I can't say anything here that doesn't sound sophomoric, like How Horrible and This is a Bad Thing.  When I read things like this I feel as if I have been punched in the gut.  Do these people respond to anything other than money?  Are they really people?

Everyone hates the current administration, but the Democrats are no better.  What Democrat has advocated removing dam(n)s?  In fact, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the most popular politician in California until Terminator came along, strongly opposes removing the Hetch Hetchy dam on the Tuolumne River in Yosemite National Park.

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.

If salmon is so important, then maybe people should stop eating Salmon, instead of killing more animals for a problem that humans created!

Then kill the salmon to save the smaller fish.
Kill the smaller fish to save the plants.
Kill the plants to save the water.
Just get rid of all the water, that'll make it easier.

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

Animals have been killing animals for years. Sea lions are definitely not endangered. The salmon run is. We have a role to be scientific and rational and caretakers. The sea lions aren't living natural lives, posting up at the bottom of the dam. They should take the dam down, but in the mean time, we shouldn't overreact if some sea lions are humanely killed for the sake of maintaining a threatened species(who are savagedly killed by sea lions)

...would be to eliminate the dam.  No dam, no fish ladder, no ambush by sea lions at said fish ladder.

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.

I just read the three sources, and notice that the HSUS's Sharon Young, who wrote the paper that I referred to, is mentioned in both The Oregonian and the AP report as offering an opinion -- opposed to killing the sea lions, of course, though without recommending anything by way of keeping the peace.

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.

The sea lions are invasive species in the Columbia.  The salmon are essential to the health of the rivers upstream--the whole upstream food web evolved with an annual influx (gigantic) of marine nutrients not otherwise available inland, which delivered by the anadromous fish returning, spawning, and dying.  

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.  

okay, the article above said that sea lions are killing 4%, so why are we trying to solve the 4% of the salmon that are killed only? Why are we not looking at the 96% - of the factors - that are causing this problem?

People are the reason that salmon are disappearing. It's from overfishing. We must stop eating salmon and think not of our wallets but of what's right for the delicate balance of nature. Slaughtering sea lions is NOT the answer. I do not eat meat of any kind and maybe people would be as healthy as I am if they also became vegan. I cannot believe that anyone thinks murdering sea lions is a solution.

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.

I agree with you. I think it is very stupid, to kill more animals, to solve a 4% of the reason why salmon are disappearing! - What about the % of salmon that are disappearing because humans keep eating them! it is very unfair!  

I agree. I truly believe we are the most noxious invasive species on the planet. In addition most of the non human invasive species are the direct result of our actions; sometimes intentional, sometimes not.

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.

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.

One solution can be summed up in two words: Birth Control.  And I mean for humans.

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.

Clearly killing sea lions will not be an effective solution and it's just another case of officials wanting to look like they're "doing something" for the fishermen, even if that "something" will have little or no effect.  Fishing communities around the world love to blame marine mammals, including seals, whales and dolphins, for dimished fish populations, even if there is little data linking marine mammal predation and decreased fish stocks.  And even if the marine mammal species in question is itself struggling as much as the fishery.

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?

John Bailo,
it would indeed be lovely to resurrect and restore members of the genus Smilodon (Felidae).  S. californicus is the official state fossil of California, being one of the more spectacular beasts that had the poor sense to go for a dip in the La Brea Tar Pits, so the saber-tooth tiger is already something of a West Coast icon.

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.

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.

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.

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 ... )

Nevertheless, no, violent encounters between human beings and big cats are not to be recommended.

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:

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?

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?

150 seal lions? Big deal. They are a menace to salmon and any reasonable person should have no problem identifying the most important species in this case. Of course dams are the biggest threat to salmon populations but we are a modern society that has to except some level of animal/habitat kill to facilitate our modern way of life.
Salmon provide an invaluable commercial service to Native Americans in Oregon and Washington as well as providing hundreds of thousands of people the pleasure of eating such a delicious and healthy animal.

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.

The unspeakably unreasonable Kevin Michael actually writes:

<<
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?  : (

is that Kevin Michael from the company called "I don't care about anyone but myself", or is the Kevin Michael from "the fishermen need to kill everything that gets in their way of making a profit", or is it Kevin Michael from "I am a politician, and I want the fishermen's votes so lets suggest killing more animals".

Will the real prick called Kevin Michael please stand up?

Since we gobble up mot of the salmon, let's start offing humans.  Lets begin with the people that are failing to protect them.

Operation salmon freedom!

America F-yea!

Who once supported the policy of killing wolves who hunted deer and other game animal. He eventually realized that there are no "good" or "bad" species, but instead came to the conclusion that "all ecological systems depend on the protection of all their interacting parts" (1).

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.

ISNT THAT TYPICAL OF HUMAN NATURE TO PASS THE BLAME OVER TO SOMETHING ELSE ,IN THIS CASE SEA LIONS.IF WE STOP OVER FISHING OUR RIVERS AND OCEANS AND LEFT THE FISH TO THEIR NATURAL PREDITORS ,IM SURE FISH STOCKS WOULD INCREASE GREATLY,INSTEAD OF MURDERING POOR CREATURES WHO RELY ON THE FISH TO SURVIVE.WHY DO WE NEVER LEARN?? ISNT IT ENOUGHT THAT WE HAVE WIPED OUT SOME SPECIES COMPLETELY AND BROUGHT OTHERS TO NEAR EXTINCTION.THE GREED OF MANKIND WILL EVENTUALLY WIPE US ALL OUT.....

I am not suggesting we kill ALL sea lions, only those cherry picking salmon beneath dams.

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.

Do you try to intimidate everyone who has a different point of view?

It is the people who are excessively worried about their own health, e.g. the well-being of their heart, and insist on eating appropriately healthful, heart-friendly food, no matter the ethical cost, who tend most to "overreact" and "fly off the handle," with guns in their hands.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

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"?

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?

Listen Kevin, instead of you telling me of your mighty wisdom of condoning killing Sea Lions, why don't you go "back in the kitchen and make me some pie!" - just make sure it doesn't have salmon in it!

Well, it seems that since we're the ones who caused this problem in the first place by putting the dam there, we have the responsibility to put the thing right.  First, we don't fix the problem by just killing other animals who take advantage of the situation. Should we kill other predators who take advantage of the fish ladders as well? Why don't we just do the right thing and ban fishing there until the dam is removed?  We're the ones who caused the problem, we should bear the brunt of the "pain" until it's fixed.  

As a tribal member I have a responsibility to protect salmon, the very core of my tribal culture, for the subsistence of my tribe and its future generations.  It is truly unfortunate that the situation at Bonneville Dam has taken the path that it has but the battle between the ESA and MMPA continues.  Do we continue to sacrifice the endangered salmon populations to a population of sea lions that is far from threatened or endangered and has reached its capacity? As a tribal member, I say no.  The sea lions at Bonneville Dam are having an IMMEDIATE negative impact on the threatened and endangered salmon runs of the Columbia River Basin and no other alternative is going to address the urgency of the situation like this will. Until people are willing to address the role of the hydro system in this fight and make the sacrifices that come with dam removal there is no other altherntive that will help the salmon now.

what about relocating the sea lions to a different place of the waters?

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

what about relocating the sea lions to a different place of the waters?

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.

Hi Tasermon,

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.

My understanding is that predator noises have been tried, along with sonic booms and just about anything anyone else can think of.

...wasn't there a similar situation like this where some sea lions were eatin' all the salmon and Sea World decided to help out by capturing 'em for one of their aquariums?

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.

okay,, so a few solutions have been tried according to threads above. However, lets remember if we can put a man on the moon, I am sure we can find a solution for a hundred sea lions. I mean really, think about how far we have got with technology, so surely there are other solutions then killing the innocent sea lions.

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.

People are killing and eating more salmon than the sea lions - should we start killing them first to? Ho I see its ONLY our food chain we are concerned with. Well then if we killed off everything we would have no thing to bother us any more and no thing to give us worries!!!

It just makes the situation worse."

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?