SF Weekly article
An article about sea lions ran in the most recent San Francisco Weekly: To Cute To Shoot?. (Article opens in a new window. Go ahead and read it; I'll wait.)
I find this article to be controversial. There are many facets to the issues surrounding sea lions, and the author seems lean towards the point of view of one anti-sea lion extremist. Plus, he/she does not take the time to thoroughly inform readers, and is actually spreading misinformation. The article prompted me to write my first-ever letter to an editor:
I feel the need to respond to the article "To Cute To Shoot?" in the October 7-13th Weekly. The issue of the burgeoning sea lion population is multi-faceted, however, author Ashley Harrell only presented a limited viewpoint.
The article makes multiple references to "seal bombs," but fails to describe them. They may sound cute, but seal bombs are an incendiary device, usually an M80, which is essentially a partial stick of dynamite. These bombs are capable of serious damage, and are used to (illegally) kill fish in many parts of the world. If bombs are used to chase seals away from the Hyde Street Harbor, there is no guarantee that there will be no collateral damage; fish may die, boats could be damaged, and other marine mammals including the endangered Steller's sea lion may be injured or killed.
Harrell goes on to say, "When there are too many sea lions, it's bad for the marine ecosystem," which in fact is true, although the author neglects to mention there are currently not too many California sea lions. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "there is no evidence that [the California sea lion] has reached its optimal sustainable population (OSP) level which is the management goal mandated by the MMPA [Marine Mammal Protection Act]." Sure, there may be too many individuals spending time on certain docks, but the overall population still requires protection.
Humans have been causing havoc on ocean ecosystems to the point where scientists estimate that all the world's fisheries will completely collapse by 2050. This shouldn't come as a surprise: the once booming Monterey Bay sardine industry collapsed in the 1950s due to overfishing, and the North Atlantic cod fishery, which previously brought in up to 800,000 tons, collapsed in 1992 for the same reason. Closer to home, California's salmon fishery closed in 2008, citing "astonishingly low" populations of chinook salmon. And currently, up to 100 million sharks are killed each year; because of this shark populations are estimated to have dropped 90-99%.
Sharks are one of the major predators of sea lions, and they are going extinct. It is very possible that the recent increase in the population of sea lions is not in fact due to healthy numbers of the pinnipeds, but rather, an ecosystem out of balance resulting in unhealthy conditions in the oceans. Rather than treating a symptom--grumpy harbormasters who "opted not to spend money on precautions [on sea lion barriers] in the construction of the Hyde Street Harbor"--we need to instead treat the disease by attempting to save our dying oceans.
I did not want to make my letter longer than it already was, so I was unable to address other problems I had with the article, such as questioning the wisdom of allowing people to shoot rubber bullets at animals (the bullets can easily blind an animal, ricochet and hit a person, or kill a smaller, unintended animal). The author writes about a person who had been bitten by a sea lion "and had to take antibiotics to prevent a nasty bacterial infection called leptospirosis." That statement is incorrect. Leptospirosis is spread through an infected animal's urine, not through bites. If a person was bitten by a seal or sea lion, you would need to take antibiotics--doxycycline is recommended--to prevent a bacterial infection known as "seal finger."
The article goes on to describe a woman who walked on to the Hyde Street Pier and laid down next to a sea lion to have her photo taken. A sea lion adversary was quoted as saying, "You want to get rid of this before someone seriously gets hurt." What, you want to get rid of sea lions because someone was stupid enough to lie down next to a top-level predator? Would you say that about lions if someone laid down next to a lion on the Serengeti? No! Let people take responsibility for their own actions.
I will admit that too many sea lions in the wrong place can be a problem. Heck, too many of any animal in the wrong place can pose a problem. However, this article was poorly written and if anything, seems to justify the use of violent and dangerous means to chase sea lions away. Just the fact that there are people out there chomping at the bit for the chance to harm the animals means that the sea lions still require our protection.
I find this article to be controversial. There are many facets to the issues surrounding sea lions, and the author seems lean towards the point of view of one anti-sea lion extremist. Plus, he/she does not take the time to thoroughly inform readers, and is actually spreading misinformation. The article prompted me to write my first-ever letter to an editor:
I feel the need to respond to the article "To Cute To Shoot?" in the October 7-13th Weekly. The issue of the burgeoning sea lion population is multi-faceted, however, author Ashley Harrell only presented a limited viewpoint.
The article makes multiple references to "seal bombs," but fails to describe them. They may sound cute, but seal bombs are an incendiary device, usually an M80, which is essentially a partial stick of dynamite. These bombs are capable of serious damage, and are used to (illegally) kill fish in many parts of the world. If bombs are used to chase seals away from the Hyde Street Harbor, there is no guarantee that there will be no collateral damage; fish may die, boats could be damaged, and other marine mammals including the endangered Steller's sea lion may be injured or killed.
Harrell goes on to say, "When there are too many sea lions, it's bad for the marine ecosystem," which in fact is true, although the author neglects to mention there are currently not too many California sea lions. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "there is no evidence that [the California sea lion] has reached its optimal sustainable population (OSP) level which is the management goal mandated by the MMPA [Marine Mammal Protection Act]." Sure, there may be too many individuals spending time on certain docks, but the overall population still requires protection.
Humans have been causing havoc on ocean ecosystems to the point where scientists estimate that all the world's fisheries will completely collapse by 2050. This shouldn't come as a surprise: the once booming Monterey Bay sardine industry collapsed in the 1950s due to overfishing, and the North Atlantic cod fishery, which previously brought in up to 800,000 tons, collapsed in 1992 for the same reason. Closer to home, California's salmon fishery closed in 2008, citing "astonishingly low" populations of chinook salmon. And currently, up to 100 million sharks are killed each year; because of this shark populations are estimated to have dropped 90-99%.
Sharks are one of the major predators of sea lions, and they are going extinct. It is very possible that the recent increase in the population of sea lions is not in fact due to healthy numbers of the pinnipeds, but rather, an ecosystem out of balance resulting in unhealthy conditions in the oceans. Rather than treating a symptom--grumpy harbormasters who "opted not to spend money on precautions [on sea lion barriers] in the construction of the Hyde Street Harbor"--we need to instead treat the disease by attempting to save our dying oceans.
I did not want to make my letter longer than it already was, so I was unable to address other problems I had with the article, such as questioning the wisdom of allowing people to shoot rubber bullets at animals (the bullets can easily blind an animal, ricochet and hit a person, or kill a smaller, unintended animal). The author writes about a person who had been bitten by a sea lion "and had to take antibiotics to prevent a nasty bacterial infection called leptospirosis." That statement is incorrect. Leptospirosis is spread through an infected animal's urine, not through bites. If a person was bitten by a seal or sea lion, you would need to take antibiotics--doxycycline is recommended--to prevent a bacterial infection known as "seal finger."
The article goes on to describe a woman who walked on to the Hyde Street Pier and laid down next to a sea lion to have her photo taken. A sea lion adversary was quoted as saying, "You want to get rid of this before someone seriously gets hurt." What, you want to get rid of sea lions because someone was stupid enough to lie down next to a top-level predator? Would you say that about lions if someone laid down next to a lion on the Serengeti? No! Let people take responsibility for their own actions.
I will admit that too many sea lions in the wrong place can be a problem. Heck, too many of any animal in the wrong place can pose a problem. However, this article was poorly written and if anything, seems to justify the use of violent and dangerous means to chase sea lions away. Just the fact that there are people out there chomping at the bit for the chance to harm the animals means that the sea lions still require our protection.