[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972: THE ESCALATION OF INTERACTIONS
BETWEEN THE GROWING POPULATIONS OF MARINE MAMMALS AND HUMAN ACTIVITIES
ON THE WEST COAST
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, August 19, 2003, in San Diego, California
__________
Serial No. 108-50
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-940 WASHINGTON : 2003
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800, DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Carolina Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Randy Neugebauer, Texas Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex ex officio
officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, August 19, 2003......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, Prepared statement of............... 5
Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Anderson, Carl, Director of Public Facilities, City of
Monterey, California....................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Brown, Robin F., Program Leader, Marine Mammal Research,
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife..................... 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Emerson, Frank T., Fishermen's Alliance of California........ 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Everingham, Roy R. ``Buck'' Jr., Everingham Bros. Bait Co.... 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Fletcher, Robert C., President, Sportfishing Association of
California................................................. 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Hanan, Dr. Doyle A., President, Hanan & Associates, Inc...... 52
Prepared statement of.................................... 54
Lecky, James, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected
Resources, Southwest Region, National Marine Fisheries
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce................................ 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Merryweather, Melinda, Town Councilmember, La Jolla,
California................................................. 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Letter of clarification submitted for the record......... 13
Rebuck, Steven L., Member, Sea Otter Technical Consultant
Group, Southern Sea Otter Recovery Team.................... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Stewart, Dr. Brent S., Senior Research Biologist, Hubbs-
SeaWorld Research Institute................................ 48
Prepared statement of.................................... 50
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972: THE
ESCALATION OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE GROWING POPULATIONS OF MARINE
MAMMALS AND HUMAN ACTIVITIES ON THE WEST COAST
----------
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
San Diego, California
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
the Shedd Auditorium, Hubbs Sea World Research Institute, San
Diego, California, Hon. Richard W. Pombo [Chairman of the
Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representative Pombo (ex officio).
Also Present: Representative Cunningham.
Mr. Pombo. I call the hearing to order. To begin with, I
want to welcome everybody here. I want to welcome my good
friend, Congressman Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, who is with us
today sitting as a member of the full committee for the
purposes of this hearing. I would like to recognize Congressman
Cunningham to introduce our first two guests.
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I left Hawaii
yesterday to do this, and the big island yesterday was
beautiful. I saw turtles and big manta rays, and it was
beautiful. I actually went swimming snorkeling with a dolphin
that played with us, about 200 of them.
Mr. Pombo. Really?
Mr. Cunningham. Oh, it was beautiful. Anyway, we are here.
Randy Treadway will offer the pledge, and he is from VFW 5431,
a veteran, and if you would stand with Mr. Treadway and offer
the pledge of allegiance.
[Pledge of Allegiance.]
Mr. Cunningham. And if you would stay standing, and a good
friend, Dr. Bob Winerton--some people walk a mile for a camel,
and this guy drove all the way from Alpine just to give the
prayer this morning. Thank you, Bob.
[Invocation.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICHARD POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Pombo. Thank you and good morning, and I am pleased to
convene this hearing this morning. Before we get started, I
would like to extend my sincere appreciation to our host, Dr.
Don Kent, president of HUBBS-Sea World Research Institute. I
want to thank Dr. Kent for graciously hosting the Committeethis
week.
I also want to thank Jennifer Leblanc with the HUBBS; and
Matt Cruz, with Sea World, who have been valuable assets in
organizing today's hearing. The topic of this hearing is
certainly timely.
The increased interactions between humans and sea lions,
and seals, have been in the news recently, and the Committee on
Resources, specifically the Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, is currently in the process
of reauthorizing the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
There have been numerous press articles about the
children's pool in La Jolla, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the management agency for pinniped populations under
the Marine Mammal Protection Act, just issued fines to a number
of individuals that swam in the pool area who were trying to
show that humans and seals can coexist.
One of the swimmers was bitten by a seal, and a number of
seals stormed off the beach, which demonstrates that in these
types of situations both people and the animals can be harmed.
In addition, there have been reports that sea lions have taken
over docks, sailboats, and other structures in marinas, getting
into bait boxes, and stealing fish off of lines, and out of
fishing nets.
Aquaculture operations have also been adversely affected by
these animals. This hearing is being held specifically to try
to determine what actions have been taken to date to minimize
these interactions, and what types of research are being
undertaken by the State and Federal management agencies to
address these issues, and what actions, if any, should be taken
by Congress.
The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and
Oceans is currently reviewing the Marine Mammal Protection Act
to determine what changes need to be made during this
reauthorization process.
Subcommittee Chairman Wayne Gilchrest and I introduced H.R.
2693, the Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 2003 on
July 10th, 2003. Section 7 of this bill authorizes the
Secretary of Commerce to conduct research on the non-lethal
removal and control of nuisance pinnipeds.
This hearing will better define the scope of these
interaction issues, and hopefully from the testimony, we can
determine if additional changes to the Marine Mammal Protection
Act are necessary.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act is an interesting law,
because in many ways it is more restrictive than the Endangered
Species Act. However, unlike the statute, its coverage is
uniform regardless of whether population of marine mammal
species is growing, decreasing, or stable. There is no
distinction.
One of the primary goals of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act is to restore or maintain the marine mammal populations to
their optimum sustainable population. In addition, the MMPA
requires the same protections for all marine mammals regardless
of their population status.
Therefore, robust populations of California Sea Lions
receive the same protection as endangered Northern right
whales. In the 1970s when the MMPA was first enacted, marine
mammals needed across the board protection due to an overall
declining population numbers.
However, 30 years later that Act has been very successful
in rebuilding many marine mammal stocks. While I believe there
should be protection for marine mammals, we need to find a
proper balance which allows the children of La Jolla to use
their beach, recreational fisherman to land an entire salmon,
and not just part of it, and boaters to access their vessels
without being injured by an overly aggressive sea lion.
It is obvious to me that Northern right whales, with a
population of less than 300 animals, needs to be protected. On
the other hand, robust marine mammal populations that have
increased interactions with the public may be adversely
affecting other marine species should be managed differently.
We are already seeing injuries to people and increased
frustrations. These frustrations could lead to actions that may
harm the marine mammals. Land-based wildlife managers have the
ability to address these types of interactions. The managers of
marine mammals have a different standard.
We can have protections for marine mammals, but we need to
find an equitable solution to the problems arising from their
growing populations. I look forward to hearing the testimony
presented today, and would like to recognize my friend,
``Duke'' Cunningham, for any opening statement that he may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pombo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Richard Pombo, Chairman,
Committee on Resources
Good morning. I am pleased to convene this hearing. Before we get
started I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to our host, Dr.
Don Kent, President of Hubbs Sea World Research Institute. I want to
thank Dr. Kent for graciously hosting the Committee this week. I also
want to thank Jennifer Leblanc with Hubbs and Matt Cruz with Sea World
who have been valuable assets in organizing today's hearing.
The topic of this hearing is certainly timely--increased
interactions between humans and sea lions and seals have been in the
news recently and the Committee on Resources, specifically the
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, is
currently in the process of reauthorizing the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA).
There have been numerous press articles about the Children's Pool
in La Jolla. The National Marine Fisheries Service, the management
agency for pinniped populations under the MMPA, just issued fines to a
number of individuals that swam in the pool area who were trying to
show that humans and seals can coexist. One of the swimmers was bitten
by a seal and a number of seals stormed off the beach, which
demonstrates that in these types of situations both people and the
animals can be harmed. In addition, there have been reports that sea
lions have taken over docks, sail boats and other structures in
marinas, getting into bait boxes and stealing fish off lines and out of
fishing nets. Aquaculture operations have also been adversely affected
by these animals.
This hearing is being held specifically to try to determine what
actions have been taken to date to minimize these interactions; what
types of research are being undertaken by the state and federal
management agencies to address these issues; and what actions, if any,
should be taken by Congress.
The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans is
currently reviewing the MMPA to determine what changes need to be made
during this reauthorization process. Subcommittee Chairman Wayne
Gilchrest and I introduced H.R. 2693, the Marine Mammal Protection Act
Amendments of 2003, on July 10, 2003. Section 7 of this bill authorizes
the Secretary of Commerce to conduct research on the non-lethal removal
and control of nuisance pinnipeds. This hearing will better define the
scope of these interaction issues and hopefully, from the testimony, we
can determine if additional changes to the MMPA are necessary.
The MMPA is an interesting law because in many ways it is more
restrictive than the Endangered Species Act. However, unlike that
statute, its coverage is uniform regardless of whether a population of
marine mammal species is growing, decreasing, or stable. There is no
distinction. One of the primary goals of the MMPA is to restore or
maintain marine mammal populations to their optimum sustainable
population. In addition, the MMPA requires the same protections for all
marine mammals regardless of their population status. Therefore, robust
populations of California sea lions receive the same protections as
endangered northern right whales.
In the 1970s when the MMPA was first enacted marine mammals needed
across the board protections due to overall declining populations
numbers. However, thirty years later the Act has been very successful
in rebuilding many marine mammal stocks. While I believe there should
be protections for marine mammals, we need to find a proper balance
which allows the children of La Jolla to use their beach, recreational
fishermen to land an entire salmon, not just part of it, and boaters to
access their vessels without being injured by an overly aggressive sea
lion.
It is obvious to me that Northern right whales, with a population
of less than 300 animals, need to be protected. On the other hand,
robust marine mammal populations that have increased interactions with
the public and may be adversely affecting other marine species should
be managed differently. We are already seeing injuries to people and
increased frustrations. These frustrations could lead to actions that
may harm the marine mammals. Land-based wildlife managers have the
ability to address these types of interactions, but managers of marine
mammals have a different standard. We can have protections for marine
mammals, but we need to find an equitable solution to the problems
arising from their growing populations.
I look forward to hearing the testimony presented today and
recognize Congressman Duke Cunningham for his opening statement.
______
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pombo. If the gentleman would yield for just a minute.
This is a--and I should have said this at the very beginning.
This is an official congressional hearing, and as part of the
House rules, it is not allowed to have any kind of reaction or
clapping, or booing, or anything else from the audience.
We have to maintain decorum within the room, and so
therefore I would ask the audience and the witnesses to
maintain that decorum.
Mr. Cunningham.
Mr. Cunningham. I thought that they were clapping for me,
Mr. Chairman. Rich Pombo and I, and Wayne Gilchrest, are all
classmates, and I have worked together with Rich for 12 years,
and I want to tell you that his heart is in the right place of
protecting our sea life and other life on this planet.
But he also looks in doing it in a fair and equitable way,
and I think that the people outside should be cheering for
Chairman Pombo, and he is here to listen, and he is here to
open up remarks to find out solutions, and I think that is fair
across the board.
In my own background, as to oil drilling off the shores of
California, and that is my bill working with the Senate that
stops new leases and oil drilling. I don't want San Diego to
become another Long Beach, even though some of that is seepage
until they can prove that they can protect our shores.
The shark thinning bill was my bill. Rich helped me with
that, along with Wayne Gilchrest, and I read in a magazine, in
a surfer magazine on the airplane about how fishermen were
taking sharks, and cutting the fins off, and then dropping the
carcass back in the water. That's wrong.
I am a sportsman, but I also want to protect the species.
Elephants in Africa, and tigers in India, needed protection,
and those are my bills also. Probably most of you know about
the tuna dolphin bill that protects not only the subspecies,
the dolphin, the turtles, but also allows us to harvest mature
tuna.
But I want to welcome Chairman Pombo to San Diego. I want
to tell you that we have some of the best science I think in
the world with HUBBS, and with Scripts Oceanographic, with the
Academy of Science. I am not an expert. I am here to listen.
But when we take our information and bounce it off the
professional organizations that are here to protect species, I
want to thank Chairman Pombo and the rest of the folks that are
here to testify on both sides of the issue, because I think it
is important.
And I am not going to reiterate what you just said, but
with that, Rich, we want to thank you to the world's finest
city, San Diego, and you are always welcome, and we will give
you a bad cup of Navy coffee.
Mr. Pombo. Well, thank you. Any time I can leave 100 degree
weather and come down to 70 degree weather, that is OK. But I
would like to ask for unanimous consent to include in the
record the opening statement of the Subcommittee Chairman,
Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, who originally had planned to be
here at this hearing.
Unfortunately, he had some health problems and was not able
to make the trip out. But I would like to ask for unanimous
consent to have his opening statement included in the record.
Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne Gilchrest, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Good morning. Today's hearing is an integral part of the
reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans is
currently reviewing many important issues and trying to find
reasonable, science -based solutions.
There have been many articles in the press over the past few months
detailing how different marine mammal populations--California sea
lions, Pacific harbor seals and sea otters--have adversely affected
fish stocks, and have overtaken public beaches, docks at marinas and
private boats. In some of the articles, there have been references to
human injuries and marine mammal injuries.
Chairman Pombo and I have introduced a bill, H.R. 2693, to
reauthorize the MMPA. As we continue to craft this legislation and look
forward to a markup in the Subcommittee in September, we will consider
the need to both protect sensitive, fragile species of marine mammals
and to manage populations of marine mammals that have successfully
recovered. H.R. 2693 does contain an authorization for the Secretary of
Commerce to conduct research on the non-lethal removal and control of
nuisance pinnipeds.
This hearing will help us better understand the frustrations people
are experiencing in conflicts with these plentiful animals as well as
the habitat use of California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals. I
hope to more fully understand the historical haul-out areas used by
these marine mammal populations, how it compares to their current haul-
outs areas and if there is a way to separate specific areas for seals
and sea lions and for human activities. Today's testimony will help the
development of the MMPA reauthorization by identifying management of
human/pinniped conflict and how it has succeeded or failed in the past.
This hearing will help focus our attention on actions that have been
taken to date to minimize these interactions; what types of research
are being undertaken by state and federal management agencies to
address these issues; and what actions, if any, should be taken by
Congress.
I believe there is a way to find compatibility between the needs of
these marine mammal populations and responsible human activities. I
look forward to hearing the testimony and discussing ways to resolve
these issues that is satisfactory to both the human and marine mammal
populations.
______
Mr. Pombo. I would like to welcome our first panel here
today, and before we take testimony, it is customary that we
swear in all of the witnesses who testify before the Resources
Committee. I would like to ask you to stand and raise your
right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Pombo. Let the record show that they all answered in
the affirmative. Thank you very much. Mr. Anderson, we will
begin with you, and just one note. The lighting or the timing
system, what we do is we limit the opening, the oral testimony,
to 5 minutes, and your entire written testimony will be
included in the record.
So if you could kind of summarize your prepared testimony.
The lighting system is in front of you, and the green light
stays on four 4 minutes; and the yellow light comes on for 1
minute; and then the red light comes on, and I would then have
to ask you to try to wrap it up at that point.
So, Mr. Anderson, welcome to the hearing, and when you are
ready, you can begin.
STATEMENT OF CARL ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC FACILITIES, CITY
OF MONTEREY
Mr. Anderson. Thank you very much, Chairman Pombo, and
Congressman Cunningham. It is a pleasure to be here this
morning. Again, my name is Carl Anderson, and I am the director
of public facilities for the city of Monterey. I have had the
privilege of having that responsibility and being in charge of
the harbor and marina for 21 years.
The experience that the city of Monterey has had with sea
lions is beyond bizarre, and I would like to share some of
those experiences with you. But first let me tell you that
Monterey, like San Diego, is also the West Coast heart of
conservation. We are blessed with the Monterey Bay Aquarium,
and the Monterey Bay Research Institute, and 21 other
additional marine research institutions in our area.
We are also in the heart of the Monterey Bay Marine
Sanctuary. So Monterey has a very special heritage in marine
conservation. Therefore, it is ironic that the city of Monterey
happens to be a regional, national, and international draw for
travelers and that we should end up being the poster child for
well-intended conservation measures that have succeeded far too
well.
But first of all, we have had a series of huge problems
with marine mammals over the last--for approximately 18 years.
The federally protected California sea lions seems to be well
above the historic natural levels and well beyond the level of
sustainability.
The rapid population growth for these animals has caused
extraordinary competition for haul-out space, food, and other
resources. Our city has a resident population of sea lions on
an average of about 150 that are in our community.
However, in 1990, 1997, and again this past May, we
suffered extraordinarily large incursions of marine mammals,
and primarily sea lions, and primarily juvenile sea lions, that
have arrived in the numbers of somewhere between 1,000 and
1,500. We know that Monterey is a wonderful tourist
destination, but quite frankly we can't figure out why the sea
lions want to come to Monterey every year.
The public enjoys viewing these animals. The animals
posing, I believe, for our spectators. However, there are
distinct safety, public property, and public health problems
that go along with sea lions.
The first example that I would like to call your attention
to is this area. This was early May of this year, over a 40
hour period of time, and these young sea lions just all
appeared. If you have a copy of the testimony, there is also
photographs in your packet that you might be able to see a
little bit better.
This is one of our two launch facilities, and this is a
boarding float out here, and this is Navy and Coast Guard
property. I don't know if you are able to see the sailboats
here, and the Coast Guard boats that are covered with sea
lions.
Just beyond is our city fire boat, as well as our Coast
Guard response vehicles, that are so impacted with sea lions
that you can hardly get to them. So it really slows our ability
to respond.
I also have some letters from neighboring businesses that
were so inundated with this problem, and particularly the
stench of the animals, that they had to close their business.
It was just simply so bad that you could not be near them.
It does not show in this picture, but at the top of the
launch ramp, we erected a fence all along the top of the bluff
that is designed to keep the public or the sea lions from
coming up into the parking lot, and further up we have another
fence that protects the citizens from going down to the sea
lions, because they don't realize that these are wild animals.
They look cuddly, and you would like to probably pet them.
But we know what can happen when that happens. We have had
problems with them jumping en masse on to the docks, and if you
could put that one up, please. This is in the Monterey marina.
You will notice that they are all very shiny and that means
that they just got out of the water. We had cleared this dock
by having a person go down, and what we use is a tether ball on
a pole, and we swing it around, and that seems to bother them,
and as you do it more and you bounce it on the dock, they will
eventually get off.
But as soon as you leave, within 5 minutes they are back.
So it just continues to be a problem. They have shown very
aggressive behavior, and they have physically damaged our
docks. This happens to be a whole new marina that we rebuilt.
Our earlier additions of this was wood.
They would break off water faucets, and they would knock
off electrical panels. These are electrical panels, and if the
big ones lean against those, they can break them over. This is
a wooden whaler on the side of a concrete dock. Too much weight
and they actually can flex that and break it.
And obviously when you have a situation like that, it
denies access for the public to their own boats. They have
chased boaters, and they have chased our staff. I will show you
some of that a little bit later.
Fortunately, we have had lots of pant leg nips, but very
few actual bites. These vessels actually belong to the Navy.
They are the Naval Postgraduate's sailing club. Those are
wooden shields and you can see the water line right there.
Unfortunately, the Navy erected these barriers along the
docks that keeps them off the docks, and it makes it very
difficult to get to the boat, but it also--it didn't protect
their vessels in time, and I don't know how they ever cleaned
those vessels. It is beyond recognition.
The next photograph depicts outer harbor moorings. The sea
lions are very athletic and they have the ability to jump on
the boats, and this was a very pristine vessel, and it is
difficult to see all the gray streaks and so on. You will see a
little more about that vessel in a minute.
The next vessel, a 26-foot trimaran, was out on a mooring,
and approximate 600 to 800 sea lions got on that vessel and
sunk it. Fortunately, we were able to refloat it, and bring it
to the marina, and the owner was able to clean it up, and put
it back into service.
The next one documents our dinghy dock. As you can see one
sunk dinghy right here, and what happened is that this entire
area had approximately 40 dinghies. The sea lions decided that
they would rest on the dinghies, and sunk every one of them,
and did damage.
We actually had to pump them out, and put the dinghies up
on the dock, and now they are on top of the dinghies which are
upside down. So, again if you have a boat on a mooring, you
can't get to your dinghy to get out to the mooring.
The next one is a particular aggressive mammal, and he is
about 50 yards away from the water, and he had come up on a
launch ramp, and this is one of our harbor maintenance crew. By
the way the only reason he allowed me to use this photograph is
because you can't see his face.
He is in fact running away from that sea lion because he
went out to try to shoo it back into the water, and it charged
him. This guy is about 6 foot 5, about 300 pounds, and if you
look closely, both feet are off the ground.
We eventually had two staff member--he got all the way out
to Del Monte Avenue, and if you know Monterey, that is a major
thoroughfare, and you can imagine the problems that could have
created for both himself and traffic. We were eventually able
to shoo him back into the water.
The next one is--I don't have polite words to describe
this, but that was a sailboat that I told you was pristine, and
this is the cockpit, and please notice the tiller has been
broken off, and that is a combination of fecal matter and
vomit. Again, it is not a very pretty picture, and if that was
your boat or my boat, I think you would be very, very unhappy.
The next photograph is an unfortunate one. This is a dead
sea lion, and he is a relatively young male. We are at the
present time collecting between 5 and 10 sea lions a day that
we dispose of that are dead.
We believe that some of them are diseased, and some of them
are malnourished, and they are dying at an alarming rate. The
next one that we have is one of our more bizarre photographs.
This is the hull of a large commercial fishing boat that was
out on a mooring, and the sea lion got up in the boat, and
managed to fall into the hold. This is an 800 pound sea lion.
We had friends from three mammal groups using a cargo net
that we eventually got around the sea lion, and hauled him out.
It is not the kind of thing that you want to get involved in
daily.
For the past 12 weeks we have been spending on an average
of $2,000 to $3,000 per week just in staff time cleaning up
after the sea lions. There are extreme public property issues,
and public safety issues, and health impacts. Since 1990, we
can document over a million dollars in costs that these sea
lions have caused in damage to property, lost business, and
staff cleaning up from the mess that is left.
In my opinion, there must be some non-lethal measure that
can be put in place to bring the population of the sea lions
under control. More aggressive, but not injurious, management
means should be legalized. We are operators. We are not
scientists, and we would look to the scientific community to
please develop a method to help us control these problems. I
would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
Statement of Carl Anderson, Director of Public Facilities,
City of Monterey, California
Chairman Pombo, Members of the Committee, Congressman Cunningham:
My name is Carl Anderson and I am the Director of Public Facilities for
the City of Monterey. I have been responsible for our harbor and marina
for 21 years. I appreciate being afforded the opportunity to speak
about the City's experiences with California sea lions.
The Monterey Bay region is a west-coast center of ocean
conservation. We are the home of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, the
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, and another twenty-one marine
science institutes. We are at the heart of the Monterey Bay National
Marine Sanctuary. Monterey Bay and adjacent waters have rich fishing
grounds that still support a fishing heritage, which contributes to the
economy of our City.
It is, therefore, ironic, that our City, which draws regional,
national and international travelers to experience the wonders of our
coast and bay, should also be the poster child for a well intended
conservation measure--which has succeeded too well. What began as an
effort to protect marine mammals now has created a huge new set of
problems for sea lions, and for our community. Federally protected
California sea lions seem to be well above historic natural levels and
well above sustainability. The rapid population growth of these animals
has caused a competition for haul-out space and for food for which
there are no real winners.
The City always has a resident population of sea lions in our
waterfront area that number about 150 animals, year round. In 1990,
1997 and again beginning last May, we experienced even larger
incursions of these animals which brought between 1,000 to 1,500
animals into our waterfront, the majority of which appear to be pups.
We don't know why they come here, unless they've heard what a wonderful
place Monterey is to visit.
While there is no doubt the public enjoys viewing these animals at
a distance, the animals pose distinct safety, property damage and
public health problems. These problems far outweigh any public benefit.
1. We have had problems with up to 700 sea lions taking over one of
our two public launching ramps. The problem was so severe that we had
to close the launch ramp to the public, which in turn affected several
businesses that operate in the launch ramp area. When the public went
away, these businesses withered for about a month. (attachment 1, 2)
2. We also have problems with the animals jumping up in-mass onto
our docks. Sometimes their aggressive behavior denies public passage
for people to get to their boats. The sea lions have physically damaged
our docks by their weight, breaking the wood components. They have
chased our boaters. We've had numerous torn pantlegs, but luckily, only
a few bites. The fact that there are so many sea lions has caused the
animals to haul out onto boats and docks, places they would not
normally rest on. (attachment 3)
3. We have also had problems with sea lions boarding and sometimes
sinking vessels. (attachment 4, 5) One such vessel, a 26-foot trimaran
(then on a mooring, now raised), was sunk last month by about 100 sea
lions. (attachment 6)
4. We have had 40 of our small dinghies sunk or damaged by the sea
lions. (attachment 7)
5. Animals sometimes actually go up to our public walking trail and
streets, posing significant dangers to the public, as these animals can
be quite aggressive. (attachment 8)
6. Both the Coast Guard and our City Fire boat have had their
essential missions compromised by the large number of animals that are
in the way, causing delays to the crews trying to get down to their
boats.
7. Fishermen have had significant impacts from the sea lions.
Losses to fishermen affect the economy of our City. I know that others
will speak to this today.
8. When sea lions go up onto our launch ramps, docks, boats and the
recreational trail, they pose significant health hazards. They defecate
and vomit parasites wherever they go. The stench in any area after even
a few hours is nearly overwhelming. The water quality in our harbor is
very poor when the animals are present. (attachment 9, 10)
9. Many of the animals appear to be sick or starving. Our crews are
removing 5 to 10 dead sea lions a day from our waterfront area.
(attachment 11)
For the past twelve weeks the City of Monterey has been spending
$2,000 to $3,000 per week to try to avert the most extreme property,
public safety, and health impacts from these animals. Since 1990, City
and private costs related to sea lion problems exceed one million
dollars. For our current problem, we have no idea if, or when, this
problem will end. Since they are a Federally protected marine mammal,
we have very limited means available to us to discourage the animals
from coming up onto public areas.
It is my opinion that some non-lethal measures must be put into
place to bring the sea lion population under control. More aggressive,
but non-injurious, management means should be legalized. We must look
to the scientific community for answers. If we do not take action, I
suggest that we will surrender a significant portion of the West
Coast's waterfront, and fishery resources, to these animals, overtime.
I want to thank the Committeefor their time and I am available to
answer any of the committee's questions.
Thank you.
[NOTE: Attachments to Mr. Anderson's statement have been retained
in the Committee's official files.]
______
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
Ms. Merryweather.
STATEMENT OF MELINDA MERRYWEATHER, TOWN COUNCILMEMBER, LA
JOLLA, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Merryweather. Good morning. My name is Melinda
Merryweather, and I am here speaking on behalf of my community
of La Jolla, and I want to thank you all for letting me speak.
I have lived in La Jolla for most of my life, and I am a member
of the town council, and served on the parks and beaches
committees, and helped to write a community plan, and I am an
environmentalist.
La Jolla is a small, older historic community, and in 1931
Ellen Browning Scripps saw the need in our village to create a
safe place for children, and the elderly, and the handicapped
to learn to swim in the ocean.
There was so great a need for this in our community that
she spent $60 thousand, which was a huge amount of money in
those days. She was granted permission to take a small area of
the beach and it was similar to a tide pool at that time, and
erect a large carved curved wall with openings in it, and it
had flue ways in it.
We now had the only man-made beach on the entire coast of
California. There was a parade, a dedication, and a piece of
legislation was created that called out and placed certain
conditions on this man-made beach.
It stated that said land shall be devoted exclusively to
public park, bathing pool for children, parkway, playground,
and for recreational purposes. I feel that this legislation
should still be honored today.
This was the first document in the State of California that
talks about beach access, and maybe the first loss of beach
access in the State of California. My grandmother swam at the
children's pool, as did my mother, and I learned to swim in the
ocean there, and I taught my son to swim there, and now I want
to teach my granddaughter to swim there.
People and wildlife existed for over 70 years in this area
in perfect harmony. In 1972, the MMPA came into effect to
protect the seals, and for 25 years even though that was in
effect, we still swam and used the beaches as usual, even
though the law was in effect.
In 1997 the beach was closed and declared a natural haul
out site by NOAA due to fecal pollution levels caused by the
seals and the beach was closed. Our community is now dealing
with a totally confusing message of enforcement.
No wonder the top marine biologists at the National Marine
Fisheries warned the city 10 years ago do not let the seals
come on to a public populated beach. He was very clear about
that. We all must know by now that as soon as man interferes
with nature, we blow it every time. It never fails. This is a
clear case of man interfering with nature that allowed this to
happen.
Last week, I went around the corner from the children's
pool to the cove beach, and I saw people practically sitting on
top of each other, and there were so many people crowded on to
that little beach. And I sent over to the children's pool and
there were no children and there were no seals. There was
nothing.
I think this is a pathetic waste of a wonderful resource,
and I think it is an insult to the accepted gift of Ellen
Browning Scripps. Some people say that it is along the lines of
if you had a pack of coyotes who took over a neighborhood
soccer field, would we all stand back and say that's find and
let them have it?
As a matter of fact, let's create a legislative Act that
protects them. It would never happen. This is a problem that is
so out of hand that it has made it to the cartoon section of
national newspapers, national spoof t.v., Tom Brokaw, the New
York Times. This is a situation that has to be corrected.
We were even asked this year to perhaps not do the
fireworks in La Jolla because it would disturb the seals. It is
a depressing situation, and we have seal feces, dead seal
carcasses, polluted water, foul air, with airborne diseases,
injured seals, but no one is allowed to help, and buried seals,
and trash that can't be removed.
We have even tried to clean the beach up and we have asked
if we can go down and take the seal feces off the beach so you
can at least sit close to the beach, and we have been told that
we can't touch it.
All of this is due to Level B harassment guidelines of the
MMPA. We are asking you to amend the MMPA in a way that allows
municipal governments the opportunity to prevent seals from
taking over a populated, heavily used, public beach. We would
like to retain our original status as a public populated man-
made beach park with the children's pool.
I want to remind you that the children's pool is a man-made
beach. It is not a natural anything. It is a man-made beach.
That was a tide pool before the wall was put up. We have lived
and swam at this pristine beach and gentle water access with
the seals for over 80 years.
Let the seals and the people co-exist like they always
have, in a healthy environment, of equilibrium, and please
restore the clean air and clear water, and our beach access.
This could be all accomplished by restoring the children's pool
to a public beach status, and removing the stipulations that go
with the natural haul out status, which clearly it is not.
This could eliminate the expensive and ridiculous lifelong
policing problem forever, and this is an enormous policing
problem. I know that it costs the city a ton of money. It is so
ridiculous to me that this is even happening.
And this picture here shows that this is what we are going
to lose. This sits empty. This whole entire area here in La
Jolla sits empty today. No children, no seals, no nothing. It
is just a smelly, dirty, horrible spot, and I think it is--and
it is also to me one of the important things is being part of
the surf world is that it is the first time that I have ever
been denied access to go in the ocean, and I think that it is
our constitutional right to go in the ocean.
And this may be the first case of that being prevented, and
I think that is something that we can't allow to happen. Thank
you for your time, and I really appreciate you guys listening
to this. It is a huge issue, and I am here for any questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Merryweather follows:]
Statement of Melinda Merryweather, Town Councilmember,
La Jolla, California
My name is Melinda Merryweather. I am here speaking on behalf of my
community of La Jolla. Thank you for letting me speak.
I have lived in La Jolla most of my life. I am a member of the Town
Council, serve on the Parks and Beaches Committee, and helped to write
our community plan, and I am an environmentalist.
La Jolla is a small older historic community which truly is one of
the most beautiful communities on the entire coast.
In 1931, Ellen Browning Scripps saw the need in the village to
create a safe place for children, elderly and the handicapped to learn
to swim in the ocean. The need was so great she spent $60,000. which
was a huge amount of money in those days.
She was granted permission to take a small area of beach- similar
to a tide pool- and erect a large curved wall with openings in it. We
now had the only man-made beach on the entire coast of California.
There was a parade, a dedication and a piece of legislation was
created that called out and placed certain conditions on this man-made
beach. It stated--``That said lands shall be devoted exclusively to
public park, bathing pool for children, parkway, playground and for
recreational purposes.''
This legislation still should be honored.
This was the first document in the State of California that talks
about beach access and may be the first loss of beach access in
California.
My grandmother swam at the Children's Pool as did my mother. I
learned to swim in the ocean there, I taught my son to swim there and
now I want to teach my granddaughter to swim there.
People and wildlife existed for over 70 years in perfect harmony.
In 1972 the MMPA came into effect to protect the seals But for 25
years--we still swam and used the beach as usual even though it was in
effect.
Then in 1997 the beach was closed and declared a natural haul out
site by NOAA due to the high pollution levels caused by the seals.
Our community is now dealing with totally confusing messages of
enforcement. No wonder the top Marine Biologist at National Marine
Fisheries warned the city 10 years ago not to let seals start to come
onto a public populated beach. We all must know by now that as soon as
man interferes with nature we blow it. It never fails. This is a clear
case of man interfering with nature.
Last week I went to the Cove Beach--a small beach next to the
Children's Pool. It was packed with people all but sitting on top of
each other, and at the Children's Pool--not a soul. No people. No
children no seals.
This is a pathetic waste of a wonderful resource. This is an insult
to the accepted gift of Ellen Browning Scripps.
Imagine if you had a pack of coyotes who took over a neighborhood
soccer field. Would we all stand back and say that's fine let them have
it. Matter of fact, let's create a legislative Act that protects them!
It would never happen. This is a problem that is so out of hand it
has made it to the cartoon sections of national newspapers, National
spoof tv, Tom Brokaw, and The New York Times. This is a situation that
has to be corrected--We were even asked to consider having a permit for
our fireworks this year so as not to disturb the seals.
It is a depressing situation. We have seal feces, dead seal
carcasses, polluted water, foul air with airborne diseases, injured
seals that no one is allowed to help, buried seals and trash that
cannot be removed. All due to the Level B harassment guidelines of the
MMPA.
We are asking you to amend the MMPA in a way that allows municipal
government the opportunity to prevent seals from taking over a
populated heavily used, public beach.
And we would like to retain our original status as a public,
populated man-made beach park at the Children's Pool. We have lived and
swam at this pristine beach and gentle water access with the seals for
over 80 years. Let the seals and the people co-exist like they always
have in a healthy environment of equilibrium and please restore the
clean air, the clean water, and our beach access.
This could all be accomplished by restoring the Children's Pool to
a public beach status and remove the stipulations that go with a
Natural Haul out status--which it clearly is not. This could eliminate
the expensive, ridiculous lifelong policing problem forever and return
this huge and wonderful resource to our community.
Thank you for taking the time to listen and to be here. I am
available for any questions.
______
[The following letter was submitted for the record by Ms.
Merryweather to clarify her testimony:]
August 29, 2003
Dear Chairman Pombo and Committee Members
I was one of the speakers at the field hearing on August 19th in
San Diego.
I am writing to amend the statements that I made under oath during
the questioning after my statement. During the questioning I was asked
whether I had spoken to the seal supporters, and who they were. At the
time I said they were a kinder and gentler group, and then said that
Hubbs-Sea World had been involved in the beginning of the docent
program. I would like to clarify that the Hubbs-Sea World was in no way
ever involved in any seal support group that has been aggressive, and
is not part of the group that is now currently patrolling the
Children's Pool.
Secondly, I was recently speaking with Michelle Zetwo, one of the
enforcement officers of the San Diego area for the MMPA. She mentioned
that I should get my facts straight about an incident I mentioned
regarding the surfer that had to use the Children's Pool beach to swim
in after he had lost his board. The statement I made was that he had
received a citation for $100, when, in actuality, he received a
warning. I would like to have this information in the record.
Thank you.
Melinda Merryweather
______
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
Mr. Fletcher.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. FLETCHER, PRESIDENT,
SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Fletcher. Good morning, Chairman Pombo and Congressman
Cunningham. My name is Bob Fletcher, and I am the president of
the Sportfishing Association of California, known as SAC. SAC
is a non-profit political organization that for over 30 years
has represented the interests of the commercial passenger
fishing vessel fleet in Southern California.
The SAC fleet carries close to 750,000 passengers a year on
175 different sportfishing boats. I am also here today
representing the interests of the members of the Golden Gate
Fishman's Association from San Francisco, and the members of
the Recreational Fishing Alliance nationwide.
SAC, GDFA, and RFA, are deeply grateful to you, Congressman
Pombo and Congressman Cunningham, and Subcommittee Chairman
Gilchrest for agreeing to hold this field hearing in order to
hear testimony on the crisis, and I say again crisis, facing
anglers in California from the growing populations of pinnipeds
on the West Coast.
The population of California sea lions and Pacific Harbor
seals continues to grow, and individual animals continue to
grow more aggressive in their interactions with anglers,
boaters, swimmers, and crews, and we need your help through
changes in the Marine Mammal Protection Act to begin to take
control of this terrible problem we face.
Over the years the SAC organization has spent literally
tens of thousands of dollars and much of its time in an effort
to find and develop an effective, non-lethal deterrent device
that will allow members of the SAC fleet to be able to co-exist
with these growing hordes of problem pinnipeds.
One particular unit developed by a company here in San
Diego showed real promise. The company, known as Pulse Power
Technologies, Incorporated, had made an experimental deterrent
device that appeared to deter the sea lions, while not
affecting fishing.
With the help of NOAA fishery staff in the Southwest
region, we applied to the California Coastal Commission to get
approval to begin that sea testing to determine how effective
it might be. We never got on the water with that unit.
The coastal commission voted down our request and denied
our application for at-sea testing. The commission in essence
ignored the pleas of the fishing industry in favor of pinniped
populations which are now believed to be above historic levels.
If we are ever able to get control of this problem, we need
to stop bending over backwards to protect exploding sea lion
populations and try to find some reasonable methods to control
their attacks on our citizens.
I say attacks and they continue to occur and I will go into
some detail. A clear example comes from Central California. The
harbormaster of Port San Luis stated that sea lions had invaded
their docks, and when approached the sea lions would growl at
us, and even sometimes charge toward us if we get too close.
The harbor staff has tried to deter the creatures, but
after a few days of squirting water, making noise, yelling,
clapping hands, throwing soft projectiles and the likes, the
mammals ignore us and don't leave the docks. Clearly a case
where if there is no pain, you have no gain.
As many marine mammal experts agree, that unless you can
approach the pain threshold with your deterrence, you cannot
effectively deter these intelligent animals. To make these
matters worse, increasingly aggressive California sea lions
have more recently began to attack members of the public.
A swimmer off Port San Luis was bitten in the calf by a sea
lion. He received a 3 inch laceration on the back of his leg. A
fisherman was attacked when a sea lion swam aboard his boat.
The animal bit him in the thigh, causing a significant injury.
A sea lion came out of the water and bit a crew member in
the hand while the individual was walking down the dock
carrying a fish. Finally, there was a recent case of a seal
lion at a sport fishing dock that was preventing passengers
from boarding the boat.
As a passenger would approach the sea lion would jump out
of the water, bearing its teeth, and preventing the angler from
boarding. It took 20 minutes to drive the animal away. NOAA
Fisheries needs to be given legal authority to changes in the
MMPA to take actions to identify and then effectively deter
these problem animals, so as to again put the fear of man into
them, allowing our citizens to co-exist with these very
abundant populations, and once again allow them to enjoy their
ocean experience.
In closing, SAC wants to compliment Congressman Gilchrest
and Congressman Pombo on the introduction of H.R. 2693, which
would require the Secretary to conduct research on the non-
lethal removal and control of nuisance pinnipeds.
As the California State government is currently in fiscal
meltdown, our only hope is that the Federal Government can work
to find some reasonable way to once again allow us to enjoy our
West Coast ocean waters without the constant harassment by
these hordes of aggressive nuisance pinnipeds. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fletcher follows:]
Statement of Robert Fletcher, President,
Sportfishing Association of California
Dear Chairman Gilchrest & Members:
My name is Robert Fletcher, and I am the President of the
Sportfishing Association of California (SAC). SAC is a non-profit
political organization that for over thirty years has been representing
the interests of the commercial passenger fishing vessel (CPFV) fleet
in southern California. The SAC fleet of vessels runs local and long-
range sportfishing, sport diving and natural history excursions, and
carries close to 750,000 passengers a year, and the SAC live bait
harvesting boats provide live bait to the sportfishing fleet and to the
huge private boat fleet that fishes off the California coast.
SAC is deeply grateful to House Resources Committee Chairman Pombo,
and to Subcommittee Chairman Gilchrest, for agreeing to hold this field
hearing in order to receive testimony on the crisis facing the marine
fishing & boating community. California sea lions and pacific harbor
seals continue to grow in numbers and in the aggressiveness with which
they harass sport and commercial fishermen, sport divers, swimmers and
boat owners. These robust populations of pinnipeds are resulting in
some animals that are out of control, and we need your help to find
ways to cope with these aggressive problem animals
For many years, SAC has spent money and time in an effort to find
and develop an effective, non-lethal deterrent device that will allow
members of the SAC fleet to be able to ``co-exist'' with the increasing
hordes of pinnipeds. One particular unit, developed by a company here
in San Diego, initially showed real promise. The company, known as
Pulse Power Technologies, Inc., had made an experimental deterrent
device that appeared to deter sea lions without scaring away the fish.
With the help of NOAA Fisheries staff in the southwest region, we
attempted to get approval from the California Coastal Commission to
begin at-sea testing to determine how effective it might be.
Unfortunately, the Coastal Commission disagreed with our
application and denied our request for a consistency determination,
stating that the unit could potentially harm a marine mammal. The
Commission, in essence, ignored the pleas of the fishing industry in
favor of pinniped populations that are now believed to be above
historic levels. If we are ever to get control of this interaction
problem, we need to stop bending over backward to protect these
exploding populations of marine mammals and try to find some reasonable
methods to control their attacks on our use of our ocean and its
resources.
The Harbormaster in Port San Luis, in comments I have attached to
my testimony, stated that, ``When approached, the sea lions will growl
at us and even sometimes charge towards us if we get too close''..The
Harbor staff has tried to ``deter'' these creatures, but after a few
days of squirting water, making noise, yelling, clapping hands,
throwing soft projectiles and the likes, these mammals ignore us and do
not leave the docks.'' Clearly a case of no pain, no gain, and many
marine biologists agree that unless you approach the pain threshold,
you cannot effectively deter these animals.
To make matters worse, increasingly aggressive CA sea lions have
more recently begun to attack members of the public. A swimmer off Port
San Luis was bitten in the calf by a sea lion. He received a three-inch
laceration on the back of his leg. A fisherman was attacked while
seated in his boat. The animal bit into his thigh causing a significant
injury. A sea lion came out of the water and bit a crewmember in the
hand while the individual was walking down the dock carrying a fish.
Finally, there was a recent case of a sea lion at a sportfishing dock
that was preventing passengers from walking down a dock to a
sportfishing boat. As a passenger would approach the boat the sea lion
would jump out of the water, baring his teeth at the individual,
preventing him from boarding. It took 20 minutes to scare the animal
away.
Clearly, the competition between individuals of this exploding CA
sea lion population is forcing some animals to modify their behavior in
ways that threaten man's enjoyment of the ocean environment. You will
hear from marine mammal experts that the majority of the conflicts stem
from a small number of ``problem'' animals, and unless Congress begins
to understand the threat posed by these ``bad boys'', the attacks will
continue and perhaps become truly life threatening. NOAA Fisheries
needs to be given the authority to take actions to effectively deter
these problem animals, to again put the fear of man into them, so that
our citizens can co-exist with these abundant populations of CA sea
lions and Pacific harbor seals.
In closing, I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Gilchrest for
introducing H.R. 2693, and Chairman Pombo for agreeing to this hearing.
On behalf of the sportfishing industry I want to specifically support
Section 7 of Congressman Gilchrest's bill, which requires the Secretary
to conduct research on the nonlethal removal and control of nuisance
pinnipeds. As California state government is currently in fiscal
meltdown, our only hope is that the federal government can work to find
some reasonable way to once again allow us to enjoy our west coast
ocean waters without the constant harassment by the hordes of nuisance
pinnipeds.
______
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
Mr. Emerson
STATEMENT OF FRANK T. EMERSON,
FISHERMEN'S ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Emerson. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. My name is Frank
Emerson, and I am the President of Fishermen's Alliance of
California, a group that is a combination of commercial,
recreational, and industry representatives of the fishing
industry.
Thank you for the chance to present with you our position
on the Marine Mammal Protection Act Reauthorization. It is our
belief that the California sea lion, and the Harbor seal
numbers are above historical populations, and that this
condition is having an adverse effect on marine resources and
the fishing industry.
We define the fishing industry in the broadest sense. Our
group includes commercial, recreational, and charter vessel
operators. Our definition must also include the businesses that
depend on sea food harvests for food and for sport, from the
hotels that house weekend anglers, to the largest processing
plants.
Fishing supports businesses that are interwoven throughout
our economy, and countless jobs rest on its health. In our view
it is nothing less than irresponsible to give unreasonably high
levels of protection to over-abundant marine mammals in favor
of critically important resources.
A desire to be humane and afford safety to these marine
mammals is shared by fishers and non-fishers alike. After all,
the appreciation of the ocean's beauty and bounty is what lures
us to a life at sea in the first place.
It certainly is not the promise of cushy hours and great
benefits. We do not feel that it is desirable or humane to let
this population of sea lions and seals grow unchecked until an
inevitable crash, and from the testimony that you heard
earlier, an occurring decline as we speak due to disease and
starvation.
At a recent presentation in Monterey, California, by sea
lion experts, Robert DeLong of NOAA's northwest region, stated
that the current numbers are probably the highest they have
been in over 3,000 years. How is this possible? Haven't we all
heard about the seal hunters that nearly wiped them out?
Yes, over-hunting did occur, but sealing has been banned
for over a century. What changed is that prior to the sealing
years, Native Americans harvested them routinely and provided a
balancing factor. The major difference is the lack of human
harvest after the ban on sea lions.
For native hunters it was as normal as going to the grocery
store. They depended on marine mammals for not only food, but
bones served as their tools, furs as warm clothing, and
intestines for lashings, and even the flippers were used for
boot soles. They used the whole animal.
So humans were absolutely an integral part of the
environment that the marine mammals existed in for centuries.
Sea lion researchers know this from investigation of Native
Indian dig sites, and what they call the mittens, and in these
refuse areas, the fossilized bones of these marine mammals are
found.
Also, by displacing man as a natural predator, as well as
grizzly bears and wolves, which no longer prowl our coast
lines, the growth rate of 6 percent doubles the population
approximately every 8 to 9 years.
The current estimate of the population of California sea
lions is around 240,000 animals, which does not take into
account the Mexican population. What will twice that number
mean to our fish docks if this population doubles again in 8 or
9 more years? What will our beaches look like then?
What will it mean to the sea lions? It is no different than
deer populations that exceed the available food supply. They
will all suffer. Is it not the intention of the Act to reduce
the amount of suffering to marine mammals?
The critical flaw that we perceive in the MMPA is a faulty
and an unworkable definition of optimum sustainable population.
This concept legislates a population increase without
acknowledging a host of biological and historical factors to
curb populations.
Reauthorization of the Act is the perfect opportunity to
thoughtfully acknowledge the reality of marine ecosystems, and
predator-prey dynamics. We must accept that man is integral to
the environment, and has always had an impact on marine
mammals.
It is our position that to try and ensure complete
protection from one species over another is not only
impossible, but it is inherently flawed. The majority of
fishermen impacted by sealing degradation would rather not try
to have to discourage their behavior by shooting at them.
It takes time out from your daily work, and it is a hassle,
and it is dangerous, and it is also not very effective because
it is actually hard to shoot from a moving boat. This at one
time was allowed to try to prevent this behavior and it did
serve the purpose of keeping marine mammals afraid of man, and
discourage this behavior.
But we would rather have non-lethal deterrence developed as
others have spoken, and keep the populations in balance with
the marine environment. It is our position that people should
be able to protect their property from degradation, and that is
a private property rights issue.
But from a resource management standpoint, we ask for
population control through humane methods to maintain a balance
consistent with those historical numbers. There is hardly a
fisherman along our coast that cannot recount tales of fish
lost to seals or sea lions, and I would just like to recount a
story that I just heard recently.
I was talking to someone on my way up here actually. He was
out fishing off of Monterey Bay for halibut with his son, and
his son's friend, and a sea lion actually jumped in the boat
with them, menacing the passengers, and a crew member or the
captain of the vessel had an aluminum baseball bat that he uses
to dispatch a halibut when they catch one.
They tried to shoosh this animal off the boat, and it kept
aggressively pursuing the guy in the bow of the boat. So he is
backing up and he is panicking, and it is a very tense
situation. So he finally hits the animal in the body, and it is
only momentarily deterred. It just kind of whirls around and
looks at him briefly, and turns back and continues to charge
the man on the bow. o he swings again, and again the same
response, just a momentary hesitation by the animal. Again it
pursues the man on the bow of the boat. So finally he hits it
as hard as he can in the head, and the seat collapses on the
boat. Now he has got a situation that he feels terrible about.
He does the right thing and he calls the Coast Guard and
they are only 10 minutes from the dock. He reports that he has
a man injured, because the person has been scratched and is
bleeding from his stomach, and requests medical assistance.
He drives immediately to the Coast Guard pier, and he is
met by four seaman, one packing a sidearm, and instead of
assisting the person injured, they immediately grill him for 5
minutes about how the sea lion was killed.
The captain became so incensed that he says that I have got
a person injured here, and they refused to look at, and he
requested that medical assistance be available. A more senior
officer finally came down to the dock, and rebuked the junior
officer, and saw to it that the person was treated, and
apparently has written a report that we are trying to get.
He went to the Coast Guard office yesterday and asked for a
copy and they said we don't have any copies and we don't know
what you are talking about. So we are going to track this down.
So in any case, that is just a clear example of what our
priorities have been misapplied. It is really very
discouraging. Thank you very much for listening to my testimony
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Emerson follows:]
Statement of Frank T. Emerson, President,
Fisherman's Alliance of California
Thank you for the chance to present you with our position on the
Marine Mammal Protection Act reauthorization. It is our belief that
California Sea Lion and Harbor Seal numbers are above historical
populations, and that this condition is having an adverse effect on
marine resources and the fishing industry. We define the fishing
industry in the broadest sense, our group includes commercial,
recreational and charter vessel operators. Our definition must include
the businesses that depend on seafood harvest for food or sport, from
the hotels that house weekend anglers to the largest processing plants.
Fishing supports businesses that are interwoven throughout our economy,
and countless jobs rest on its health. In our view it is nothing less
than irresponsible to give unreasonably high levels of protection to
over abundant marine mammals in favor of critically important
resources.
A desire to be humane and afford safety to marine mammals is shared
by fishers and non-fishers alike. After all, the appreciation of the
Oceans beauty and bounty is what lures us to a life at sea. It
certainly isn't the promise of cushy hours and great benefits. But we
do not feel it is desirable or humane to let this population of Sea
Lions and Seals grow unchecked to until an inevitable crash. A point of
carrying capacity will be reached and disease and starvation will kill
thousands at a time.
At a recent presentation in Monterey Ca. by Sea Lion experts,
Robert DeLong of NOAA's northwest region, stated that current numbers
are probably the highest they have been in over three thousand years.
How is this possible? Haven't we all heard about the seal hunters that
nearly wiped them out? Yes, over hunting did occur, but sealing has
been banned for over a century. What changed is that prior to the
sealing years Native Americans harvested them routinely and provided a
crucial balancing factor. The major difference is the lack of human
harvest after the ban on sealing. For Native hunters it was as normal
as going to the grocery store. They depended on marine mammals for not
only food, but bones served as tools, furs as warm clothing, intestines
for lashings and even the flippers were turned into boot soles. So
humans were absolutely an integral part of the environment that marine
mammals existed in. Sea Lion researchers know this from investigation
of Native Indian archeological dig sites. In the refuse areas around
the camps the fossilized bones of many types of marine mammals are
found.
By displacing man as a natural predator, and removing other land
based carnivores such as Grizzly Bears and Wolves, etc., the stage was
set for our coastline to experience a steady growth rate of 6%, or a
doubling every 9 years. The researchers currently estimate the
population of Ca. Sea Lions at around 240,000 animals. What will twice
that number mean to our fish stocks? What will it mean to the Sea
Lions? It is no different than deer populations that exceed the
available food supply, they will suffer.
Is it not the intention of the Act to reduce the amount of
suffering of marine mammals? The critical flaw that we perceive in the
MMPA is a faulty and unworkable definition of ``Optimum Sustainable
Population''. This concept legislates a population increase without
acknowledging a host of biological and historical factors that curbed
population. The reauthorization of the Act is the perfect opportunity
to thoughtfully acknowledge the reality of marine eco-systems and
predator/prey dynamics. We must accept that man is integral to the
environment and has always had an impact on marine mammals. It is our
position that to try and insure complete protection for one species
over another is not only impossible, it is inherently flawed.
The majority of fishermen impacted by Sea Lion depredation would
rather not have to try to discourage the animals' behavior by shooting
at them. We would rather have non-lethal deterrents developed and keep
the populations in balance with the marine environment. It is our
position that people should be able to protect their property from
depredation, and that is a private property rights issue. From a
resource management standpoint we ask for population control through
humane methods to maintain a balance consistent with historical
numbers.
There is hardly one fisherman along our coast who cannot recount
tales of fish lost to sea lions or seals. The salmon trollers in
Monterey Bay at times have to quit fishing completely because every
fish hooked is lost to sea lions that follow close behind. This
fluctuates with the time of the year and how many fish are being
caught. When fishing is fast and furious you stand a better chance of
landing the fish hooked. On average or slow days the sea lions will eat
nearly every salmon hooked before you have a chance of landing them.
When considering the impact to charter fishing operators the losses can
be difficult to quantify yet are equally devastating. The fuel and time
lost due to relocating away from sea lions, the captain working hard to
find a productive spot only to be found by sea lions again. Customers
will call the business and ask if the sea lions are ``in'', and if so
they will not book a trip. Why make the drive, some are coming from
communities a half days drive away, only to be robbed of the fish you
work hard to catch? It is impossible to calculate the true loss to the
sport fishing industry due to discouraged clients. The same is true for
private boaters with sizable investments in boats and equipment.
How can we break the cycle of rogue animals that learn this
unnatural feeding behavior? We have been obtaining small grants from
local State F&G commissions for almost 8 years now to fund studies
conducted by Moss Landing Marine Labs. These were sometimes matched by
other agencies and include interactions between fishers and sea lions,
dietary analysis and population monitoring. These were all conducted by
MLML under the direction and oversight of Dr. Jim Harvey PhD.
In our current study the goal is to learn exactly what triggers a
sea lion to locate a hooked salmon, meaning the hydro-acoustic and
visual signals. This was dubbed the ``Cues Project'' and the field
observations were begun this year in Monterey Bay. Using underwater
digital video cameras and hydro-acoustic recordings we hope to be able
to devise technology that can deter such human and sea lion
interactions. This would be a win/win in our estimation, good for the
fishers and good for the sea lions. If such technology is developed to
the level of practical application it could be made available for the
commercial sector as well as the recreational. If the depredation
activity is continuously discouraged those animals that have never
learned the behavior probably will not, and those that are may unlearn
that habit by being forced to forage on their own. Some rogue animals
may have to be lethally or otherwise removed. By allowing the
interaction to continue unabated, the cycle of young sea lions being
taught the depredation by the older, perpetuates the problem
indefinitely.
We therefore request that reauthorization include a strong
commitment to the funding necessary to develop such deterrent
technology. Monterey Bay is a center of marine research and given the
proximity to Sea Lion interactions would be ideal for developing this
equipment. A two sided approach, maintaining a balance in the pinniped
populations (through sterilization or other means) and harnessing the
technological advancements in society to solve these interaction
problems can surely succeed in restoring a harmonious balance between
humans and pinnipeds.
______
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
Mr. Everingham.
STATEMENT OF ROY R. ``BUCK'' EVERINGHAM, JR.,
EVERINGHAM BROTHERS BAIT COMPANY
Mr. Everingham. I would like to thank you all for allowing
me to speak. The Everingham family and its crews has been
dedicated to serving the San Diego community since 1951. My
grandfather, Adolphus Charles Everingham, and Uncle Chuck
Everingham started working for Mac's Bait Business in the late
1940s. Upon my father's--Roy R. Everingham, Senior--return from
several trips tuna fishing in 1948, he started fishing for
Mac's Bait.
My family purchased the company in 1951 and incorporated in
1963. I started working for the company in 1965 and purchased
the equipment from my father in 1994. I am a third-generation
of Everinghams to own the company.
As a commercial fisherman for 38 years, and an aerial
observer for 15 years, I have been on or over the Pacific Ocean
throughout the population increase of the sea lion. I have
watched the sea lion change from having a fear of man to
totally dominating the environment we are forced to share.
As the population has grown the attribution to our holding
pens, receivers, nets, barge and boat crews have steadily
increased. Eight years ago, we started to lose a large
percentage of live bait we store.
The conditions were so bad that we lost 95 percent of our
live fish stock in 1 to 2 weeks. The sea lions would gather
around one receiver, while one would blow its air directly
under the middle of the bait receiver bottom. This simulates a
depth charge going off in the receiver, driving the fish out
the cracks to the waiting sea lions.
After many complaints and threats from my best customers,
and months of research and planning, I came up with the best
and cheapest method of diverting air from the sea lions. The
cost was $800 per receiver, and with 128 receivers, for a total
cost of $102,400.
The problem was semi-cured, but the sea lions have the
ability to learn and adapt. They learned to open the cracked
lids and ram the side of bay receivers, punching through 1-by-
6, and 2-by-4, and 4-by-4 framing, to get to the bait.
The damage the sea lions caused make it necessary to haul
the receiver out of the water on to the maintenance barge at a
cost of $800 to $3,000 per receiver to repair and return to the
water of 1-to-2 receivers per month.
Due to the sea lions hanging out on top of the receivers,
1-to-3 lids are broken per week, at a cost of $80 to $400 per
lid to repair. Damage to the netting and poles for our
crowders, 1 to 2 poles per month, at a cost of $150 per pole,
and repairs to the webbing of $25 to $250, depending on the
amount of damage to the webbing.
I see that as an ongoing problem that with the present laws
will only get worse. The interaction with my employees and the
fishing public is a recipe for disaster if some control is not
implemented.
One of our maintenance barge crew has already been severely
mauled, laying both the upper and lower part of his hand open
to the bone from a sea lion bite, requiring 4 months of rehab.
We have contacted the controlling agency, the National
Marine Fisheries Service Enforcement, and no action has been
taken. They refuse to deal with the problem animal, and in fact
I have talked to them about deterrence, and they can't even
agree amongst themselves which would be legal to use.
Twice before when I have asked NMFS Enforcement for help,
they have not been responsive and have been unwilling to help.
At this time, we are dealing with an 800 pound sea lion that is
pushing employees, customers, with his chest while growling and
snapping to gain entry to an open receiver.
It is only a matter of time before someone is seriously
hurt. We called the National Marine Fisheries Enforcement
Agency in San Diego, and their recorder said they would be back
in a week-and-a-half. Since NMFS is the controlling agency, and
the California Fish and Game cannot act, and the NMFS is MIA,
what can we do?
I feel that this is unacceptable. The same large sea lion
is also boarding small boats fishing in the bay looking to
steal their catch. This is very dangerous for the vessel, and
for the occupants. Small vessels can be easily capsized by an
800 pound sea lion and the occupants could be seriously mauled.
Farmers and cattlemen are not forced to work in this type
of environment. If these are the conditions that we are forced
to work under, it would only be fair to reinstate the mountain
lion and the coyote to our downtown areas so all Americans
could work under equal conditions.
Of our three vessels fishing for bait are up against
difficult odds. Trying to find schools of bait with sonars and
fathometers is difficult enough without 50 to 100 sea lions
following them and jumping on to every they locate.
One must set the nets quickly, leaving little time for
tracking the schools and getting their direction, making
setting the net more of a gamble. Many times we must dump half
or the whole loads from our nets because 50 to 100 sea lions
per boat are in the net making the bait quality so bad that it
won't live and they must locate and set another school.
Not to mention that this many sea lions in the net makes it
very difficult to keep the schools in the net while pursing.
There is also continuous damage to the sack portion of the net,
making it necessary to make repairs. In addition to the above,
due to the increased sea lion population, there has been a
large increase in the Great White attacks along the San Diego
coast.Thank you for your time and consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Everingham follows:]
Statement of Roy R. Everingham, President, Everingham Bros. Bait Co.
The Everingham family and its crews have been dedicated to serving
the San Diego community since 1951. My Grandfather (Adolphus Charles
Everingham) and Uncle (Chuck Everingham) started working for Mac's Bait
business in the late 1940's. Upon my fathers (Roy R. Everingham Sr.)
return from several trips tuna fishing in 1948, he started fishing for
Mac's Bait. My family purchased the company in 1951 and incorporated in
1963. I started working for the company in 1965 and purchased the
equipment from my father in 1994. I am the third generation of
Everinghams to own the company.
As a commercial fisherman for 38 years and an aerial observer for
15 years, I have been on or over the Pacific Ocean through out the
population increase of the sea lion.
I have watched the sea lion's change from having a fear of man to
totally dominating the environment we are forced to share.
As the population has grown the attrition against our holding pens
(receivers), nets, barge and boat crews have steadily increased. Eight
years ago we started to loose a large percentage of live bait we store.
The conditions were so bad we lost 95% of our live fish stock in
one to two weeks. The sea lions would gather around one receiver while
one would blow its air directly under the middle of the bait receiver
bottom. This simulates a depth charge going off in the receiver,
driving the fish out the cracks to the waiting sea lions.
After many complaints and threats from my best customers and months
of research and planning, I came up with the best and cheapest method
of diverting the air from the sea lions. The cost was $800 per receiver
with 128 receivers for a total cost of $102,400. The problem was semi
cured.
But the sea lions have the ability to learn and adapt. They learned
to open the crated lids and to ram the side of the receivers, punching
through 1x6, 2x4's and 4x4's framing to get to the bait. The damage the
sea lions cause make it necessary to haul the receivers out of the
water onto the maintenance barge at a cost of $800 to $3000 per
receiver to repair and return to the water at a rate 1 to 2 receivers
per month. Due to the sea lions hanging out on the top of the receivers
1 to 3 lids are broken per week at a cost of $80 to $400 per lid to
repair. Damage to netting and poles for our crowders 1 to 2 poles per
month at a cost of $150 per pole and repairs to webbing at $25 to $250
depending on amount of damage to the webbing.
I see this as an ongoing problem that with the present laws will
only get worse. The interaction with my employees and the fishing
public is a recipe for disaster if some control is not implemented. One
of our maintenance barge crew already has been severely mauled laying
both upper and lower part of his hand open to the bone from a sea lion
bite, requiring four months of rehab.
When we have contacted the controlling agency NMFS (National Marine
Fisheries Service) enforcement, no action has been taken. They refuse
to deal with the problem animal. In fact when I have talked to them
about deterrents they can't even agree amongst themselves what should
be legal to use. Twice before when I have asked NMFS enforcement for
help they have not been responsive and are unwilling to help. At this
time we are dealing with an 800-pound sea lion that is pushing
employees and customers with his chest while growling and snapping to
gain entry into an open receiver. It is only a matter of time before
someone is seriously hurt. We called NMFS enforcement in San Diego;
their recorder said they would be back in a week and a half. Since NMFS
is the controlling agency and California Fish and Game cannot act and
the NMFS is M.I.A. what do we do? I feel this is unacceptable. The same
large sea lion is also boarding small boats fishing in the bay looking
to steal their catch. This is very dangerous for the vessel and the
occupants, small vessels can be easily capsized by an 800-pound sea
lion and the occupants could be seriously mauled.
Farmers and cattlemen are not forced to work in this type of
environment. If these are the conditions we are forced to work under,
it would only be fair to reinstate the mountain lion and coyote to our
downtown areas so all Americans could work under equal conditions.
Our three vessels fishing for the bait are up against difficult
odds, trying to find schools of bait with sonars and fathometers is
difficult enough without 50 to 100 sea lions following them and jumping
onto every school they locate. One must set the nets quickly, leaving
little time for tracking the schools and getting their direction,
making setting the net more of a gamble. Many times we must dump half
or the whole load from our nets because 50 to 100 sea lions per boat
are in the net, making the bait quality so bad it won't live and they
must locate and set another school. Not to mention that this many sea
lions in the net makes it very difficult to keep schools in the net
while pursing. There is also continuous damage to the sack portion of
the net making it necessary to make repairs.
In addition to the above, due to the increase in sea lion
population there has been a large increase in great white shark attacks
along San Diego coast.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
______
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
Mr. Rebuck.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN L. REBUCK, MEMBER,
SOUTHERN SEA OTTER RECOVERY TEAM
Mr. Rebuck. Good morning, Mr. Pombo, and Congressman
Cunningham, I appreciate very much that you would come here
today and schedule these field hearings. It is an honor to be
here. It is my fourth time appearing on the subject of sea
otters.
I wanted to correct this little sign here. It says that I
am a member of the Southern Sea Otter Recovery Team. I am
actually a technical consultant for abalone to the team, and it
is job that I have had for about 10 years. I like it. I have
been diving since 1956.
My family was in the abalone business and I was born on
Santa Catalina Island in '51, and then we moved to Ocean Beach
down the road here, and I went to Ocean Beach Elementary
School, and I moved to Morro Bay in 1954, and I have been
around the abalone fishery my whole life, and it is really
wonderful. I love diving.
I brought a photograph here today. This is what I consider
to be the human equivalent of a sea otter. It is a commercial
abalone diver, and in my search for preparation for today I
came up with a number of about 500 sea urchin and abalone
divers licensed by the State of California.
My friend, Peter Halna, who is the President of the Sea
Urchin Harvesters Association, a few moments ago informed me
that I was incorrect. The number now is around 360. So there is
about 2,500 sea otters and 360 commercial divers, and I
question who is really endangered here.
Congress did a wonderful thing for us in 1986. You passed
Public Law 99-625, which created a climate where we could co-
exist with sea otters. We could have fishery zones, and sea
otter zones, or areas, where shell fish were conserved and the
sea otters were protected.
The Public Law 99-625 though changed the mandate perception
that the Fish and Wildlife Service has. Their perception, and
what they have told me many times, is that their job is to
recover sea otters and not to protect fisheries.
Well, the way that I read the Public Law is that they were
instructed to do both. Unfortunately for us, they have not been
doing their job. The law was passed by Congress. The Coastal
Commission approved the translocation of sea otters to San
Nicholas Island, because there was a containment component,
meaning that any animals that left the island or found in the
management zone would be captured and returned to the parent
population.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has not done that now since
1993, and we have continued to lose fishing grounds, and it has
cost the coastal communities millions of dollars annually in
lost fisheries.
Now, I brought a few items here. This is a red abalone, and
this is about the size that commercial divers and sportsmen
desire. It is 7 inches for sportsmen and 7-3/4s for commercial
divers.
This is the size that the sea otter will take down to an
animal of about 3 inches. This is just slightly smaller than 3
inches, but you can see that we can't really compete with this
if we are obligated to take this size and otters can take any
size. The abalone will continue to exist in some cases, but
they don't get to the size that support a fishery.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has used many excuses why
they can no longer contain the sea otters. They say, well, it
was a difficult job. Well, we all knew that from the get go.
When you are out looking over hundreds of thousands of square
miles of ocean for something that has a head this big, how do
you find that in an ocean, in the choppy seas.
You can't, and it is very difficult, and so it was
difficult, and it was predicted from the beginning, and we knew
that. But the Fish and Wildlife Service persisted that they had
the expertise, and the training, and the knowledge, and the
capability to carry out containment.
And so the project was approved, and they have been at it
now since 1987. Their next excuse was, well, there was a lack
of money. They just did not have enough money to carry out the
containment component. Well, sorry. We didn't go for it in the
first place, and they obligated themselves to carry out.
We understand that they were taking money from the sea
otter project and putting it into the condor project. Well,
they tell me now that they have $300,000 a year in their annual
budget, and I asked them where does that money go. Does it go
to research? No. It goes to salaries.
So that's nice. I would like to have one of those jobs,
too, but while they lose their job or if I lose my job, they
seem to get promotions, and retirements, and lots of good
things.
The Coastal Commission advised the Fish and Wildlife
Service in 1999, and their letter is in my written comments,
that the translocation project was no longer consistent with
the California Coastal Management Plan. That means that the
project is not consistent with the Coastal Zone Management
Plan.
So here we have an agency that is in violation as I see it
of two Federal laws, and a significant State law, and it
doesn't seem to matter. They just do whatever they please.
Recently the State of California and commercial fishermen that
fish the Channel Islands have agreed on reprotected areas.
That 25 percent of the Channel Islands are going to be set
aside for being reprotected areas, and to enhance things like
abalone. This won't happen with sea otters, and so what I am
asking you today is that we somehow continue Public Law 99-65,
and that Congress require the Fish and Wildlife Service to live
up to their commitments.
They have to or otherwise we are not going to have our
wonderful fisheries, our abalone, sea urchin, which is a huge
export fishery; the lobster fisheries are in jeopardy, and the
crab fisheries are in jeopardy, clams. Almost 60 marina
vertebrates are food items for sea otters.
So I have no hard feelings for the sea otters, but I would
really like to find a way as Mr. Fletcher said to co-exist with
these animals. I thank you again for coming.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rebuck follows:]
Statement of Steven L. Rebuck, Member, Sea Otter Technical Consultant
Group, Southern Sea Otter Recovery Team
When I last appeared before the Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, October 11, 2001, I attempted to
demonstrate through State of California documents how the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) sea otter program in California has failed.
This failure violates a number of state and federal laws. USFWS also
violates a 1987 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between USFWS and the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Federal Rulemaking.
In 1986, Congress authorized the USFWS to capture sea otters and
translocate them to San Nicolas Island, Ventura County. Public Law 99-
625 allowed the USFWS to create a separate population of sea otters, a
primary objective of the 1982 Southern Sea Otter Recovery Plan.
Previous to this law, the ``taking'' of sea otters in California was
illegal under provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
USFWS plans to translocate sea otters in California began about 1979.
USFWS has repeatedly told fishermen and others their congressional
mandate was to recover the sea otter in California, not to protect
fisheries. PL 99-625 clearly amended this mandate.
A mapping study funded by USFWS and the Marine Mammal Commission
(MMC) in 1984 by James Dobbin Associates found that a translocation of
sea otters to San Nicolas Island would have the least economic impacts
of sites under consideration. However, if sea otters were not contained
to San Nicolas Island, economic impacts would be the greatest of any
site under consideration.
``Of all four zones, it appears that San Nicolas Island may
provide the least conflicts with shellfisheries considering
simultaneous both existing commercial and sport fisheries. This
assuming that the animals will disperse throughout the Channel
Islands. Should dispersal take place to other island shelves
such as the northern archipelago, (San Miguel, Santa Rosa,
Santa Cruz, Anacapa) and Santa Barbara Island, conflicts
arising from the selection of San Nicolas would be greater (in
economic terms) than conflicts arising from dispersal from
other zones. Dispersal outside the other zones would also
affect the magnitude of conflicts with existing commercial and
sport fisheries.'' (EXHIBIT 1)
Dispersal and related economic impacts is what has taken place
since 1987 and especially since 1993 when the USFWS abandoned the
containment component of the translocation.
Our former Congressman, the Honorable Robert Lagomarsino, stated in
a 1998 letter that:
``I believe it is a contempt of Congress for U.S. Fish and
Wildlife to not carry out the law by recapture of sea otters.''
(EXHIBIT 2)
USFWS has also demonstrated contempt for the State of California by
ignoring obligations they made to protect fisheries south of Point
Conception, Santa Barbara County.
The California Coastal Commission (CCC) advised USFWS in 1999 that
the translocation program was no longer consistent with the California
Coastal Management Program (CCMP) as required by the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA). The establishment of a ``no-otter/management
zone'' was mitigation for the fisheries and due to this mitigation, the
CCC approved the translocation in 1987.
``Implementation of a management zone was a critical element of
CD-10-87. In its concurrence, the Coastal Commission found that
adverse commercial fishing impacts at San Nicolas Island
projected to be caused by the otter translocation effort would
be adequately mitigated by implementation of the management
zone (i.e., the ``no-otter zone).''
``The Draft Biological Opinion states that the USFWS will allow
the otters in the management zone to remain to remain in place
pending its decision on the future of the translocation and
containment programs. CD-10-87 is clear that if the mitigation
program (i.e., implementation of the management zone) fails,
then the USFWS needs to seek further federal consistency
review. Thus, the decision by the USFWS to no longer maintain
the `no otter' zone triggers the need for a new federal
consistency review to determine if the project continue to be
undertaken in a manner consistent with CCMP. The USFWS should
submit this matter soon in the form of either an amendment to
its existing consistency determination or a new consistency.''
(EXHIBIT 3)
The termination of the containment component of the translocation
program has cost coastal communities, south of Pt. Conception, millions
of dollars in lost fisheries. If fishery protections afforded by PL 99-
625 are lost, over time, several valuable fisheries: sea urchins, crab,
lobster, and set-net fisheries will be impacted. CDFG has estimated
these potential multiplied losses at: commercial fisheries,
$73,800,000; recreational fisheries, $ 150,400,000; and oil and gas
$12,600,000,000. (EXHIBIT 4).
This scenario has been opposed by the County of Santa Barbara
(EXHIBIT 5), the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC (EXHIBIT 6)
and CDFG (EXHIBIT 7).
The USFWS established a Sea Otter Technical Consultant Group
(SOTCG) to assist the Southern Sea Otter Recovery Team (SSORT) in
August 1993. The SOTCG has not met since 1999. The SOTCG is made up of
the environmental community, oil and gas industry, recreational
fishing, commercial fishing and the State of California. A 1995 list
occurs in the 2003 Final Revised Recovery Plan of the Southern Sea
Otter.
On February 27, 2003 the USFWS met with fishermen in Ventura,
California to discuss the Final Revised Recovery Plan and options.
Indication was given that USFWS was conducting similar meetings with
others. On June 11, 2003 sea otter coordinator, Greg Sanders met with
the Marine Interest Group (MIG) at Morro Bay, California to discuss the
status of sea otters, the translocation and the 2003 Revised Recovery
Plan. Why USFWS has not better used the SOTCG is not clear.
Concerning the status of abalone, all commercial and recreational
abalone fisheries, south of San Francisco were closed in 1997. One
species, white abalone, Haliotis sorenseni, was listed as endangered
May 29, 2001. This species occurs out to two hundred feet of water;
beyond the limits of compressed air diving, but not beyond the foraging
capability of sea otters.
California Cooperative Fish Investigators (CALCOF) reported on the
problems associated with sea otters and white abalone in 1999:
``During 1998, about 100 sea otters moved into southern
California between Point Conception and Santa Barbara. These
animals are mostly males, which range great distances. They
move back into their northern territory during mating season,
but will probably return to southern California again later.
Persistent occupation and continued immigration into southern
California could have serious ramifications for the recovery of
the abalone resource and for other invertebrates as well.
Several abalone species, including green, pink, and possibly
white, are at such low densities that continued foraging by sea
otters--in combination with the cumulative effects of
predation, environment, and anthropogenic factors--could
extirpate them.'' (EXHIBIT 8)
Following the translocation of sea otters to San Nicolas Island,
beginning 1987, red abalone landings declined. According to CDFG
published data, San Nicolas Island produced 41% of regional (Pt.
Conception to Oceanside) red abalone, Haliotis rufescens, landings in
1987, 30% in 1988, 12% in 1989 and 3% in 1990. (EXHIBIT 9)
In 1999, the Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, Inc. and the
California Abalone Association, Inc. sued the Department of the
Interior (DOI) and USFWS over the failure to contain sea otters in the
no-otter/management-zone. (EXHIBIT 10). However, fishermen were unable
to sustain the lawsuit.
Another group of central California fishermen recently lost a
lawsuit to preserve their halibut and sea bass fishery due to presumed
take of sea otters.
The sea otter translocation to San Nicolas Island had many
problems. A number of commitments published in the Federal Rulemaking
for the project never occurred. An 800 phone number to report otters in
the no-otter/management-zone never happened. Nor did promised weekly
aircraft surveys. Boats and crews were not reliable. By comparison,
CDFG did a far better job and actually captured the majority of sea
otters in the no-otter/management-zone.
Although the USFWS and CDFG had a signed MOU identifying management
and research objectives (EXHIBIT 11), USFWS has failed to operate in
good faith. The sea otter program conducted by USFWS in California can
be characterized as willful neglect.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) reported in 1981 that USFWS had
not informed the State of California, nor MMC of their intentions to
translocate sea otter to San Nicolas Island. (EXHIBIT 12).
Previous translocations had problems. In 1969 and 1970, USFWS
translocated 59 Amchitka, Alaska sea otters to Washington state. In
1970 to 1971 total of 93 Amchitka sea otters were translocated to
Oregon. The major problem with this translocation was that Alaskan sea
otters were introduced to Southern sea otter territory. While the
Washington population thrived, the Oregon population dispersed.
(EXHIBIT 13). It is quite possible Alaskan sea otters entered the
California population following this translocation
CONCLUSION
The USFWS has created a climate in California where the future of
shellfish and other fisheries is uncertain. Although Congress has
created legislation whereby shellfish resource are conserved and sea
otters protected, the USFWS has not cooperated with the State of
California to co-manage these resources.
Without Congressional Oversight, the State of California will
continue to lose valuable invertebrate resources and the human use
fisheries they support.
The State of California recently established Marine Protected Areas
(MPAs) on 25% of the northern Channel Islands. This is an investment in
the future of fisheries. Without controls on the sea otter, this
investment will come to fruition. These 125 square miles of MPAs (no-
fishing or limited fishing) occur in the no-otter/management-zone.
The State of California, commercial and recreational fishermen
desire a continuation of PL 99-625 and ``zonal-management'' of sea
otters. This will likely require reconfiguration of the no-otter/
management-zone. This will also require a more cooperative USFWS with a
focus on problem solving and co-existence between sea otters and
fisheries.
______
Mr. Pombo. Well, thank you. I thank the entire panel for
your testimony, and Mr. Rebuck, one of the things that has been
in the news lately has been the--that certain populations of
abalone are endangered, and I know that off the coast just
north of here they were talking about that particular
population was very endangered.
Does the increased population on the pinnipeds, and sea
lion seals, and their ability to dive and take the abalone,
does that lead to part of this?
Mr. Rebuck. Well, the pinnipeds wouldn't take the abalone,
but the sea otters would.
Mr. Pombo. The sea otters.
Mr. Rebuck. Yes, they would, and in fact the California
Cooperative Fish Investigations, which is known as CALCFI,
published in their report in 1999, and it is in my written
comments, that if otters were allowed into Southern California
that it could exculpate some of these abalone populations.
There is eight abalone species common to California. These
ones are red abalone. These are kind of like fleas. They are
really hard to eradicate. The other species--white abalone,
which is listed as an endangered species--is common in this
area, or formerly common.
I supported that listing, and I wrote a letter because I
wanted to see better science in looking for these populations
that still may exist, and they do exist. But there are other
species. The pink abalone and green abalone, which are also
potential candidates for the list.
This is a black abalone, Haliotis cracherodii. That has
been taken by a sea otter. I can't fish this, and this is
sublegal to the size that I would fish if I was able to.
Mr. Pombo. You can't fish it because?
Mr. Rebuck. Well, there is a prohibition on all abalone
fishing now south of San Francisco to allow for recovery of the
stocks. These particular animals were dying of a disease
referred to as withering syndrome. It is a virus that affects
these animals not due to fishing. Their declines were not due
to fishing.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
Mr. Rebuck. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Pombo. Ms. Merryweather, obviously the whole case in La
Jolla has gotten attention, and one of my former colleagues,
Brian Bilbray, who came marching into my office a few weeks ago
with a stack of newspaper clips, and they are all involved the
children's pool in La Jolla, and was quite excited about what
was going on, and what the impact had been.
And I am glad that you had the opportunity to come in and
testify, and talk to us, and I am a little bit confused as to
the implementation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and we
have testimony from different people who say that we tried to
chase them off the docks, and we chased them out of the boats,
and trying to protect our private property, and protect our
boats, and protect our public lands.
And yet in your case, it appears that they are telling you
that you can't do that.
Ms. Merryweather. In the case in La Jolla, this is a--at
one point we had something called seal rock, and they put a
sort of invisible protection around it. And they told everybody
don't go anywhere near this rock.
Well, it used to be that when the kids went out, and divers
went out, and surfers went out, they would like hurl some
seaweed at the seals, and a couple would get off and a couple
would get on.
Once they put this protection around this rock, so many
seals got on the rock that a couple of them went over to the
children's pool, and once they got over to the children's pool,
some sort of very zealous seal lovers got over there, and told
anybody that if you get near these seals I am going to have you
arrested, and you will have a fine, or you will be imprisoned.
So people were like, well, I sat on this beach my whole
entire life. What is the deal. And they are going, well, if you
make that seal raise his head, you are going to get a fine or
you are going to get arrested.
So slowly but surely due to the fact that people, and the
seal people, sort of were having it out every day; and then the
lifeguards got involved, and then the lifeguards finally said
that we don't want to deal with this.
So what they did is that they erected with the help of the
city a rope, which has no coastal permit, separating the seals
from the people. And the things that happened there--I mean,
there was a situation where a surfer who was outside lost his
board, and the only way he had to come in was at the children's
pool.
He came in and he would have drowned had he not been able
to come in there. He gets into his car, and he gets home, and a
couple of days later and he has a $1,000 fine because the
people who were watching over that property over there turned
these people in continually.
To me one of the most precious things that we probably have
in California are our rights to beach access, and we are being
denied it in every possible way. And in this case, the
children's pool to me, because it is a man-made pool, and it is
a natural site, it is even sort of more off-bounds than I think
that it should be.
This is a huge piece of beach for us in La Jolla, and it is
a very special piece of beach for us, and now as I saw certain
months of the year--like right now there is no children, and
there are no seals. It smells badly. It is just a mess in every
possible way.
And the other thing about the children's pool is that it is
the origination of diving in all of Southern California. The
original gogglers came out of that pool, the children's pool.
It has a lot of history, and it is just a crying shame to see
what has happened to it.
Mr. Pombo. It does not--and maybe I can ask our next panel
this question, but it does not seem to be consistent
enforcement to me.
Ms. Merryweather. It is not at all. There is a situation
where tourists can stand on the wall and clap, and bark at the
seals, and make them go in the water and nothing happens to
them.
But a diver who--we have a friend who is a diver, and who
swam with the seals for 15 years. He has two of them who are
his buddies. He gets in the water, and they jump in the water
with him, and they swim with him. He gets fined continually.
It is so difficult to understand what the rules and
regulations are. I mean, even when they said, well, maybe you
shouldn't have fireworks this year because you are going to
disturb the seals, it is just really hard for us to figure can
you be on the beach, and you can't be on the beach.
The seals have to die there and you can't pick them up.
They are going to bury them there. The lifeguards themselves,
most of them that I have talked to would much rather be
watching the children than the seals, and we are about to erect
something like a $2 million lifeguard tower there.
So the thing is out of hand, and it is ridiculous, and I
think that the rules just have to be eased up on, and in that
situation with the children's pool may be changed to something
else. Because as I said, it has made it all the way to spoof
t.v., and it has been in every paper that you can imagine.
It has been all over the country. I have had people send me
things from Germany, and from France, where people are just
laughing about this, and this is just ridiculous.
Mr. Pombo. Well, over the past several years, I have had
different people who have come in and complained about the
enforcement, or implementation, and the way that the Act was
being defined and implemented.
And I think it is a case like yours that because it affects
so many people, and it is a different group of folks that it
affects, all of a sudden people begin to really focus on what
some of the shortcomings are in the implementation of the
Federal law.
Ms. Merryweather. Yes, and one of the points that I would
like to make is that I feel that if I was in nature with the
seal, and I came down to the beach, and I wanted to go in the
water, and that scared the seal and made him go in the water,
that is his natural behavior, and that is my natural behavior.
In this instance, when they say that I am going in the
water is affecting that seal's natural behavior, it's not. That
is his natural behavior. So the whole thing to me is just
ridiculous.
Mr. Pombo. That is an interesting way to look at it. As I
am sure you are aware, we have been struggling with definitions
and what harassment means, and the Subcommittee Chairman, Mr.
Gilchrest, and myself, have gone round and round, and round on
this, in terms of trying to figure out what these definitions
mean.
And every little change, a one word change in the Act seems
to get everybody excited, and we are trying to figure out a way
to alleviate some of these problems, and it is very difficult
to work our way through this.
But, Mr. Anderson, in your particular case, you have
responsibility of maintaining public facilities in Monterey.
Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pombo. When you or the folks that work with you chase
sea lions off the docks to get to the boats, are you threatened
with a harassment charge? I mean, under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, do they come to your guys and say that if you
disturb these marine mammals we are going to fine you $1,000
for doing it? I mean, do you have that, or--
Mr. Anderson. Early in our difficulties with the sea lions,
we had some of those kinds of threats. However, we were able to
sit down with representatives in our area from the National
Marine Fisheries, and work out a management program that did
allow us to chase them off the docks.
The photograph of them on our launch ramp and so on, we put
up with that for about a month because we thought that
naturally they would move on somewhere else. Well, they didn't,
and we finally made a decision that we would become aggressive
in moving them on along.
So what we did is we had our staff go down, and we power
washed the area to get rid of the mess, and within a few days
they actually moved on further into our harbor, but in an areas
that is virtually undeveloped. It is a beach area and so on.
So it is visible to the public, but they got out of this
particular area. And I will tell you that even when we had
these large groups like this, we would go in there daily and
cull out the dead sea lions, and just again from a health and
safety point of view.
And when you do that, they all go into the water, and it is
a great show. They all rush down to the water, kind of in a
stampede, and we would pick up the dead ones, and soon as we
left, they came back up.
But again it sounds as though there is a total
inconsistency in enforcement between Southern California and
Central California. The La Jolla situation boggles my
imagination. I can't understand how that has happened.
Mr. Pombo. Well, it kind of boggles all of ours as well.
When Brian first brought the press clippings in to me, I
couldn't figure out what they were thinking in terms of
enforcement in that particular case, and obviously I have been
to your city many times and my kids love going down and
watching the sea lions and everything else. But it didn't look
like that the last time I was there either.
Mr. Anderson. It does not look like that all the time, but
we have had like I said three occasions where this has happened
to us, but right now they have moved to a totally new area.
They are on the beaches on both sides of Fisherman's Wharf,
which when they first arrived there all the concessionaires on
Fisherman's Wharf were elated because it was a new tourist
attraction.
Well, about 72 hours later, when the stench has built up,
it got to an unbelievable position. We had a major event in
Monterey this past week with all of the automobiles and a major
car show just adjacent to this area.
I had our staff go down and pressure wash the rocks to get
as much of that fecal matter and vomit off of the rocks, and
fortunately it was an off-shore breeze most of the time and so
we didn't have the problem.
But now even some of the businesses on Fisherman's Wharf
are extraordinarily concerned, and I suspect that you will get
some letters from them that we don't have the ability to
totally relocate them out of the area.
And again I have to say that the biggest problem--and you
have heard testimony--are the ones that become very aggressive,
and these little ones, they are easy to handle. They are still
very much responsive to the measures that we take.
But the older bulls, they think they own the area, and I
actually have a videotape shot by CNN of a sea lion coming up
out of the water after one of our harbor maintenance people on
the docks in the marina. Fortunately, he was pretty quick a
foot, and he got out of the way, but he would have been
attacked by the sea lion.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. Mr. Cunningham.
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you. Brian also stormed in my office
and has talked about the issues, Ms. Merryweather. I am not on
this committee, and I thank the Chairman for allowing me to sit
in here.
But I think the thing that I have heard, and I came mostly
to listen today, of the different areas. I fished with Mr.
Fletcher, and I have had my bait stolen. I mean, I cast seven
times and the seals, they move around hook. They don't get the
hook. They just bite the fish in half, and I don't know how
they do that with it moving through the water so fast.
But the thing that I picked up today I think primarily as
Mr. Anderson said is the inconsistency of enforcement, or the
lack of using the dollars for what it should be for public law,
and the protection of the public, not just from stench, but
disease, and even bodily damage from an animal.
I will do everything that I can to work with the Chairman.
When you look at the folks that are turning in people for
moving the seals, has anybody sat down with them and tried to
have any kind of dialog?
When I came back from Vietnam, I sat down with anti-war
protesters, and had some kind of dialog. I don't think I
convinced them of anything, but at least there was a dialog.
And these groups that are so adamant about their position, is
there any movement for them, and to say, hey, we want to reach
a amenable agreement on how to handle animals to protect them,
and maybe even to move them.
But has there been any dialog from any of your groups with
the folks who are opposed to what we are trying to do?
Ms. Merryweather. Yes, we have. In the beginning, there was
a quieter, gentler group of people, who informed people about
the seals. But it has become so aggressive lately that there is
people who actually have fake identifications down there and
pulling out fake badges, and telling people that they are going
to have them arrested.
There are people who are running people to their cars and
taking their license plates from them. They are taking their
licenses and then turning them in. It has become very
aggressive. They yell at people, and they have all but got into
fisticuffs with people.
It is kind of over the top. And the sad thing is, and the
other thing that I would like to mention also is the shark
issue in California. Seals love to eat sharks, and they spent
millions of years tracking them and--
Mr. Cunningham. And sharks love to eat seals.
Ms. Merryweather. Exactly, and they have spent millions of
years trying to track them and find them, and that is another
issue that we have there, and that is coming, and I just wanted
to throw that in there.
And we have talked to the city, and we have talked to
everybody, and it is just has become--one day it is that these
are the rules, and the next day it is that these are the
rules.There is sort of an ad hoc group of people who go down
there and harass the people who come to the beach, because they
so much want the seals to stay there.
And they are attacking swimmers, and attacking people who
are just wanting to sit on the beach there. I mean, there are
some German tourists who just brought their blanket, and they
didn't know about anything.
They just went and sat down on the beach, and all of a
sudden some guy is screaming in their face to get off the
beach, and don't you know what you are doing. And they are just
going like what is all this about.
Mr. Cunningham. Are there specific organizations that these
folks belong to, or are they just as you say ad hoc individuals
who are concerned?
Ms. Merryweather. Well, originally there was a group that
was part of HUBBS.
Mr. Cunningham. Part of HUBBS?
Ms. Merryweather. Yes. They would inform people about what
is the situation with the seals, and don't make them raise
their head, and off of that stemmed what I would consider a
much more sort of aggressive and hostile group of people, who
actually harassed people.
Mr. Cunningham. But do they belong to a specific
organization, or just--because I would love to sit down with
them and say, hey, what we are trying to do is not harmful to
the animals, but it also allows us to co-exist, and just to see
if you can actually have dialog with groups like that, or are
they so extreme that there is no movement whatsoever?
I would love to sit down with different groups and say,
hey, let's work this thing out. Let's protect the animals, and
let's also protect the public, and keep us from disease and the
stench, and all the other things, too.
Ms. Merryweather. I agree. For 80 years, we have co-existed
with the seals just fine, and I can remember as a child
swimming with them when I was older, and my son swam with them.
I mean, the people come in and the people go out. The seals
come in and the seals go out. It was a nice arrangement.
But once they said that nobody could be on the beach, it
just caused this nightmare that we are faced with now.
Mr. Cunningham. OK. Well, I want to thank the witnesses. To
me it has been educational. As I said, I am here to listen
primarily and see if I can work with Chairman Pombo. I want to
tell you that you don't mess with the little guys. He is tough,
and he is very principled as far as trying to do the right
thing.
And he is a good friend, and I think he is a good friend of
both sides of this issue if they just realized it. And I want
to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for coming to San Diego.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. Before I excuse these witnesses, I
wanted to ask Mr. Fletcher a question on the increased
interaction that has occurred over the years. Do you believe
that that is because of the increased population, or is it just
because the population has shifted to where your guys are?
Mr. Fletcher. Chairman Pombo, I think it is a combination
of the increased population and the protections that have been
afforded the animals from the Act. As you indicated in your
opening remarks, in some ways the MMPA is more restrictive than
the Endangered Species Act, and what we have seen happen is
generations of sea lions that have learned that there is no
harm no foul from interactions.
And how we have at times three generations of these animals
around the boats, and the older animals have taught the younger
off-spring, and the younger off-spring are now becoming more
and more aggressive.
And it will continue in that vain. The majority of the
animals at this point are not real problem animals. But that is
going to change as they learn from the older animals. So the
years that have passed have seen a continual increase, and the
spreading out of the kinds of interactions.
We did not have them eating all of the fish we caught, and
the bait as Congressman Cunningham indicated. Now we are seeing
more and more of that. The next step is that some private
boats, as was mentioned, in fact see animals come aboard.
I think that is going to continue, and there will be more
injuries as more and more animals learn that they have nothing
to fear, and that is why it is so important that some kind of
effective, non-lethal deterrent is developed before this
becomes much worse than it already is, and it is very bad
today.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Everingham, you kind of walked us through
what some of the challenges that you face in your business. And
maybe this is an unfair question, but at what point does it
become non-economic for you to continue running your business.
I mean, I realize that this is a multi-generational family
business, and with all of these costs on top of the normal
costs of doing business, at what point can you no longer
continue?
Mr. Everingham. That is a hard question to answer. There is
always the chance of raising the price of bait to the public,
but the sports boats are already paying I think about what they
can handle. So as I stated, they adapt and learn quickly, and
prior to '72, commercial fishermen were allowed to take the
animals lethally that were interfering with their livelihood.
This gave them a natural fear of man, which to me I feel
that the whole problem with the picture is that in the
environmental scheme that man is not included; where man is a
definite and integral part of the environmental scheme, and
does what man does because that is what man is here for.
That has been taken out of the equation and that has
allowed for this imbalance to happen. I feel to me that is the
number one thing that has caused the imbalance in the over-
population, and the lack of fear of man.
They will learn very quickly to fear humans once lethal or
painful deterrence are used. They adapt very quickly and they
are very intelligent. I have seen some of the things that they
figure out on their own. It takes them a week to days to figure
out a new method to harass after investing all the money that
we invested.
But we are still able to keep up with it, and we do repair
our receivers. It is basically like painting the Golden Gate
Bridge. You start at one end, and when you get to the other, it
is time to go back and start over.
So it is a year around thing, and so everything that I
stated is added to that, and on top of that which we are
already doing. So I could not answer that totally to you. It is
a hard question to answer.
Mr. Pombo. If you leave, then it affects the seals.
Mr. Everingham. Well, I guess we are at top of the iceberg,
and I have been told by Catherine that has the Association of
Sports Fishing that the sports fishing community generates
about a--I think it was about a $32 billion a year income for
Southern California, compared to suppliers, to boat repairs, to
boat purchasing, tackle, and everything else that supports the
industry. So, yes, it can be quite devastating to the
California economy.
Mr. Pombo. Well, thank you. I thank this entire panel for
your testimony, and it is interesting that we have similar
problems and similar complaints so to speak, or challenges,
from such a diverse group of folks. So I appreciate all of you
coming in. Thank you very much.
I am going to excuse this panel, and invite up our second
panel of witnesses. Mr. James Lecky, Mr. Robin Brown, Dr. Brent
Stewart, and Dr. Doyle Hanan, if you could join us at the
witness table. If I could have you all stand and raise your
right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Pombo. Let the record show that they all answered in
the affirmative. Thank you very much for joining us today. I am
going to begin with Mr. Lecky. I told you about the way the
lighting system works, and if you could try to keep your oral
testimony to the 5 minutes. Your entire written testimony will
be included in the record. So, Mr. Lecky, if you are ready, you
can begin.
STATEMENT OF JAMES LECKY, ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR
PROTECTED RESOURCES, SOUTHWEST REGION, NATIONAL MARINE
FISHERIES SERVICES
Mr. Lecky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try and be
concise so that you have opportunities to ask questions. Mr.
Chairman and Congressman Cunningham, I want to thank you for
opening the hearing today in Southern California, and providing
me an opportunity to testify before you on issues and questions
that you have raised today.
And being here to underscore the importance of developing
important policies to enable NOAA Fisheries to ensure continued
protection and recovery of marine mammals, while allowing the
public the continued use of marine resources and facilities.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act is specific in its purpose
to recover marine mammal stocks to their optimum population
levels, and in accordance with that premise, NOAA Fisheries has
assigned a higher priority to recovering declining and depleted
stocks than it has to managing the increasing populations or
populations that are already at OSP.
Now, we have used the resources and tools that were
provided to us in the 1994 amendments to the MMPA to
investigate and where possible resolve conflicts with pinniped
populations. NOAA Fisheries' efforts to implement these
measures have been hindered though by controversy and limited
effectiveness of non-injurious deterrence methods.
Given the mixed results of deterrence studies and our
limited funding, we focused most of our efforts on resolving
conflicts and situations where there are either clear conflicts
between pinnipeds and endangered salmonids, or where there are
economic impacts or safety concerns from the presence of
nuisance animals.
We have conducted research in a variety of areas related to
this status of pinniped populations along the West Coast, and
their role in the ecosystem for nearly three decades now. We
have monitored trends in abundance, using aerial photographs,
pup counts, and we have investigated food habits.
In 1999, we implemented a cooperative State and Federal
research and monitoring program to investigate specific
interaction problems, and experiment with deterrent devices.
While some of the pinniped populations in the Pacific have
declined and are now listed under the Endangered Species Act,
the opposite is true for most of the California populations.
The California sea lion, Pacific Harbor seals, the Northern
elephant seals, which you have not heard about today, they are
all increasing at somewhere around the order of 5 to 8 percent
a year, and they have been doing so since the early 1970s.
With regard to ecosystem impacts, we have been studying
food habits for California sea lions since about 1991. The
study showed that sea lions feed on a broad range of prey, but
consisting mostly of small aquatic fish and squids.
Although salmon and steelhead are represented at varying
levels in their diet, depending on geographic location and
season, and as we heard, there are some individual animals that
have learned to become adept at interacting with commercial
fishing operations as well.
Coincident with the expansion of these pinniped
populations, several salmon and steelhead populations along the
West Coast have declined, and this coincidence has caused some
interest to raise concerns about resource conflicts and impacts
of pinnipeds on salmon populations listed under the ESA.
Although NOAA Fisheries has concluded that seal and sea
lion predation didn't cause a decline in salmons, it has
acknowledged that in some locations predation may actually be
interfering with an opportunity to recover those stocks.
NOAA Fisheries is funding additional feeding studies to
obtain a better picture of the total consumption of fish by
pinnipeds along the West Coast. Models of pinnipeds consumption
are being developed, and tested, and new sophisticated genetic
techniques are actually being used to refine the identification
of fish, and the numbers of fish in stomach samples.
There has also been space conflict at beaches and harbors
resulting from pinnipeds moving into areas used by humans, and
managing these conflicts has been difficult, primarily because
criteria for deciding whether or not pinnipeds should be
excluded from beaches are not clearly established, and tools
for excluding them have proven to be labor intensive or
ineffective.
To help stem the conflicts between human activities and
pinnipeds, NOAA Fisheries has worked with the States and the
fishing industry to test and evaluate the effectiveness of
various non-lethal deterrence methods.
I would refer you to my written testimony for a summary of
those devices, and a review of their effectiveness. In general,
we have not been successful in finding an effective, long term
approach to eliminating or reducing pinniped predation in most
situations.
Some non-lethal deterrent methods initially look effective,
but they become ineffective over time as animals either
habituate to the stimulus, or they learn that the stimulus
doesn't really pose a threat to their well-being.
Our interest continues to be developed to deterrent
technologies that can be applied on a broad scale with little
or no adverse impact on the environment, and without serious
injury to pinnipeds or other marine mammals.
A promising line of research in this area was initiated at
Moss Landing Research Labs that investigate basic behavioral
characteristics of California sea lions, and try and identify
the cues that these animals respond to in attacking those
vessels, and if we can understand and identify those cues,
maybe we can figure ways to mask them so that seals won't
approach those vessels.
In conclusion, NOAA Fisheries would like to thank you and
the subcommittee for convening this hearing today. We recognize
our success in protecting pinnipeds off Washington, Oregon, and
California poses complex challenges similar to those that
resource managers face in the terrestrial environment.
We think that given the mandates of the MMPA, and the
limits of our knowledge and capabilities that we need to
proceed carefully as we move from recovering stocks to managing
stocks that are at OSP in order to avoid unintended
consequences.
As such, we look forward to working closely with the
subcommittee to develop careful and creative solutions to the
circumstances and problems that exist. That is my testimony, an
thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to entertain
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lecky follows:]
Statement of James Lecky, Assistant Regional Administrator for
Protected Resources, Southwest Region, National Marine Fisheries
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Jim Lecky,
Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources for the
Southwest Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA
Fisheries). Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on
issues involving interactions between increasing marine mammal
populations and humans.
NOAA Fisheries administers the MMPA, the principal Federal
legislation that guides marine mammal conservation policy in U.S.
waters, in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
The MMPA provides NOAA with conservation and management responsibility
for more than 140 stocks of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea
lions.
The issues and questions the Subcommittee has raised for today's
hearing underscore the importance of appropriate policies that enable
NOAA Fisheries to ensure continued protection and recovery of marine
mammals, while allowing the public use of marine resources. Although we
hope to learn from the experiences that terrestrial wildlife agencies
have amassed while managing increasing wildlife populations, we
recognize that marine mammal management poses unique challenges that
may require new approaches and technologies.
The MMPA is specific in its intent to recover marine mammal stocks
to their optimum sustainable population (OSP) levels, defined by the
Act as ``the number of animals which will result in the maximum
productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind the
carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of
which they form a constituent element.''
In accordance with this basic premise, NOAA Fisheries has assigned
highest priority to the important task of the recovery of depleted or
declining marine mammal populations, rather than to the management of
populations that are increasing or at OSP. Although the 1994 amendments
to the MMPA provided tools to investigate and resolve conflicts with
expanding pinniped populations, NOAA Fisheries' efforts to implement
these measures have been hindered by controversy and the limited
effectiveness of deterrence methods. Given the mixed results of
deterrence studies and our limited funds, we have focused our
deterrence efforts on situations where there are either clear conflicts
between marine mammals and endangered salmonids, or where there are
great economic impacts or safety concerns from the presence of nuisance
animals.
I have structured my testimony to address the specific questions
outlined by the Subcommittee regarding the status of west coast
pinniped populations, the nature of interactions between increasing
pinniped populations and humans and their effects on the surrounding
environment, and the research and testing of pinniped deterrence
methods.
Cooperative Monitoring and Research Program
NOAA Fisheries implemented a cooperative state/federal pinniped
research and monitoring program on the west coast in 1999 in
conjunction with the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
(PSMFC), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG). This coordinated state/federal coastwide program
to study and monitor the effects of expanding populations of California
sea lions and Pacific harbor seals was initiated in response to the
Report to Congress: Impacts of California Sea Lions and Pacific Harbor
Seals on Salmonids and West Coast Ecosystems, which NOAA Fisheries
submitted to Congress in February 1999. Specific Congressional funding
for this program, totaling $750,000 annually in recent years, has
allowed NOAA Fisheries to conduct research and issue grants to PSMFC
and to the state resource agencies to address increasing pinniped
populations and their interactions with fishery resources, salmonids
listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and human activities.
Pinniped Population Monitoring Studies
NOAA Fisheries conducts surveys of pinniped abundance in California
using aerial photographic methods. Initially, surveys focused on
obtaining counts of the number of California sea lion pups that are
born at the major U.S. rookeries. Pup counts are used as an index of
population size and have been collected every year since 1975. However,
during El Nino conditions pup counts decrease greatly and are a poor
index of the entire population. To account for this, the agency began
to conduct counts of all the hauled out sea lions (pups, juveniles and
adults) in southern and central California during the pupping season,
in addition to conducting pup counts. It is expected that these counts
will be more stable over time than the pup counts. NOAA Fisheries has
also collaborated with Mexican researchers to conduct surveys of
California sea lions along the west coast of Baja California and in the
Gulf of California.
The agency conducted its first California state-wide survey of
Pacific harbor seals in 2002. Previously, surveys in California were
conducted by the CDFG, with federal funding from NOAA Fisheries, or
through the PSMFC. Surveys of harbor seals in Washington and Oregon are
also conducted largely by State Department of Fish and Wildlife
biologists, often in collaboration with biologists from our National
Marine Mammal Lab in Seattle.
Thus, the population growth and status of California sea lions and
Pacific harbor seals along the U.S. west coast has been monitored for
the last three decades at varying degrees. The cooperative research
program on expanding pinniped populations has enabled the development
of more broad scale and reliable monitoring efforts and better
assessments of population status.
West Coast Pinniped Population Status
While some pinniped populations in the Pacific Ocean have declined
and have been listed under the ESA (e.g., Steller sea lions and
Hawaiian Monk seals), the opposite has occurred with Pacific harbor
seals and California sea lions off the west coast of Washington, Oregon
and California. Populations of California sea lions and Pacific harbor
seals have increased at an annual rate of 5-8% since the early 1970s.
Elephant seals on the West Coast also have increased at about 8% per
year.
More specifically, NOAA Fisheries' stock assessments indicate the
California sea lion population exceeds 200,000 animals in U.S. waters.
Population trends have been based on pup counts, which decrease
dramatically during El Nino periods (1983-84, 1992-93, and 1998). Pup
counts in the last two years (2001 and 2002, neither of which was an El
Nino year) were the same or lower than in 2000, which may be the first
indicator that these populations may be finally nearing their carrying
capacity. The number of total hauled-out sea lions of all age classes
was also relatively constant from 2000 to 2002. However, because pup
counts vary so much with environmental conditions and the time series
for total abundance is short, NOAA Fisheries scientists are not
confident in saying that this population is near its carrying capacity.
The Pacific harbor seal populations in Washington and Oregon exceed
42,000 seals, and the California harbor seal population exceeds 30,000
seals. Recent scientific publications by NOAA Fisheries and State
scientists on current abundance and life history parameters of harbor
seals in Washington and Oregon indicate that these populations are
approaching carrying capacity and are within their OSP level.
Additional surveys are needed to confirm that the harbor seals in
California are also at OSP and approaching carrying capacity.
Ecosystem Impacts
NOAA Fisheries has been studying the food habits of California sea
lions since 1981. Studies show sea lions feed on an incredibly broad
range of prey, but the dominant food is small pelagic fishes and
squids. In central and northern California, Oregon, and Washington, sea
lion diet also includes both juvenile and adult salmonid species
(salmon and steelhead), although salmonids do not appear to be the
dominant food of sea lions in any area. Fewer studies have been
undertaken of Pacific harbor seal feeding habits, but they appear to
concentrate more on demersal (bottom living) species of fish, squid and
octopus.
Coincident with the expansion of these pinniped populations, salmon
and steelhead populations along the west coast have declined, raising
serious concerns about resource conflicts and impacts of pinnipeds on
salmon populations listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As
noted in the Report to Congress, although seal and sea lion predation
did not cause the decline of salmonids, it may be affecting the
recovery of some already depressed populations.
The assessment of impacts on salmonids has proven to be a difficult
challenge because of the uncertainty and potential bias in both the
assessment of predation rates and the size of fish stocks that are
being impacted. In some areas, documented pinniped predation levels may
be high enough to affect recovery rates of some ESA-listed salmonid
populations. In other areas, the studies have allowed us to exclude
predation by pinnipeds as a factor limiting recovery. Commercial and
recreational fishermen have raised concerns about the impacts of
predation on fish stocks important to their fisheries (e.g., white sea
bass, kelp bass, barracuda, rock fish, squid). Quantifying the impact
of pinniped predation on these fish stocks has proven to be difficult
because the available methods of sampling the diet of seals and sea
lions have biases associated with them that underestimate certain fish
species and overestimate others. NOAA Fisheries is funding feeding
studies to help correct those biases and to obtain a better picture of
the total consumption of fish by pinnipeds along the U.S. west coast.
Models of pinniped consumption are being developed and tested. Studies
are also being funded to determine the species and numbers of
individual fish consumed by using their genetic signature. Work is
progressing rapidly in this area. However, information on abundance and
population dynamics of these fish stocks is needed to assess the impact
of predation.
Pinniped Conflicts with Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
The expanding populations of these two species has caused
concurrent increased reports of conflicts with fisheries. In commercial
fisheries, California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals have been
reported removing catch and damaging gear in the salmon troll and
gillnet fisheries; nearshore gillnet fisheries; herring, squid, and
bait purse seine and round-haul fisheries; and trap and live bait
fisheries. This has resulted in economic losses in some commercial
fisheries. Both California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals are
involved in interactions with recreational fisheries coastwide, but
most conflicts are attributable to California sea lions. Sea lions
interact by consuming bait and chum, and removing hooked fish that are
being reeled in. Fish also may stop feeding or may be scared away by
the presence of sea lions. In addition, when sea lions are present,
skippers frequently move their boats to other, sometimes less
productive, fishing areas, incurring additional fuel costs and loss of
fishing time.
Other Conflicts
There have also been space conflicts at beaches and harbors
resulting from pinnipeds moving into areas used by humans. Managing
these conflicts has been difficult because criteria for deciding
whether or not pinnipeds should be excluded from beaches are not
clearly established and tools for excluding pinnipeds from beaches and
harbors are labor intensive or have proven ineffective to date.
Non-Lethal Deterrence Testing and Evaluation
To help stem conflicts that have arisen from interactions between
human activities and these pinniped populations, NOAA Fisheries has
worked with states to test and evaluate the effectiveness of various
non-lethal measures to deter the animals from human activities. Much of
the work took place in confined sites where resource conflicts were
occurring (e.g., the California sea lion conflicts at the Ballard Locks
and the Willamette Falls fishway) and the measures could be easily
tested and evaluated on identifiable (tagged) sea lions (in contrast
with open ocean water testing, which is far more difficult). Following
is a description of a variety of the methods we have tested and an
evaluation of their effectiveness.
Firecrackers--Underwater firecrackers (called ``seal bombs'') have
been used broadly to disperse pinnipeds from fishery conflicts.
Underwater firecrackers have been effective on a short term basis in
many situations, but over the longer-term with repeated use, sea lions
and seals learn to ignore or avoid the noise. At the Ballard Locks,
although firecrackers were effective in reducing steelhead predation by
California sea lions in the first season of use, they became relatively
ineffective in subsequent years because the animals appeared to have
learned to ignore or tolerate the noise, or evade close exposure to
firecrackers by diving and surfacing in unpredictable patterns. Similar
tolerance/avoidance of firecrackers has been observed in fisheries
interaction situations with harbor seals.
Cracker shells--Cracker shells are shotgun shells containing an
explosive projectile designed to explode about 50 to 75 yards from the
point of discharge. Although the noise may startle pinnipeds and cause
them to temporarily flee, there is usually no physical discomfort to
the animals involved since the explosion is in the air or on the water
surface. Cracker shells have been no more effective than seal bombs,
again, because the animals have habituated to them.
Acoustic Harassment Devices (AHDs)--The AHD produces a high
amplitude, pulsed but irregular ``white noise'' under water in the 12
to 17 kHz range that is intended to cause physical discomfort and to
irritate pinnipeds, thereby repelling them from the area of the sound.
AHDs have been shown to be initially effective in some situations, but
their effectiveness diminishes quickly as pinnipeds learn to tolerate
the noise.
Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs)--The ADDs are a modification of
the AHDs developed for use in deterring seals and sea lions from
commercial salmonid net-pen and salmonid ranch facilities. The ADDs
have omni-directional and unidirectional arrays which produce periodic
sound emissions centered at 10 kHz and at higher decibel levels than
the AHDs. At the Ballard Locks, an acoustic ensonified zone has been
established under water in the area below the spillway dam and fish
ladder, and it has been effective in deterring new sea lions from the
Ballard Locks area, but has had limited effectiveness on California sea
lions that repeatedly forage at this site.
Pulsed Power--This is an electrical power (arc) discharge system
that generates both a compression wave and a noise similar to the ADD
but at higher decibels. Shock waves are different from acoustic waves
because they compress aqueous medium and are able to propagate at a
higher velocity for short distances. Field testing of the pulsed power
device has not occurred due to environmental concerns about the effects
on other species, and concerns for effects on sea lions. Laboratory
tests have shown mixed effectiveness of the devices on sea lions when
operated at lower levels.
Predator Sounds--The effectiveness of predator vocalizations to
frighten sea lions has not been consistent in tests by others.
Pinnipeds sometimes have shown immediate avoidance responses to the
projection of killer whale sound recordings, but generally they have
habituated quickly.
Vessel Chase--Chasing or hazing California sea lions with a vessel
proved to be ineffective at the Ballard Locks, as animals learned to
avoid the vessel or swim under it. Both commercial and sport fishermen
have also used their vessels in an attempt to chase seals and sea lions
from their operation, but such efforts are usually unsuccessful.
Tactile Harassment--Tactile harassment involves shooting pinnipeds
with non-lethal projectiles such as rubber bullets or blunt-tipped
arrows. Tactile harassment has been used successfully by instilling an
avoidance reaction in other wildlife species (e.g., grizzly bears and
polar bears) in some situations. Blunt-tipped arrows were tested by
WDFW on California sea lions at the Ballard Locks with no significant
change in predation rates. Rubber projectiles discharged from a shotgun
were tested by ODFW on California sea lions at Willamette Falls with
limited success.
Taste Aversion--Taste aversion is a form of aversive conditioning
that involves putting an emetic agent (e.g., lithium chloride) into a
prey species to induce vomiting when the prey is consumed. This
technique has been used on coyotes and was successfully tested on a
prey specific basis with captive California sea lions. Using lithium
chloride treated fish, captive sea lions were conditioned to avoid one
of three prey species without affecting the sea lions' desire to eat
the other two species. Taste aversion using lithium chloride was
attempted on California sea lions at the Ballard Locks, but the effort
was not successful.
Physical Barriers--Physical barriers have been used to prevent sea
lion access to a prime forage area in front of the entrance of the fish
ladder at the Ballard Locks, prevent sea lion access to net pens
(predator nets), prevent sea lion access to docks (low rails on docks
or fencing), and prevent harbor seals from entering a channel in the
Dosewallips River where harbor seal presence was causing high coliform
counts in shellfish beds. The barrier at the Ballard Locks (a large-
mesh net strung underwater) was ineffective because fish passage may
have been hampered by the barrier and sea lions were observed foraging
on steelhead at the face of the barrier.
Predator Models--Although media reports on the use of a killer
whale model indicated that it was effective in repelling seals from
net-pens in Scotland, use of the same predator model at net-pens in
Maine had no effect in repelling harbor or gray seals. Observations on
pinniped behavior in the presence of predators and during field testing
has shown that these methods are very short term or ineffective.
Capture and Relocation--Capture and relocation efforts with
California sea lions at the Ballard Locks indicate that transporting
captured sea lions relatively short distances (from Ballard to the
outer Washington coast) are not effective, as the sea lions quickly
return. Longer distance relocation from Ballard to the southern
California breeding area was a possible, albeit costly, means of
delaying sea lion return to Puget Sound for at least 30 days, thereby
providing a window of safe passage for migrating salmonids that season.
Unfortunately, not all predatory animals can be easily captured,
especially those of greatest concern that had been captured/removed
previously and have returned to forage at the Ballard Locks.
Capture and Placement in Captivity--California sea lions have been
captured at the Ballard Locks, placed in temporary captivity, and
released after the steelhead run. Temporary holding was found to be
ineffective in the long-term because the sea lion returned the
following season and could not be recaptured before it had preyed on
salmonids. Sea lions from the Ballard Locks also have been captured and
placed in captivity permanently. Although permanent captivity does
eliminate the ``problem'' sea lions without having to kill them, the
method is limited by costs and the availability of facilities that can
hold sea lions permanently.
Effectiveness of Non-Lethal Measures
Efforts by NOAA Fisheries and the States as described above have
been unsuccessful in finding an effective, long-term approach to
eliminating or reducing pinniped predation in most situations. Some
non-lethal deterrence measures appear to be initially effective or
effective on ``new'' animals, but become ineffective over time or when
used on ``new'' animals in the presence of ``repeat'' animals that do
not react to deterrence.
High powered acoustic devices, such as the pulsed power device, may
be effective non-lethal deterrents, but they also may affect other
species. The agency was aware of these concerns in the development of
the pulsed power device. The California Coastal Commission (CCC)
rejected the agency's coastal zone consistency determination for ocean
testing of the pulsed power device because they viewed it as
inconsistent with protective criteria that are used for other sources
of sound such as marine geophysical exploration, as well as due to
concerns about its impacts on other marine species. NOAA Fisheries
postponed the field testing of the pulsed power device to address CCC
concerns, and required captive studies to determine what power levels
would deter sea lions without causing injury or deafness to the
animals.
Our interest was and is for development of deterrence technologies
that can be applied on a broad basis (e.g., multiple fishing boats)
with little or no adverse impacts on the environment, and without
serious injury to the sea lions or other marine mammals--these criteria
will apply to any future permits for testing deterrence devices. We
need to seek new technologies and methods, beyond acoustic deterrence,
to address human interactions with increasing pinniped populations.
Perhaps the most promising line of research is a set of studies being
conducted by Moss Landing Marine Laboratory to investigate basic
behavioral characteristics of sea lions to determine what ``cues'' they
use to find hooked fish. These studies would describe the ``cues''
involved in interactions with fishing operations and ways to possibly
``mask'' or eliminate those cues to avoid interactions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, NOAA Fisheries would like to thank the Subcommittee
for holding this hearing today. While the increase of some marine
mammal populations in the United States demonstrates that NOAA
Fisheries has achieved the recovery and conservation goals of the MMPA,
we also recognize that these ``successes'' pose complex challenges
similar to those that resource management agencies have faced in the
terrestrial realm. We must proceed carefully as we move from recovering
stocks to managing stocks that are at OSP, given the mandates of the
MMPA and the limits of our scientific knowledge and capabilities. As
such, we would like to work closely with the Subcommittee to develop
careful, creative solutions in the limited circumstances where problem
interactions exist.
That concludes my testimony. I would be happy to address any
questions the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. Mr. Brown.
AUDIENCE: What about the sea lions--
Mr. Pombo. I would just remind the folks in the audience
that this is an official hearing, and we have to ask you not to
respond to anything that is said. It is extremely important
that we maintain decorum of the hearing.
Mr. Brown.
STATEMENT OF ROBIN F. BROWN, MARINE MAMMAL RESEARCH PROGRAM
LEADER, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Mr. Brown. Good morning, Chairman Pombo. My name is Robin
Brown, and I am the leader of the Marine Mammal Research
Program for the State of Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, and we appreciate the opportunity to meet with you
today and talk about all of these different issues.
I would like to quickly recognize the support and
assistance that the State of Oregon has received from NOAA
Fisheries from the Pacific States Marine Fishery Commission,
and we certainly thank Congress for the research funds that
have been directed to the States by way of the commission that
have allowed us to do some of the work in this area that we
have carried out over the past many years.
As you have heard the data are unambiguous, and the
pinniped populations have increased significantly. California
sea lions are more common in Oregon than ever, and Harbor
seals, specific Harbor seals have reached optimum sustainable
population levels.
We have observed the same type of interactions that you
have already heard a lot about, of human activities in the
coastal zone, and interactions with the public and private
property, and with other marine resources.
In our area as well, pinnipeds damage boats, docks, utility
supplies at marinas, and people have been threatened, chased
and bitten. Sea lions that come out of the water to take landed
fish off docks, and sea lions and seals take fish off hook and
line from sport and commercial fisheries.
Ports have posted warning signs and closed docks because of
the dangers posed by aggressive and persistent animals. With
respect to fishery resources, we recognize and want to make it
clear that pinnipeds and marine fishes have coexisted
successfully in the marine environment for thousands of years,
and we do not contend that pinnipeds are a primary cause for
the declines recently observed in many fishery resources.
However, we do have concerns about the negative effects of
pinnipeds predation and how that predation may affect the
recovery of depleted stocks of endangered and threatened
salmonids in our State waters.
While a great deal of work is under way to recovery those
fish stocks, we feel that it would be a mistake not to consider
the possibly negative impacts of pinniped predation on the
recovery of those fish stocks.
Our work has shown us that pinnipeds travel tens and
hundreds of miles inland from the ocean to forage on migrating
salmon and steelhead. Individual seals and sea lions have been
observed at this locations on multiple occasions within a
single year, and over multiple years demonstrating a learned
behavior and repeated behavior on the part of these animals.
However, we would like to point out also that we have found
very few of these animals that exhibit this behavior, and they
represent a very small portion of the total number of pinnipeds
that occur in each particular area.
In the late 1990s at the direction of Congress, we worked
with California and Washington with the Pacific States Marine
Fishery Commission, and with NOAA Fisheries to develop a set of
recommendations that would provide new options under the MMPA
for dealing with the interactions of pinnipeds and salmonids.
Among other points that this report to Congress recommended
was the establishment of a new management framework that would
allow State and Federal resource agencies to more effectively
resolve some of the most significant resource interactions and
conflicts.
That report to Congress was endorsed by our department, by
our Governor's office, and by our Oregon State legislative
assembly, and we continue to urge Congress to consider and
implement the recommendations made in that report.
Currently under the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
commercial fisheries have legal authority to take thousands of
pinnipeds each year, and reasonable limits on this mortality
have been set to prevent negative effects on populations.
Our department believes that under a similar system of
permitted mortality that State and Federal resource management
agencies should have the ability to more effectively manage
resource conflicts, including the option to remove small
numbers of individual pinnipeds, and putting other important
and highly protected resources at risk, such as threatened and
endangered salmonids.
It has been our experience that the currently available
deterrent tools, and we have tried them all, are not highly or
consistently effective. We strongly support the development of
new and effective deterrents. However, we also recognize that
they may be very challenging to develop tests and use.
Pinnipeds, as you have heard, are quick to learn. They are
bold, and they are highly or can be highly elusive, and
extremely determined. Based on our 25 or more years of
experience, we suspect that a deterrent that does not have the
potential to cause serious discomfort, pain, or injury to the
animal is not likely to be very successful.
Testing and applying these powerful and effective deterrent
devices will probably be met with opposition from parties
concerned about inflicting pain on the pinnipeds, and about
unintended negative effects on other living marine organisms
and rightfully so in the latter case in our opinion.
Even with the use of a new successful deterrent the option
for permanent removal of the most persistent animals will
probably be needed in order to ensure the continued success of
any deterrent program, and this has been shown to be the case
in the situation of California sea lions and steelhead at the
Ballard Locks in the Seattle area.
Finally, we would comment that the development of new
deterrents may be expensive, and our department recognizes that
this work is important, but we would recommend that the cost
not be borne at the expense of the basic research on pinniped
biology that provides us with the essential information about
population status and resource conflict situations that we have
been able to gather over the past few years. Thanks very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Statement of Robin F. Brown, Program Leader, Marine Mammal Research,
Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife
Introduction
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) appreciates the
opportunity to present the following written testimony to the U.S.
House of Representatives Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans during this oversight hearing on The Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA). Much of the work and information described below
was undertaken by ODFW in cooperation with the Northwest Regional
Office of NOAA Fisheries and the National Marine Mammal Laboratory of
the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. ODFW appreciates the support and
direction provided by these offices and their staff. Direction for some
of the most recent work on pinniped predation on salmonids in the
Pacific Northwest came directly from Congress by way of the 1994
Amendments to the MMPA (Pub. L. 103-238).
Status of Pacific Harbor Seals and California Sea Lions in Oregon
ODFW has been monitoring the status and trends of pinniped (seal
and sea lion) populations in Oregon since the mid-1970s, shortly
following implementation of the MMPA, by way of statewide aerial
photographic surveys. Both California sea lions and Pacific harbor
seals are common, widespread and very abundant animals along the Oregon
coast. Harbor seal numbers increased at an average annual rate of 5%
from the mid-1970s through the early 1990s and have been stable in
abundance at about 7,500 animals for the past 10 years. Statistical
analysis of these population trend data indicates that harbor seals in
Oregon have reached an equilibrium level within their environment and
are currently within their Optimum Sustainable Population (OSP) range.
A similar finding has been made for harbor seals in the State of
Washington by the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife.
California sea lions do not breed in Oregon and seasonal abundance
trend data here are more difficult to obtain. However, it is believed
that numbers of sea lions occurring in Oregon coastal waters from fall
through spring each year increased from several thousand in the 1970s
to roughly 10,000 in the 1990s. Seasonal abundance in the areas north
of the breeding range (Oregon-Washington) varies annually, probably in
response to changes in the abundance and distribution of forage fishes.
Discussions with NOAA Fisheries researchers suggest that the total
California sea lion population is well over 200,000 and may be at or
near OSP levels. Clearly the populations both California sea lions and
Pacific harbor seals on the U.S. West Coast are healthy and are
currently at their highest recorded abundance levels.
Pinniped Interactions with Human Activities
As in other areas, one result of growing pinniped populations has
been increased interactions with a variety of human activities, and
with private and public property. ODFW has witnessed and/or received
reports of significant and repeated damage caused to boats, docks, and
utility supplies to marina facilities by seals or sea lions hauling out
of the water at these sites. People working in these areas have been
threatened, charged and in some cases bitten by aggressive sea lions
reluctant to leave their resting areas. Ports in Oregon have had to
post warning signs and close docks to human access due to the recurring
presence of sea lions that cannot be deterred and thus pose a danger to
public safety. In several cases, more aggressive individual sea lions
have learned to come out of the water and take fish from landing areas
or from around fish cleaning stations, thereby putting human safety at
risk. The application of the available deterrent methods (noise, water
hose, projectiles, etc.) has proven ineffective at discouraging the
pinnipeds from using these areas. In one case, ODFW worked with the
Port of Astoria to install low (20'') railings of heavy galvanized pipe
around the edges of docks to deter sea lions from hauling out there.
This effort worked briefly until sea lions found a way around the
railings (e.g. between a moored boat and the dock). Once on the dock,
sea lions that were disturbed by people simply broke through the
railings to re-enter the water, snapping the 2'' steel pipe stanchions
at the level of the dock with ease.
Interactions with Fisheries and Fish Resources
Since the mid-1980s ODFW has been examining pinniped food habits
and foraging behaviors in order to identify and describe prey
consumption, and to evaluate the relationships between pinniped diets
and the status of important coastal fish resources. Concern over the
possibly negative affects of pinnipeds on fish resources has increased
significantly as the numbers of pinnipeds in Oregon have grown, and as
the status and condition of certain anadromous, estuarine, and coastal
marine fish stocks have declined. Although data on estuarine fish and
pinniped numbers is generally not available for the period prior to
implementation of the MMPA, it is not unreasonable to expect that many
hundreds of resident seals now occurring year around in most coastal
bays in Oregon may have a regulating effect on most estuarine fish
populations (e.g. flatfish populations).
Among many people in Oregon, as in other parts of the world, there
is a long history of opinion that pinniped populations should be
controlled in order to protect and preserve fishery resources for human
use. Little of this general conclusion has been based on sound evidence
that pinniped populations, in balance with healthy prey populations,
could have significant negative effects on abundant fish populations in
healthy and productive habitats. ODFW is well aware that pinnipeds and
marine fishes have co-existed successfully for many thousands of years.
It is unlikely and, at least in Oregon, cannot be scientifically
documented that foraging by pinnipeds is the primary cause for the
declines in some of the fishery resource populations that have been
observed in recent years (e.g. salmonids).
However, ODFW considers it quite possible that foraging by locally
abundant pinnipeds, as part of very healthy populations, may have
negative effects on the recovery of certain depleted fish resources.
This may be particularly true where fish populations have been
depressed for extended periods due to a variety of problems such as
over-fishing, water diversions, deterioration or simplification of
riparian, estuarine and other important fish habitats, influences of
other human activities, and during periods of poor ocean and
environmental conditions. During these times when great efforts by many
agencies, organizations, and private individuals are underway at great
expense to recover and restore important fish resources (e.g.
threatened and endangered salmonids), it is unreasonable and
irresponsible not to consider and address the limiting effects that
predation may have on prey populations.
In many cases, predation by pinnipeds on fish is readily observed
and documented. Examples of such situations include sea lions foraging
near sport or commercial fishing vessels (including removing fish from
hook and line), seals feeding on fish taken in commercial net gear, and
pinnipeds feeding on fish attempting to pass natural or man-made
restrictions in fish passage in inland waters (e.g. natural falls,
dams, fishways, hatchery facilities). Research by ODFW and others has
demonstrated that in most cases individual animals or relatively small
numbers of pinnipeds are often responsible for this type of foraging
behavior on a repeated basis. In many cases these animals can be easily
identified by natural markings, while in others they have been marked
as part of research studies designed to document this individual
behavior and to evaluate the possible impact of feeding behaviors on
fishing or on fish resources.
Individual Pinniped Foraging Behaviors
ODFW has been capturing and marking California sea lions in the
lower Columbia River in an effort to describe the abundance, movements
and foraging behaviors of the animals that occur in the river. In part,
this work was undertaken to examine and evaluate the possible effects
of pinniped predation on the salmonid species that spawn in the
Columbia River and its tributaries. Many of these salmonid stocks have
been listed as threatened or endangered under federal and state
Endangered Species Acts. Coincidental to this work, ODFW and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Fisheries Field Unit Staff) have been
recording the presence and feeding activities of these marked sea lions
at Willamette Falls and at Bonneville Dam, 128 and 145 miles upriver
from the ocean, respectively. It has been documented that certain
individual sea lions, on a repeated basis, make the trek to these fish
passage facilities to forage on salmonids attempting to pass the
fishways and move upstream. These individual animals may visit these
sites repeatedly within a single season and repeatedly from year to
year. Application of all available deterrent devices and methods,
including the use of heavy rubber riot projectiles fired from a 12
gauge shotgun at point blank range, have not been the least effective
at deterring the animals from these locations. Of the many thousands of
California sea lions that occur along the Oregon coast, and of the
hundreds of thousands that occur in the population overall, it appears
that only a small number of individual animals learn and repeatedly
exhibit these undesirable foraging behaviors.
In another research effort ODFW examined the foraging behaviors of
Pacific harbor seals on salmonids in a smaller coastal river system.
The Alsea River Basin is more typical of the small to mid-size
estuaries and rivers found along the Oregon coast. In the 30 years
following implementation of the MMPA, most of these systems have become
populated with harbor seals numbering anywhere from 100 to 1,000
individual animals. Alsea Bay covers just over 2,000 acres and is
occupied year around by an average of 500 harbor seals. ODFW undertook
this research effort to evaluate the potential effect of harbor seal
foraging on threatened coho salmon in the lower 12 miles of the Alsea
River. By way of marking seals and observing seal foraging behavior
ODFW documented that perhaps fewer than 10% of the total number of
seals in Alsea Bay exhibit the behavior of traveling upstream to forage
on returning adult salmonids. In one study year it was determined that
a single seal was responsible for as much as 15% of all salmon
predation recorded that season. In another study year it was estimated
that the individual harbor seals that participate in salmonid foraging
took between 10-50% of the estimated adult coho return for that year. A
final evaluation of the impact of harbor seal predation on the recovery
of ESA listed coho in the Alsea Basin has not been made.
This ODFW research on California sea lions in the Columbia River
and on harbor seals in the coastal Alsea River system strongly supports
the conclusion that individual pinnipeds often exhibit and repeat
learned feeding habits, and that a relatively small proportion of the
pinnipeds in any area are likely to participate in these undesirable
foraging behaviors.
Research and Monitoring
ODFW considers it essential to maintain federal and state support
for the pinniped population monitoring and examination of resource
interactions as described above. Without the work conducted to date, we
would not been in a position to provide the kind of information
included in this testimony. Without continued support for this work, we
will not be able to document changes in pinniped abundance,
distribution, and feeding habits, or changes in levels of interactions
with human activities that might result from the use of newly applied
deterrents or other management actions.
1999 NMFS Report to Congress
For several years beginning in 1995, at the direction of Congress
(MMPA, as amended 1994, Pub. L. 103-238), ODFW worked with the Pacific
States Marine Fisheries Commission and with the States of California
and Washington to assist NOAA Fisheries with preparation of a set of
recommendations for Congress to consider during a process of amendment
and reauthorization of the MMPA. In 1999 NOAA Fisheries presented the
results of that effort in the document ``Report to Congress: Impacts of
California sea lions and Pacific Harbor Seals on Salmonids and West
Coast Ecosystems'' (Prepared by U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA,
National Marine Fisheries Service, February 10, 1999. 18p.). Among
other points, the Report to Congress recommended the development of a
framework for federal and state management agencies to address specific
pinniped-resource interactions. This framework stepped down through the
application of any non-lethal deterrents that might prove useful in a
given situation. However, following a reasonable period, if not
successful, then lethal removal of individual problem or rogue animals
would be authorized, reported and monitored. It was and still is fully
expected that this type of action would be limited, but could resolve
some of the more serious and acute pinniped interactions where learned
and repeated behaviors by individual animals could not be successfully
deterred in any known non-lethal fashion. Meanwhile, as noted in the
research recommendations, efforts to examine and evaluate pinniped
populations and their interactions with other important resources would
continue, along with new efforts to develop more effective non-lethal
deterrent tools. The NMFS Report to Congress and the draft framework
for these management options and research directions was endorsed by
the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, The Oregon State
Legislature, and by the Oregon Governor's office. Our support of those
recommendations and our urging of Congress to act on them continue to
this date.
Authority for State Resource Management Agency Actions
ODFW is aware that under the MMPA and federal regulations
commercial fisheries have legal authority to take thousands of
pinnipeds each year during the act of fishery harvest. Limits on safe
levels of mortality have been set by sound scientific analyses of
removal levels that will not result in the decline of pinniped
population below their OSP levels, or prevent them from achieving OSP.
As a state fish and wildlife management agency, ODFW considers it
incongruous and inappropriate, that a lawfully established and highly
regulated resource management agency has no readily available,
functional option to remove even very small numbers of individual
pinnipeds that are destroying other important, highly protected and
valued resources (e.g. threatened and endangered salmonids). Surely a
system similar to that which provides for mortality in fisheries, but
insures against negative population effects, could be established for
state and federal resource management agencies to deal with relatively
small numbers of individual pinnipeds that have learned and continue to
repeat undesirable foraging behaviors. State resource agencies
throughout the country work very effectively in cooperation with
various federal agencies to deal with issues of seriously threatened or
endangered species, with many other species that are currently under
federal jurisdiction, and with a variety of resource conflict and
conservation issues involving fish, wildlife and human activities. All
of this work is carefully controlled, fully monitored and generally
very successful. ODFW believes that dealing with similar issues
involving healthy and abundant pinniped populations and coastal marine
fish resources could be handled in a similar fashion with positive
results.
Deterrents
It has been the experience of ODFW that the array of non-lethal
deterrents currently available to resolve negative pinniped-resource-
human interactions (under water acoustics, playback of predator
recordings, above water noise makers, physical barriers, projectiles,
capture and translocation, etc.) are not highly or consistently
effective. ODFW supports the continued development and testing of non-
lethal deterrents with the hope of finding one or more techniques that
can be used to influence pinniped behavior and reduce the types of
negative interactions that have been described here. However, we
provide the following four comments for your consideration. First, the
experience of our research staff, having worked with pinnipeds directly
in all of the situations described above and more for over 25 years,
strongly suggests that a long-term, highly effective deterrent may be
extremely difficult to develop and problematic to use. The individual
pinnipeds that have learned these undesirable foraging behaviors are
driven by one of the two strongest urges in the animal world; in this
case to feed. California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals are quick
to learn, ``intelligent'', can be highly elusive, bold, and determined
to the point of bull-headedness. Very little that does not cause some
type of pain or potential injury to the animal is likely to be a very
successful deterrent for more than a brief period. Second, in many
cases, even with the use of new successful deterrent tools, permanent
removal of the most persistent animals (lethal or otherwise) is likely
to be needed in order to insure the continued success of a deterrent
program (as demonstrated by the problem of California sea lions at the
Ballard Locks in Washington). Third, if the above statements are true,
as experience suggests, then testing and application of powerful and
effective deterrent devices will likely be met with strong opposition
from parties concerned with inflicting pain or injury to the pinniped,
or about the possible unintended negative effects of the deterrent
device on other living organisms and important resources. Fourth, the
development and testing of new deterrents is likely to be expensive.
ODFW recognizes this work is important, but feels that the costs should
not be born at the expense of the basic pinniped biological research
that is needed to provide us with the essential and prerequisite
information on pinniped populations and their interaction conflicts.
Conclusions and Recommendations
ODFW considers it essential to maintain federal funding support for
state participation in programs to monitor pinniped populations, food
habits and foraging behaviors, and the assessment and evaluation of
pinniped interactions with fish resources and human activities. ODFW
will make every effort to continue to support this work as well.
ODFW supports the recommendations of the 1999 NMFS Report to
Congress to amend the MMPA to establish a new flexible, effective
approach to managing acute problems between small numbers of pinnipeds
from healthy and abundant populations that are interacting negatively
with other significant coastal fish resources, or may be putting human
activities and safety at risk. ODFW supports the establishment of the
authority for state and federal management agencies to lethally remove
rogue pinnipeds in serious conflict situations, under a carefully
monitored joint program on a case by case basis, as is done effectively
with numerous other species and issues.
ODFW has found that all existing non-lethal deterrents to pinnipeds
involved in undesirable behaviors are ineffective or only minimally
effective for short periods. ODFW supports the continued development,
testing and application of non-lethal deterrent devices that show
promise of successfully deterring pinnipeds in an effective and
consistent manner. ODFW recognizes that we must be prepared to test and
use serious tools in these cases if we expect to see the desired
results. ODFW believes that in combination with effective non-lethal
deterrents, state and federal agencies need to have the authority for
permanent removal of rogue animals, in order to insure the continued
success of deterrent programs dealing with conflict situations.
ODFW and the State of Oregon thank the U.S. House of
Representatives, Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife &
Oceans, for the opportunity to provide these comments.
______
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
Dr. Stewart.
STATEMENT OF DR. BRENT S. STEWART, SENIOR RESEARCH BIOLOGIST,
HUBBS-SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few slides
and it might be best if we dim the lights if that is possible
for a few minutes. I thank you for the opportunity and the
invitation to provide some ecological demographic and
biogeographic context for the issues that have been discussed
today.
And I will try and highlight a few issues that may explain
or at least provide some understanding on why, when, and where
interactions between pinnipeds and humans have occurred and
will occur. And in fact in some cases where there aren't any
interactions.
I will highlight three species. California has a very
diverse assemblage of marine mammals, and I will highlight
them, including pinnipeds, three species of pinnipeds that have
been discussed today so far; the California sea lion, Harbor
seals, and Northern elephant seals.
All are rebounding from very low levels for several decades
or more ago from either presumed extinction, or near
extinction, or very low abundance. California sea lions
numbered in the few thousands in California waters. The primary
breeding colonies are in Southern California at two sites, San
Miguel Island, which is in a national park, and San Nichols
Island, which is a Navy installation, missile tracking and
testifying facility, and outlying landing field.
But the numbers as you can see from the graph here, these
are births. The number of pups born each year in California
have increased steadily since the 1940s and 1950s, but notice
that there are a couple of things that are highlighted. The El
Nino years, which the boxes occur round, where decreases in
pups and in fact substantial decreases, generally occur in warm
water El Nino summers, and then recover during the cool water
periods to various extents following different El Ninos.
And the population is generally reflective of this. This is
an indication of absolute population size, and the population
likely does not respond to El Ninos the same that the births
do, but the overall science of the population has followed a
general increase in trends during this several decade period.
Harbor seals in the upper left, and just the distribution
of Harbor seal colonies along the California coast, and you can
see that they are pretty widespread in Central and Northern
California, and down to Southern California, there are a few.
They occur on the Channel Islands, and four mainland sites
in Southern California, including the site at Children's Pool,
where numbers were very low in the 1980s in the area, a few
dozen, and it has increased then to about 150 to 180 that occur
in the area today, many of which are at Children's Pool.
Overall the numbers in California have increased steadily.
The numbers may have stabilized in the last few years. I think
we are waiting on a new survey that has been done this summer
to validate that.
And the elephant seals have also increased from presumed
extinction at the turn of the century. In the late 1900s, they
were presumed extinct and recolonized the Channel Islands in
the 1950s, and they have increased steadily throughout that
period, and two primary rookeries again at San Nicholas and San
Miguel Islands.
But they later colonized in the 1960s and 1970s at some
mainland sites, including the beaches near San Simeon, where
the colonies increased from a few births in the early 1980s to
about 2,500 this past winter.
Some interactions here that have been locally resolved at
least to resolve human safety problems by local groups working
with NOAA Fisheries and private landholders to at least keep
people safe. Some of the resources, or at least that these
animals use, the marine habitats. This is a plot of California
sea lion movements to show where they forage, at least during
the summer.
And these are pretty much at island banks and upwelling
systems, offshore, near the colonies. These are animals that
breed at San Nicholas Island and moved away from there on
foraging trips during the summer breeding season.
And San Miguel Island, which is the other primary rookery,
animals forage further to the north, a little bit closer to the
coast, but often during the summer further from the mainland
and often don't interact with coastal human activities.
Harbor seals are mostly coastal, and you will find them
within a few miles of the haulouts and rookeries. Northern
elephant seals rarely are seen. They occur far out at sea for
about 8 to 10 months of the year, and often do not interact or
are not seen by humans, regardless of what they are doing at
sea.
And some of the resources that have facilitated these
population increases, some of the research that has been done
by us and other groups to identify these resources, and a
summary of the primary prey for the three species, you will
notice some overlap between California sea lions and Harbor
seals, and also some overlap with their prey and those that are
commonly exploited by humans.
Northern elephant seals again far exceed deep in the water
column. And the principal foraging habitats, California sea
lions are neuritic and somewhat demersal, but generally coastal
upland dwelling areas when they are feeding near shore banks
and islands. Harbor seals are demersal and also are near shore;
and Northern elephant seals are far away from most human
activities and presence.
These interactions that have been discussed today are
certainly intensifying as the populations have recovered and
increased, but it is a small proportion of the population
generally that we see that is interacting with human use of
marine habitats.
And it is seasonally affected. There are different patterns
of habitat used by all these species, and they vary by season,
and time of year, local time of year, and also autobiology, and
whether they are migrating or they are breeding. So, thank you
for the time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Stewart follows:]
Statement of Brent S. Stewart, Ph.D., J.D., Senior Research Biologist,
Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Dr. Brent
Stewart, a Senior Research Biologist at Hubbs-SeaWorld Research
Institute (HSWRI). Thank you for the invitation to testify before the
Subcommittee today to provide some demographic and ecological context
for the discussion on interactions between seals and sea lions
(pinnipeds) and humans or human activities along the Pacific coast of
North America. My comments below are based on 27 years of directed
studies on the population biology, foraging ecology, and key marine and
terrestrial habitats of California sea lions, harbor seals, and
northern elephant seals in the eastern north Pacific Ocean. I will
briefly describe the histories and current abundances of these
populations, the marine resources that have evidently supported
population growth, and their temporal and spatial patterns of
geographic and vertical dispersion.
Population history:
The historic abundances of California sea lions, harbor seals, and
northern elephant seals are unknown and, indeed, unknowable. Aborigines
hunted them for several thousand years and likely reduced their
populations substantially in many areas, especially at the Southern
California Islands, and exterminated them at some locations. Whatever
populations existed when European explorers, whalers, sealers and sea
otter hunters arrived in California waters in the 18th and 19th
Centuries were subsequently reduced even further until commercial
harvests ended when populations had either been exterminated or reduced
to levels too low to economically support further harvests.
California sea lions numbered only a few thousand by the mid-20th
Century, breeding at two primary colonies at San Nicolas Island (a U.S.
Navy outlying landing field and missile tracking and testing facility)
and at San Miguel Island (part of the Channel Islands National Park
since 1980) with limited public access. Reproduction has since
increased rapidly and substantially at both colonies (with brief
interruptions during El Nino years); over 40,000 pups were born in 2000
with slightly fewer in 2003 owing to biological effects associated with
the mild 2002/03 El Nino.
Harbor seals were not common in California waters in the mid-20th
Century, owing to a variety of causes including authorized bounties and
indiscriminate shooting and poaching. Numbers increased steadily from
the early 1970s onward through at least the late 1990s, though
abundance may have stabilized since at around 45,000 to 50,000 with
around 9,000 in southern California, primarily at the southern
California Channel Islands. There are three mainland colonies of harbor
seals south of Point Conception; at Carpinteria (south of Santa
Barbara), at Mugu Lagoon (Point Mugu Naval Air Station), and at La
Jolla. Numbers at the latter site (aka ``Children's Pool'') have
increased steadily from fewer than a dozen in the late 1970s to around
150-200 in 2003 with reproduction in the area occurring since the late
1980s.
Northern elephant seals were presumed extinct by the end of the
19th Century owing to long-term subsistence harvest by aborigines,
commercial harvests by whalers and sealers in the early 1800s, and then
scientific collections in the late 1800s.. A very small number did
however survive in Baja California, from which the species began
recovering and expanding its range in the early 1900s. The southern
California Channel Islands were colonized in the mid-20th Century and
island and mainland sites in central California soon after. In 2003
over two thousand pups were born on mainland beaches near San Simeon,
which has developed into a substantial tourist attraction. Population
growth and range expansion in the U.S. is continuing. The two primary
colonies for the species at San Nicolas and San Miguel Islands
accounted for over 20,000 births in 2003.
Seasonal geographic dispersion:
Breeding California sea lions occur in large numbers at and near
colonies at the southern California Channel Islands (principally San
Nicolas and San Miguel Islands) from late May through August. Those
seen near the mainland coast in southern California then may be from
the colony at the Coronado Islands in northern Baja California or
perhaps colonies farther south. Non-breeding sea lions from U.S.
colonies occur farther north along the California coast throughout
summer and may remain there or move even farther north in autumn and
winter. Lactating females forage mostly away from the mainland coast
throughout the year, near areas of strong upwelling of nutrients where
resident and migratory fish and squid prey concentrate and aggregate.
During El Nino years, when upwelling systems decline in strength or
fail, sea lions may spend more time in habitats nearer the mainland in
search of more dispersed neritic or demersal prey. Adult and socially
immature males leave the breeding colonies in late summer and migrate
north to feed, and to haulout regularly, while molting, along the
coasts of California, Oregon and Washington and as far north as British
Columbia. Large aggregations occur at several well-known mainland sites
where seasonal abundance has been increasing owing to sustained
reproduction in southern California during the past several decades and
evidently good survival of juveniles and adults in most years. Most
California sea lions occur in nearshore habitats when north of Point
Conception, but generally farther offshore in Southern California,
though small numbers of sea lions clearly inhabit near-shore waters
from San Diego to Santa Barbara in most seasons.
Harbor seals generally remain near island and mainland haulout
sites year-round, though they may travel up to 20-50 miles away to
forage for several days or weeks at some seasons. Numbers of seals
ashore vary seasonally as seals spend more time hauled out during the
winter/early spring breeding season and in late spring and summer when
molting and less time hauled out when more actively foraging from late
summer through winter. Foraging harbor seals are also attracted to
various coastal areas where prey aggregate or become temporarily
concentrated, like at the mouths of streams and rivers.
Northern elephant seals rarely occur near the mainland or island
coasts except when quickly departing at the end of the breeding season,
arriving to molt, departing after molting, or arriving to breed.
Elephant seals otherwise spend most of the year (8 to 10 months)
several hundred miles or more from the mainland coast while feeding.
Diet:
The diet of California sea lions varies seasonally and has been
dynamic over the past several decades. Near San Nicolas Island, four or
five species of fish and cephalopods generally dominate the diet during
any year. In the 1980s the principal prey were northern anchovy,
Pacific hake, jack mackerel, several species of rockfish, market squid,
and Pacific mackerel. In the 1990s the principal prey were Pacific
hake, two-spotted octopus, chilipepper rockfish, market squid and jack
mackerel.
Near the southern California Channel Islands, harbor seals
primarily eat rosy rockfish, chilipepper rockfish, spotted cusk-eel,
plainfin midshipman, market squid and red octopus. Near La Jolla, their
diet is dominated by jack mackerel, Pacific sanddab, Pacific hake, and
rosy rockfish.
Northern elephant seals prey mostly on deepwater, bioluminescent
squid and, to a lesser extent, fish
Vertical Foraging habitats:
When in the Southern California Bight, California sea lions forage
mostly at depths of 150 to 300 feet, primarily in offshore areas where
upwelling of nutrients supports productive local resident and migratory
fish and squid communities, though they may also forage occasionally on
demersal prey in nearshore kelpbeds. Migrating sea lions, especially
subadult and adult males, may forage closer to the mainland coast,
often taking advantage of opportunities associated with recreational
and commercial fishing operations that may provide easy meals with less
foraging effort.
In southern California waters, harbor seals generally forage in
demersal, nearshore habitats at depths of less than 300 feet.
Northern elephant seals principally forage in the water column at
depths of 750 to 2,500 feet.
Conclusion:
The southern California Channel Islands and Southern California
Bight support the most concentrated taxonomic diversity of seals of sea
lions (pinnipeds) in the world. The populations of California sea
lions, harbor seals, and northern elephant seals numbered between a few
hundred to a few thousand in the early to mid 20th Century owing to
long term subsistence hunting by aborigines and commercial harvests and
indiscriminate killing in the early 1900s. Since the blanket
prohibition on killing them in 1972, with the promulgation of the U.S.
Marine Mammal Protection Act, ranges and populations have increased
steadily to current levels that are several of orders of magnitude
greater. Scientific research during the period of population growth has
identified the marine and terrestrial habitats and prey that have been
key in facilitating the increases. Several of those habitats are also
used to various extent by humans for recreational or commercial
purposes and some of fishes and cephalopods are exploited in common by
pinnipeds and humans. These overlaps generally occur with small
proportions of the pinniped populations in particular areas and
seasons. The interactions between pinnipeds and humans have nonetheless
been intensifying owing to the large absolute increases in populations
and the periodic changes in distributions and foraging behaviors of
pinnipeds during El Nino years when substantial declines in local
abundance and distribution of normal prey occur. The most frequent
interactions and conflicts are with California sea lions and harbor
seals whose use of coastal habitats overlap most often with human
activities. In contrast, interactions with humans and northern elephant
seals are rare, owing to elephant seals' pelagic and deepwater foraging
habitats and their brief seasonal presence at offshore islands.
Exceptions are at recently colonized mainland beaches in central
California, where human safety is the key issue. Though there are some
indications that numbers of harbor seals may have stabilized recently,
there are no indications that growth rates of populations of California
sea lions or elephant seals may soon decline naturally.
______
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
Dr. Hanan.
STATEMENT OF DR. DOYLE A. HANAN, PRESIDENT,
HANAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Dr. Hanan. Good morning, Chairman Pombo, thank you very
much for this opportunity to speak to this subcommittee, and I
want to thank Congressman Cunningham for this opportunity. I
appreciate it.
Recently I was asked to put together some information
regarding the cost of the sea lion population, and what does it
cost in an abundant sea lion population to the West Coast, and
this preliminary report was funded by the Fisherman's Lines of
Monterey and the Sports Fish Association of California, and I
would like to thank them for their help.
My credentials are that I received my Ph.D. at UCLA in
studying the population dynamics of Harbor seals. I served with
the California Department of Fish and Game for 27 years during
which time I supervised and was the lead biologist in their
marine mammal program for about 15 years.
I currently serve on three advisory committees or bodies,
one is the Pacific Scientific Review Group, to advise the
National Marine Fisheries Service on marine mammals in the
Pacific. I also serve on the Take Reduction Team for the
Pacific Cetaceans, and I am also on the advisory panel for the
highly migratory Species for the Fishery Management Council.
Part of the significant points in this preliminary report
since the 1997 report to Congress, which was written regarding
impacts of sea lions and Harbor seals, on salmonids on the West
Coast Ecosystem, this is a preliminary report. Our final report
will be finished up by the end of this year.
Since that report to Congress was written, research has
focused on population estimates, and the biology of the
pinnipeds, food consumption, and interactions. By interactions
we mean either taking bate, taking fish, or reducing the
ability to take fish by fishermen.
The California sea lion population is robust and expanding
at 6 to 8 percent annually, and I think that this is an
indication of the health of the environment, and the health of
the forage fish that they feed upon.
Some estimates put the sea lion population at over 300,000
at this time. If we estimate that a sea lion might eat 8 to 10
percent of its body weight per day, that is about 20 pounds of
fish per day, which would indicate that sea lions could eat
3,000 tons of fish a day, which will be as much as a million
tons of fish per year, far in excess of any of our fisheries.
What are the effects on the recreational fishery. With over
700,000 angler days per year on as many as 400 commercial
passenger fishing vessels, we estimate that in the last 4 years
there have been anywhere from 12 to 40 percent interaction
rates with each of those fishing days.
And what we mean by that is that either a depredation,
actually taking a fish, or a sea lion approaching the boat,
which causes or they said which cuts off the bait. In other
words, the fish leave, and so there is nothing to fish.
When that happens, the boat usually picks up and moves to
another area. What is the cost of moving to another area? We
estimate 290 days are lost per year in the party boat or CPFB
fishery.
Fish lost. There are about 3 million fish landed per year
in the recreational fishery, in CPFB fishery, and about 65,000
fish are lost per year, and at 50 cents a fish, we could say
there was about $45,000 of lost fish.
Bait losses. We estimated bait losses at $55,000 per year.
Gear loss. When a fisherman loses his gear to when a fish is
taken off his line, and the gear can be anywhere from $2 to $9.
We estimate that gear loss would be $380,000 per year.
An average total loss of about $2-1/2 million per year in
the recreational fishery. In the salmon troll fishery, which is
a fishery where lures are trolled through the water, we
estimate $470,000 lost in fish per year, at $20 per fish. And
this can actually end the season. It can make it so that the
salmon troll fishermen can't even fish at the end of the year.
In the live bait fishery, which you heard about with the
last panel, this is about a $30 million industry in California.
I have guesstimated losses due to the loss of bait that is in
the banks from sea lions breaking in and from sea lions
destroying the bait around $2-1/2 million per year.
Also, I have--you heard from Mr. Everingham about the
receivers, and I have some more testimony that I would like to
give to you from a bait receiver operator in Redondo who
reports similar problems.
So what are the issues? We have a growing, robust sea lion
population. Culling is not the answer. People are not
interested in culling and it is not a way to look at solving
the problem, but at what cost?
We need to look for reasonable solutions, and I would
recommend that you look to the 1997 report to Congress, and the
recommendations that were included in that report. I would ask
that you implement those recommendations, which include site
specific management.
But don't make it a media event, nor a delaying process. I
would ask that you ask for development of safe effective
deterrents, and I would ask that you reinstate the ability of
commercial fishermen to protect their gear and catch with
certain rules and regulations.
Continue the research. I would ask that you establish a
fund to develop a deterrent program within the National Marine
Fishery Service. These types of programs are very effective.
For instance, with the tuna and porpoise issues, and the
development of the Medina Panel, and the backdown techniques.
With the SRG process and the take reduction teams, and the
reduction in marine mammal take in the drift gill net fishery
was about 80 percent. And a final thing, I would say that if we
cannot develop effective deterrence, we need to reimburse the
fishermen, the fishing population, the businesses, for the loss
due to sea lions. thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hanan follows:]
Statement of Doyle A. Hanan, Ph.D., President,
Hanan & Associates, Inc.
California sea lions interact with almost all commercial and
recreational fisheries along the west coast of America. As the sea lion
population continues growing, so do fishery interactions and the costs
associated with these interactions. In this report, we present three
case studies (recreational fisheries, commercial salmon and live bait
receivers) to exemplify the economic impact of sea lions in California.
This report presents our preliminary results using readily available
fisheries data and published and unpublished sources to provide value
estimates associated with sea lion interactions and depredation.
California sea lion interactions with fisheries in California have
been documented since implementation of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act in 1972 (Miller et al., 1982, DeMaster et al., 1983, Hanan et al.,
1989, Beeson and Hanan 1996, Fluharty and Hanan 1997, NMFS 1997). When
these studies were initiated in the late 1970's approximately 80,000
sea lions inhabited the U.S. West Coast. More recently, in the National
Marine Fisheries Service mandated Stock Assessment Reports (SAR)
Carretta et al. (2002) presented an estimate of over 200,000 sea lions,
growing at a rate of over 6% annually (Figure 1). A revision of the SAR
is expected by the end of 2003 incorporating new biological life
history information that will change the population estimate to well
over 300,000 sea lions. Aside from the actual population estimate, with
the population growing so dramatically, it is likely that sea lion
interactions will also increase proportionally. Therefore, in terms of
resource management, it is important to obtain as much information on
pinniped interactions as possible and to place a dollar value on these
interactions to help understand and put the issues into perspective.
To estimate costs associated with sea lion interactions, data are
available from a variety of sources. Depredation rates (the number of
fish depredated relative to the total angler landings) have been
estimated (Miller et al., 1983 a, b; Hanan et al., 1986; Beeson and
Hanan 1996; Hanan and Fluharty 1997) and were documented by area in a
report mandated by Congress (NMFS 1997) to document the effects of sea
lions and harbor seals on west-coast salmon and the greater ecosystem.
Additional data are available since that report to Congress (MRFSS
1999) as well as, research funded by Congress, NMFS, and administered
by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission under the Pacific
Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (Appendix A). The ultimate goal of our
project is to use these data in combination with information obtained
from the literature on pinniped population assessments, food habit
studies, and fishery statistics to estimate fish consumption and other
costs associated with pinniped interactions. Results from our project
will provide valuable insight into the current effects sea lions are
having on west coast fisheries, facilities, and quality of life.
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared using funds kindly made available by the
Fishermen's Alliance of California and the Sportfish Association of
California; we specifically thank Mr. Frank Emerson and Mr. Robert
Fletcher for their help in securing these funds.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The PacFIN (http://wwwpsmfc.org/recfin) and RecFIN (http://
www.psmfc.org/pacfin/data) data bases (maintained by the Pacific States
Marine Fisheries Commission) integrate state and federally funded
sampling programs for marine fisheries. The ultimate goal is providing
databases where information can be accessed by fisheries managers and
interested parties. PacFIN and various California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) reports provide information on number of vessels in a
particular fishery, landings, species, and value. Data for marine
recreational fisheries have been collected since 1979 by the Marine
Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MFRSS) funded jointly by the
NMFS and the state fisheries agencies. Surveys include intercept
(creel) and phone surveys, and onboard observer data collection. Since
1999, interview forms include supplemental information describing
pinniped interactions with CPFV (Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessels
which sport anglers pay to ride and fish). In California MRFSS samplers
rode CPFV's to interview the anglers and obtain information on location
of harvest, as well as, detailed pinniped interaction data. The
interviewer observed angler interaction with pinnipeds and recorded
lost bait, sportfish, gear, and time resulting from pinniped
interactions. These data will provide insight into the actual behavior
of depredation by sea lions as well as providing the basis for
establishing values for the loss associated with each interaction.
RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
In California, approximately 700,000 anglers fish annually and
spend hundreds of millions of dollars for this privilege (Golden 1992,
Thompson and Crooke 1991). They fish year round from piers, jetties,
beaches, shores, private boats and CPFV (also known as party boats). In
this study, we focus on private boats, charter boats and CPFV. Anglers
fish for a variety of species from party boats carrying as many as 50
anglers per vessel. California sea lion interactions have become an
integral part of this fishing experience. These interactions range from
the mere presence of a sea lion scaring the fish and keeping them from
biting, to removing caught fish and bait from lines, to damaging gear,
and causing the boat to take the time to move to another location.
These interactions were documented recently by MRFSS pinniped add-on
study for the years 1999 through 2002. These can be used to determine
the extent of the interactions when compared with the results from
Miller et al. (1982), Beeson and Hanan (1996) and Hanan and Fluharty
(1997). An additional, more detailed data set collected by trained
observers onboard CPFV can also be used for comparison to the RecFIN
interview and CPFV logbook data (collected by the California Department
of Fish and Game). The tables below represent our preliminary results.
Table 1 summarizes estimates derived from number of interactions and
the rate interactions to estimate annual rates from 1999 to 2002.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Interactions
Table 2 shows the overall rates of interactions by year from the
RecFIN interview data. Interactions include approaching close to the
vessel (scares fish away), depredation, damaging gear and moving the
vessel away from the sea lion(s). The 1999 onboard angler survey had an
interaction rate of 40% and included sea lion presence as a basis of
interactions.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fish Lost
Table 3 shows the estimate of fish lost to sea lions by year with
an estimate of fish value based on interviews after anglers returned to
the dock. Miller et al. (1982) and Beeson and Hanan (1996) provided
costs estimates based on the value of the species lost due to predation
(ranging from $0.5 to $0.7 per fish.). As a preliminary estimate, we
used the lower value of $0.5 per fish for comparison. The depredation
rate was between 2% and 3% percent for 1999-2002. The 1999 onboard
angler data set had a 3% loss of fish based on at-sea observations.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Bait Lost
Bait is taken by sea lions directly off the line or from the water
when chum is thrown to attract game fish. The sample size for this data
item was very small. The onboard angler survey did not record these
data. The value of bait was determined by dividing an estimated 100
fish per 10 pound scoop by its average cost of $30 per scoop.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Gear Lost
Fishing gear losses for the approximately 700,000 angler days
consist mainly of lures and other items attached to the fishing line.
The minimum estimate provided to the interviewers for lost gear lost to
sea lions was $1 and the maximum was $9 with a mean value of $2. The
onboard angler survey was provided data for gear loss in the range of
$1 to $170 dollars with a mean of $9.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Time Lost
The time lost as a result of a pinniped interaction is one of the
most interesting behaviors documented in the data sets. There is a
difference in the estimates of lost time between the interview data
where anglers are asked after the fishing trip to provide an estimate
of the time lost moving and avoiding sea lions and the onboard
observation data where actual start and end of fishing time is
recorded. The time lost recorded in 1999 was about three times higher
than angler estimates after a fishing trip, which leads us to believe
that the anglers certainly are not exaggerating losses or pinniped
interactions. Estimating the value of lost time can be attributed to a
number of tangible items such as fuel and personnel but the simplest
way to estimate value is to use average cost of chartering a CPFV per
day ($2000). The amount of time lost is recorded in minutes but when
compared to the entire set of fishing trips, the numbers are quite
large and can be described in total days. The minimum time lost per
interaction was recorded to be one minute with a maximum of 45 minutes
in the interview data with a mean of eight minutes. For the onboard
angler survey, the minimum time loss was one minute and the maximum was
500 minutes. That is an entire work day avoiding sea lions and eight
hours is a very long time when it's your recreational time. If each
vessel shared the cost of losing time, they would all be losing around
$6,000 a year in time spent moving or avoiding sea lions. Further
analysis should reveal whether some of the high values of lost time
correspond to higher interaction rates for lost fish, lost gear, or
lost bait. A multiplier was developed comparing the onboard data with
the interview data from 1999.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Total Value of Pinniped Recreational Fisheries Interactions
The total economic loss to the recreational fisheries from pinniped
interactions is estimated in Table 7. The mean total value ranges from
$600,000 to over $5,000,000 annually. If these losses are divided
between individual vessels in the CPFV fleet, each vessel would incur
losses in the range of $2,000 to $16,000 annually to sea lion
interactions.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RecFIN data provide insight into behavior of sea lion interactions.
It is often thought that interview data might be skewed towards
exaggeration of the impacts, but the onboard observer data seems to
dispute that concept because estimates of fish, time, and gear lost are
all higher in the onboard observer data. One reason may be that many of
the questions for the onshore interview surveys are left blank, while
the onboard observers collect the data as it is occurring. The amount
of data available using RecFIN is extremely small compared with the
total effort of the recreational fishing fleet but it is a start. It
would be valuable to incorporate the CPFV data into the analyses as was
done in the previous studies (Miller et al., 1992, Beeson and Hanan
1996, Hanan and Fluharty 1997) especially because the CPFV logbooks
include a field for recording ``fish lost to seals/sea lions'' starting
in 1994.
COMMERCIAL SALMON
In salmon troll fisheries, the fishing vessel trolls lures attached
to a weighted line through the water. Once a salmon is hooked it is
brought aboard the boat. Sea lions react to hooked fish by either
removing the fish from the hook or damaging the fish. This can have a
significant impact on the fishermen considering the average price for
each fish is about $20, in addition to the cost of lost or damaged
gear. The numbers of depredated salmon have increased as the sea lion
population increased (Hanan and Fluharty 1997). In 1980, an estimated
12,459 legal sized salmon worth $274,000 were lost, while in 1995, an
estimated $86,700 salmon worth $1,734,000 were lost to sea lions. Table
8 lists associated value estimates for the depredated fish portion of
the catch for the years 1980 through 2002. Miller et al. (1982)
estimated the depredation rate to be in the range of 2% in 1980. Beeson
and Hanan (1996) found the rate had increased to 12% likely as a result
of the increase in the sea lion population itself. The data presented
in Table 8 are taken from PacFIN landings and value reports and serve
to illustrate the point that there is a cost associated with sea lion
depredation on commercially caught salmon. Analyses of commercial
salmon troll fishery data are in progress and should be available by
the end of the 2003 (Palmer et al. in prep, CDFG).
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Weise and Harvey (2001) studied interaction rates between sea lions
and salmon troll fisheries in Monterey Bay and also found depredations
rates to be in the range of 12%. They found definite pulses of
interactions corresponding to the migration of sea lions to and from
the breeding islands. In 1995, the CDFG Ocean Salmon Project which
estimates annual landings and fishing effort in California's commercial
salmon troll fishery added sea lion interaction information to their
database. Hanan and Fluharty (1997) utilized those data to estimate sea
lion depredation rates and obtained similar results. Our data show an
average loss over this 24 year period of approximately $450,000
annually. The costs associated with a 2% or 12% rate of salmon
depredation clearly points to a conflict between sea lions and
fisheries and are further complicated by the conflicts between two
protected resources (marine mammal and salmon).
LIVE BAIT RECEIVERS
Reports of sea lions interacting with commercial live bait
receivers have increased dramatically over the past few years.
Previously, as in the case studies described above, sea lion
interaction studies have been focused on sport and commercial
fisheries. Bait receivers are floating pens or containers where small
schooling salt-water fish and squid are kept alive for sale as
sportfishing bait. The receivers are anchored or secured to shore in
bays and harbors where the live bait are sold to anglers on private
boats, CPFV, or charter ``six pack'' boats. Sea lions haul-out on the
floating structures and interact by preying on the bait, breaking into
the receivers, and damaging the structures.
Hanan (2002) provides baseline information on the types of
containers used to hold the bait and discusses some of the strengths
and weaknesses of each design. In that study, numerous sea lion
behaviors were documented in relation to bait receivers and associated
costs. Sea lions climb onto (haul out), swim near, break into the
receivers, or (if the receiver lid is open) jump from the harbor water
over the walkway into them. They chew through the netting on some
receivers and ram the walls to create holes allowing the bait to escape
through openings or the sea lions to get into the receivers. They also
blow bubbles (air blasts) up through the receivers when swimming
underneath. This disrupts bait schooling behavior and swim patterns
causing the fish to collide and be injured, thus increasing bait
mortality--ultimately to be eaten by sea lions and birds.
Hanan (2002) summed individual operator estimates of total annual
losses and additional operational costs in California to estimate the
total losses associated with sea lion interactions on live bait
receivers. Loss estimates include damage and repairs to receivers,
increased construction costs and maintenance, value or volume of bait
killed or consumed, and cost of replacing bait destroyed by sea lions
during the six month peak period of sea lion interactions. He noted
that as much as 30-100% of the bait in a receiver can be lost each
night. Live bait is currently valued from $20 to $40 per scoop (each
scoop contains approximately 10 pounds or around 100 fish) and each
receiver holds varying amounts of bait fish depending on size and
location.
The retail value of bait in this industry is estimated to be about
$30 million dollars (5000 tons x 200 scoops/ton x $30/scoop). Table 9
breaks down losses to sea lions by region for a total bait loss of
about $2.3 million, which represents approximately 8% of the retail
value. If as expected, these financial losses continue to increase as
the sea lion population increases, developing methods for identifying
repeat offenders and reducing interaction will be crucial for the
survival of this business. The safety of receiver operators who come in
contact with these sea lions must also be considered.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
As Hanan (2002) noted, the financial losses imposed on live bait
receiver operators can be staggering but he also found that certain
structures could stand up to the trials of sea lions better than
others. Changes to structural designs are a start towards mitigation,
but there is very little an operator can do when a large sea lion
decides to jump in the bait well. Operators need sea lion deterrents
and options for the protection of their product, facilities, and for
personal safety.
CONCLUSIONS
What are the costs of maintaining a healthy, abundant and expanding
California sea lion population? In this presentation, we identified and
explored some economic impacts of pinniped as a measure of degree. For
years, resource managers have focused primarily on the protection and
success of marine mammal populations to increase in numbers with
attention to reducing interactions and reducing marine mammal
incidental mortalities. Now that the California sea lion population has
grown is still growing beyond any level recorded or expected, this
protected species might be categorized as overabundant therefore
confounding its management (Yodzis, 2001) under the MMPA. The estimated
value of catch and gear damaged by pinnipeds in California fisheries
exceeded $450,000 in the early 1980's (DeMaster et al. 1982). But now
our preliminary estimates using data from recreational fisheries and
commercial salmon may be in excess of $5 million dollars annually.
Factoring in the live bait receiver industry pushes the economic losses
over $7 million dollars annually.
In addition to the financial burden of sea lion interactions on the
fishing industry, there may be an impact on certain fish stocks. Hooked
fish lost to sea lions are losses to the fish population and these
losses need to be taken into consideration when determining allotments
or quotas. As certain fish species decline, sea lion consumption would
become a larger portion of the extant population and are likely a
problem in fish stock recovery.
As has been stated in many reports regarding fishery-pinniped
interaction issues that we are still data poor, but these data give us
a qualitative look at pinniped interactions. Appendix A lists some of
the federally funded research projects initiated since 1998. The
results from these projects should provide a better picture of the
level of interactions occurring along the West Coast, but attention to
development of non-lethal deterrents for pinnipeds has been inadequate.
We agree with the Marine Mammal Commission's recommendation that a
workshop of fishery specialists, marine mammal behaviorists, trainers,
and other appropriate experts be convened to recommend a program of
specific studies aimed at identifying safe and effective deterrence
measures.
We further recommend that Congress fund and NMFS establish a non-
lethal deterrent development program.
In terms of recommendations, general culling is not a reasonable
solution (DeMaster and Sisson 1992, Goldsworthy et al., 2002), but
identifying individual animals that repeatedly cause damage or threaten
the safety of any person and removing those animals is imperative.
The set of laws governing natural resource use is implemented by a
vast number of agencies, at federal, state, and local levels (Eagle et
al., 1997). These complexities were magnified when the State of
Washington requested to lethally remove individual pinnipeds identified
repeatedly returning to the Ballard Locks to depredate ESA protected
steelhead salmon. No sea lions were lethally removed. They were
transferred to captive care, but the process leading to the final
determination of removing the animals, took years. This example shows
how the system is currently too complicated and time-consuming, and
requires considerable resources. That process does not work.
Clearly there are significant losses to sea lions in the fishing
industries, these business operators should be compensated for their
losses due to overabundant sea lions when no legal, effective
deterrents are available.
We also support the recommendations for reducing pinniped
interactions outlined in the 1997 Report to Congress:
(1) LImplementing site-specific management for California sea lions
and Pacific harbor seals.
(2) LDevelop safe, effective non-lethal deterrents.
(3) LSelectively reinstate authority of the intentional lethal
taking of California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals by commercial
fishermen to protect gear and catch.
(4) LAdditional research and development of all these issues.
REFERENCES
Beeson, M. & Hanan, D. (1986). An Evaluation of Pinniped-Fishery
Interactions in California. Report to the Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission (PSMFC),unpublished.
Carretta, J., Muto, M., Barlow, J., Baker, J., Forney, K. & Lowry, M.
(2002). U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments. U.S. DOC
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-346Pages.
CDFG. 2000. California Commercial Landings for 1999.
CDFG. 2001. California Commercial Landings for 2000.
CDFG. 2002. California Commercial Landings for 2001
CDFG. 2003. California Commercial Landings for 2002.
DeMaster, D., Miller, D., Goodman, D., DeLong, R. & Stewart, B. (1982).
Assessment of California Sea Lion Fishery Interactions. In D.
Chapman & L. Eberhardt (Eds.), Marine Mammals: Conflicts with
Fisheries, Other Management Problems, and Research Needs (pp.
253-264). Washington, D.C.: Transactions of the 47th North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 1982.
Published by the Wildlife Management Institute.
DeMaster, D. & Sisson, J. (1992). Pros and cons of pinniped management
along the North American coast to abet fish stocks. In D.
McCullough & R. Barrett (Eds.), Wildlife 2001: Populations (pp.
321-330). New York: Elsevier Applied Science.
Eagle, T., Scordino, J., Fangman, S. & Payne, M. (1997). Regulation of
pinniped/human conflict: a federal perspective. In G. Stone, J.
Goebel & S. Webster (Eds.), Pinniped Populations, Eastern North
Pacific: Status, Trends and Issues. A Symposium of the American
Fisheries Society 127th Annual Meeting. August 28, 1997. (pp.
63-70). Monterey, California: Monterey Bay Aquarium and the New
England Aquarium.
Garrott, R., White, P. & White, C. A. V. (1993). Overabundance: An
issue for conservation biologist? Conservation Biologist, 7(4),
946-949.
Golden, M. (1992). Marine recreational fisheries. In: California's
Living Marine Resources and their utilization. Eds W.S. Leet,
C.M. Dewees and C.W. Haugen. Sea Grant Extension Publication
UCSGEP-92-12.
Goldsworthy, S., Bulman,, C., He, X., Larcombe, J. & Littnan, C.
(2002). Are seals bad for fisheries and fisheries bad for
seals? Trophic interactions between pinnipeds and commercial
fisheries in Australia. Paper presented at the Australian
Society for Fish Biology. Retrieved July 3, 2002, from http://
www.asfb.org.au/pubs/2002/afsb 2002-18.htm
Hanan, D. (2002) California sea lion interactions with live bait
receivers initial investigation into problems, impacts and
solutions. Contract Report 40ABNF101546. Available from U.S.
DOC NOAA NMFS SWR 501 Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA
90802.
Hanan, D. & Fluharty, M. (1997). Sea lion interactions in the
commercial salmon troll and commercial passenger fishing vessel
fisheries. In G. Stone, J. Goebel & S. Webster (Eds.), Pinniped
Populations, Eastern North Pacific: Status, Trends and Issues.
A Symposium of the American Fisheries Society 127th Annual
Meeting. August 28, 1997. (pp. 116-123). Monterey, California:
Monterey Bay Aquarium and the new England Aquarium.
Hanan, D., Jones, L. & Read, R. (1989). California sea lion
interactions and depredation rates with the commercial
passenger fishing vessel fleet near San Diego. CalCOFI Reports,
30122-126.
Harvey, J. & Weise, M. (1997). Impacts of California sea lions and
Pacific harbor seals on salmonids in Monterey Bay, California.
In G. Stone, J. Goebel & S. Webster (Eds.), Pinniped
Populations, Eastern North Pacific: Status, Trends and Issues.
A Symposium of the American Fisheries Society 127th Annual
Meeting. August 28, 1997. (pp. 71-89). Monterey, California:
Monterey Bay Aquarium and the New England Aquarium Publisher.
Manning, L. (1989). Marine mammal and fisheries conflicts: A
philosophical dispute. Ocean and Shoreline Management, 12:217-
232.
Marine Mammal Commission. 2001. Marine Mammal Commission Annual Report
to Congress 2000. MMC, 4340 East-West Highway, Room 905,
Bethesda, Maryland 20814.
Miller, D., Herder, M. & Scholl, J. (1983). California marine mammal-
fishery interaction study 1979-1981. U.S. DOC NOAA NMFS SWFSC
Administrative Report, LJ-83-13(c), 233.
N.M.F.S. (1997). Investigation of scientific information on the Impacts
of California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals on salmonids
and on the coastal ecosystem of Washington, Oregon, and
California. U.S. DOC NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-NWFSC-
28172.
Pacific Fisheries Information Network. (PacFIN) 2002. Pacific States
Marine Fisheries Commission. http://www.psmfc.org/pacfin
Recreational Fisheries Information Network (RecFIN) 2003. Ed. Wade Van
Buskirk. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission http://
www.psmfc.org/recfin
Thompson, C. and S. Crooke. (1991). Results of the southern California
economic sportfish survey 1989. Tech. Memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-
164.
Wiese, M. & Harvey, J. (1999). Food habits of California sea lions
(Zalophus californianus) and their impacts on salmonid
fisheries in Monterey Bay, California. MLML Publication, No.
99-01((Fishermen's Alliance of California Contract No. 23-1509-
7400)), 24.
Yodzis, P. (2001). Must top predators be culled for the sake of
fisheries? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 16(2), 78-84.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. It is interesting that you talk about
culling not being a solution or part of that, and when you look
at management of the entire population, I am interested to find
out from all the members of the panel what do you do when you
reach a point of over-population?
I mean, what should we do, and maybe I will start with you,
Mr. Stewart. When you look at the California sea lion as an
example, what do you do when you have a population, an over-
population point in certain areas?
And how should we deal with that? What management tools
should we use, and when you look at the Federal and State
agencies, and what their responsibilities are, how should we
deal with that?
Mr. Stewart. I think it is a good question that we have all
thought about, but the issues are really with the
implementation of the Act as it was created, and the original
intent and the spirit of it, which did contemplate at least the
potential for populations to reach that level without really
having the tools.
So the key thing is to really have I think more creativity
in defining some of these tools. But we really don't seem to
have them for the local issues, which are where most of these
conflicts come up.
The overall population control issues, we have some
examples from terrestrial habitat, from terrestrial species of
birth control that have worked variously successfully or not,
and so that has not really been explored.
But the issues off California are not unique in the world.
There are several populations around the world that have
recovered similarly, even from very low levels, or similar low
levels to now in the couple of millions in places, and where
there is some culling, but I think Doyle is right. It is not a
solution here.
It will be tremendously unpopular and it has been so far to
even have dialog about it, but the problems are local, and with
a small proportion of the population. So the creativity that is
needed in addressing some of these local issues needs to be and
continues to be supported and facilitated through the MMPA and
its implementation.
Mr. Pombo. Now, it is obviously a difficult issue to deal
with, and something that we are struggling with, because
obviously there are populations which are endangered, and I
think deserve a certain level of protection. But you have
different populations which not only are not endangered. They
are over-populated.
And how do you deal with those differences, and Mr. Lecky,
maybe you can help me with that, in terms of should there be a
different level of protection when you are talking about an
endangered species and endangered population, versus one that
not only has recovered, but is in the state of over-population.
Should there be--when we look at the Marine Mammal Protection
Act, should there be differences in the level of protections?
Mr. Lecky. I think, Congressman Pombo, if you actually look
at the statute, it does contemplate that and allows for it in
Section 118, which regulates the incidental take of marine
mammals in commercial fisheries.
There are different levels of take allowed, depending on
the status of the population, and the potential biological
removal levels that are calculated and factored in, and whether
the population is at OSP, in which case you can virtually
assign removal of all of the production in terms of mortality,
versuspopulations that are endangered, where 90 percent of
their production is reserved for population growth.
But also our mechanism in the statute that allows for the
States to apply for resumption of management once populations
are at OSP levels, where States could implement consistent with
the overall principles of the statute, local controls, and deal
with some of these local problems on their own.
And I think that the 1994 amendments to the statute
liberalized the harassment provisions of the statute, and
actually broadened some of the lethal removal exceptions to
allow dealing with at least these really aggressive animals
that we are seeing today.
So I think that there are mechanisms in the Act that we
could pursue. We could probably use some additional policy
guidance in terms of deciding whether or not we are going to
sacrifice beaches to marine mammals, and how aggressive we can
be in areas like Monterey and other marinas where we are having
problem animals.
Mr. Pombo. Can you address that and what at least to me
appears to be a different level of enforcement or a difference
in implementation of the Act between Monterey, as an example,
and La Jolla?
Mr. Lecky. Let me set a context first, because I think in
situations where populations are healthy, and they are at or
near OSP, and expansion of the population on to new beaches is
not essential to maintaining the health of that population.
That is the context that we find ourselves in, and in those
areas really the solution to these problems in my view ought to
be locally driven and not mandated from the Federal level. So
we have been working with the local interests.
In Monterey, there is a broad interest and recognition that
we need to deal with that problem and continue to provide
access. We need to deal with the problem of these animals
damaging private property and boats.
We need to deal with the fact that they are actually
impeding perhaps public safety by not allowing the Coast Guard
to get to their rescue vessels fast enough. Those are all
things that the public says needs to be addressed, and so there
is a consensus there.
And in San Diego, that is not the case. You only heard half
of the story here this morning. There is a contingent of folks
in San Diego that feel like Children's Pool is special. It is
the only mainland haul out of Harbor seals for over a hundred
miles.
There are thousands of tourists that come down to look at
the seals every year, and some folks contend that that has an
economic benefit that actually offsets the loss of the ability
for access there.
So there is a local debate going on about what is the best
way to manage this pool. I think we could support decisions to
go either way given the tools that are in the statute. The
animals clearly are causing water quality problems, public
health problems.
There is an argument that you might decide to remove them
for that reason. There is also an argument that you want to
protect this population because it is special being on the
coast and so far south. And that also is consistent with I
think the statute and the way it goes.
The solutions that I think are not appropriate are the
shared use concepts, because they do create internal
conflictswithin the statue. They do expose people to getting
written up for harassing animals or worse, and they do expose
people to risk of injury from interacting with these animals.
So I think we have been trying to work with the local
government for the last couple of years to come up with a
solution that will work at Children's Pool. I think in some
responses that they have set the stage for the answer that they
wanted when they designated the off-shore rocks as a marine
mammal reserve, and invited those animals into the area.
So on the one hand, they have got these local regulations
that say that these are special animals and they need full
protection, and this is a reserve. On the other hand, they have
got a contingent that wants to move the animals out of the
area. So my view is that they need to resolve their local
conflict.
Mr. Pombo. Is that a case where you would defer to local
decision or consensus locally in terms of how to handle it as
long as it is within the--
Mr. Lecky. Yes. As long as the answer that they come up
with is consistent with the overall purposes and goals of the
Marine Mammal Act and does not create problems for the public
in the way that it is implemented, I think we would give great
deference to the local solution.
Mr. Pombo. And maybe you can answer this, or maybe Dr.
Stewart, I'm not sure, but before they moved into the
Children's Pool where were they?
Mr. Lecky. Well, there probably has been some increased
immigration from outside areas, but there is a reef not too far
away from Children's Pool where they animals were hauling out
on the rocks at low tide.
Mr. Pombo. And I know that you are waiting for a local
consensus on this, but it seems to me like maybe they would
stay on those rocks, versus being in the pool, and that maybe
that would be the compromise in this position. I mean, is that
an acceptable--
Mr. Lecky. Well, if an acceptable program were put in place
to harass the animals off the beach consistently that they
would go somewhere, and some of them would go to those rocks. I
think the capacity of those rocks is probably less than all of
the animals that are there now, and so they might disperse to
further off-shore rocks, or who knows where they could wind up.
They could even go out to the Channel Islands for that matter.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Brown, your testimony is very interesting,
and I looked at a little bit on what your background was, and
obviously you have spent a great deal of time on this
particular issue over the years.
But one of the things that you testified to was about the
impact on endangered species and can you expand upon that a
little bit, because in endangered species hearings that we have
had in the past, we have had some real conflicting testimony
about what the impact is of the seals or sea lions on
endangered salmonids, and I would like to have your input on
that.
Mr. Brown. Sure. Chairman Pombo, I guess I would start out
by saying that I think as I mentioned that there are a lot of
efforts under way, not only in Oregon, but in other States on
the West Coast, in efforts to recover depleted and depressed
stocks of salmon and steelhead, many of which are either
federally listed under the ESA, or listed under State
Endangered Species Acts.
Habitat recovery restrictions on that agriculture, land use
by private property owners, and improvement of water quality,
water flow, water temperatures, thin stream water rights
questions and so on, and on, and on, and on, and restrictions
of harvest and changes in hatchery production operations and so
on.
There are quite a few people--and there are a fair number
of our constituents--that feel that we also need to be looking
at the possible negative effects of pinniped predation, and
predation by other natural predators on the recovery of these
stocks, and where so much time and energy, and money is going
into trying to recover those stocks.
It has been our experience I think looking at this issue
for not too long of a time. We have really been focusing on it
for only say the past 5 or 6 years, the question of specific
effects of seals or sea lions in localized situations on
particular stocks of fish.
We have kind of seen results in our working group that are
all over the board. In some cases, it looks like there may not
be an impact on the stock of fish in a particular study area
with a particular predator, whether it is seals or sea lions.
And in other cases it looks like there may be predation
levels that occur from the 5, to 10, to 20 percent or more of a
returning stock of adult migrating fish.
Then the question really becomes then I think for our
fisheries managers is are those levels of proposed or
postulated loss significant enough to where we want to propose
some sort of management action that would reduce the level of
predation, at least during a period when fish are recovering.
Again as I stated, we clearly recognize that these animals
have co-existed successfully for a long, long time, and our
focus is primarily on local situations where we have hundreds
and sometimes thousands of seals, hundreds of sea lions in
smallcoastal water bodies that are preying on fish, salmon and
steelhead moving up some of our smaller coastal streams.
Where we are looking to recover estimating spanning
population of maybe only several thousand fish. So those are
the areas that we are really focusing on, and we really are
trying to make some determinations about the impacts that these
animals might have on slowing recovery.
We have worked with fish population modelers and they are
telling us that if predation levels occur at this level, then
this is how much longer it would take for a stock to recover,
for example.
And we want to be able to share that kind of information
with as many of the decisionmakers as we possibly can, and try
to get the ideas of predation of these very, very healthy and
abundant animals into the bigger picture of recovering some of
these fish stocks.
Mr. Pombo. Well, that is an issue that we have been dealing
with for a number of years and I had the opportunity to go
watch at the mouth of the Columbia River as the salmon were
coming back in, and sea lions or seals were out there catching
them as fast as they possibly could, and it was all done in the
context of an endangered species hearing.
And all of the problems and challenges that everybody had,
and there were obviously a lot of questions that were raised at
that point, and I am looking forward to the results of your
studies as it continues to build, because that is an issue that
not only affects marine mammals, but affects endangered species
as well. Mr. Cunningham.
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I sit in a lot
of hearings, but to me this is one of the more interesting
hearings, because I am learning a lot about an area that I am
not entirely familiar about.
So I have got some questions, and it is not directed at
anybody. It is to expand my own knowledge on this. From the
testimony that I heard earlier by Mr. Lecky, and Mr. Brown,
when we talked about inconsistency of the agencies and how the
laws are enforced, should a person that loses his surfboard and
goes into this area and gets his surfboard, and not intending
to harass anybody, but to get his surfboard, should that
individual be fined according to the agencies?
Mr. Lecky. I suppose that I should answer that question. I
really can't comment on the particulars of that circumstance,
because I am not aware of them all. On its face, it sounds--
Mr. Cunningham. I would presume that you would be the one
that would.
Mr. Lecky. Well, on its face it does sound unreasonable. I
will acknowledge that. But the issue of incidental harassment
is one that is prohibited in the statute, and so the fact that
you are just walking down on the beach and scaring animals off
of the beach in some contexts can be harmful to animals.
It can cause separation of females and pups, and the like,
and so the statute does contemplate that that is an activity
that needs to be regulated. So in this circumstance, where an
individual had a choice of perhaps not being able to get back
to the beach, or harassing animals in an effort to save his own
life, then I think he probably was within the bounds of doing
the right thing, and should not have been punished for that.
But I don't know all of the particulars of that case, and
clearly people going down on the beach to sit and sun
themselves, where they are going to chase animals off the beach
is something that is inconsistent with the current language in
the statue.
Mr. Cunningham. Well, maybe you have answered it, but I
used to go down with my children when they were just little
ones, and they are all grown up now. One has graduated from
college and the other one is a senior at Yale.
But I used to take them down and look at the tidal--we used
to go down to Scripps Oceanographic and look in the aquariums
and stuff, and show them the sea life. Then we would go down to
La Jolla to the cove there, and we would look in the tidal
pool.
We wouldn't allow them to touch them, but there was
actually people that would teach my children that were down
there, volunteers would show the children that this is a star
fish, and this is a little abalone that lived in a tidal pool,
or this is an octopus, and don't touch it. It will bite you.
And if I did that today, the same thing that I was doing 15
or 20 years ago, I would be arrested; is that correct, by going
down and if I scare an animal off, say, Children's Beach there,
or the tidal pools, and as I go down to show my children this
thing, I wouldn't, because I went down there and I saw the
defecation on there.
And I would not have my child down there. I would be afraid
of disease. But if I was to go down there and show them, I
would be arrested today for something that I did 15 years ago.
And again I have listened to the testimony, but it used to be
10 to 30 seals in La Jolla. Now there is 180 to 200 animals
there.
And you say that the rocks may not support them, but if
there were only 30 seals there as historically, instead of the
growth and population, maybe they could move. And when I went
down there, there were seals from time to time. Not every time
I went down there.
But I would see a seal go in the water when I walked down
there, and evidently what I did in the past, I can't do today.
Is that true?
Mr. Lecky. Yes, I think it is. If you are down there and
you disturb those animals off the beach, then likely you would
be subject to a fine for illegally harassing animals. I think
part of the message here though that you are getting at in my
view is that there is a lack of clear guidance and policy on
deciding whether or not in these circumstances that we want to
give these beaches over to increasing pinniped populations.
I don't know if you saw Dr. Stewart's slide on elephant
seals at Piedras Blancas, but there was a similar situation up
there, where elephant seals had moved on to a beach, and the
number of pups born on those beaches has gone from a few tens
of animals to breeding thousands.
Mr. Cunningham. Is there a breeding period like most
animals have?
Mr. Lecky. Yes.
Mr. Cunningham. You know, I hunt, and I hunt white tail
deer, and so on up in Oregon, and the population of white tail
there has been devastated from disease. I mean, I will go up
there and visit a friend of mine up there in Roseburg, and I
will see 200 deer, and they can't even hardly walk. They are so
sickly because they were protected, and interbred and
everything else.
And I see the same possibility here, but with the seals,
when I would go down there, if there is a specific period would
it be a compromise not to let anybody go down there during the
whelping period so that pups aren't separated when they are at
that age, versus that surely not 12 months out of a year.
And also would it not be reasonable to limit the number of
seals or have management at least control the number so that we
can go back and live in harmony with the seals like we did when
I took my children down there, versus the over-population, to
allow the agencies to say, hey, guys, go down there and live on
the rocks and not here.
Because I also serve on the Labor and HSS committee, which
I fund NIH, and we have doubled medical research. But we also
look at disease, like hepatitis, like HIV. I had a little girl
in my district die of E-coli from fecal material, and I want to
bring them in and see what is the public health aspects of
having--I don't want people defecating on my beaches. I will
tell you that I would stop them right now.
Now, you can't stop a cow from defecating in a dairy farm,
but there is a specific area, and it is not public. But in a
public area, I don't want my children walking through that
stuff and it should be stopped, or at least limited to where we
can go back in harmony like we did 10 or 15 years ago when I
would go down there.
And have a limited number of seals there in harmony, but if
I walked down there in a non-whelping area, and a seal goes in
the water, that's fine. I will tell you what. If a lion came
into the area, I might go in the water, too, and I think that
would be natural, and it would probably be self-preservation.
Mr. Lecky. Congressman Cunningham, we do have an example of
public beach in Hood Canal, where we excluded Harbor seals in
order to protect public resource. There is interest in an
recreational climbing beach, where the E-coli count had gotten
so high that public health officials closed the recreational
harvest to clams.
We excluded animals from those beaches by building fences
out into the marine environment for over a period of 2 years.
So I think there are tools in the statute where we can make
those kinds of decisions and support them.
But this concept of share use in my view is not consistent
with the existing statutory structure and really isn't probably
very practical.
Mr. Cunningham. And I think that is the whole issue and
that is the reason that I tried to bring that conversation to
this, and what the Chairman is trying to do. How do we get with
the different groups that have interests that want to save the
animals.
I love to go down and see the seals with my family, but
when they get to a point of over-population that risks us not
only from personal attack, but risk us from disease--and I will
tell you one thing. I have got a boat in Washington, D.C., and
in the evenings I have got ducks that sit on the swim platform,
and I will tell you that they make a heck of a mess.
I mean, they are probably worse than these damn seals. Now
I go and squirt them with a hose. It doesn't bother them. Some
environmentalists will say that you are working with the psyche
of this duck, but I also have to squirt off the defecation of
it, too.
So if I go squirt a seal and he goes in--I mean, we need
some consistency on this thing, and that is what I am taking a
look at. I will tell you what, like I said, my bill stopped
off-shore oil drilling because I didn't want our beaches
polluted.
But I sure don't want our beaches polluted by pinnipeds or
anything else, and we need to stop that for public health. If
there is a private property like we saw with these boats, it is
going to stop. I will do everything that I can to stop seals
from damaging boats, attacking people.
If you had a lion--look, I have seen--Discovery is one of
my favorite channels, and I see where bears come in the city
and attack people, or even moose, and you have got to stop
that. And you need to stop this as well.
And there should be absolute consistency in doing this as
well. I also stopped fishermen from coming in--like I said, the
tuna dolphin bill. We were depleting and we were killing
subspecies--turtles, subspecies fish, and they were netting and
they were throwing back the shark finning and stuff.
And I will stop that, but I also in the name of public
safety will stop seals from attacking people or causing damage
through disease or anything else. And all that I would ask from
you and the Chairman is to have some kind of balance.
And to figure out some number that existed 10 or 15 years
ago on those beaches, and let the seals live there. But if I
walk down and show my kids a tide pool, and one goes in the
water--I mean, that doesn't hurt the seal.
Now, if there is a pup and he gets separated, yeah, it
might, and maybe we can have a term where those pups are so
young that we would not do that. And I think that is the
balance that we are looking for here.
Now, maybe some groups say, hey, no. There is 180 to 200
seals there. Don't touch them. Well, I disagree with that. And
there is the other groups that say I want all the seals gone,
and I disagree with that also. I am just letting you know where
I come from.
Mr. Lecky. I appreciate that, and I know Congressman Pombo
has been struggling with the definition of harassment, and we
would appreciate the opportunity to struggle along with him.
Mr. Cunningham. I do, too. And I think that Fish and
Wildlife does a good job. I think at times that we fought
extremists on both sides for all of us, you and I both on both
sides of this coin.
And all I am asking is somewhere to come in the middle with
the groups that want to save the seals, to the groups that want
to use the public beaches. And I thank all of you for coming
and your testimony, and I thank my colleague, Chairman Pombo.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. I just had one final
question that I would like the panel to respond to, and it is
dealing with the definition of harassment. And it is something
that we have really struggled over, in terms of what
constitutes harassment.
And Congressman Cunningham is talking about if you walk
down to the beach and a seal jumps in the water, should that be
a regulated harassment; or should we have what many people are
pushing for, a higher level of harassment, where you actually
run the risk or the likelihood that there could be some change
in the behavior of the marine mammals.
And I would like to have some response to that, and let me
know--and I will start with Dr. Hanan, but just kind of give me
an idea of what you are thinking in terms of that.
Dr. Hanan. In my opinion, the level of harassment should be
related to the status of the population that you are talking
about. Abundant sea lions and abundant Harbor seals, some
harassment is not going to affect that population as a whole.
Some harassment of a right whale could be significant. So I
think that you need to look at the status of the population
that you are talking about.
Mr. Pombo. Now your response is kind of what I was getting
to before about differing levels of protection based upon the
population. Dr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. I agree with Doyle, but there is a contextual
issue, too, about where the harassment takes place, not only in
terms of population size, but what is involved biologically.
And I think that the context is important in the thinking
and the distinction between areas like Monterey, where sea
lions are hulling out there seasonally, and La Jolla, and
Children's Pool, which is a colony, and that's why the beach
was regulated more heavily and closed off, because it is
treated now just like any other colony, like the colonies on
the Channel Islands.
And I think clearly a disturbance out there by tourists or
Navy personnel would probably have a substantial impact long
term, and that would affect the status of the population, and
that is what I think was translated to La Jolla once the area
was designated as a colony and the harassment was limited.
At least year around, and I think the question of whether
it would have an impact on the population outside the breeding
season would be an issue, and I think that is an open one, and
one that I think we really have not been thinking about much.
But the issue in Monterey has been resolved--and I think
the harassment--by consultation with NOAA Fisheries through a
little trap door in the MMPA that allows disturbance, directed
disturbance for public safety issues.
And I think that was discussed or thought about, or
contemplated, at La Jolla before the area was reclassified as a
natural colony, of disturbing animals. And that came up in the
context of a discussion about the pollution of the waters, and
the closure of the cove in La Jolla because of the high E-coli
levels.
So there is a contextual issue that is very important, and
the MMPA does allow for harassment in some cases without going
through a full incidental harassment permit. But in other
cases, in San Diego's, from what I understand of the city's
interest, is that they would like a solution that allows for
two things.
One, the cleaning up of the water in the pool that would
allow people to go in there and safety swim; and also shared
use, and that involves shared use of the beach, which is a more
difficult issue.
Regardless of how that goes forward with the city, there is
still the Federal issue of getting the incidental harassment
permit to allow shared use, because there certainly would be
some of that involved, either seasonally or perhaps year
around.
And that would have to go through the full public review,
and I think that is when we would see not just San Diego's
interest, but the national interest in what the solution to
this would be, but perhaps give us some idea of what the
solution might be for many of these areas that are now being
confronted with increasing pinnipeds, East Coast and West
Coast.
Mr. Cunningham. Would the Chairman yield?
Mr. Pombo. Yes.
Mr. Cunningham. To be fair, the San Diego area especially
with Mexico and pesticides coming into our--you know, in
Delmar, you look at that river coming in, and when we are
talking about pollution of the ocean, it is not just the seals.
We have a major problem with our beaches closing from fecal
material coming down. You know the highest fecal count river in
the United States worse than Alongapo? It is the Anacostia
River coming out of Washington, D.C., because every time it
rains, that raw feces goes into the Anacostia, and they have
got fish not dying of disease, but dying because the bacteria
count is so high that it eats up the oxygen.
But we have a problem here with chemicals, with plants that
are not working, and I know that the Chairman is working on
that as well. But it is not just--I don't want the pollution
from a pinniped, but I don't want it from man either, and we
need to balance what we are doing.
And environmental groups are right. We need to do our job
in Congress and fund some of these things that stop the
pollution of our wetlands and the rest of it, and to control
pinnipeds as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Brown, did you want to respond to that?
Mr. Brown. Sure. I will make a few comments, Chairman Pombo
and Congressman Cunningham. I guess I would say that you raised
the question of driving seals into the water by walking down
the beach.
I mean, technically under the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
that is a violation of the law, and I guess technically in the
most stringiest definition of harassment, it is that as well.
We also have State statutes as to disturbance and harassment to
wildlife, and including seals and sea lions.
Of course, in this case our laws are overridden by the
Federal law, but I would think that our State laws in many
other States would also want to ensure that forms of wildlife
are not subjected to undue levels and levels of harassment that
would cause serious problems.
I strongly support the idea of separate use and separate
areas. I have real problems with these ideas of thinking that
we can do the same kinds of things in the same areas, and that
we can sit on the beach with seals a little ways away, and that
we won't ever have a problem, and everything will always be OK.
So I think that a lot of work has to go into figuring out
how to do that. One thing that we have talked about and of
course it has just been discussions, but most all of our
coastal bays and estuaries have dozens, and hundreds, and
sometimes thousands of seals in them.
And we have had discussions about, well, perhaps a better
way would be to have some areas where seals are highly
protected, and people can see them and visit with them, and
enjoy them in that case.
And then have other areas where systems are set aside for
sport or commercial fishing, or for commerce, or for other
purposes. Those are just discussions that we have had, and it
kind of gets back to that idea of separate use and separating
some of these things.
We would also support some way to sort of separate out kind
of levels of why harassment would occur. Obviously public
health and safety would be at the top of the list. Preservation
of property, both public and private, and then as you step down
in certain areas, you may restrict harassment levels on these
animals more and more.
I guess I would say finally that we work with most all of
our ports up and down the coast, and private property owners,
and other groups, to try to have a heads-up approach to the
type of--well, I guess it has already been labeled the
Children's beach seal problem.
We are trying to avoid that kind of a thing, and if we have
seals start to haul out on docks and certain marinas, and we
communicate and discuss things with the port, and we say is
this something that you want to try to avoid, well, let's get
ahead of it, and under the current law we are allowed to
disturb seals and sea lions off of property like that that may
be impeding the use that they were intended for or causing
destruction.
And we try to carefully work within the law and get
ourselves in a situation where we don't develop these kinds of
serious problems. It does not mean that we are going to be
successful in every case.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Lecky, with you I think it is probably
better if you answer this one for the record.
Mr. Lecky. I was just going to try and avoid that,
Congressman. I now that my agency has testified in the past on
this issue, and so I will try and be careful.
Mr. Pombo. OK.
Mr. Lecky. I think where we have the most trouble with the
harassment issue is in the area of unintentional harassment.
And looking down at the tide pool, we have problems in the
national seashore with abalone pickers chasing Harbor seals off
the rocks, for example.
And I think in trying to better figure out how to deal with
unintentional harassment, I think we really do need to factor
in issues of what is the status of the animals that are being
harassed, and what is the status of the activities that they
are engaged in that they are being diverted from.
Are these sperm whales that are in the process of breeding,
and we are causing them not to breed. That is an important
issue that where unintentional harassment ought to be avoided,
and we ought to have tools to regulate activities that cause
that kind of unintentional harassment.
I think the kinds of unintentional harassment, where we are
inadvertently startling animals that are just in a resting
position off the rocks, and then they come back later, is
something that does not have a severe or adverse impact on the
animal or its population. And we ought to have ways of
tolerating that and being able to distinguish between those
kinds of impacts.
Mr. Pombo. I am very interested in your answer, and I don't
know how I would word this yet. We are still trying to figure
this out, but I really do believe that there ought to be enough
flexibility in the Act that when you are going out and
implementing it that you can make those determinations.
Is this a highly endangered species when you are talking
about whales and some of our bigger problems, in terms of
recovery; versus sea lions or Harbor seals, and the situation
that they are in.
And in working with the scientists and in working with the
biologists, and trying to figure this all out, it seems to be
that there is--and there is not unanimity, but there is a broad
consensus that there should be different levels of protection,
and a different definition of what harassment is in different
situations.
And we are trying to figure out how exactly we would put
this in legislative language so that it is not a time bomb for
you guys to try to implement when you get to that point, but I
would like to figure out a way to do that and give you the
flexibility in implementation so that you can actually look at
each situation differently, and have the flexibility to say
that really does not impact a sustainable population of that
particular species in this area.
And therefore we can treat that differently than we do in
other situations, and I know that you try to do that, and I am
not sure how much real flexibility there is in the law, versus
how much we are trying to put into it.
But since we are in the middle of doing a reauthorization,
I would like to have as much input as possible, and your agency
has testified in the past on this, and I look forward to having
the opportunity to continue to work with you guys to try to
come up with that.
And I know that this is something that the Subcommittee
Chairman, Mr. Gilchrest, has a definite interest in, because
there is differences between the West and the East, and there
is differences in populations, and somehow the law has to
reflect that and I am concerned that it does not.
Mr. Lecky. I think we made an effort to go there with the
designation of Level A and Level B, and I think we just need to
continue to refine that, probably with some direction from you
folks, and probably with some additional policy and guidance
that we can construct on our own.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. I want to thank this panel very much
for your testimony. I know that it was very interesting for me
and Mr. Cunningham to have the opportunity to pick your brains
a little bit. So thank you very much.
I want to take this opportunity to again thank our host for
allowing us the opportunity to use this facility for the
members of the audience who made the effort to be here, and
listen, and I will tell you that the record, the Congressional
record, will be held open. I will hold it open for the next 2
weeks to give people the opportunity that want to submit
testimony to be included as part of this hearing.
That can be submitted to the House Resources Committee, and
we will hold the record open to give everybody the opportunity
to do that. So thank you all very much for being here, and I
thank the panel, this panel and the previous panel, and the
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
-