The Oregon Fish Commission funded a seal control program on the Columbia River from 1936-1971. There were bounties offered and a professional hunter hired for periods.  This 1972 report reviews the program and found it ineffective

Oregon. Fish Commission

Undetermined

ScholarsArchive@OSU

COLUMBIA RIVER SEAL CONTROL PROGRAM INTRODUCTION ORS 506.316 provide_s legislative authority to conduct a seal control program in the Columbia River and requires the FCO to pay a bounty set between $5 and $25 for each seal killed. It is funded under provisions of ORS 508.290 requiring payment of an annual fee of $2.50 from each Oregon gill-net fisherman end $50.00 from each canner. The Fish Commission has paid a bounty since 1936 and hired a seal hunter during 1959-70. No hunter was hired in 1971 because results of a questionnaire in 1970 indicated that 53% of the fishermen would support a trial period of 1 year without a hunter to evaluate the effectiveness of the seal control program. A followup questionnaire was sent to licensed gill-net fishermen and canners after the 1971 fishing seasons to aid in this evaluation. PROGRAM RESULTS Revenues and Disbursements Funds from the sale of seal certificates have not adequately supported the seal hunting program. The reserves or unexpended balance in the seal account decreased from $24,639 in 1958 to a low of $4,055 in 1970 (Table 1). The balance increased to $5,204 during the first 6 months of FY 1972 because no seal hunter was hired and the bounty was decreased from $25 to $5 beginning in 1970. The seal hunter has been paid $40 per day plus gasoline for his boat and ammunition for his rifle. Bounty System The bounty program has resulted in 3,510 claims from 1936-71 (Table 2), with 67% (2,358) occurring in the first 12 years. The mnnber of claims per year is related to available time open to commercial fishing and to Table 1. Statement of Receipt and Disbursements, Seal Fund Account, July 1, 1957 to December 31, 1971 Less lO'li Fund Receipts to Fiscal Balance Seal Certificates General Amount Disbursements Unexpended Year Julx_ 1 Gill Net Canner Fund Available Bounties Seal Hunter Balance 1958 $25,467.74 $1,562.50 $350.00 $191.25 $27,188.99 $2,550.00 $24,638.99 1959 24,638.99 1,612.50 400.00 201.25 26,450.24 975 .oo $1,849.67 23,625.57 1960 23,625.57 1,595.00 350.00 194.50 25,376.07 1,150.00 3,153.01 21,073.06 1961 21,073.06 1,535.00 350.00 188.50 22,769.56 1,100.00 3,331.05 18,338.51 1962 18,338.51 1,467 .so 350.00 181. 75 19,974.26 2,650.00 3,163.43 14,160.83 1963 14,160.83 1,470.00 400.00 187.00 15,843.83 825.00 2,131.50 12,887.33 1964 12,887.33 1,130.00 400.00 153.00 14,264.33 425.00 3,794.82 10,044.51 1965 10,044.51 1,015.00 300.00 131.50 11,228.01 650.00 1,759.99 8,818.02 1966 8,818.02 1,085.00 350 .00 143.50 10,109.52 575 .00 1,648.34 7,886.18 1967 7,886.18 1,105.00 350.00 145.50 9,195.68 350.00 2,022.59 6,823.09 1968 6,323.09 1,450.00 300.00 175 .00 8,398.09 525.00 2,612.82 5,260.27 1969 5,260.27 1,382 .so 350.00 173.25 6,819.52 800.00 1,650.00 4,369.52 1970 4,369.52 1,535.00 350.00 188 .so 6,066.02 235.00 1,775.95 4,055.07 1971 4,055.07 1,615.00 350 .oo 196.50 5,823.57 60.00 902. 71 4,860.86 7/1- 4,860.86 157.50 350.00 -0- 5,368.36 25.00 139 .ooll 5,204.36 N . 12/31/71 y Cost of seal. hunter questionnaire. Table 2. Nlllli>er of Bounty Claims and Amount of Payment From the Seal Fund, 1936-711/ 3. Year Nlllli>er Rate&' Amount Days Open to Fishing (Calendar Yeat) 1936 1938 1940) 1940 1942 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954) 1954 1955) 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970) 1970 1971 5/ 7/1-12/31/71 Total (Biennial Period Ending June 30) 63 5 315 410 5 2,050 534 10 5,340) 101 5 sos 667 10 6,670 257 10 2,570 (Fiscal Year Ending June 30) 73 10 730 114 10 1,140 139 10 1,390 77 10 770 63 10 630 58 10 580 24 10 240 25 10 250 26 10 260 47 15 705 35 10 350) 97 25 2,425) 9 15 135 82 25 2,050 70 25 1,750 102 25 2,550 39 25 975 46 25 1,150 44 25 1,100 106 25 2,650 33 25 825 17 25 425 26 25 650 23 25 575 14 25 350 21 25 525 32 25 800 7 25 175) 12 5 60 12 5 60 5 5 25 3,510 $43,750 $ 272 273 212 221 220 208 208 208 181 174 174 157 153 153 159 140 125 115 98 101 101 102 98 83 77 80 70 75 78 82 77 1/ The ZCM C't'eating the SeaZ Fund (appZying onZy to the CoZumbia River) was enaoted at the Special- LegwZative AssembZy, NoveTTU)er 1955. y Commissions have aZtered the bounty rate several, times, depending on avaiZabiZity of funds and need. y Rate changed ft'an a $25 bounty payment to a $5 bounty payment on Janua1'/J 1?, 19?0. the nuniber of fishermen operating (Table 3). There appears to be no relationship between the number of bounties claimed and the rate paid. Table 3. Comparison of Bounty Claims, Days Open to Fishing, and Gill-Net Licenses Issued, 1936-71 4, Years Claims Days Open Average Per Year to Fishing Gill-Net Licenses Issued 1936-47 197 242 1,012 1948-59 63 153 936 1960-71 33 85 745 Seal Hunter A seal hunter was hired from 1959-70 to patrol 40 miles of the lower Columbia River. During 12 years of operation, he killed 468 seals and reported 487 as possibly killed or wounded (Table 4). The number of seals killed annually ranged form 26 in 1969 to 54 in 1968 and averaged 39. There is no obvious relation between the numbers killed in successive years. It is doubtful that the numbers of seals killed by the hunter has had an effect on the number of seals entering the Colunbia annually. Hunting occurred on 671 of the 1,020 days open to gill-net fishing, or 64% of the time. Hunting occurred solely during the daylight hours. 5. Table 4. CollL~bia River Seal Hunting Program, 1959-70 Days Open Days Seals Possible Kills Total Years To Fishing Hunte# Killed and Wounded Seals 1959 (Feb-Sept) 98 74 43 59 102 1960 ( " ,; ) 101 78 27 47 74 1961 ( " " ) 101 94 34 45 79 1962 (Apr-Sept) 102 48 31 36 67 1963 (Feb-Sept) 98 64 47 75 122 1964 (Feb-Aug) 83 40 29 38 67 1965 ( 1l " ) 77 39 30 35 65 1966 (Feb-Sept) 80 40 47 44 91 1967 ( 11 " ) 70 56 49 30 79 1968 ( " " ) 75 53 54 37 91 1969 ( " ) 78 37 26 20 46 1970 ( .. ,, ) 82 48 51 21 72 Total 1,045 671 468 487 955 11 Any portion of a day on whiah seai hunting took piaae is inaiuded as one hunting day. Seal Questionnaire for 1971 The questionnaire in 1971 was sent to gillnetters and industry representatives to solicit their views on the effect of no seal hunting during 1971. Of the 653 questionnaires sent out, 234 or 36% were returned. The following questions were asked and responses received: 1. I think that discontinuing the seal hunting program in 1971 caused (an increase, a decrease, no change) in the amount of seal activity or damage in the Columbia River. Increase Decrease No Change Did Not Answer 151 (65%) 1 (O .4%) 32 (14%) so (21%) 2. I think the Fish Commission (should, should not, no comment) hi re a seal hunter in 19 72. Should Should Not No Comment Did Not Answer 169 (72%) 33 (14%) 13 (6%) 19 (8%) 6. DISCUSSION The purpose of the seal hunter program has been to actively harass seals during the open commercial seasons. The hunter's activities presumably drive seals from the river and reduce predation by seals on salmon held captive in the fisherman's nets. The bounty system is also intended to accomplish these purposes. However, we have no evidence that either the seal hunting program or the bounty system drives seals out of the Coluwbia River. It is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of a seal control program because we have no estimate of the seal population in the lower Columbia River, nor do we maintain any surveillance of the seal herds. The number of seals killed by the seal hunter changes appreciably among years, but does not seem related to the number of days of hunting. Also, the number of kills annually has remained relatively unchanged for the 12-year period. There is reason to doubt that the seal hunting program reduces the predation by seals upon salmon held captive in gill nets, or harasses the seals away from individual fishing areas. Several hundred gillnetters operate in the lower 40 miles of the Colunbia River. The efforts of one hunter are spread over this area on two-thirds of the fishing days. The hunter operates only during the daylight hours, and most gillnetting and catches of fish occurs at night. Harassment of seals by individual gillnetters in any one area is probably more effective and more frequent than that offered by the seal hunter. It would seem that the bounty system would have little influence upon the amount of seal harassment by individual gillnetters. The incentive provided by the need to protect valuable fish in his gill net 7. would appear much greater than the value of a bounty. As shown in Table 2, there appears to be no relation between the nUllber of bo1.D1ties claimed and the bounty rate paid. The bounty system seems further ineffective since most seals sink when shot and are irretrievable, and those caught in gill nets would be disposed of irrespective of a bounty system. Based on the seal questionnaire, fishermen believe seal activity increased in 1971 and want the seal hunter hired in 1972. It is possible that seal activity did increase in 1971. It is questionable that any increase in seal activity resulted from the lack of the seal hunter's presence in 1971. We further question whether the questionnaire accur-ately represents all of the fishermen's feelings. There is a tendency for individuals with strong feelings to reply to a questionnaire such as this while those who feel less strong fail to reply. Only 36% of the fishermen responded. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of the seal control program is to harass seals in the Columbia River and reduce their predation upon salmon in the river, particularly those in fishermen's nets. There is no evidence that the seal hunting program and the bounty system are effectively accomplishing their intended purpose, and there is reason to believe that the program is ineffective. We recommend no seal hunting contract be awarded in 1972; but since the Fish Commission is required by statute to pay a bounty, we recommend that the bounty program be continued at the minimum rate of $5 per claim. Distribution Commissioners (3) Kruse (2) I&E CRI (3) Hublou Management and Research Division Fish Commission of Oregon March 9, 1972 Gunsolus File 

Columbia River Seal Control Program

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/zg64tq687

Columbia River Seal Control Program

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarsArchive@OSU