shall inquire if this is the full extent of HSUS's plans to involve itself.

By the way, thanks to FRW for providing that contact information.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Moreover, the species that depend on salmon are starving too--salmon are a keystone species in the Northwest ... remove them, and LOTS of other species collapse or have a very hard time.

I recently saw an estimate that 80% of the mass of a new salmon smolt is directly and indirectly from dead salmon--there was a discussion of a failing effort to restore salmon to a stream, and the guy heard that he should try dumping dead salmon into the stream when the hatchery eggs were put in.  Worked like gangbusters--his comment was "I felt so bad, I was starving my babies."

US F&W tried a very expensive screen system to keep the sea lions and the salmon apart --- according to a friend who is a dedicated fisherman, they had a video feed of the screen's maiden test ... and the first sea lion had penetrated the screen in less than 60 seconds.

We have totally f888ed the Northwest's river systems, but it's the height of irresponsibility to just toss up your hands and say "Oh, well, it's our fault, so we can't deal with an invasive taking advantage of a niche we've created."

At the rate the sea lions are going, they are going to breed like crazy and the salmon runs will be extirpated, leading to a collapse in the sea lion colony but, oh, also, no more salmon.

Sorry folks, but the price of being the stupid knuckledicks that we are is that we have to make difficult choices between competing bads.  

The 5% Project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species.

According to that article, ecologists avoid the expression "invasive species," because of its vagueness, and its misleading connotations.

As I see the sea-lions-vs.-salmon-vs.-human-fishers situation in the Columbia River, the sea lions got to the Bonneville Dam on their own, they were not introduced there by human beings.  So that stretch of the Columbia River was always naturally potentially part of their range, only they never settled in below the Bonneville Dam until they realized that there were salmon readily available to prey on there.

Also, the only "native" species there that the sea lions seem to be affecting are the salmon (and there are more than one species of salmon in the Columbia River, I believe).  And according to Sharon Young, the sea lions are not themselves endangering the salmon of the Columbia River.

Really, the non-native (sub-)species that most truly endangers the salmon, and that most truly can be called "invasive," is Euro-American human beings.

But any recommendation that we should start killing off some Euro-American human beings, thirty at a time initially, is not likely to go far.  Funny how that works.

Elsewhere, the designation "invasive" tends to be equivalent to a "kill on sight" mandate.  So, is it OK simply to kill feral pigs, cats and horses?  Is it OK simply to kill successful predators who are expanding their ranges to the disadvantage of more delicate species, such as the coyote in the US SE, genetically overwhelming the red wolf; the red fox, in the sub-Arctic and Arctic, winning out against the Arctic fox; and the barred owl, in the PacNW, outcompeting against the spotted owl, conservationists' icon, for nesting sites and prey?  Is it OK simply to kill rats, everywhere, the lowest of the low, always vermin, always invasive?

I do not know if killing those animals, and others like them, is justified.  Perhaps it is, but I do not know.  Certainly, "simply" killing them is never justified.

And that is where the sea lions of the Columbia River are, right now.  Even if we come to agree that they deserve to be considered an "invasive species," it most certainly does not follow therefore that they deserve simply to be killed.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Has no one read Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, the seminal work on what humans are doing to their own environment? The answers are in this book. We as a species are not too swift.

Sea Lions have just as much right to deplete the salmon population as we do and 4% is trivial anyway. Looking at the insurmountable destruction of marine biodiversity which can be attributed to us, the Sea Lions are hardly responsible and deserve their chance to live.

The solution has to begin with us namely our greed and insatiable desire for convenience and if it helps the dam should be removed.


The wise have always said the same things, and fools, who are the majority have always done just the opposite.-Schopenhauer http://easygreenliving.net

I truly believe we are the most noxious invasive species on the planet.

Indeed, I argue for a kind of Jurassic Park solution, but full scale T. Rex's and raptors probably overkill.   I suggest we look to Ice Age DNA and resurrect the saber toothed tiger.

This beast would cull the slow ones from the herd and free up valuable capital for the new generation.

I have seen some comments that 4% is trivial, but in fact that is a significant portion of a population. Indeed, a 4% annual decrease in the human population would be wonderful.  Among other things, it would reduce the demand for energy that keeps rivers dammed and would slow collapse of the world's remaining fisheries.

However, an unmitigated 4% annual decrease in population leads to one place, which is extinction.

The problems threatening the salmon population at this dam are clearly complicated. An honest solution should consider tackling the problems at all levels.  

Killing the sea lions would be (1) barbaric, even if "humane," which is a silly word to use in this context; (2) ineffective, because there are always more where those came from; and (3) unnecessary - I find it hard to believe that human intelligence is incapable of engineering a ladder that does not create a massive backup of salmon looking for a way upstream.

Japanese fishermen blame whales and dolphins for low fish stocks, while in Atlantic Canada, fishing industry lobby groups blame harp and grey seals the low cod and other fish numbers. Fishermen in Namibia also blame Cape fur seals for decreased fish stocks and brutally slaughter thousands of seal pups each year.  In almost every case, the real reasons the fishery is in decline is simply because of human overfishing, as well as habitat destruction, which in this case of the sea lions in Oregon includes inappropriate dams. But local officials score points with voters in fishing communities by making marine mammals and environmental and animal protection advocates out to be the enemies.

Why do people view the salmon and other fish species as being solely for humans and not for any other creature?  Shouldn't one of the solutions be to further limit the fish kill quotas?

Whether they would be happy to be resurrected in this day and age, though, seems unlikely.  No more mammoths to munch on, for one thing.

Anyway, what need is there to do all that "Jurassic Park" business, when there are already with us enough serious predators who are ready and able to take a bite out of human populations, so to speak.

1. A recent article in Natural History says that there are more tigers (Panthera tigris) in captivity in the US than there are wild tigers in India -- too many idiotic Americans with a little bit of money in their hands seem to think that buying a tiger cub is a cool idea, apparently.  And as we know from the Christmas Day Unpleasantness at the SF Zoo, it is not wise to fool around with tigers.

2. Lions were long right at home here in the US, back during the Pleistocene.  And some thought (a bit misguided IMHO) has been given lately by some Americans with money (yet more money!) to reintroduce them, and cheetahs, somewhere in the Plains States.  Well, in principle it could work, even as the introduction of several exotic ungulates in Western states has worked, after a fashion.

3. Cougars out West have been getting fairly feisty, haven't they.  By "cougar," of course I mean mountain lion, not that other carefully discriminating predator of the sort that has been improperly persecuting our poor Pathos -- or so that trusty Gristmill correspondent says.  (One envisions a powdered, manicured, bejeweled paw reaching up to unbutton a button, and the lad helplessly cries out, "Down, girl, down!"  Koo koo ka choo ... )

AMC,
that is an excellent observation, that the violent, lethal prejudice of fishers against marine mammals and other ocean predators is both global and ancient.  I did not know about the Namibian example.

Of course, predators on land too have always been persecuted by hunters: wolves in the first place, and most savagely, but also many other mammalian carnivores, and raptors.

TheHunter,
I agree with what you and some others have been saying about the injustice of killing the sea lions.  But the point I began to make earlier is that if we are going to be responsible activists, defending both the sea lions and the salmon, we should understand it will not work to demonize the fishers.  In EVERY area of wildlife conservation, and of animal welfare with a special concern for wildlife, it is necessary to listen sympathetically to the people who have to live alongside those animals.

Two more naive questions on this case, from across the continent:

1. Why do the anglers/fishers not join the pro-dam-removal coalition?  Do they not see that that would be good for the salmon populations?  Or, are they actually benefiting -- in the short term -- from the restrictions placed on the salmon's movements by the dams?

2. Are there signs that the apparently increasing aggressiveness of some of the sea lions is turning the opinion of otherwise neutral people against them?  I.e., are more people inclined to favor the kill order, because there is a growing perception that the sea lions are dangerous to human beings?

Eradicating sea lions within a reasonable distance from these dams is a very common sense solution to saving such an important animal. If this plan isn't approved by the Fisheries and Wildlife organizations, hopefully some well meaning fisherman will do it themselves, a la The Boondock Saints.

Stay positive, love your life.

<<
any reasonable person should have no problem identifying the most important species in this case.
>>

"Important"?!  Who?  The intended eater?  The intended eaten?

And, why do some eaters matter more than others?  What about the arthropods, the mollusks, the microbes, the fungi, the microbes, finishing off all the remains of all the vertebrates in this story?  "The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out ... "

And, why should "any reasonable person" have such an easy time deciding who or what is "important"?

There is a great deal of flesh to be eaten, no doubt, off the skeletons of those who either cannot spell, and learn good syntax, or do not care if they misspell or abuse syntax.  "Any reasonable person" would identify that flesh as an "important" resource, well worth harvesting, no matter how far from a dam the flesh-bearer happens to be standing, no?  Surely some "well-meaning fisherman" would "reasonably" consider such a harvest an excellent way to "facilitate our modern way of life," no?  : (

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Will the real prick called Kevin Michael please stand up?


I only have this one life, so I am going to try my very best to make a positive change. --- The Happy & Healthy Vegan ---

Operation salmon freedom!

America F-yea!

Further, we are all a part of this land. Humans and anything else on this island we call earth are of the same community. We are obligated to treat this land in an ethical manner.

I think the guys who write South Park hit it on the head when your typical Grist blogger is akin to the people of South Park who own a Toyota Prius and intentionally inhale their own farts. I on the other hand do not fly off the handle when someone suggests something as simple as killing a few sea lions to save thousands of salmon, yes thousands of salmon. Are sea lions endangered? Of course not. Are wild salmon? Yes.

If everyone in this country did what I do, limit driving, maintain an efficient/new auto, voluntarily pay more for renewable energy, take short showers, recycle only recoverable plastics, alum., and paper, etc this country would be a green paradise.

Eat salmon, its good for your heart and will delay that stroke you will have if you continue to overreact about these issues.

Stay positive, love your life.

Is it really worth it?: killing sea lions, in order to kill salmon, in order to feed your heart, in order to live longer, as a killer?

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

1. As much as I love watching South Park, I do not use it as reference for my life! Instead I trying using report from the UN, or any other official well researched documentation, as starting point, then I read the opposing argument and then evaluate/analysis the situation.

2. All the things you mentioned you do to be green, I also do them. - so what's you point? - do you want a cookie for being responsible?

3. For you its just few sea lions, but Kevin a "few here and there" results in a lot of death to a eco-system we do not really understand. Kevin the eco system is far more complex then we seem to understand.

4. Where does the "kill just a few" stop? Would you like to know how many species have become extinct just the lat ten years and how many are on the verge? Maybe those tragedies started with "Kill just a few" mentally.

5. Eating salmon is not grantee goodness for my heart. Nor is it a grantee to make me live longer. Actually Kevin the best thing for my heart is to feel kindness for all living creatures, (humans and animals).

6. You are right Kevin, I am flying "off the handle" because if I asked politely and nicely "can we please not kill more innocent animals", do you really think people would listen? - I doubt it. - there is so much information around us, that sometimes the only way to get a message across is to be a little strong. - Look at current political debates. Do you think people would vote for a candidate that "showed no passion for what they believed in"?

7. Why is it Kevin that my few words seemed so "intimidating to you", yet you are consenting the death of animals that have never harmed you? - Why is it okay for you to be so sensitive, and yet have no consideration to the pain of a creature that is killed? Where is the justification in that?

These would not require death of the sea lions.
The Samlon would populate more.
The dam would be functional.

I only have this one life, so I am going to try my very best to make a positive change. --- The Happy & Healthy Vegan ---

They've already tried that for several years in this particular situation/location.  Unfortunately, it failed, and most of the sea lions were able to find their way back.

They also tried a special type of barrier that allowed the salmon to pass through certain points, but not the sea lions.  However, as is well known, sea lions are highly intelligent and quickly (in less than an hour) found ways around the barriers.

I wonder if they've considered tryin' the use of imitation predators.  Noises from Orcas and the like.  I know they've built fully submersible robotic versions of sharks and small whales before, maybe somethin' like that could work here as well...so long as it also doesn't scare away the salmon.

I like the fact that you are thinking of another solution. So many times people think with the "them versus us" manner. Usually both parties lose. So I like the alternative solutions, lets see if there are more.

Its not the sea lions fault that a) there is a dam, and b)there fishes are so over fished!

The fact sea lions are only doing what natural, eating their diet! Unlike us they has a limited varity. Whereas we have hundreds if not thousands of choices of what we eat!

Again thank you for suggesting the alternative solution.

I know it's takin' animals outta the wild, but the influence of the dam has obviously degraded their natural hunting skills to start with, so why not capture and send 'em to a zoo or aquarium where they could get all the fish they wanted anyway?  It'd be better than killin' 'em, I think.

If anyone has suggestions, lets get something together a put a plan together. - killing is not the answer! its just making the situation worse.

It does not have to be "them v's us". there has to be solutions to help everyone involved.

Amen, Kimberley Woelich!  Specifically, regarding the situation of our consciences, and how we go about making ethical decisions in the future, the situation is much worse when we condone unrepentantly the killing of any sentient living being.

Thos,
as a tribal member, you might be expected to offer better leadership in this matter.  Notice how the relatively new Museum of the American Indian, on the Mall in DC, hosted at least a bit of the Live Earth events last July, including a visit by Al Gore himself, in the face of lots of DC opposition (GOP opposition mostly).  I do not think you give us the best wisdom of your people.

If your people have a special understanding with the salmon, to honor their wishes, then one might think you would respect their wish to give themselves as food not only to you, but to other living creatures as well, including the sea lions.  Do you not violate your sacred relationship with the salmon, founded upon honor and respect, when you refuse to honor their will to give themselves to the sea lions?

And, how should considerations of who is or is not a member of a "threatened or endangered" species enter into how we treat any unique living creature, who offers himself or herself up to our mercy?  Human beings do not belong to a "threatened or endangered" species at all, and yet we still rightly protest the killing of human beings.  When we are talking about sentient living creatures, such as sea lions, "Killing is the answer, period" is never the right answer.

And, why should any consideration of what is "IMMEDIATE" change the much more fundamental consideration of what is right and what is wrong?  If you and your people are working for the removal of dams, for your sake and for the sake of the salmon, that is good.  But then, knowing that you are doing the right thing in working for the removal of dams, is it not your wisdom to be patient, knowing yourselves to be in harmony with the right working of the world?

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.