News

Taking Aim at Otters

Cute but voracious, their legal protection may be eroding. Part two of a special Tyee report.

By Lana Okerlund, 5 Oct 2007, TheTyee.ca

Two otters being ridiculously cute.

Are they a 'renewable resource'?

[Editor's note: Yesterday's article traced the decimation and rebound of the sea otter off B.C.'s coast, its role as a 'keystone species' in the ecosystem, and frustration by Nuu-chah-nulth people who vie with the creatures for shellfish.]

First Nations communities aren't the only ones concerned about the return of sea otters to B.C.'s coast. Commercial shellfish harvesters are also perturbed about what they call a "pest."

"The otters are the biggest threat to the sustainability of our fishery," says a newsletter published by the Pacific Underwater Harvesters Association. According to PUHA, the shellfish industry around Tofino, "historically the most productive of the South Coast urchin fisheries, has collapsed." A 2003 study by the B.C. Seafood Alliance and PUHA found that "reintroduction of otters has cost the shellfish industry $212.5 million."

Tim Joys is a commercial shellfish diver who represents PUHA on the sea otter recovery team. "My position is that there should be areas where the sea otters can go and areas where they can't," he says. "I love sea otters; they're a great little animal. But they're not very good as far as having a shellfish fishery. I don't think you can live in both worlds. If you don't have sea otters, then you can have sea urchins and geoducks and abalone and all the other shellfish. If you have sea otters, they will moonscape the area."

Roger Dunlop, a scientist employed by the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, points out that at least the shellfish harvesters are mobile. "The coast is pretty big here in B.C., and otters are still a fairly local phenomenon. Commercial fishers rotate around the coast and have openings here and there. They're not in the same crunch as people who live in the epicentre of sea otter recovery. The Nuu-chah-nulth believe their people are part of that territory. The Nuu-chah-nulth are not moving, so they have to bear the burden of sea otter conservation for the Canadian public."

Some people -- members of the sea otter recovery team among them -- argue that clams and other shellfish only became plentiful after the extirpation of sea otters, and that a commercial or even a food fishery wasn't a historical reality. But Dunlop thinks this is only a partial truth. "If a sea otter was dumb enough to come around a First Nations village, it got shot or was scared away," he says.

With sea otters protected under endangered species law, this form of management is no longer available to the Nuu-chah-nulth or anyone else. At least not legally.

Protected by law

After it was passed in 2002, Canada's new Species at Risk Act (SARA) raised the profile of sea otters and other endangered species to a whole new level. The law required that species listed as extirpated, endangered, or threatened be protected, and that recovery strategies and action plans be developed and implemented. SARA also enshrined the requirement to consult with First Nations groups and use Aboriginal knowledge in determining what species to list and in managing their recovery. As a result, claims Dr. Pippa Shepherd, species-at-risk coordinator for Parks Canada, "our whole approach has become more inclusive of First Nations. Sea otters are just one example."

To develop the sea otter strategy and action plan, a recovery team was formed in June 2002. Among its members are scientists, resource managers, conservationists, First Nations representatives, and commercial shellfish harvesters. Though having so many divergent interests on the team resulted in some heated discussions, the group worked rapidly to draft a recovery strategy. In February 2004, the team conducted 10 community consultation meetings to present and gather feedback to their draft plan.

By that time, the otter population around Kyuquot Sound and Checleset Bay appeared to have stabilized at a carrying capacity of just over 1,000 animals. What's more, the reintroduced animals were expanding their range north to the tip of Vancouver Island, south to Estevan Point and Hesquiat Harbour, and across the Hecate Strait to the central mainland coast near Bella Bella. A small number of individuals had also been sighted as far south as Barkley Sound and as far north as Haida Gwaii.

Though this was great progress, the recovery strategy pointed out that the population was still vulnerable to a single catastrophic event, particularly an oil spill, and that the otter's range was still only half what it once was. "Extra otters in one area colonize other parts of the coast," explains Shepherd. "From a biological standpoint, that's the best way for recovery to happen -- naturally. But while the population has been expanding, First Nations living in the core of the range have had to compete with higher numbers of sea otters for shellfish."

Nerves were raw in most of the communities where the 2004 consultations were held. One of the First Nations attendees in Massett stood up and stated, "Just because someone in Ottawa says we're low on otters, it's not up to them to say we have to have them back. They should hear what we say, and rethink it, and maybe not have a recovery plan, and let the people decide if they want a recovery plan. One guy can have [an otter] in his bay, but if I don't want it in my bay, I can deal with it, just like it was done long before the commercial hunt. The people are the law makers. As a hereditary chief, I am a law maker. If we see otters up here, we'll go out and shoot them all."

Dunlop recalls this meeting well. He also recalls what happened next. "A tribal elder got up and dressed the guy down and said, 'That's not our way. These animals are out there and are valuable and shouldn't be wiped right out. You can harvest them, use them, pay your respects to them, but they need to be there.'"

'May be important to consider people'

Anne Stewart is the public education coordinator at the Bamfield Marine Sciences Centre. In 2005, Stewart completed her master's thesis on the conflicting views about sea otters held by conservation professionals and the Nuu-chah-nulth, and she wrote about the consultations. "The goodwill of the relationship between government and the people who live with sea otters was called into question," she observed. "The non-intrusive approach taken by the sea otter recovery team recognizes the ability of the sea otter to rebound, yet does not address the concerns of the people who live with sea otters... If this is an ecosystem controlled by top-down predation, then it may be important to consider people, specifically the Nuu-chah-nulth-aht."

In several ways, the sea otter is a test case for the relatively new SARA legislation. First, the act contains a provision to compensate affected parties for socio-economic losses caused by a species' recovery. So far, this clause has not been used for any species. The process to identify who has suffered losses, and to what extent, would surely be controversial. While the sea otter recovery strategy states that consequences of the sea otters' return would be "further evaluated for costs and benefits," it is unclear when this evaluation -- to be conducted by DFO -- will be complete. The DFO representative on the recovery team declined to be interviewed, citing an edict from higher up in the department to keep mum on the subject of this particular animal.

Sea otters are also testing SARA in terms of what happens when a listed species rebounds. In April 2007, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) down-listed the sea otter to "special concern" from "threatened." Their report has been submitted to the Minister of the Environment, who now has nine months to decide whether to change the otter's legal status under SARA. Shepherd believes the down-listing will happen, and that this is affirmation of the species at risk process. "COSEWIC's assessment is based on science and Aboriginal traditional knowledge, not politics. It reflects the fact that sea otters really are recovering, thanks to the efforts of so many."

Ceremonial killing

If the sea otter's legal status is changed to special concern, SARA provides an avenue for the government to permit First Nations to kill a limited number for ceremonial purposes, subject to scientific assessment and advice from the recovery team. Even so, DFO's permission will be required before anyone will be able to hunt sea otters legally.

The need for public government assessment makes Dunlop doubt a hunt will be allowed anytime soon. "Think about it," he says. "What would happen to you if you were a government sea otter biologist and you authorized a hunt for sea otters? How would the public react to that? Or non-governmental organizations? They'd flip out."

He may be right. Even before COSEWIC's reassessment was released, the Nuu-chah-nulth announced they were considering a selective hunt of a few sea otters for ceremonial purposes. In reply, a May 2007 article in The Vancouver Sun bemoaned that "One of the feel-good wildlife stories of the year -- the removal of BC's sea otter from the federal threatened species list -- has taken a sobering turn as Ottawa confirms it may allow aboriginals to hunt the marine mammals."

Otters as 'renewable resource'

Whatever their status, sea otters seem likely to remain polarizing figures. As more and more of the mammals migrate toward Haida Gwaii, or farther south along Vancouver Island, or up along the mainland coast, their impact on coastal fisheries will continue. "Twenty or thirty years from now, people in those communities will find they, too, are in competition with sea otters for their livelihood," says Dunlop. "That's what happened here in Kyuquot."

"It's easy to align yourself with people who want to protect all sea otters," he continues, "but I look at things differently. I live in a coastal community. The people here are my friends. I hear their concerns about their livelihood and I know they've got a point because sea otters eat everything. I also have a wildlife background. I see sea otters as another renewable resource that can be managed."

Despite her obvious affection for this charismatic creature, Shepherd agrees with Dunlop that there is a viable middle road for otters, where a certain number are protected for their ecosystem function while others are allowed to be hunted. She points to the probable federal down-listing as indication that this is, indeed, where otters appear to be heading.

"People misunderstand the difference between a commercial hunt and a small kill for cultural purposes," she says. "The ability to kill a few sea otters to maintain a culture that has existed for thousands of years -- and that may have suffered a lot from otters' disappearance and then their return -- actually is a good news story."

Related Tyee stories:

 [Tyee]

9  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • ME2

    4 years ago

    Some history

    Any discussion about West Coast Sea otters (SO) today must begin with what we know about their historical interaction with humans.

    For thousands of years both lived in a “harmony” brought about by two primary facts – One, there were never enough humans (locally) to seriously compete with the SO’s, and Two, killing a SO was a very costly, labour intensive effort, since the Coastal native’s bow had a very short range. The Aleuts, for example, relied upon the atlatl, or dart thrower, and at least a dozen hunters chased a single SO until it was exhausted. This is likely the reason why SO pelts as clothing were restricted to the nobility.

    The first reported exceptions to this generalisation about stasis was made by Estes and Simenstad (1978) in their finding of three separate episodes in the Aleutians 2500 years ago where a settlement was occupied and then abandoned three times following the extermination of local SO.(Aleuts, Sea Otters and Alternate Stable State Communities).

    More recently, Estes collaborated with a number of other distinguished scientists in the landmark study, Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems.(2001) in which they described .a continuum of extirpations of ocean species the world over beginning with aboriginals and extending up to our industrial times. Amongst those reported were two instances of SO extirpation of SO by natives off the coast of California.

    With the coming of the SO fur trade to the Pacific Coast, this happened once again, made possible by the enormous prices for pelts and the introduction of the rifle, which destroyed the previous balance between the SO and FNs. The point to be made here is not that the natives were more “greedy” than the white man, but simply that they responded to the same economic imperatives as any other humans, a point also amply demonstrated in Wright’s A Short History of Progress.

    MORE BELOW

  • ME2

    4 years ago

    con't

    Prior to the extirpation of the SO, my guess is that the bounty of the West Coast was as great as what Farley Mowat described re the East Coast in Sea of Slaughter. This West Coast bounty was/is indisputably linked to the abundance of kelp.

    This is because along with the phytoplankton, kelp as a photosynthesiser is the primary harvester of the Sun’s energy for use of higher species and without it the nearshore loses much of its productivity. And, as Lana points out, it also affords a favourable environment for a wide range of sea creatures.

    The kelp has two mortal enemies, the Abalone and the Sea urchin, and in the absence of the SO, they are systematically wiping out the kelp along our shores. Some estimates range as high as 75%. I can find no verifyable figures for our Coast – which is consistent with DFO’s reluctance to collect unwelcome data, other than blaming that catch-all, El Nino.

    The Abalone for which natives claim “traditional use” was not a staple, and when found was reserved for the nobility. The Nuxalt, for example, have a legend in which the son of a Chief leaves in disgrace but all is forgiven when he returns with a feed of Abalone. Abalone can live for twelve years, at which point they attain maximum size, but Pre-contact FNs rarely saw these, since the SO got them first. They’ve never been threatened, since they can reproduce as “surf abalone” at 3 years when less than 2 inches in size.

    So what we are witnessing now, with FNs complaining of SO competition for their shellfish, is typical of the human tendency to “fish down the food chain”. We have always preferred “The bird in the hand” to “two in the bush”. That is also typical of fishermen and of loggers, as we have found to our collective dismay. And just like the Ministry of Forests, and perhaps moreso, the DFO is not run on science, but politics.

  • Eddy Haskel

    4 years ago

    Let's be honest. The sea

    Let's be honest. The sea otters will never hunt down the very last sea urchin or abalone in an effort to feed itself. It will simply find something else to eat if the urchins become scarce. The same cannot be said for a human hunter. It is the year 2007. The thought that some people still demand a hunter gatherer lifestyle is a very sad joke indeed, to say the least.

  • rockyvoids

    4 years ago

    politics

    Your last sentence said it all ME2.
    It's about politics, which gets down to the fuel politics thrives on;
    Money and Lies.

  • bisquy

    4 years ago

    otters and other animals

    There are 6 billion humans on earth, and more coming. How many otters are there? How many other animals manage to survive the decimation of all wildspaces as these places are either agrifarmed, vacuumed clean, or paved to build vacation condos?

    In Australia the stories of giant animals used to be thought just myths--until evidence was found that they once existed, prior to extermination at the hands of the technology-using animal, man. Will all of our animals have to become mere images stored on a computer somewhere, left with romantic stories and myths about their existence, as the actual real animals are shot to death, exterminated from life like the major land animals that used to exist all over the world?

    Having just spent Thanksgiving with my family, and grimacing to hear their aggravation with ducks, herons, and squirrels (hairy rats to them)--simply because these animals try to share their space on occasion (they want to shoot them all dead in the quest for the perfectly sterile landscape); I quake at the future of the world my children will inherit. Spraying eliminates all bugs. Only agricultural products will remain. Humans will eat the entire planet, breaking records for human obesity. Oceans vacuumed clean of all life. Only microorganisms will remain, and we will take them on next. Considering our track record, I hope we don't complete this cycle, godspeed to greens and vegans. Peter Singer, where are you? The otters need you. So much for the myth of aboriginals living in harmony with nature. They are humans like the rest of us and want to follow the human urge to exploit anything they can until the backlash comes and it is too late to 'save' anything.

  • selkiy

    4 years ago

    A sad Joke?

    I do not think there is anything wrong with the hunter gatherer life style. It is a healthy and pure way of life in its true form. The problem that the First Nations people of the West Coast are having is that they have lost the "take what you need" mentality of their ancestors. I say this as a person with First Nations heritage.
    they want it all... And the Sea otter has been gone for such a long time that they think it the rights to all of the seafood on their area belongs to them. Most people have forgotten how to harvest enough of what they need and leave the rest. People have become interested in selling their overages to their neighbors and passers-by out of a cooler or freezer in the back of a truck. All british columbians need to realize that there is a balance to be kept. Our ancestors (Caucasian and FN) changed that balance and almost destroyed a species that did not decimate the sea urchin or abalone populations when they were a common sight off our shores. The sea otter was an integral part of the ecosystem. With out the predation of sea otters to control the urchins and clam and the like other aquatic life suffered such as the kelp and phytoplanktons and now that the sea otter had been reintroduced the ecosystem has to adapt yet again. And it will. The sea otters wont decimate or "moonscape" the areas they live in of their preferred foods, as with any creature, as the food gets more difficult to find they will increase thier range and that in turn will give areas that have been hunted time to replenish. a balance will happen.

    The only question for me is; can the humans back off their assumed rights to all the harvestable seafood and let the natural balance be restored? Or are they going to try and impose their own version of the status quo? If that happens, over time i do beleive that we all will regret it. the natural balance is not something we understand in its entirety and it is folly to think we can do "it" better.

  • anne cameron

    4 years ago

    otters as neighbours

    When I first moved here we could go out in a small boston whaler and collect blue mussels off the rocks. I have mussel shells as decoration in my garden which are six and even nine inches long. Half a dozen make an incredible chowder. Now, five years later, you can go out as far as the big rocks at Neuchatlitz and not find a single large blue mussel, only the stain of the white "cement" they use to fasten themselves to the rocks. The otters have taken all the big mussels and if you go to any of the few sand or gravel beaches you can see troughs where the otters have literally ploughed up the beach taking out the smaller mussels.

    We never did have a lot of the big oysters, which I'm told are actually imported from Japan and are crowding out the indigenous and much smaller oysters, which are usually about the size of a silver dollar and incredibly delicious although a pain in the face to open and clean. Now we have almost no big oysters, because of the otters. They've wiped out most of the manila clams and are now wiping out every other kind as well.

    With the stationary shellfish gone they're moving in on the crabs, and while I really don't have any strong protective feelings for the commercial crab or geoduck fishers it does seem a damn shame that the rest of us are being put in the back of the bus while thise cute whiskerfaces get to ride up front.

    This past summer we went out and as late as mid-August there were moms with "hitch-hikers" riding on them. Hitch-hikers are infants. At that time of year the spring babies should have been on their own, swimming alongside. Are the otters having more than one baby per season now?

    First nations didn't depend on their short bow, they had harpoons. People who hunted whales weren't stumped by the difficulty in catching otters! They also used nets. And otter meat was traditional food.

    Yes, we need kelp, and yes we need otters, and yes to all types and species but let's examine commercial harvesting and the impact that has. Geoducks used to be so common they were a pest and a joke, now...commercial harvesting has severely reduced their numbers. Dogfish sharks swarmed out there until they became a commercial bounty and I think I only hooked one in two seasons of sports fishing.

    It's a shame the otter are getting the blame. But it is true they will wipe out everything in a bay or inlet!

  • seaseal

    4 years ago

    Questions on some "statements"

    >Amongst those reported were two instances of SO
    >extirpation of SO by natives off the coast of California.

    I have not found any such references: can you please get the source to me. The California otter populations were reduced to 32 by first the Spanish (trading pelts to China for mercury needed for mining), Russians (because in Alaska area otter harvest was restricted by the Tzar), and finally British and U.S. residents.

    The indigenous peoples had the ability but also had rules for taking animals. We can learn sustainability.

    >When I first moved here we could go out in a small
    >boston whaler and collect blue mussels off the rocks.
    >I have mussel shells as decoration in my garden
    >...The otters have taken all the big mussels

    It sounds more like people of any ethnic background can take lots of mussels and then blame the otter.

    The sad part is the ease with which people can shift blame. The lesson here is when you go out and take an animal (whether a mussel or an otter) and then take more, and then more, at some point there aren't enough to support the community. And they disappear.

    The disappearance of otters will spell the disappearance of all the other parts of their ecosystem at various times; that's what a keystone species is--key to the system.

    When the otters go, the urchins population expands, the kelp forest disappears, the places for small fish and clams and abalones disappear, the fish and others all disappear--do you get the picture?

    To blame the otters is a typical tactic of people involved in taking things from the sea and making money off them. They say the otters have done the destruction, or the sea lions had killed all the salmon, or the sharks did this and the snails did that. It goes on and on.

    Who really is to blame for reducing populations of sea life. Look carefully before you answer that question.

  • ME2

    4 years ago

    Response

    Seaseal, I would have bet money the reference you wanted was in the paper, Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems. However, a quick reread yields only a passing reference.

    Please be assured I was not trying to BS you. I spent quite a while researching SO, Sea urchins, Abalone and Kelp a few years back, and I did come across apaper which described in detail California occurrences some thousands of years ago similar to Estes’ findings in the Aleutians. Sorry.

    It is true that under the Tsars the Russians had a sustainable SO harvest, even though they brutally enslaved the Aleuts in doing so. But when the Americans bought Alaska, they quickly resolved that situation by “deregulating” the harvest which then yielded predictable results.

    Anne, it would seem logical that Coastal FNs regulated the SO hunt. However, excepting the recently discovered “oral histories”, I’ve not seen any early reference to such regulation (which is not to say there aren’t any). But I think it is more likely that there was a technological détente present, since obtaining otter skins -and meat – was costly.

    Harpoons, Anne, have LESS range than bows. (and please find out what an atlatl is). I don’t know of any material for nets which the SO wouldn’t easily see, or was cheap enough to make of sufficient size. And what material did they have that could have withstood the SO’s bite? And the Japanese oyster is an introduction.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.