Killing Sea Lions to Protect Fish (So We Can Kill Fish?)

I was reading an article today that made me want to collectively bitchslap the human race. It was about recent illegal sea lion killings thought to be tied to groups protecting salmon. The sea lions apparently "threaten" salmon populations (depleted and far more frequently threatened by overfishing and dams), and are thus trapped and relocated when they hunt in areas where humans would like to eat said salmon. Someone apparently decided that stealing food from the mouths of sea lions by dumping them elsewhere wasn't sufficiently speciesist, so he or she shot the trapped sea lions.

The article was ripe with language suggesting that the sea lions, not the humans competing with them for salmon, were the gluttons in the equation and had to be removed to protect fish. This much I could expect, especially since modern conservation often demands that we punish natural predator/prey relationships due to decimated populations of one or the other to prevent extinctions. However, I couldn't help but laugh that it was suggested that these actions, though illegal, "protect" salmon.

Salmon shouldn't need "protecting" from sea lions. Sea lions and salmon used to have a pretty good deal; some of the salmon get eaten, meaning more reproductive success for those that don't, and of course obvious benefits to the sea lions. When people decided that fish was the new healthy fad meat and started wiping out the salmon, it suddenly became our interest to "protect" the salmon from those mean ol' sea lions, having the effrontery to think that they, not us, were damaging the populations.

Salmon preservation today has NOTHING to do with protecting salmon for their inherent value as a species, for their role in the natural food web, their importance to ecosystems, or just the fact that they're pretty nifty and it would be nice if they didn't go extinct. It is strictly about making sure that we can eat them in the future, regardless of if that relationship is a healthy one for salmon and their natural predators and prey. This is not questioned at all; we only take issue with the moral implications of how to deal with cute and fuzzy things that compete with our appetites.

Arguably any protection is better than none, and I understand (though strongly disagree with) the perspective of people who suggest that the best way to preserve a species is to permit exploitation since people will want to keep populations sufficient for future exploitation. However, that isn't the focus here: the point is that we are killing one species to promote future killing of another species and call this conservation when time and time again this methodology has resulted in only further imbalance to ecosystems - not to mention the utterly unethical murder of other animals.

A better solution to species preservation would be not killing the salmon in general, which would also eliminate the need for ethical qualms with killing competitor species (an act facilitated solely by the competition of humans with sea lions). Basically, the "management" style of species conservation is inherently flawed and morally inexcusable, as we've seen exemplified with similar efforts involving land predators and hoofstock. Conversely, attempts to restore natural balances through non-fatal means (such as reintroductions or strict limits against hunting) generally have more favorable results not just for one species, but the ecosystem as a whole.

On a more personal note, I for one would love to see people respond with as much outrage about the deaths of millions of salmon at the hands of man as they did the deaths of a few sea lions.

This relationship is the one that needs protection.

Scapegoating Sharks

Recently, a great white shark killed a man off the coast of California, spurring mass hysteria and cries to track down and kill not only the shark implicated in the "attack," but sharks in general. Posing an "unacceptable threat to human safety," many Americans would like to see sharks, alligators, bears, and other species occasionally implicated in attacks on man eliminated. Since 1990, sharks have killed a whopping 12 people in the United States, making them very possibly the least threatening animal to human safety despite being among the most feared. In reading responses to news articles that often had people ranting about a "need" to eradicate sharks due to their inherent danger to human safety, it occurred to me that in our blind terror, we were forgetting about a much more dangerous animal.

The species in question kills roughly 50,000+ humans directly in the US every year, another 26,000+ through vehicular collisions, and a startling 14,000+ through infectious disease. Non-direct human deaths through other activities of this species kill many more. Ready to grab your rifles and wipe out these deadly beasts? Good. Turn your gun around and shoot yourself, because humans result in more human death than any natural predator in existence. 20,000 through manslaughter and murder, 30,000 through suicide, 26,000 in automobile accidents, and 14,000 through infectious disease - and that does not begin to account for self-induced deaths caused by substance abuse, sedentary lifestyle, or non-vehicular accidents.

The ocean is not human habitat, it is wildlife habitat. By entering the ocean, you do so at your own educated risk; without a weapon, humans rank pretty low on the food chain, and even when wild animals pose no predatory threat to us, plenty are deadly through defense mechanisms and disease alone. This is inevitable. Any interaction with wildlife thus holds the potential for harm or death, and that detriment can not be blamed on the species when your invasion is causative.

I have noticed virtually no coverage nor emotional outrage for the number of sharks being killed by humans annually. For shark fin soup alone, a wasteful Asian delicacy, it is estimated that 100 million sharks lose their lives. As slow reproducing and maturing animals, most shark populations are already in significant decline. This suggests that those calling for the extinction of sharks may soon get what they desire; most species are considered critically endangered, yet due to phobic human attitudes, few have been afforded any protection from exploitation. 100 million deaths annually for a single dish (non-inclusive of shark fishing for other reasons or shark bycatch) vs. 5-10 deaths annually (global)... and who is threatening whom?

What we should examine are risk factors associated with shark attacks and shark deaths, so that we might prevent the majority - for the sake of humans and sharks alike. Recently, an Austrian tourist was killed free-swimming in water deliberately baited with meat and blood to attract sharks. This is a rare (and stupid) example of activities that should be avoided to prevent shark attacks. More commonly, fatal shark attacks occur when people are surfing or body boarding - it is thought that the silhouette of a human on a board looks like an ailing seal resting at the surface. Divers are also targets, probably due to the fact that they are essentially wearing a seal suit in the middle of shark territory. That is not to say that such activities should be stopped, but that we should be mindful of heightened risks and act accordingly, such as taking shark spottings seriously and perhaps avoiding such activities at times where shark populations are projected to be high in a given area.

Absolutely, it is tragic when any human life is lost for any reason (though we seem to make exceptions for war and corporal punishment). However, it is a childish knee-jerk reaction to lash out at entire species for a human death. As a species granted disproportionate power over others, it is our duty to be merciful, not vengeful.