These Cuties Could Help Save Oregon’s Kelp Forests

But sea otters also threaten the shellfish industry and tribal self-governance.

AP

This story was originally published by High Country News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

In 1906, two hunters at Otter Rock on the central Oregon coast killed what may have been Oregon’s last wild sea otter, then sold the pelt for $900. The fur trade decimated sea otter populations from Baja California to Alaska; by 1911, when the U.S., Great Britain, Russia and Japan signed the North Pacific Fur Seal Treaty, banning off-shore hunting, the species was nearly extinct.

Since then, wildlife managers up and down the coast have tried, with mixed success, to bring them back. In Southeast Alaska, reintroduction in the 1960s succeeded so well that many now consider otters a pest. Similar attempts around the same time in Oregon didn’t take, but several populations in Washington and Central California are still slowly growing.

Now, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has turned its attention to that remaining 900-mile gap. The agency announced in an assessment published last month that returning sea otters to Oregon and Northern California is feasible and would also bring likely—if unequal—economic benefits. Scientists and tribal leaders say reintroducing otters would restore balance to degraded kelp forests, boost fish species, protect shorelines, generate tourist dollars and even capture carbon. But concerns remain in communities where otters would compete with humans for shellfish, and among some tribes that fear their self-governance is also at stake.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Sea otters, which hunt shellfish, crab and kelp-devouring sea urchins, are at the top of the kelp-forest food chain. Without otters, those ecosystems have been slowly degrading, and in 2013 they hit a catastrophic tipping point: A mysterious disease—possibly triggered by warming ocean temperatures—caused a continent-spanning die-off of sea stars, which had filled otters’ role as the top predator of sea urchins. Unchecked, urchins proliferated, causing the widespread collapse of kelp forests: In Northern California, they’ve shrunk by more than 90%, replaced by urchin-filled barrens. Researchers believe reintroducing sea otters may be one of the only ways to save what’s left.

The feasibility assessment is the latest step in a reintroduction effort championed by Oregon’s Elakha Alliance, an otter conservation nonprofit founded by tribal members and scientists. Peter Hatch, a member of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and an Elakha Alliance board member, said their significance to ecosystems and tribes drives the organization’s work. Though generations have passed since otters were hunted to near extinction, many places still bear their name in tribal languages. Stories about them depict a relationship that epitomizes the interconnections between humans and the rest of the natural world.

Hatch believes this dictates a responsibility for humans to try to bring otters back. Among coastal tribes, including his own, Hatch said there are many stories of men and women marrying sea otters, seals and beavers. These animals bring gifts from the ocean and offer a relationship of mutuality that Hatch takes to heart. “Quite literally, in a traditional understanding, these species are relatives by marriage. So we have a familial duty to support them, to uphold their interests, to be stewards. In ways that are hard to fully articulate, it puts a different spin on our environmental responsibilities.”

But bringing back sea otters will not be a universal boon. “The greatest risk is the amount of uncertainty we have about what the impacts would be on shellfish fisheries,” said Michele Zwartjes, a co-author of the assessment and a biologist and field supervisor for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Oregon. Otters will likely compete with people for clams, urchins, abalone and crab, and the fishing industry could be affected. Past reintroductions have shown that large impacts are possible, but not guaranteed.

Those who fear economic losses often point to Southeast Alaska, where 419 otters were introduced in 1969. The population, which now numbers 50,000, has significantly reduced the commercial crab catch and cost fishermen more than $28 million over 15 years, according to an industry-funded report.

This is unlikely to happen in Oregon, Zwartjes said, due to the same geographic and habitat barriers that have so far prevented such a population explosion in California: Alaska has five times the suitable habitat of the Oregon and California coast and its shape allows for spread in many directions—on the continental West Coast, otters can only move north or south. But the report acknowledges that in the Lower 48, the Marine Mammal Protection Act would prevent killing sea otters if numbers got out of hand.

That appears to be the largest concern among tribes. Several of the six tribes that responded to Fish and Wildlife’s request for feedback expressed misgivings, including the Makah Tribal Council in northern Washington. No new reintroductions are proposed for that region, but tribal leaders believe otters could migrate there—some from past projects in Washington already have.

“Our concern is that any plan to reintroduce sea otters back to the ecosystem would not be complete if it did not also include returning (sea otters’) primary predator of man back to the ecosystem,” Chairman Timothy Green Sr. wrote. He pointed to evidence that tribes historically managed sea otters in ways that also enabled thriving fisheries of abalone, urchin and mussels. Without that balance, otters could threaten the tribes’ food and economic security. Under federal law, however, coastal tribes would be unable manage them through hunting, despite having the traditional knowledge to do so.

Still, most tribes, including the Makah Tribal Council, acknowledged the ecological benefits of reintroduction. Elakha Alliance members believe that as plans unfold over the next few years, conversation among stakeholders will reveal more shared goals than disagreements. Any reintroductions are still four or five years away.

One site likely to be considered is near Port Orford in southern Oregon, where one of the few remaining large kelp forests offers ideal habitat. The area is a stop on the Run to the Rogue, an annual 234-mile relay that retraces the Siletz Tribes’ forced relocation. When Oregon and the federal government removed families from the area more than 150 years ago, Peter Hatch said, sea otters were still present. Today, the relay is an important act of remembrance, community and homecoming.

“Bringing sea otters back to our ancestral lands is a different kind of homecoming,” Hatch said. “I look forward to the day when we’ll be celebrating in Port Orford and be able to see the sea otters out in the water, as the folks from there always had been able to.”

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate