Salmon munching sea lions at Bonneville Dam shifting to different species, new problems

New data suggest that while fewer California sea lions are showing up at Bonneville Dam and eating fewer spring salmon than just a few years ago, the number of Steller sea lions could be increasing, and along with them, the volume of salmon they eat.

Data also show over the last several years that sea lions -- mostly Stellers -- are increasingly showing up in the fall to prey on that fish run.

Experts say these two factors mean there's a chance the sea lion removal program, .... http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/06/salmon_munching_sea_lions_at_b.html

Lots of questionable science and contradictions in that article. I'm not a PETA/Humane Society/whatever guy, but the spokesperson from the Humane Society provided the one statement that is most likely accurate when she said sea lions are a distraction that takes focus off of environmental issues that place much more significant limitations on salmon recovery.

I suppose it's true to say we'd have a few thousand more fish getting above Bonneville without the sea lions, and that would be a positive, but would it really affect recovery in a meaningful way? How many more thousands do you think would make it without commercial (and, to a lesser extent, sport) fisheries throughout their foraging areas, designed to harvest fish down to the last "surplus" returner? How many more beyond that number might we get if we improved their spawning habitat?

I can't help but think the real reason issues like hatchery influence and predation (real issues, but secondary at best, IMO) spend so much time at the forefront of wild salmonid recovery discussions is that it doesn't cost much to close a hatchery or put slugs in a few sea lions, while meaningful reforms are effectively cost prohibitive. The way I see it, we can choose to eat the cost, steep as it would be, to address the real issues, or wild fish can continue to pay the price. The later is the only option that I believe will ever be entertained by our culture, at least until it's too late.

I know this makes me sound like a furbag hugger, but truthfully, it's not the principle of euthanizing sea lions that upsets me. Rather, it's the justification for doing so in this case that rubs me wrong.

The question of Sea Lions has been a ongoing thing for years. Sort of like the Boldt decision.

When I was a kid growing up on Bainbridge Island, every seal and sea lion we saw was an open target. The Bainbridge review had a front page picture of one of the locals plinking a sea lion off of someones sailboat.

Prior to 74 I used to take a case of double O buckshot with me to Alaska and came home with none left. If I had more I would have used them on the dirty buggers. It was frustrating to have sea lions come in and strip your net before you could get it on board. It would have been one thing if they had eaten the fish. They just threw them in the air and played with them, then went and got another.

I know it is hard for so many people these days to understand a lot of this but it comes back to one fact, the balance was already out of
line. The cornucopia of natural resources was pouring species out and man was not taking into consequence that they had already begun over harvesting fish, animals , timber and other resources. All of this back in the very early 1900's.

Will we ever come to the place of understanding on a lot of these issues? Highly unlikely I think. Too many schools of thought based on a lot of assumptions that they knew what they were talking about.

Some years back when I still lived in Forks, we had a meeting with the Governor, his staff and some of the head biologists for the state. We meaning the Olympic Peninsula Guides Association. We were trying to get the State people to understand how depleted the Steelhead runs were. Essentially they told us that because we did not have "Fisheries Degrees", we did not know what we were talking about.

This is the same mind set that I see in our fisheries management today. Sea Lions are not pets, nor are thy tourist attractions. They are predators and need to be culled. Ask the people who have been pulled off docks and floats by these wonderful creatures.

Enough Said.............

Want to cull sea lion populations because they are a legitimate threat to human safety or our someone's livelihood? I'm on board. Want to cull them because you're pissed off about the fact they've stolen your catch a few times and blame them for the poor quality of the fisheries humans decimated? Might want to look in the mirror.

The article referenced above makes my point beautifully (though I think it may have been by accident). The article states that sea lions are a growing problem. A bit later on, it makes reference to this year's projected "record return of salmon" to the Columbia. I'm no mathematician, but it seems pretty clear to me that Record Runs of Salmon (RRS) + Increasing Sea lion Population (ISP) does not add up to sea lions being a significant limiting factor for salmon in the Columbia Basin.

Predatory birds eating out-migrating smolts is likely a more significant issue, but even they don't hold a candle to humans when it comes to killing salmon.

To your average non-fishing person fish are not cute and cuddly like a seal or even a big fat sea lion. They are not educated when it comes to this matter and as I've heard from so many non-fishermen say it's just a fish. Until we can make the salmon and steelhead issue popular with the general public they don't stand a chance. I've also heard the non-types say they can be farmed so they are a renewable resource.

Ever since the Boldt Decision it's been a downhill spiral with a few peaks but many more valleys. I wish I had a solution. The only thing I can think of in this money mongering greed driven society is to somehow make it a big time cash cow. We have seen hundreds of scenarios that when big money can be made we seem to relax rules and laws that have stood for decades or make up new laws to accommodate profit. The first one that comes my mind is pot. It's amazing how quickly politicians jumped on the pot wagon when the potential for big time profits came to light. Don't get me wrong I grew up in the sixties so I have no problem with legalized pot. But it is interesting that when the money showed up other states are looking at doing the same thing.

Obviously commercially caught salmon brings money into the economy but relative to what they were making back in the day it's just not as significant. Again, I have no creative solutions in mind but there has to be a way to get the public to understand just what an important link to the health of wildlife and streams and many other things salmon are.

How are you going to get "the public" to realize how important salmon are to streams and wildlife when the management agencies consistently ignore them for the sake of catch?

Wild fish escapements are now in the 5-10% range of "historic/pre industrial human". Some runs, like the occasional pink and some chum are probably closer. Still, if managers were concerned about wildlife and streams maybe they would raise escapements by, say 5X. That might get us to 25-50%, leave fish for harvest, and feed the ecosystem some.

But, as a WDFW administrator told me, "increases in wild salmon productivity will be taken as increased catch, not escapement."

I hoping hoping the sealions are now munching on Russians, Mexicans and Asians!.... an over abundance munching another form of over abundance!