Federal Court Blocks Sea Lion Killing at Bonneville Dam

Published on Apr 24, 2008 - 9:45:03 AM

By: The Humane Society of the United States

SAN FRANCISCO, April 23, 2008 - This afternoon, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco granted The Humane Society of the United States' and the Wild Fish Conservancy's emergency motion to halt the planned killing of up to 85 sea lions at the Bonneville Dam this month. The Court found the National Marine Fisheries Service's plan likely violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and that "the lethal taking of California sea lions is, by definition, irreparable" harm - thus warranting the issuance of an injunction.

"The government's plan to kill sea lions for eating fish, while at the same time increasing fishing quotas by 33 percent is irrational, and the court has rightly put a stop to it," said Jonathan R. Lovvorn, vice president for animal protection litigation for The HSUS. "It's time for the agency to abandon this plan and work cooperatively with us to protect both sea lions and salmon in the Columbia River."

Last week, The Humane Society of the United States and the other plaintiffs asked the Ninth Circuit to stop the killing of sea lions after the federal district court in Oregon denied plaintiffs' request for an injunction. The lawsuit challenges NMFS' conclusion that sea lions must be killed to prevent them from consuming an average of 0.4 to 4.2 percent of salmon returns, even though both Oregon and Washington states recently proposed increasing fishing quotas by 33 percent (from 9 to 12 percent of the run), in light of record 269,000 Chinook salmon expected to return to the river this year.

"Blaming sea lions is nothing but a distraction," said Kurt Beardslee, executive director of Wild Fish Conservancy. "We're glad the Court recognized that the agency must consider its salmon conservation decisions openly and carefully, considering all impacts to salmon - including dams, fisheries and habitat degradation."

Federal law only allows the killing of sea lions when the agency proves they are having a significant negative impact on salmon. The court found that plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that the agency's conclusion that sea lions are having a significant negative impact on salmon is irrational in light of the agency's previous finding that fishermen can catch up 17 percent of the same fish with only a "minimal impact" on the species.

Website: www.humanesociety.org

In the interest of fostering civil and issue-oriented discourse, YubaNet does not publish reader comments identified by anonymous Internet "handles" (fake user ID names like "farfromthinkin"). Your full and real name will be published with your comment. Your email address will not be shown, unless you specifically "uncheck" the box 'Hide my email.' By submitting a comment you consent to our rules.