Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the MMPA Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tribal commission outlines legal pathways and asks Congress to consider MMPA amendments for coordinated pinniped management
Summary
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission presenters outlined the 2013 tribal model regulation and MMPA options (Sections 101, 109, 120/120f, 119), arguing that narrowly tailored amendments and coordinated regional management are needed to protect salmon and treaty harvest rights.
Speakers from the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission told the Leadership Council that the current 2013 model regulation—adopted by many tribes—allows nonlethal deterrence and in limited cases lethal take for immediate defense but does not enable proactive, regionwide management.
Cecilia Gobin walked through MMPA pathways: Section 101 waivers allow directed takes in narrowly prescribed circumstances; Section 109 permits the secretary of commerce to transfer management authority to a state with an approved program; and Section 120 (and the Columbia River 120f amendment) can authorize pinniped removal in defined geographic areas but is administratively cumbersome. She and Rob Jones said tribes are exploring amendments to expand cooperative management provisions (Section 119 analogues) so treaty co‑managers can implement coordinated, science‑guided responses. They repeatedly emphasized that proposed changes would be limited, heavily regulated, and include public engagement and NEPA/ESA consultations.
The commission’s presentation stressed the need for pilot tests to measure ecological outcomes before broader changes are made. Panelists noted that pinniped predation can be concentrated at constriction points (locks, river mouths) and that some localized programs—most notably in the Columbia River—have reduced predation where resources and legal pathways existed.
