By David J. Goldenberg, Executive Director, California Sea Urchin Commission
California’s environment and economy both suffered a loss with one decision recently when a judge chose to solely protect sea otters over other threatened marine species by eliminating Congressionally-mandated sea otter management zones.
In 1986, Congress passed PL 99-625 to authorize the US Fish and Wildlife Service to translocate sea otters from the central California coast in an effort to build a new colony at San Nicolas Island to help protect and aid in the recovery of the sea otter species. Given the voracious appetite of sea otters, special safeguards were written into the law to protect other sorts of marine life including endangered species through the establishment of sea otter management zones. Unfortunately, a few years ago, the US Fish and Wildlife Service acted on its own volition without any Congressional approval or direction to stop enforcing the law. Thus, commercial fishermen were forced to file suit against the federal government to keep the safeguards in place.
The reality is that this judge’s decision may ultimately wipe out a number of fragile species populations that are vulnerable to the sea otter’s relentless appetite and negatively impact local economies up and down the California coast. Rather than maintain protections for all of California’s marine resources, this decision, if left to stand, effectively manages the state’s marine environment solely for sea otters thereby threatening to destroy California’s sustainable shellfish fisheries including the endangered black abalone and the endangered white abalone. Of concern to fishermen is that with this ruling they are no longer protected by the law and are now vulnerable to prosecution for conducting their business too close to otters which could be considered harassment of a threatened species.
The decision ignores a number of important facts:
First, the US Fish and Wildlife Service broke federal law years ago by choosing on its own to cease to enforce PL 99-625 without Congressional approval. Who was responsible for that decision and why haven’t they been held accountable?
Second, the primary objective of the sea otter translocation has been achieved as a healthy, growing population of sea otters is thriving at San Nicolas Island miles away from the original parent population. As a result, California currently has the healthiest sea otter population in decades and the population at San Nicolas Island is producing at a steady rate. Why not embrace this program and the balance it provides to the marine ecosystem?
Third, this decision suggests that with a stroke of a judge’s pen an ocean utopia will suddenly be achieved despite ignoring the existing threat that prevents a healthy marine environment. Supporters of the decision to eliminate sea otter management zones argue that unlimited range expansion is the critical key to growing the population. But science has proven that sea otter recovery is not solved by range expansion but by effectively reducing or eliminating the real threats of disease, poor water quality and ocean acidification. This decision does not address any of these risks to marine habitat.
California deserves a sea otter management plan that will protect all marine resources off our coast. Focusing on the needs of only one species threatens the recovery of endangered abalone, threatens the existence of commercial shellfish resources, hurts seafood lovers who value a sustainable supply of local seafood and urchins and denies fishermen the ability to earn an income. The resulting ripple effect will destroy local seaside economies and businesses dependent on the commercial fishing industry including restaurants, harbors, local retailers as well as thousands of workers whose jobs rely on a productive fishery.
If this decision stands, a number of other fragile populations of endangered species will likely collapse as the voracious appetite and aggressive nature of sea otters will be unleashed on a delicate ecosystem. When it comes to protecting endangered species, focusing on one species at the expense of others has proven to be ineffective and often disastrous. Animals do not live in isolation or follow man’s “hoped for” behavior. They live by the simple reality that only the strongest survive. Efforts to protect one species over others have dire consequences for the entire ecosystem because balance cannot be maintained. That is why scientists overwhelmingly recommend ecosystem-based management (EMB). Rather than concentrate on one species, EMB considers the interactions and interests of all affected species including humans. This approach has been used effectively over the years in land-based ecosystems but meets resistance when considered for marine ecosystems.
Make no mistake; sea otters will jeopardize the viability of the entire marine ecosystem. In the case of abalone and sea urchins, the preferred food choices of sea otters, the future viability of these species is in jeopardy. Are we willing to lose one or more species just to manage sea otters rather than protect the entire marine ecosystem? Especially when the translocation of sea otters has proven to work?