1                   Introduction

The Sea Otter Recovery Team (SORT) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada hosted ten workshops in British Columbia (BC) coastal communities in February 2004 to gather input on the Draft Sea Otter Recovery Action Plan. The communities were: Tofino, Kyuquot, Nanaimo, Port McNeill, Prince Rupert, Bella Bella, Skidegate, Massett, Victoria, and Vancouver. Over 130 participants attended the meetings. The draft of the Action Plan is available at the Fisheries and Oceans Canada web site:

www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/consultations/sea-otters/default_e.htm

Purpose and format of the workshops

BC’s sea otters (Enhydra lutris) are designated as ‘Threatened’ by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and legally listed under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). The SORT completed a Recovery Strategy for the Sea Otter in British Columbia (Canada) in June 2003 and drafted a Recovery Action Plan for the Sea Otter in British Columbia (Canada) in 2004. This Action Plan details specific activities being recommended to implement the Recovery Strategy. An updated draft of the Recovery Strategy, which was revised based on input from First Nations, stakeholders and other interested parties in 2003, was available at the workshops and on the Fisheries and Oceans Canada web site.

The purposes of the workshops were threefold:

1)      Provide information about sea otter recovery planning in BC, particularly on the development of a Recovery Action Plan for Sea Otters in BC.

2)      Provide an opportunity for feedback on the Draft Action Plan.

3)      Seek community input to stimulate local involvement in sea otter recovery activities.

The format of the workshops was a presentation followed by questions and answers, and facilitated discussion. The workshops went through the following steps, with variations in timing:

10:00   Introduction: Review of the sea otter recovery planning process and purpose of the meeting

10:30   Presentation: Recovery in the context of sea otters’ history in BC (a copy of the presentation is included in Appendix 2)

11:00   Questions and answers

12:00   Lunch

12:30   Discussion: Feedback on the Draft Action Plan

1:30     Discussion: Ideas for local involvement in sea otter recovery

2:15     Closing comments

A note-taker at each meeting kept detailed notes on the discussions. There were also evaluation forms distributed at the workshops on which participants could submit more ideas for consideration by the SORT.

Contents of this report

This report brings together the input from the ten meetings relevant to the various sections of the Draft Action Plan. Feedback provided by participants on the evaluation forms is integrated with the input that was recorded in the notes on the discussions. The focus is on the five categories of recovery activities in the Draft Action Plan as presented in section 2 of this report. Input on costs and benefits related to sea otter recovery and to the recovery activities in the Draft Action Plan is summarized in section 3. The report also summarizes input on themes that cut across the five types of recovery activities in the Draft Action Plan (section 4).

Indented quotations are from comments contributed on the evaluation forms. Other quotations are from the notes on the meetings.

Use of the input from the community meetings

The Sea Otter Recovery Team is using the input summarized in this report to improve the Draft Sea Otter Recovery Action Plan. The revised Draft Action Plan will then be submitted as advice to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and posted to the Public Registry for a 60-day public comment period prior to being finalized.

Many of the participants in the meetings who filled in the evaluation forms stated that they, or their organizations, would be willing to get involved in sea otter recovery activities. Their expressions of interest will also be used by the SORT in follow-up work.

Individual notes on each of the ten meetings provide detailed records of the discussions at the workshops. These are available at www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/consultations/sea-otters/default_e.htm.

Abbreviations used in this report

DFO    Fisheries and Ocean Canada

COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

SARA  Species at Risk Act

SORT  Sea Otter Recovery Team

2                   Input on Recovery Activities

This section of the report summarizes the input contributed by workshop participants on the five categories of recovery activities in the Draft Action Plan. The input includes: perspectives confirming/supporting the contents of the draft, suggestions for improvements or additions, comments or questions indicating a need for clarification, and ways that communities can get involved.

2.1           Threat clarification research

Under this topic, input from the workshops was mainly relevant to assessing entanglement in fishing gear. Participants had many questions and ideas on other threats to sea otters, including killing of sea otters.

One activity that was not directly addressed by participants was “Assess the impact of proposed oil and gas exploration on sea otter recovery.” Note that there was, however, considerable discussion related to the oil spill risk. That discussion is summarized in sections 2.3.1 to 2.3.3.

2.1.1       Assess the potential for oil spills to impact sea otters and their habitat by modeling oil spill trajectories and sea otter habitat.

Two participants offered sources of information relevant to oil spill modeling:

·         an article by Peterson in December 2003 Science on long-term effects of oil spills, and

·         a computer program developed for both oil spill distribution and rockfish distribution through NOAA – of potential use for threat clarification in recovery.

2.1.2       Assess the genetic diversity of the BC sea otter population and vulnerability to random environmental events.

There was some discussion as to whether a remnant population of sea otters had re-built independently of the re-introductions, following a query at the Bella Bella workshop, “Has this group of otters been here the whole time?”

To explore genetic origins of sea otters through DNA, a participant suggested seeking samples from sea otter pelts or fur that might be found in old ceremonial regalia (e.g., robe trim).

Some participants asked SORT representatives whether anything can be done about genetic diversity. 

2.1.3       Develop a sea otter health monitoring program.

One suggestion was that recovery planning should consider the chronic effects of hydrocarbons or pesticides – over the long term and throughout the food chain. To do this, the specific recommendation was to collect baseline information and monitor for accumulation/changes.

At most workshops reporting sea otter carcasses was discussed (see section 2.1.6). This activity would tie in to a health monitoring program.

2.1.4       Assess the occurrence and significance of sea otter entanglement or entrapment in fishing gear.

Some experienced fishers felt that entanglement in fishing gear will not be an issue, possibly because sea otters are intelligent enough not to get entangled, unless they are chased into a net by a predator. It was suggested that data available in fishing logbooks might give an indication of entanglement events.

Difficulties in getting fishermen to report entanglements were identified, pointing out that people feel that there is a risk in identifying themselves if they do get an otter in their net. One fear is a perceived possibility of further closures to fishing. Closures could be especially hard on fishermen under conditions in which fishing activities are already limited, openings are short, and incomes are reduced. Observer programs were suggested as an alternative to asking fishers to report entanglements.

Problems with disentangling otters were identified, with one fisherman reporting that dealing with an otter caught in a net is so difficult that sometimes they just have to leave the otter. One concern is the possibility of bites from otters that might get infected or cause tetanus. In addition, cutting nets to release otters imposes a cost on fishermen.

The Gillnetters Association was brought forward as a group to work with as they have been positive in working towards porpoise release guidelines. These release guidelines include an identification card and are intended to expand to include all marine mammals. 

Seines were not considered to be a concern.

2.1.5       Assess the significance and occurrence of sea otter interactions with aquaculture netting, culture lines, etc.

While there was little discussion of this particular activity, questions were raised in Prince Rupert about the impacts of salmon farms on otters – Is there any evidence that salmon farms are dangerous to otters? What about the impact of fish farm maintenance on otters? If pesticides used to reduce sea lice on farmed fish have negatively impacted crustaceans, could they also impact sea otters?

A participant recommended that the plan should separate impacts/interactions between sea otters and shellfish aquaculture from interactions between sea otters and finfish aquaculture.

2.1.6       Assess other sources and significance of mortality in sea otters.

Only a few natural sources of mortality to sea otters were raised in the workshops. In one or two workshops the effects of harmful algal blooms were discussed. The impacts of climate change were mentioned – though this could fit under human sources of impact. A question was also posed as to whether transient orcas and eagles might be a limiting factor on range expansion – like the abundance of eagles in Port Hardy.

Human threats to sea otters that came up in the workshop discussions were:

·         Boats going fast could hit sea otters.

·         The presence of people might affect mother otters and pups since people are often busy in areas where otters are birthing.

·         Bilge water dumping might be a concern, as are other cumulative sources of oil contamination. (Long-term impacts of contamination could be similar to a large spill event.) One participant drew attention to particulate matter on the surface of the water which reflects “constant daily oil spills.”

·         Cruise ships are going to be one of the biggest new issues on the North Coast and should be mentioned in the Plan under threats and oil pollution.

·         The possibility of potential or increasing threats should be mentioned, for example, from increased shipping traffic over coming years.

·         In terms of other forms of pollution, participants asked if PCB’s affect otters and whether human effluent is a factor.

The human threat that received the most attention was the possibility of poaching or killing of sea otters.

The panellists [SORT] need to realistic about the possibility of local, unsanctioned management of sea otters in response to perceived threats to commercial fisheries and gear towards giving information to those participants. (Tofino)

Several participants asked the SORT whether sea otters are being shot by fishermen or shellfish harvesters – whether shootings are being reported. They felt that this source of mortality might stem from “lack of support from coastal communities” and should be considered. While the challenge of getting information on shootings was recognized, an Observe-Record-Report system was recommended. Another suggestion was that research into products for sale in Chinatown in Vancouver might turn up evidence (e.g. sea otter fur for sale).

A couple of participants, from First Nations communities, stated that sea otters would be shot, with sanction by hereditary chiefs, to protect seafood resources – “The government can’t tell us we have to save these damn things, when they’re eating our food supplies.” A fisherman stated that sea otters are being shot because people don’t want them near their nets, and others also felt that occasional shootings are likely occurring. One participant had heard stories of otters being run down by boats.

The question was raised as to whether poaching could be more of a problem after the de-listing of sea otters. The assumption was that if limited harvesting of sea otters is allowed, then it might prove difficult for enforcement to distinguish illegally killed sea otters from legally harvested sea otters.

At most workshops the topic of reporting sea otter carcasses arose. People asked whether the reporting of a carcass would be useful in recovery for disease monitoring, etc., and they asked for guidance on procedures. They requested a protocol to follow when sea otter carcasses are found on beaches, possibly including permitting so that transporting carcasses for research is not confused with illegal transport. It was noted that carcasses do not last long due to scavengers, etc., so if possible the collection of a carcass needs to be timely. Participants also wanted to know what information should be included in a report, such as the location and what was observed (e.g., was there an obvious cause of death?). Taking a photo was suggested. Ways of disseminating a protocol for reporting carcasses include the Kayak Guides Alliance, the Underwater Harvesters Association and newsletters. A website to contact and a number to call were requested – possibly using the same number as the stranding number for marine mammals. One question was raised regarding risks to people from handling otter carcasses. Another option suggested was that the skull could be collected instead of the whole animal as one useful part that is easier to handle. A $25 reward for recovering carcasses was also recommended.

Provide information on contact numbers for reporting marine mammals carcasses and a description of what details you want reported. Provide key information on sea otters. (Vancouver)

2.2           Population assessment

In this category of activities, most of the workshop participants focused on ways that the public or organizations can help in monitoring population size, growth rate and distribution by reporting sightings.

2.2.1       Develop a survey protocol suitable for the BC coast.

A participant who had experience in counting sea otters from flights along the coast with BC Parks asked for protocols to be developed for reporting or sending such information to a centralized location.

Another participant suggested that a good place to look for sea otters would be where the tide is running strongest: “I think they’d be just like salmon. Most of the time, they want to go with the flow.”

2.2.2       Carry out population assessment of the BC sea otter population, to monitor population size, growth rate and distribution.

At almost all of the workshops there was interest expressed in getting involved in reporting sightings of sea otters, usually on an ad hoc basis. At least one participant queried whether ad hoc sightings of single individuals might be useful, suggesting that they could be important as a precursor to other animals moving in. It was pointed out that ad hoc sightings are useful for extra-limital (beyond the known range) information if rafts of otters are sighted. Rafts of otters, rather than individuals, indicate range expansion. A problem with volunteer reporting of sightings is that random counts without a repeatable route are not useful for abundance estimates. Surveys need a protocol and assessment needs to be a dedicated activity. With the appropriate methodology, it was suggested that standard routes for observations could be developed and used.

One recommendation was that local, trained technicians should work with the experts on the coast-wide surveys, rather than keeping all the employment within government agencies.

A representative of the Nuu-chah-nulth stated that they are interested in being involved, and have been involved, in recovering carcasses, reporting eagle mortalities, counts, oil spill response, reporting winter rafting, etc. A representative of the Kyuquot/Checleset Fisheries department agreed it would be useful and interesting to participate in rafting studies and population studies.

Several participants in different workshops requested information on reporting sightings: a web link, a number to call, who to call (DFO, Coast Guard), a radio channel to use from a boat, and what information to collect and provide. To ensure accuracy, it was suggested that a check-list and/or information card and/or waterproof identification card could be used to gather the necessary information and ensure that river otters are not mistaken for sea otters. Taking a photo was strongly recommended to verify sightings.

The guidelines or forms for reporting sightings could be provided by fisheries officers, band offices, dive shops and associations (e.g. Dive Watch), kayakers, and tourism operators (including whale watching operators, heli-tourism, and kayak guides). It was pointed out that while Parks Canada’s survey in Barkley Sound has seen up to two sea otters on 18 trips, the local tour operator has seen up to four different otters. Fishers – especially underwater harvesters, and those involved in shipping, such as tugboat operators, could also be involved in reporting sightings. The Underwater Harvesters Association already follows up on sightings reports. The Cetacean sighting website (Vancouver Aquarium) could be expanded to include sea otters.

One participant commented that it could be a tourism draw to be involved in counts. Another recommended that there should be follow up with people on their reports, providing feedback.

2.2.3       Estimate a theoretical equilibrium population size as an input to estimating a minimum population size.

Some workshop participants recognized the difficulty in the technical aspects of this activity. There were questions around what an equilibrium population model is, and how it relates to an ecosystem approach. The idea of carrying capacity was raised in connection with this activity, with one query on whether newly introduced populations can be “eruptive” and exceed carrying capacity. In Kyuquot a participant asked whether the population might drop somewhat after it levels out.

2.2.4       Specify a minimum population size and distribution.

Discussion on this action was mainly in the form of questions. One question indicated that this activity is not well explained in the Draft Action Plan as to how it will be done. People would like to have a definition of recovery, in terms of numbers, and clarification of the term “recovery targets” was requested – “How many sea otters do you need to say it’s enough for recovery?” One discussion connected geographic distribution to other aspects of recovery: “The recovery plan hinges on geographic distribution and sufficient numbers to survive a catastrophic oil spill. Is it the assumption that this will improve genetic diversity and reduce vulnerability to disease? Is there anything that could be done to rely less on the number?”

2.3           Protection

Most of the workshop discussion on this category of activities focused on activities related to oil spills. There were also several contributions related to sea otter watching guidelines.

2.3.1       Develop an oil spill response plan specifically for sea otters, including strategies, protocols, procedures and training.

Some discussion centred on who is responsible for oil spill clean up and who could or should be involved. Ideas for members of oil spill response teams included First Nations fisheries programs, fishermen, research centers, Parks Canada and the Coast Guard. It was suggested that the federal government should have a clear role, and that the oil companies should be held primarily responsible.

Participants recognized that planning well in advance and coordination are critical. A structure with clear roles and directions for local volunteers is strongly supported, as is the incorporation of sea otters in the response plan. The plan should incorporate previous experience; take into account bad weather issues; include information on how all effected stakeholders can be part of oil spill response activities; address liability/insurance issues; and identify critical focus areas, determining where to focus the oil spill response. With specific attention to sea otters, the need to have trained teams ready to assist with pre-emptive re-location was recognized.

Participants were aware that much oil spill response planning has been done. For example Burrard Clean held mock spill exercises last year. Currently, there are many general response plans for oil spill recovery, but none directed at sea otters. With DFO and the Habitat Stewardship Program, the Vancouver Aquarium is developing a network of individuals for such a response.

2.3.2       Identify and train agencies and individuals that would participate in an oil spill response team specifically for sea otters and be prepared to implement the response plan in the event of an oil spill.

Input from the workshops indicates that oil spill education would be of interest, and training opportunities are desired. Suggestions included the following:

·         Invest resources in local communities to help local people do the oil spill response training and assemble the equipment. Explore the potential for communities to drive the process.

·         SORT or DFO could make a presentation to communities on what a community can do.

·         The province has oil spill response training in a two-day course, and has equipment on stand-by.

·         Create a list of available equipment (e.g., there is a supply of oil containment equipment in Ucluelet).

·         Burrard Clean offers seminars in coast cities as to how to certify individuals to respond to oil spills. In the case of a spill, certified individuals are highly desired.

·         A plan to involve fishers located near otter rafts would help in the response to an oil spill.

2.3.3       Evaluate opportunities for new regulations and procedures to prevent or reduce the risk to sea otters from oil spills or spills of other environmental toxins.

Several participants at different workshops emphasized the need to prevent oil spills, with at least one suggestion that the Draft Action Plan oppose oil development. Supporting an increased emphasis on prevention, participants said that we should not assume we will have an oil and gas industry – “The ultimate protection is not to allow an oil industry in coastal areas with sketchy weather.” 

Participants emphasized the need for new regulations for the offshore oil and gas industry, including larger fines “so that evidence can be used to lay charges and help in recovery … avoid the public having to pay to fix something caused by someone else.” A question was posed asking how much power SARA has: “Can it stop oil exploration if it is deemed a threat; can it restrict transit, bilge pumping etc.?”

In addition to oil exploration and development, concerns were expressed about oil originating from bilge water. Suggestions were made for larger fines, and for requirements for a separator and a separate holding tank

2.3.4       Once habitat or areas important to sea otters have been identified, consider spatial and temporal methods of ensuring that disturbance to such areas and the sea otters is minimized.

A participant in Vancouver asked whether it would be effective to consider creating parks as protective areas for sea otter ecosystems. In contrast, concern was expressed in Tofino:

My concern would be marine protected areas being created to protect sea otters and interfering with commercial activities on BC coast. (Tofino)

2.3.5       Consider sea otters in aquaculture sitings.

The only suggestion was that this activity should include existing aquaculture sites, not just proposed new ones.

2.3.6       Develop sea otter watching guidelines and protect from disturbance.

Several workshop participants assumed that the Marine Mammal viewing guidelines include sea otters, and if not, they should. Operators that follow these guidelines include whale watching, kayak guiding and guided fishing. New and expanding tourism opportunities such as heli-tourim keep the pressure on the need for guidelines. As numbers increase, the need may arise for more enforcement of watching guidelines. Individual boaters and kayakers also have to be made aware of the guidelines.

2.3.7       Protect sea otters as other threats are identified.

Some actions for protection of sea otters from an array of threats were put forward by participants:

·         Require port facilities to be built to avoid dumping of bilge water.

·         Ensure the legal responsibility for any pollution is tied back to the polluter.

·         Reporting killings, disturbance and entanglements through Observe-Record-Report procedures.

·         Increase fishery officers’ presence on the water.

·         Include protection of sea otters from the chronic impacts of shipping. Address chronic rather than just acute effects.

2.4           Communications

The communications category, out of the five categories of activities, received the most discussion at the workshops largely because it is a key area that provides opportunities for people to get involved.

Of the activities within this category, two were not discussed directly: “Communicate with marine plant harvesters, aquaculture groups and programs, and kelp-related fishing organizations within the sea otter range”; and “Communicate with regional and local governments identifying habitat for protection in land use planning.”

2.4.1       Communicate with and involve coastal Tribal Councils, First Nations and communities within the current range of sea otters … [and] outside the current range of sea otters.

A strong theme in some workshops was the need to involve and communicate with First Nations in research and planning on sea otters. The value of traditional ecological knowledge and local knowledge was emphasized, as was the need to consider First Nations aspirations and involvement. While gaining trust can be difficult, there is experience in interviewing elders that can be drawn upon. First Nations Fishery Monitors and Guardians were also identified as particularly knowledgeable.

At the least, seafood harvesters should be alerted to what will happen as sea otters return. First Nations participants (and others) expressed uncertainty on a number of themes, such as how much impact a single otter can have, what species sea otters will prey on, and whether shellfish will completely disappear. One participant asked, “Why is it taking so long to learn about the impacts from sea otters?”

The need for exchange of information between First Nations was identified: “Their information would be quite useful to us. Whether it’s negative or positive, we need to know these things.”

I think First Nations roles are somewhat identified but I would like to see much better co-operation between researchers/DFO and First Nations. Researchers/DFO are perceived in First Nations as being very secretive about surveys and research activity. I would also like to see much more serious integration of local knowledge and anecdotal sightings. This type of information is much easier for local folks to understand, so it would be a good communication tool, e.g. to make maps of anecdotal sightings available on-line. (Tofino)

The importance of working with local communities was also highlighted: “Local involvement is key to recovery of sea otters in this area.” Ideas for involvement included:

·         Resources should be invested to help communities benefit from getting involved in recovery activities.

·         Draw on funds available within communities for projects/partnerships such as an internship program, presentations at schools and training for local participation in oil spills.

·         Involve kids, leads to involving the parents.

·         Spend more time in a community to build trust and relationships for support.

·         Have local recovery plans to guide involvement – “local people could work on critical habitat information on a small scale – identify critical areas, where to control development.”

2.4.2       Exchange information with specific invertebrate fisheries groups that may be impacted by sea otters competing for shellfish.

A common theme at the workshops was a concern that people involved in the shellfish industries might not support sea otter recovery. A comment was made that some commercial harvesters think of sea otters as a nuisance. Yet, as pointed out, the BC Seafood Alliance and Underwater Harvesters Association (UHA) have previously, and continue to, offer their assistance and expertise. They can assist with a number of activities, including distribution, sightings, platforms for census research, training fishermen and training observers on census techniques. Census is a priority focus. The geoduck fishery is particularly well organized for investing funds into research. An example of data regularly gathered by underwater harvesters is sea otter excavation counts which are collected in quadrats during geoduck surveys. The UHA also follows up on reports of otters, as they are concerned about where sea otters are, and where they are moving to. Winter distribution of sea otters is a challenging research area that shellfish harvesters could assist with because they are on the water in winter.

To continue to contribute data, the shellfish harvesters and their organizations need to be motivated – the investment of money and research effort must be of benefit. For example, if they feel that reporting information might lead to the area closing to fishing they are less likely to contribute. It needs to be clear that this will not be a result, and that knowledge of an expanding range of sea otters is a good thing. A participant suggested that information to fishermen should emphasize the history of co-existing species and alleviate fears that all will be lost in the presence of otters.

Workshop participants emphasized that impacts on fisheries from sea otters should be recognized in recovery planning in order to build support – “What is the impact on fisheries and vice versa – impacts on otters from the fisheries? I think the action plan should focus or at least mention the fisheries.” (See section 3 for more input on impacts.)

It’s clear that nothing has been done to address the concerns of the shellfish/crab fishers. … The re-introduction of this cornerstone species will (and has) completely changed the ecological balance. Hopefully it returns to something closer to its pre-contact balance. People however are resistant to change, especially if they feel the change will impact them negatively. They need information early and often to allay their fears or to help them plan for change. (Tofino)

2.4.3       Educate eco-tourism operators and customers, tourism support services, recreational fishing guides and lodges, and the general public to minimize disturbance to sea otters.

Participants recognized that eco-tourism operators have a role to play as educators on sea otter issues: “I see a huge role for eco-tourism, especially as we meet the public and tourists from all over the world. We have the capacity to get the information out.” The whale watching industry guides an average of 2,000-5,000 people a year who operators/guides can talk to and can educate about conservation. These people include students as well as tourists – “the interest is there. It’s easy to take it to an educational level.” Another tourism sector is the Sea Kayak Guides Alliance, which accesses all the guides and could disseminate literature. Sport fishers are another target audience in terms of tourism customers.

Several participants requested a pamphlet for tourists and sport fishermen that could be distributed, and the same information could be added to the sport fishing guide.

2.4.4       Encourage general support for sea otter recovery through public education programs.

Educating not only children but the public (locals and tourists) is of importance. (Tofino)

Discussions on education often focused on youth and school programs, with a view to influencing families and future generations. The development of a school course or package was supported, similar to the “salmonids in the classroom” project. A cautionary note was also offered around the ideas of an education kit, in that teachers are overcommitted. A suggestion was to hire someone to deliver the program or to otherwise provide assistance. The Vancouver Aquarium’s Aqua-Van might be able to help. The American Cetacean Society website has a template for schools.

One participant emphasized that target audiences need to be prioritized to have the most effective education on sea otter recovery. Target audiences suggested in workshops included fishers, boaters, First Nations, small and remote communities. Different audiences may need different messages. For example, boaters could be informed about the risk of hitting sea otters and the harm caused by small oil spills. Big businesses such as fishing lodges could be informed of sea otter habitat values in their area.

General advice on content of educational messages included:

·         Education to properly identify the difference between sea and river otters would be very useful to help ensure appropriate identification and reporting of sightings.

·         Don’t underestimate the visitor’s knowledge in terms of eco-tourism. Don’t make the information too simple and do include science. Some tourists have done their research on the web before they visit.

·         Make a link, spark a connection with people on their relationship to sea otters.

·         Coordinate with other species at risk and broader environmental issues – e.g., the long-term value of biodiversity. Sea otters are a high profile species on which other species may be piggybacked.

·         Include the downside and the challenges, reflecting different points of view: “I don’t just want propaganda. It would be more productive to admit that there’s a problem and a challenge.”

In terms of the media for distributing information, the emphasis was on printed information, and especially a brochure and a laminated (waterproof) information card. Several participants wanted to know where they could get information to distribute. The information could include an identification guide, reporting information, a summary of recovery goals and a website for more information. To reach tourists, the brochure could be translated into different languages.

We need printed information on sea otters to handout to the general public. (Nanaimo)

In addition to a brochure, printed information on sea otters could be included in fishing and paddling guides and in tide tables. A poster could also be produced and displayed in public places like the ferries.

Other recommended media were souvenirs related to sea otters (like the stuffed toy marmots) and a video (e.g., by Canadian Geographic or the Vancouver Film School) or an IMAX film. Websites were seen as key in urban areas.

People don’t necessarily have to see sea otters in the wild to want to protect them. I see otters being an umbrella species that can be used to protect rocky shore coastline habitats. If signs are placed on ferries, buses and bus stops (public areas lacking stimulation), public involvement may follow (e.g. Vancouver Island marmot). (Victoria)

Workshop participants had many ideas on how information should be disseminated and by whom. These included:

·         back of transit buses

·         aquariums, museums, art galleries

·         a traveling exhibit

·         a few key locations (e.g., Resource Centres in each community, Bones Project)

·         presentations by organizations (e.g., World Wildlife Fund, Straitwatch)

·         local, ‘apolitical’ bodies (DFO or commercial fishers could be seen as biased)

·         local marine educators

·         local groups which have the ties in the community and know the best routes (e.g., Clayoquot Alliance for Research, Education and Training; Raincoast Education Society)

·         National Parks

·         gateway websites, e.g., Tofino, Long Beach Chambers of Commerce

·         fishery officers

·         universities – the academic community.

SORT should consider partnering with local, relatively apolitical groups like the Clayoquot Biosphere Trust or the Raincoast Education Society as a repository and disseminator of information so people don’t just dismiss it when they hear “DFO”. (Tofino)

Transparency was emphasized in relation to sea otter research: “All research should be easily available to public, with the Internet as a preferred route.” The members of the SORT were recognized as a means to provide effective lines of communication to key agencies and stakeholder groups.

2.5           Identification of critical habitat

Input on the identification of critical habitat was mainly in the form of questions. There was some interest in opportunities for the public and others to report sightings of otters (also summarized in section 2.2.2).

The Critical Habitat Section doesn’t seem SARA compliant. I think you need to complete your studies needed to define critical habitat and then describe it in the action plan. (Victoria)

2.5.1       Identify important rafting and foraging areas and seasonal variations in these.

Participants asked about the state of knowledge and research on sea otter habitat and asked whether there is a definition of critical habitat. Some skepticism was expressed on the grounds that “It all boils down to how you want to frame it. … Critical habitat doesn’t apply when the species has so many response possibilities, as a dynamic, active, smarter-than-we-think animal. … If one thing is important, everything is important.”

Questions about how to report sightings were also posed; these focused on whether community members can help identify winter habitat – including who to call and what to report (e.g. photos). People who are on the water in the winter include fishermen, water taxi operators, tugboat operators, helicopter and floatplane operators and the Coast Guard.

One suggestion was that historical documents be used to identify possible habitat. Another suggestion was that researchers look at red urchin harvest logbooks since the areas where urchins are harvested are probably where the sea otters would like to live.

A research organization associated with the Clayoquot Biosphere Reserve is interested in ways that their current research, which is mapping and monitoring kelp habitat, could complement sea otter studies.

2.5.2       Research movements and home range patterns of sea otters.

Questions raised in connection with this action came from varying perspectives, with some people hoping and others fearing the return of sea otters. These included:

·         Where the population is now stable, in Area 25/26, does it contribute to range expansion, i.e. further south?

·         One particularly older looking otter has been seen late summer at Bear Point the past three years – is Malcolm Island good habitat?

·         Were otters in inland waters – like the Strait of Georgia?

·         Is there any indication that the Washington population is moving north towards Barkley Sound as the BC population moves south?

·         Has anyone determined how many sea otters there will be in Tofino and what will happen when sea otters reach the Tofino area?

·         Is there any extrapolation as to when the current range expansion will reach Victoria?

SORT and DFO representatives at the workshops were able to answer some of these questions, while others need to be answered through ongoing and future research.

One suggestion for involvement wat that local communities may be able to assist in tracking radio-tagged sea otters. BC Parks has cameras and the equipment for census flights for birds and could include sightings and radio-tracking of sea otters in their surveys (they would need the radio frequencies to monitor).

3                   Input on Costs and Benefits

The Draft Action Plan has a section on “Evaluation of Costs and Benefits.” Within this section, an “Overview” summarizes costs and benefits of sea otter recovery, and the second sub-section called “Evaluation” remains to be drafted. The Evaluation section intends to set out the costs and benefits of the recovery activities, and the workshop agenda aimed to focus on this type of costs and benefits. However, participants were generally more interested in discussing the costs and benefits of sea otter recovery.

Be more prepared to address the socio-economic impacts of recovery itself not just the impacts of the action plan. (Tofino)

3.1           Overview costs and benefits (costs and benefits of sea otter recovery)

3.1.1       The need for consideration of and research on impacts

Many participants from a number of sectors felt strongly that the Draft Action Plan needs to research and analyze costs and benefits of sea otter recovery, and to communicate the results of this analysis. Costs, in particular the impacts on shellfish, were seen as neglected: “How can you look at the total cost without looking at the loss of shellfish?” Many were critical of SARA and the recovery planning process because of its lack of attention to the social and economic impacts of recovery, with one participant calling this “irresponsible.” Another argued that the recovery plan will not be sustainable for the long-term if impacts on fisheries and communities are not considered.

The draft plan is not dealing with impacts on shellfish harvesting activities for commercial, First Nations, or sport uses enough. (Victoria)

Look at and research the impact the sea otter is having on First Nations shellfish diet. (Kyuquot)

Suggested topics for research on impacts included:

·         Monitor the impact as it occurs, using stock assessment.

·         Identify what areas sea otters will populate and impact, and which species will be impacted. Forecast where they will be and when.

·         Look at the overall impact, coast-wide, and determine whether fisheries may disappear.

·         Include anecdotal information and experience.

·         Find out what impacts there have been on fisheries in other areas where sea otters have recovered. Research the effects on commercial species like Dungeness crabs, urchins and geoducks.

·         Study the “massive impacts” on people that have been experienced in a very short time.

·         Determine whether any new fishing opportunities have been created with kelp populations increasing.

·         Identify the activities and the people or communities that will be affected.

3.1.2       Impacts on commercial fisheries

Include real costs related to the loss of commercial fisheries. Do stock assessments of the species consumed by sea otters. (Nanaimo)

At the meetings many people involved in commercial fishing expressed grave concern about observations to date on the impacts of sea otter recovery and fears about future impacts – “Will there be any kind of commercial fishery for crab, geoducks, clams?”

Geoduck and urchin harvesters were particularly concerned, based on their analysis of sea otter biology and their experience in certain harvesting areas: “Sea otters can have a big impact. Our biologist points out one geoduck harvest area in the Nuchatlitz alone has 19 million pounds of geoducks in the books. From 1984-1997, 2 million pounds were harvested, or 140,000 lbs. per year. The quota dropped to 2,000 lb. and is now closed because of otters. At $8-10/lb., it’s a significant loss and cost.” Another participant reported that urchin fishermen have left the west coast Vancouver Island because there are no urchins North of Estavan Point due to the sea otters. It was pointed out that the general public will also experience costs as revenues to government from these fisheries decrease.

Fears for the future of the crab fishery were also expressed. For example, one participant stated, “In Esperanza and Nuchatlitz, where there are rafts of 60 otters, I have caught only one Dungeness crab and in Inner Mary Basin where the beaches are safe from winter storms and it was healthy area for crab fishery, now there is nothing there for crabs.”

Impacts on aquaculture were also part of the discussion. There were concerns expressed about how the sea otters will affect shellfish developers, for example in the case of abalone farming,  “It will be tough, I would not want to put a farm in an area with otters!”

3.1.3       Impacts on First Nations

I don’t know why they say recovery when we want to recover our seafood. It’s all sacrifice – not like long ago. Nations knew how to manage these things before the white man came. How do you get rid of sea otters and save all our seafood, all clams, abalone, crabs and so on? Recovery of sea otters is not what we want. Recovery of our seafood and more action [is what we want]. (Kyuquot)

At the meetings in Kyuquot, Skidegate and Old Massett, impacts of sea otter recovery on the seafood supply of First Nations was a major topic of discussion. First Nations participants expressed resentment that their interests were not being considered – that DFO is placing a higher importance on sea otters than on the people in these communities: “We can’t take abalone without being charged but the sea otter can take abalone without anything happening to him. …The World doesn’t care about Kyuquot.  But they are asking [the people of Kyuquot] for the ultimate sacrifice, that you have sea otters in Kyuquot, so that they can say they have sea otters in Canada.” They questioned what their interest would be in recovery, and why they would participate in actions to support the recovery of a species that competes for their shellfish.

In Kyuquot, abalone, urchins and clams have all been depleted by sea otter predation: “Now the sea otters are eating clams. Our people rely on clams to sustain themselves especially during the winter.” One participant described some examples in Kyuquot and Checleset territory: “We went to commercial clam dig on Bunsby Island, but the whole beach was empty, wiped out, just pot-holes on the beach. Artlish Inlet has a dozen sea otters now eating the last of the crabs in Kyuquot territory.” He also noted that studies carried out by First Nations fisheries researchers which meet DFO scientific standards have confirmed that sea otters have depleted manila, razor, butter and horse clams, as well as geoduck and urchins.

The recovery of kelp was not regarded as compensation for the loss of shellfish – one person even saw it as a disadvantage because of its interference with navigation. A related concern was that any possibility for kelp harvesting would be restricted by the requirement to buy a kelp harvesting licence. A First Nations leader urged the people at the Kyuquot workshop to “ensure that your First Nations rights are not infringed upon” and to request funding for solutions, including financial assistance from DFO and the Department of Indian Affairs.

At least one First Nation participant acknowledged a more positive side of sea otter recovery: “sea otters did have a role in our [First Nations] culture; our ancestors grew up with sea otters.”

Many comments from First Nations participants at the workshops were solution-oriented (see discussions in section 4).

3.1.4        Benefits to ecotourism

Participants at several workshops pointed out the attraction of sea otters for wildlife viewing and tourism, and the potential benefits to the tourism industry: “Sea otters are included in tours and we advertise such, they bring in people. … Sea otters are a year round viewing opportunity, not just seasonal like some other species.” One view, expressed on an evaluation form, was that tourism can employ more people than underwater harvesting.

3.1.5       Kelp forest and ecosystem benefits

Concern was expressed at some workshops that attention to the economic costs of recovery from loss of shellfish would overwhelm attention to the positive benefits of enhanced biodiversity: “There will be huge benefits that will not be truly considered because we’re focusing so much on the economic side of the story.” Non-monetary benefits, such as benefits to non-commercial species, were highlighted.

They [underwater harvesters] should remember there would not be an abundance of shellfish, hence a fishery, if we had not decimated the sea otter population in the first place. (Tofino)

A few participants argued that the dive fisheries are only thriving because of the absence of sea otters, which was originally caused by human disruption to the ecosystem, and that the sustainability of the ecosystem as a whole should be considered. One suggested that urchin barrens should be mapped, to illustrate the negative effects of not having otters.

Several participants expressed hope that the evolution of kelp may open doors for other opportunities. Kelp harvesting may improve, and increased abundance of fish (e.g., larval fishes, rockfish) in kelp forests might have benefits to fisheries.

3.2           Costs and benefits of the recovery actions

Occasionally, the fear was voiced that sea otter recovery actions might include fisheries closures: “If DFO closes off given areas (habitat) and excludes fishers from areas, this will be a significant cost.” 

The main cost of recovery activities mentioned by participants was funding. Many people asked whether there is funding to implement the actions and where it would come from. They noted that not all of the work could be done by volunteers and that the federal government has to make a commitment. The question of how funding would work down to the community level was raised.

4                   Input on Cross-cutting Themes in the Draft Action Plan

Workshop discussions addressed some topics that are relevant to the Draft Action Plan but do not fit within an individual section. These discussions are summarized below.

4.1           Information sharing

Sharing of information between the Underwater Harvesters Association and DFO was discussed earlier (in section 2.4.2). Participants also emphasized the need for coordinated studies and sharing of information between BC, Alaska, California and Russia. “Cross-pollination of research results” and adaptation of findings between jurisdictions was recommended. Some participants wanted to know what role the province is playing, noting that it too should be involved in information sharing.

4.2           The overall approach to recovery

The research done under this plan is likely useful to other species action plans and can also form an essential component of ecosystem-based management of the marine environment. It may be useful to keep in mind / integrate how sea otters impact and are impacted by ecologically important species, e.g. seagrass, abalone – how changes in these will impact ecosystem structure and human livelihood. (Prince Rupert)

At a few meetings participants questioned whether an ecosystem or multi-species approach was being followed – “Is the recovery plan blind, is it looking at otters in isolation?” They sought assurance that recovery planning goes beyond a single-species approach, focused on sea otters. In particular, a tying together of the sea otter recovery strategy and the abalone recovery strategy was called for.

At some meetings participants were new to the idea of the non-interventionist approach. Some asked whether more re-introductions or translocations of sea otters were planned. Related questions were, “Is there any plan for breeding sea otters in institutions and re-releasing the individuals?” and “What about bringing in otters from other areas to increase genetic diversity?”

Explaining in plain language what the “non-interventionist approach” entails. (Tofino)

While some participants were relieved to hear that sea otters would not be translocated to their areas, others would have supported translocation, e.g., “We want to see sea otters in the North Coast. What can we do to bring sea otters to the North Coast?” One person suggested that if sea otters could be reintroduced to places where people want them, it might be possible to extend the range to achieve goals of delisting and satisfy local communities.

A non-interventionist approach also means that sea otters are not being “controlled”. Issues related to this are discussed in section 4.5, on sea otter management.

4.3           Issues of “balance” between sea otters, kelp and shellfish

As in the 2003 consultations on the Sea Otter Recovery Strategy, much of the discussion at the Action Plan workshops centred on questions of balance in ecosystems that include sea otters.

Participants were curious as to how shellfish harvesting had occurred prior to the extirpation of sea otters – “How did they [First Nations] meet their needs with otters historically? How could there be enough of everything?” People were interested to see the results of studies of middens that might show evidence of sea otter and shellfish harvesting prior to contact.

Some people held a misperception that sea otters completely eliminate shellfish in areas where they feed: “How can you call it habitat protection when the otters wipe out an area?” They also assumed that abalone will not come back as long as sea otters are protected: “How can you reconcile the abalone being listed, and the otter being listed? You can’t have both.” In contrast, one participant pointed out how urchins can clear out areas in the absence of sea otters, leading to an imbalance, and another pointed out that we can have both abalone and otters: “balance means having both. … Within recent history, there has been a balance between abalone, salmon, cod, everything together.”

Many participants were well aware of the decline in shellfish that occurs in areas where sea otters return. At least one participant questioned the assertion that in a new area the sea otters consume large amount of shellfish, with their populations growing rapidly and then leveling off as the food supply is reduced: “I disagree that the sea otters numbers are levelling off. I am out on the ocean all year. Where sea otters raft, we see babies in spring. … Once sea otters reach a certain population, they move north and south but are still breeding here twice a year.”

Others questioned the dynamic of kelp returning where otters have consumed the sea urchins. One participant observed, “I don’t think it’s really true that if there are no urchins there’s more kelp. I’ve fished urchins around Sidney for years, and I don’t think that relationship is true. If there are not urchins, there isn’t necessarily more kelp.” Another said that in California in the late 1970s in the Channel Islands there was lots of kelp and there were a lot of urchins.

Some participants were interested in comparing abundance of shellfish from baseline studies previous to the return of sea otters with abundance after sea otters return. One participant acknowledged that there are still geoducks in Kyuquot. Others wondered what lies in the future: “Will the balance between sea otters and shellfish return naturally?” There was concern that the next population assessment to determine the status of sea otters lies too far in the future, given the rate at which sea otters are recovering, and their high levels of consumption of shellfish.

Many participants felt that a program should be in place to find a balance between sea otters and shellfish: “This is walking a slim line – saving one animal but losing others. … It is nice to bring the sea otters back but they shouldn’t be overpopulated.” Several participants felt that limits on the growth of sea otter populations should be set, and some felt limits should be set even before the species is fully recovered and de-listed.

4.4           Mitigation of the negative impacts of sea otter recovery on shellfish harvesting

Discussion at the workshops often touched on ways of mitigating or compensating commercial harvesters and First Nations for the loss of shellfish consumed by sea otters. This recognized the need for access to food and livelihoods. As a representative of the shellfish industry said, “We’d like to talk more about mitigation and things we can do down the road.” At the same time, this person recognized, “Until the status report changes [to down-list sea otters from their threatened status] we’re limited by the types of mitigation we can consider.”

Some participants explored the possibility of protecting shellfish stocks, and especially shellfish aquaculture operations, from sea otters. Other suggestions for mitigating (reducing) the impacts of loss of shellfish included:

·         Investigate possibilities for switching harvesting to other species than shellfish.

·          “If sea otters are worth a lot, maybe it makes sense to put sea otters everywhere and harvest them.”

·         Demonstrate alternatives to eating abalone and urchins, perhaps looking back to what coastal communities might have harvested before sea otters were extirpated.

·         Find ways to make investments in communities to support alternative forms of economic development.

·         Keep sea otters out of the inlets (e.g., in Kyuquot territory) since there are no clams left on the outer beaches.

·         Expand the shellfish fishery ahead of the sea otters to maximize benefits prior to the arrival of sea otters and the subsequent declines in shellfish stocks. To facilitate this, calculate quotas over a shorter timeframe in areas where sea otters are expected.

·         Support enhancement of geoducks in the Georgia Strait.

Concerns were expressed that SARA does not provide for compensation in this situation, i.e. to harvesters who are losing a marine resource due to the recovery of a species. An example of how compensation could work was mentioned: the buying out of fishing licences when the salmon fishery was downsized. On the other hand, a participant responded that this compensation benefited the licence holder and not the fishers.

4.5           Local/regional planning and management

Discussion at the workshops often turned to the need for management, looking ahead to recovery. Many felt that some form of local planning and management has to happen prior to recovery, at least in areas where the population is stable. One person described the Draft Action Plan as “sea otter-centric,” and recommended that it deal with the social and economic impacts of the otter’s return. First Nations participants in Haida Gwaii and Kyuquot, in particular, called for regulation or management of sea otter populations in the short term, on a local or regional basis.

Why do we call it ‘recovery’? This seems to be hard for our people to grasp as we feel strongly we don’t need recovery; we need ‘management’. I’ve been living for 29 years and in the beginning there was an abundance of seafood. Sadly now there is none – or very little. I believe it is extremely important to keep hearing the Kyuquot people’s voice. (Kyuquot)

The need for a “bottom-up” rather than “top-down” approach to planning was identified. Several participants questioned the need for recovery throughout the full range prior to local management in places where equilibrium is reached; e.g., “Looking at this map of sea otter distribution in the handout, there must be a lot of sea otters throughout their whole range? Why is it so important that we have them here [in Kyuquot]?”

Serious consideration [is needed] for regional planning initiatives to help deal with the real community issues and concerns about sea otters and their eventual return. (Skidegate)

The Co-chair of the Aboriginal Fisheries Commission, urged the Kyuquot people to develop their own plan for a balance with sea otters, based on science, traditional knowledge and utilization of the resource. He suggested that they seek funding and strive to influence elected officials to support the local plan. First Nation participants agreed that a local management plan with local control is needed, and that support from DFO for this approach should be sought. Coastal First Nations could work together to this end. It was suggested that government might agree to a management plan that accommodates aboriginal rights to harvest and rights to protect the food supply, as well as science’s need for disease, age and fecundity information (from carcasses).

I feel this community is very sceptical on ‘sea otter recovery’. It would be very worthwhile to have this a Kyuquot Action Plan for it would greatly benefit the communities knowledge on sea otters. (Kyuquot)

The recommendations for management did not suggest that sea otter recovery should be put at risk: “I don’t think it has to be black and white. We don’t have to love them or shoot them.” This “middle way” might be necessary for local people to accept sea otters. Specific suggestions for planning and management included:

·         Set threshold numbers at which management could begin.

·         Establish exclusion zones, or sea otter free zones in areas that are important or unique for other species or for fisheries. Have meaningful local control over where sea otters go.

·         “Train them to fish for us, like in ancient China!”

·         Encourage recovery in places where no-one would mind them.

·         Develop barriers to prevent otters from interfering with shellfish farms or look into predator control.

·         Simulate crevice habitat in which shellfish can escape sea otters.

·         Investigate noise deterrents, such as recordings of killer whales.

·         Look at possibilities for harvesting sea otters – a commercial harvest of sea otters for their pelts, or harvesting for First Nations social and ceremonial uses. “If there could be a manageable harvest, there may be more buy-in from some communities,” lessening the need for enforcement. If First Nations were benefiting from the right to harvest, they might take an interest in policing the harvest.

·         Review experience with mechanisms for management from Alaska.

·         Set up a management board that would include industry representatives, as well as DFO, World Wildlife Fund, and others (Parks, local groups, etc.).

·         Look at the abalone stewardship group for a model of how local involvement in management might work, and seek funding to support local involvement.

4.6           The recovery planning process

There were some objections to the overall goal of recovery. As a participant in Massett said, “Just because someone in Ottawa says we’re low on otters, it’s not up to them to say we have to have them back. They should hear what we say, and rethink it, and maybe not have a recovery plan, and let the people decide if they want a recovery plan.”

Try a coastal community referendum to vote on whether recovery is supported locally. (Massett)

Several participants were concerned that the next, and future, status reports are too far off. They felt that reassessment should not wait until 2006, or ten years after that. They were also concerned that the census information on which the current plan is based is too old. Some people think that up-to-date statistics would show that otters should be de-listed now.

Get more up-to-date numbers of [the sea otter] population. (Skidegate)

Another challenge to the recovery planning process was about the composition of the SORT. A participant pointed out that although the Sierra Club covers some people, the tourism sector is a major stakeholder and is not on the team. Another said that someone from BC Parks should be on the team.

A participant in Vancouver with experience in recovery planning recommended that the Draft Action Plan should include an evaluation of the techniques of recovery, using a review process to evaluate successfulness. This also includes having well-defined goals and objectives. This is particularly important in connection with the five-year review of the Action Plan. Another participant suggested adding to the implementation table a row for the evaluation of recovery successes/failures at year 5.

Some questions were posed about next steps and opportunities for involvement – both in recovery activities and in the recovery planning process. One person observed that some people will not be aware of the 60 day timeframe for additional comments on the Draft Action Plan via the SARA Registry.

In Massett, discussions emphasized the need for people in the various communities in which the consultations on the Draft Action Plan took place to have access to the record of discussions in the different communities: “I’d like to see both sides. The people in Vancouver should know both sides before they decide if they support recovery or if they don’t.” A similar priority was expressed in Kyuquot: “It will be important to mention the concerns of Kyuquot in other communities.”

 

March 2004