Sea otter recovery deal threatened by 'military readiness' legislation

Legislation introduced into Congress this week threatens to scuttle a deal to end a quarter-century exclusion of sea otters from Southern California waters.

Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Simi Valley, says HR 4043, the Military Readiness and Southern Sea Otter Conservation Act, aims to ensure the Navy can continue testing weapons on a remote Channel Island and to protect endangered abalone and the commercial shellfish industry.

The move has angered sea otter advocates, who want to see the federally designated threatened marine mammal recover throughout its historic range, from Oregon to Baja, Mexico.

The bill should be called "S.O.S., Sacrifice Otters for Shellfish," said Steve Shimek, executive director of The Otter Project in Monterey.

The Otter Project and the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center took the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to court in 2009 to end what is known as the translocation program. The Fish and Wildlife program, launched in 1987, sought to establish a backup population at San Nicolas Island in case of a natural or human-caused catastrophe, such as an oil spill. In a compromise designed to alleviate concerns of opponents, the federal agency also designated a "no-otter zone" south of Point Conception in Santa Barbara County.

But the program is largely considered a failure, and federal wildlife officials settled with plaintiffs in 2010 with the understanding that the best route to recovery is to allow sea otters to expand into their natural range.

Environmental review of the plan to eliminate the no-otter zone is well under way, with a final decision scheduled for release in December.

Gallegly's bill would exempt the Navy, which conducts weapons testing on San Nicolas Island, from provisions protecting otters under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act and requires the Fish and Wildlife plan to ensure current levels of shellfish harvests.

Then lack of sea otters hasn't affected the kelp. And what about urchin divers ... you mean So Cal hasn't had those commercial guys harvesting urchins to keep urchin populations from exploding and killing the kelp?

We certainly had a beautifully bountiful and nicely balanced ecosystem along the coast during the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, plenty of kelp, zero sea otters, and lots of divers making a living feeding people good healthy food in the form of abs and urchins (Japanes markets).

In So Cal, I remember in the 60s or very early 70s, San Pedro harbor was so polluted it was the color of orange crush. Do you remember that? It was literally toxic orange in color. Not rust-colored, but, ORANGE CRUSH. Nothing lived in it. Dumping laws were passed to minimize pollution, and when I went back to San Pedro some five years later, the water was nice and blue and filled with life. I couldn't believe my eyes -- I'd thought that harbor was permanently ruined. I've since learned to accept the fact that everything that happens on this earth is temporary.

The natural environment (and we are part of it) is extremely resilient. I'd rather see abalone and shellfish fisheries and masses of Pismo Clams continue on the coast than to see entire generations of family fishermen put out of business (and I HAVE seen that) because of cute little sea otters that could and should have been limited in protected range. Obviously the argument that kelp beds suffer without sea otters is malarkey -- I saw what the coast looked like when there were no otters.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.