[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2101-2102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        STELLERS SEA LION CRISIS

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Stellers sea lion crisis continues to 
be a serious issue for Alaska fishermen and the families and 
communities that depend on them. A recent guest columnist piece in the 
Seattle Post Intelligencer contains a good description of the flawed 
regulatory process that led us to this point. I ask unanimous consent 
that this piece be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Feb. 8, 2001]

           Let's Do Right by STELLERS Sea Lion and Fishermen

                            (By Glenn Reed)

       In mid-December Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, was able to 
     pass legislation that places requirements on the federal 
     government's latest Biological Opinion dealing with 
     interaction between fishing activity and the Stellers sea 
     lion. Two of these requirements are that the government's 
     opinion will undergo the legally required public review 
     process as well as an independent scientific review. The 
     legislation also requires the placement of protection measure 
     for the Stellers sea lions, which the National Marine 
     Fisheries Service has said will eliminate any negative 
     impacts that might be caused to the sea lions by fishing 
     activity.
       This legislation also avoids a virtual shutdown of the 
     fisheries and the resulting negative impact to the 
     Washington-based fleet and Alaskan communities.
       The senator's action also provides $30 million in new 
     research money to the NMFS so that it can conduct the 
     research necessary to determine if Alaska's fisheries are 
     having an impact on Stellers--something that government 
     scientists theorize, but that they have failed to even test 
     after the industry has suffered through 10 years of 
     increasingly severe harvest restrictions.
       How did we get to this point? In 1990 the western 
     population of Stellers sea lions was listed as a threatened 
     species. In 1997 the western population of Stellers were 
     listed as endangered. The cause of the Stellers' decline has 
     never been determined. In the case of Stellers, the only 
     regulatory steps available to the National Marine Fisheries 
     Service were to progressively move commercial fisheries 
     further and further out of their traditional areas. In the 
     past decade the amount of fishing in the areas adjacent to 
     sea lion rookeries and haulouts has been reduced to a 
     fraction of historic levels (from 60 percent of the harvest 
     in 1997 to under 15 percent in 2000). Fishing seasons have 
     also been

[[Page 2102]]

     drastically altered in an attempt to help Stellers.
       With all the costly restrictions that have been placed on 
     fishing it would be logical to ask, ``What benefits have sea 
     lions realized over the past decade as a result of the 
     redesigned fishery?''
       Unfortunately, NMFS has conducted no studies to determine 
     if any of the restrictions have had a positive effect, a 
     negative effect or no effect. And it is worth noting that 
     there is a body of opinion in the scientific community that 
     argues that the government's actions over the past 10 years 
     have been just as likely to cause more harm to Stellers than 
     to have helped.
       The basis for the government's placement of restrictions on 
     fishing is a theory known as ``localized depletion.'' The 
     theory surmises that fishing activity is competing with sea 
     lions for prey and is making it more difficult for Stellers 
     to catch the fish they need. The theory has been rejected by 
     the scientific advisers to the North Pacific Fisheries 
     Management Council. Scientific arguments that run counter to 
     the government's theory have been peer-reviewed and 
     published, but largely ignored.
       So why has the estimated sea lion population decreased so 
     dramatically? Some things that leading marine mammal 
     scientists outside the government consider most likely are 
     listed below.
       First, the stocks of those fish species which have 
     historically provided Stellers with their greatest dietary 
     benefit are far lower now than in the 1950s and 1960s when 
     Stellers populations were very high. It could be that 
     Stellers populations have declined because the ecosystem 
     cannot support as large a population as it once did.
       Also, the greatest population decline of sea lions occurred 
     between the mid-1970s and the late '80s. During much of this 
     time the taking (killing) of sea lions was commonplace and 
     was at times encouraged by the government. Killer whales also 
     prey on sea lions, and mariners have noted that killer-whale 
     populations have increased sharply. Estimates of the impact 
     of these activities in the period of the decline are able to 
     account for a large portion of the overall decline.
       NMFS admits in its Nov. 30 Biological Opinion that Alaska's 
     fisheries aren't posing imminent harm to Stellers. There is 
     time to study the effects of the actions that have been taken 
     since 1990 to determine if they are helping sea lions or 
     harming them. NMFS also admits that there is no threat of 
     extinction for the next 100 years, and the agency is 
     receiving more than $30 million this year alone to work on 
     better understanding the situation. It would be particularly 
     encouraging if the conservation community would participate 
     in the support of scientific research designed to better 
     understand and help the Stellers sea lion.
       The legislation passed in December will provide an 
     opportunity for public and scientific review to ensure the 
     right decisions are made. NMFS does not need to take the 
     ``ready-shoot-aim'' approach. We have time to find the right 
     answers.
       How will history judge us if in an attempt to save the 
     Stellers sea lion we take actions that are ultimately 
     responsible for causing them further harm?

                          ____________________