Yesterday, Rep. Elton Gallegly (R- Ventura and Santa Barbara counties) introduced legislation, (H.R. 4043, the “Military Readiness and Southern Sea Otter Conservation Act”) that, despite its name, would represent a significant stealth step backwards in efforts to recover the threatened southern sea otter. The bill would again delay a determination as to whether the “no otter zone”-an outdated rule from 1987 prohibiting threatened southern sea otters from California waters south of Point Conception-has failed, and therefore must be repealed. This new legislation undermines a 2010 legal settlement reached by The Otter Project and Environmental Defense Center with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The settlement arose from a 2009 lawsuit by the groups challenging FWS’ failure to conduct a required evaluation of the no otter zone rule, and compel the agency to make a final decision on the fate of the no otter zone by December 2012.
“Bill H.R. 4043 serves no purpose other than to continue protecting the special interests of a small group of stakeholders and to perpetuate the existence of the No-Otter Zone in perpetuity instead of advancing current sea otter conservation and recovery efforts,” said Brad Hunt, Program Manager of The Otter Project.
Find out more about lawsuit cash advance and what you should avoid when looking for this type of financial assistance. Under H.R. 4043, the “No-Otter Zone” would remain in place until an “Ecosystem Management Plan” and “Assessment of Carrying Capacity” are prepared by FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service, a delaying tactic that would needlessly prolong the same arguments and controversy that have occurred during the past two decades. The bill would also provide the U.S. Navy with exemptions from Endangered Species Act requirements prohibiting “take” of sea otters. Military operations are not a primary threat to the species, however, and there have been few instances, if any at all, of the Navy harming sea otters in southern California. Although the Navy must acquire “incidental take” authorization for those rare instances, that authorization is available through administrative processes, making legislation unnecessary.
“This harmful bill would needlessly delay the termination of the no otter zone and continue to put sea otters in harm’s way. It would also undermine our settlement with Fish and Wildlife Service requiring the agency to make a final decision by December of this year,” said Brian Segee, Staff Attorney at the Environmental Defense Center.
“This stealth bill should properly be renamed the We Don’t Want No Stinkin’ Otters Act,” said Steve Shimek, founder of The Otter Project.
