The current hardships caused by the closure of much of Alaska's trawl fishery, ordered because of the continuing decline of the ESA-listed Steller sea lion population, is not a problem with the Endangered Species Act, nor is an exemption for this fishery from the act warranted. Indeed, such an exemption would set a dangerous precedent, not just for the protection of threatened and endangered species across the nation, but for many fish stocks that rely on measures taken only under the ESA to protect their habitats. An ESA exemption for Stellers would open the floodgate for dam operators, water diverters, timber and oil companies, among others, to seek exemptions for their activities that are killing fish and putting fishermen out of business. There are simply other and better ways to provide relief to the beleaguered Alaskan fishery.
The current belief, but hardly undisputed, is that trawling has diminished the amount of fish available to the sea lions thereby causing the animal's population to crash. If this is, in fact, the case then measures have to be taken under the law to address the impact of the fishery on the animals. In this instance, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Biological Opinion to analyze the options available to it for protecting Stellers. The subsequent order to close the trawl fishery by Judge Zilly on 8 August, 2000, was not because the fishery may have been impacting Stellers, but because NMFS failed to prepare an adequate EIS. Let's be clear, in this case it was NMFS's failure that caused the fishery to be shut down, not the ESA.
It is past time NMFS addressed what is clearly a biological problem with real biological solutions. Any effort to just ignore these biological red flags through some sort of Congressional quick fix waiver is doomed to failure and would just make the problem worse.
Even, however, if there had been an adequate EIS and the only alternative were some fishery closures, trying to get around the ESA (i.e., an exemption) and fish in a way that further endangered the animals, as some are now proposing, is no answer. While Stellers may not be the charismatic animals that dolphins and sea otters are, nevertheless there will likely be a consumer backlash against the Alaskan fishery, if not most fisheries, if the public believed the fishery was endangering these animals. If you don't believe it, look at what happened to the tuna fishery over the dolphin issue. And tuna sandwiches are a lot more popular than pollock filets or faux crab legs (surimi). Remember, the ESA is just a messenger. Shooting the messenger and ignoring the message is never good public policy.
Finally, there is the issue here of the adequacy of the science. We simply don't know for certain what is causing the Steller declines and what role, if any, current fishing effort may have played in precipitating or exacerbating the current population collapse. Congress has not provided, nor has NMFS requested, the funds to carry out the research on fish stocks and other marine life necessary to an understanding of the species and management measures needed for protecting marine life and maintaining sustainable fisheries. The dearth of funds for research is not because of our environmental laws, but because many in Congress are indifferent to these needs and the Administration and the agencies don't have the courage to mount a campaign to get the necessary money. No exemption from the ESA will get us the needed research funds.
The Steller sea lion problem has been staring NMFS in the face for years but NMFS has failed to deal with what is clearly an ecosystem collapse. If Senator Stevens and others wants to be helpful, they should press for disaster relief money to help those distressed communities, not just make the situation worse for them in the long run by allowing NMFS to continue to ignore this crisis. It would also be helpful to refer the issue to the National Research Council, as Senator Stevens has proposed, so that the biological causes of this crises can be fully examined. However, this will take time, and in the meantime NMFS should not be allowed to escape its responsibilities through Congressional waivers or delays.
There is never any excuse to undercut the most fundamental conservation laws that support sustainable fisheries. The Endangered Species Act has played and continues to play a key role in changing unsustainable practices that have damaged fisheries and fishing communities. Those transitions are, unfortunately, often painful. However, we ignore its warning only at our peril, for delay will only make things worse. We therefore oppose any waiver of the ESA's provisions and believe that doing so would undercut the long-term sustainability of the marine ecosystems that support our industry and way of life. (Statement Dated 12/1/00)
Back
to PCFFA Home Page