Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pinniped Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers debate expanding pinniped management to aid salmon recovery
Summary
A House Natural Resources subcommittee hearing centered on HR 96‑21, which would broaden authority for states and treaty tribes to address pinniped predation on salmon and steelhead; witnesses disagreed on whether expanded lethal removals will measurably aid long‑term recovery.
Chair Hageman opened the subcommittee hearing by saying the Pacific Northwest faces a conflict between the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act that she said is "preventing the recovery of threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest." The bill at issue, HR 96‑21, would expand NOAA permitting authorities and authorize states and treaty tribes to carry out adaptive, localized management actions in the Columbia River and Western Washington.
Nate Pamplin, director of external affairs for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, told the committee that scientific estimates indicate pinniped predation is a serious obstacle in some locations: "NMFS estimates that 20 to 44 percent of upriver spring Chinook in the Lower Columbia died due to pinniped predation annually," he said, and he cited Willamette Falls as a case where targeted removals coincided with a drop in extinction risk for winter steelhead from 89 percent to 11 percent. Pamplin and other supporters described the bill's guardrails: a 10 percent potential biological removal (PBR) cap, five‑year permitting periods, and suspension provisions if permits are no longer necessary.
Dr. Richard Merrick, an independent marine scientist and retired NOAA adviser, cautioned that widespread removals "will likely have some unintended consequences" and argued the existing diet data are limited and in some areas show salmon make up a small portion of pinniped diets. Merrick said habitat limitations, altered rivers and ocean conditions, and other factors limit the likely effect of removals on overall salmon abundance.
Members pressed witnesses on implementation details and geographic gaps in current authority. Several speakers noted that Section 120(f) authority covers specific stretches of the Columbia and tributaries, leaving roughly 100 river miles without the same authority; proponents said HR 96‑21 would close those gaps. NOAA Assistant Secretary Timothy Petty said the agency has issued about a dozen targeted authorizations since 1995 and emphasized co‑management with states and tribes and a science‑based permitting process.
The hearing produced no formal votes or committee actions. Members asked witnesses to provide follow‑up material, and the record was held open for additional submissions. The subcommittee adjourned after entering letters and supporting documents into the record.
