The Public’s Reaction to Otter Reintroduction
A San Francisco crabber for 15 years, Nick Krieger arrived at the Bay Model Visitor Center in Sausalito a bit late after a morning of teaching surf lessons. He noticed that attendance was sparse, and he didn’t spot any other fishermen. But there had been a three-day stretch of calm weather, so he suspected they were taking advantage of the windless day. The open house in Sausalito was one of 16 held by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in June 2023 about the potential reintroduction of southern sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis), also known as California otters, to their historic range in northern California and Oregon. Attendees were invited to write down their opinions about a sea otter return and hundreds of their answers were published in an open house report by the Service in August this year. The majority of comments from the couple hundred Californians who participated extolled the benefits of sea otters in helping to restore kelp forests, the importance of biodiversity, ecosystem balance, and as many screamed in uppercase: “they’re just plain CUTE!” Only a small fraction of answers expressed opposition—and most of those were concerned with impacts to commercial and local fishing. A public engagement specialist answers questions at the information station on sea otters’ natural history and their keystone species role in Benjamin, Fort Bragg (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) “These informal events were a chance for us to meet one-on-one with members of the public to learn more about their interests, perspectives, and concerns about the idea of restoring sea otters to the ecosystem,” the Service wrote in an email. Currently there is no proposal from the Service to reintroduce the otters, but Congress directed the Service “to study the feasibility and cost of reestablishing sea otters” on the Pacific Coast, a result of the passage of Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. Two years later, the Service released its feasibility assessment that concludes the reintroduction of sea otters to northern California and Oregon is both economically and ecologically feasible. Otters once occurred from Baja California, Mexico to Oregon, but the population was hunted to near extinction for their pelts and is still listed as a threatened species under California state law. Southern sea otters have persevered along the central California coast, but the species has only reclaimed 13 percent of its historical range. Without the protection of kelp forests, which become more sparse north of Monterey Bay, otters are less inclined to migrate to the waters they were extirpated from more than 100 years ago. Those who do take the risk to venture north often return with fatal shark bites. The effect of sea otters on kelp is well-studied: otters control urchin populations that feed on kelp, which serves as habitat for other species, attenuates ocean currents, and absorbs carbon dioxide. In central California where southern sea otters persist, kelp populations have resisted centuries-long trends of decline that have occurred along coastlines without sea otters. Northern California has experienced an unprecedented depletion of kelp forests since 2014. Warming, nutrient-poor waters paired with the absence of sea urchin’s natural predators—otters and sunflower sea stars—has led to forest collapse in which only five percent of bull kelp remains in small, isolated patches in northern California. Purple sea urchin barren in Monterey, CA (Zachary Randall via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0); sea otter eating a purple urchin (Ingrid Taylar via Flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0) As the need for kelp restoration intensifies, so are conversations within the federal government about how southern sea otters can prevent exploding urchin populations from consuming the little kelp that remains—and hopefully, allow kelp forests to return. But in a changed ecosystem where humans harvest shellfish, the question of reintroduction requires more than biological considerations. In the feasibility report, the Service estimated that the costs of site evaluation, otter acquisition, release, monitoring, and postmortem and spill programs would range from $26 million to $43 million dollars over a 13-year period. While some would reap the benefits of sea otter return in ecosystem services, ecotourism, and finfish industries, the impact on shellfish fisheries—oysters, crabs, urchins, and clams—remains uncertain. “The ultimate success of reintroduction, however, would require additional work to overcome some challenges, particularly in the socioeconomic sector,” the Service’s feasibility assessment states. The open houses were part of the Service’s further efforts to evaluate public, industry, and tribal perspectives through informal conversations and voluntary surveys and mapping activities. The Service says their intention was “to follow up on the next steps recommended in our feasibility assessment by reaching out directly to people in the coastal communities that would be most directly affected by the possible future reintroduction of sea otters.” At the open houses, booths staffed by the Service presented information on colorful poster boards and invited people to share their thoughts in a series of questionnaires. There was a “Community-Based Mapping Activity” to help the Service understand what people valued about specific coastal environments and how they expected sea otters would affect that landscape. The voices of fishermen seemed scant in this survey, as only 39 of 185 responses from seven open houses in California answered with concerns about the impacts on fishing. More than two-thirds of those responses came from the open houses in Bodega Bay and Fort Bragg—rural coastal cities with multigenerational fishing families, where commercial fishing was identified as a “deeply ingrained value” by the Service. “Our community has a long history of a connection with the coast for commercial shellfish,” wrote a Fort Bragg local. “My concern is there aren’t enough viable sea urchins to feed the sea otters, and so they will eat whatever they can—wiping out the other shellfish.” As seen in Monterey Bay, otters ignored the urchin barrens, where emaciated urchins, devoid of the fleshy orange meat that seafood lovers (especially otters) crave, dominate the ecosystem. Still, where meaty urchins lived in isolated kelp patches, the otters dined, protecting the patches of kelp from overgrazing, and preserving spores for future kelp growth and recovery. A commercial urchin diver of 44 years at the Fort Bragg open house wrote, “my life is already changing because of the loss of kelp. Things in the ocean are bad, don’t make things worse.” Still, nearly half of comments from all seven California open houses said that the sea otters would restore or improve ocean ecosystems, and a quarter expected the otters would reverse kelp and seagrass loss by controlling urchins, which otters had done when reintroduced to the Elkhorn Slough estuary in Monterey Bay. “Sea otters can get rid of the urchins munching on kelp,” wrote a Point Reyes local who attended the Sausalito open house. The same respondent wrote that natural beauty and wildlife made Point Reyes special. For people who were supportive of the sea otters returning, the Service found that beauty, wildlife, mental and spiritual health, and environmental quality were mentioned frequently. From this mapping activity, the Service categorized the respondent’s comments into three types of value assigned to otters: instrumental (material goods and services), relational (human-nature interactions), and ecological (intrinsic value of nature). Multiple values could be held by one individual. Graph created by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service based on the community-based mapping survey, correlating respondents’ values with their support for sea otter reintroduction (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) “I really hope that sea otters could help restore the kelp forest as a key player in ecosystem balance,” wrote one respondent at Fort Bragg. “I’m also mindful of the needs of both subsistence and commercial fishermen.” Many fishermen expressed values of natural beauty, biological diversity, and tradition, and held the belief that introducing sea otters would disturb the environment by removing endangered shellfish species. “The ocean is in trouble enough, why add another predator to the abalones and other sea life?” asked one respondent in Bodega Bay. An attendee, who values the Mendocino coast for its natural beauty, recreation, and resource availability, wrote “the cost spent on reintroduction will be better used in direct kelp reforestation and protection.” The respondent fears sea otters will not survive with the growing presence of urchin barrens, and the Service should instead fund “more efficient ways to benefit the ecosystem.” Situated at another booth, the “Next Steps” activity asked attendees what possible socioeconomic effects the Service should consider at potential reintroduction sites. From this survey, over 60 percent of the 84 responses in California acknowledged the possible or inevitable effects of sea otter reintroduction on the fishing industry. “I am sympathetic to fisheries’ concerns,” one respondent in Emeryville wrote. “Can they receive subsidies or grants?” Many respondents got creative, proposing that the Service supplement fishermen’s incomes with taxes on vacation rentals or employ fishermen in otter eco-tourism. But some expressed that socioeconomic factors should not even be considered. In California, 13 of the 84 responses explicitly dismissed possible socioeconomic concerns. “There are no negative economic effects,” one respondent at the Fort Bragg open house said. “The amount of food otters eat should not be considered a loss to anybody.” Another respondent from the San Francisco open house believed that otters should be reintroduced “purely for the preservation of the species” without considering any human impact. The Service found that people who held recreational versus livelihood-based values were more likely to expect sea otters to have a positive impact on the coastal region by “controlling sea urchin barrens and revitalizing kelp forests.” “We should not always prioritize corporate or human profits,” one Point Reyes attendee belonging to a family of recreational fishermen wrote. Another respondent wanted to distinguish between who gets the profits. “We shouldn’t do anything substantial for the corporations, and should focus on those with a real connection to shellfish as a livelihood,” the respondent at Emeryville said. But from surveys, both commercial and subsistence fishermen express that their livelihoods deeply rely on shellfish. “I am a Native American that has lived in Fort Bragg all of my life,” one respondent wrote. “Sea otters are going to take our food sources away, like abalone and mussels.” Similarly, “the reintroduction will affect what I do,” wrote a commercial fisherman, translated from Spanish, and asked that the Service consider all families that depend on “ocean products.” Whether subsistence or commercial, fishermen in northern California harbor a deep and often-generational connection and access to shellfish that has become more fragile. Under these conditions, many are expressing that sea otters are a severe threat to their livelihoods. Service biologists talk to open house attendees (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) After the open houses, the Service analyzed the results of the feedback they received in an open house report. They state that the viewpoints of those who participated can’t entirely represent the perspectives of their communities, and that the open houses were just a first step in an “ongoing effort” to understand what local community members cared about. As for next steps, the Service plans to convene a series of workshops with stakeholders and scientific experts to explore options that “might present an acceptable level of risk to all parties”—and ultimately develop criteria for potential reintroduction site selection. After a full-scale socioeconomic impact study, the Service then intends to develop pilot studies or small-scale reintroductions to decide whether surrogate-reared southern sea otter pups or wild captured sea otters in estuaries should be chosen for establishment. Their final step: integrate population growth and expansion models to forecast outcomes of interaction between the reintroduced populations. The Service also solicited general feedback in California and Oregon on the open houses themselves. Of the 70 comments they received, 63 percent deemed the open houses as very valuable and 24 percent as valuable. Although there were mixed opinions on how sea otters will impact northern Californians, the open houses appeared to be a two-way street in sharing information between the Service and the general public. For Nick Krieger, he preferred staying under the radar at the Sausalito open house. He did not want to upset people with his controversial views, and chose not to participate in the survey activities. “I went to listen and observe,” Krieger said.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife invited coastal communities to comment on otters in Northern California and here’s what they learned. The post The Public’s Reaction to Otter Reintroduction appeared first on Bay Nature.
A San Francisco crabber for 15 years, Nick Krieger arrived at the Bay Model Visitor Center in Sausalito a bit late after a morning of teaching surf lessons. He noticed that attendance was sparse, and he didn’t spot any other fishermen. But there had been a three-day stretch of calm weather, so he suspected they were taking advantage of the windless day.
The open house in Sausalito was one of 16 held by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in June 2023 about the potential reintroduction of southern sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis), also known as California otters, to their historic range in northern California and Oregon. Attendees were invited to write down their opinions about a sea otter return and hundreds of their answers were published in an open house report by the Service in August this year. The majority of comments from the couple hundred Californians who participated extolled the benefits of sea otters in helping to restore kelp forests, the importance of biodiversity, ecosystem balance, and as many screamed in uppercase: “they’re just plain CUTE!” Only a small fraction of answers expressed opposition—and most of those were concerned with impacts to commercial and local fishing.
A public engagement specialist answers questions at the information station on sea otters’ natural history and their keystone species role in Benjamin, Fort Bragg (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
“These informal events were a chance for us to meet one-on-one with members of the public to learn more about their interests, perspectives, and concerns about the idea of restoring sea otters to the ecosystem,” the Service wrote in an email.
Currently there is no proposal from the Service to reintroduce the otters, but Congress directed the Service “to study the feasibility and cost of reestablishing sea otters” on the Pacific Coast, a result of the passage of Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. Two years later, the Service released its feasibility assessment that concludes the reintroduction of sea otters to northern California and Oregon is both economically and ecologically feasible.
Otters once occurred from Baja California, Mexico to Oregon, but the population was hunted to near extinction for their pelts and is still listed as a threatened species under California state law. Southern sea otters have persevered along the central California coast, but the species has only reclaimed 13 percent of its historical range. Without the protection of kelp forests, which become more sparse north of Monterey Bay, otters are less inclined to migrate to the waters they were extirpated from more than 100 years ago. Those who do take the risk to venture north often return with fatal shark bites.
The effect of sea otters on kelp is well-studied: otters control urchin populations that feed on kelp, which serves as habitat for other species, attenuates ocean currents, and absorbs carbon dioxide. In central California where southern sea otters persist, kelp populations have resisted centuries-long trends of decline that have occurred along coastlines without sea otters. Northern California has experienced an unprecedented depletion of kelp forests since 2014. Warming, nutrient-poor waters paired with the absence of sea urchin’s natural predators—otters and sunflower sea stars—has led to forest collapse in which only five percent of bull kelp remains in small, isolated patches in northern California.
Purple sea urchin barren in Monterey, CA (Zachary Randall via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0); sea otter eating a purple urchin (Ingrid Taylar via Flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0)
As the need for kelp restoration intensifies, so are conversations within the federal government about how southern sea otters can prevent exploding urchin populations from consuming the little kelp that remains—and hopefully, allow kelp forests to return. But in a changed ecosystem where humans harvest shellfish, the question of reintroduction requires more than biological considerations.
In the feasibility report, the Service estimated that the costs of site evaluation, otter acquisition, release, monitoring, and postmortem and spill programs would range from $26 million to $43 million dollars over a 13-year period.
While some would reap the benefits of sea otter return in ecosystem services, ecotourism, and finfish industries, the impact on shellfish fisheries—oysters, crabs, urchins, and clams—remains uncertain. “The ultimate success of reintroduction, however, would require additional work to overcome some challenges, particularly in the socioeconomic sector,” the Service’s feasibility assessment states.
The open houses were part of the Service’s further efforts to evaluate public, industry, and tribal perspectives through informal conversations and voluntary surveys and mapping activities. The Service says their intention was “to follow up on the next steps recommended in our feasibility assessment by reaching out directly to people in the coastal communities that would be most directly affected by the possible future reintroduction of sea otters.”
At the open houses, booths staffed by the Service presented information on colorful poster boards and invited people to share their thoughts in a series of questionnaires. There was a “Community-Based Mapping Activity” to help the Service understand what people valued about specific coastal environments and how they expected sea otters would affect that landscape. The voices of fishermen seemed scant in this survey, as only 39 of 185 responses from seven open houses in California answered with concerns about the impacts on fishing. More than two-thirds of those responses came from the open houses in Bodega Bay and Fort Bragg—rural coastal cities with multigenerational fishing families, where commercial fishing was identified as a “deeply ingrained value” by the Service.
“Our community has a long history of a connection with the coast for commercial shellfish,” wrote a Fort Bragg local. “My concern is there aren’t enough viable sea urchins to feed the sea otters, and so they will eat whatever they can—wiping out the other shellfish.” As seen in Monterey Bay, otters ignored the urchin barrens, where emaciated urchins, devoid of the fleshy orange meat that seafood lovers (especially otters) crave, dominate the ecosystem. Still, where meaty urchins lived in isolated kelp patches, the otters dined, protecting the patches of kelp from overgrazing, and preserving spores for future kelp growth and recovery.
A commercial urchin diver of 44 years at the Fort Bragg open house wrote, “my life is already changing because of the loss of kelp. Things in the ocean are bad, don’t make things worse.”
Still, nearly half of comments from all seven California open houses said that the sea otters would restore or improve ocean ecosystems, and a quarter expected the otters would reverse kelp and seagrass loss by controlling urchins, which otters had done when reintroduced to the Elkhorn Slough estuary in Monterey Bay.
“Sea otters can get rid of the urchins munching on kelp,” wrote a Point Reyes local who attended the Sausalito open house. The same respondent wrote that natural beauty and wildlife made Point Reyes special. For people who were supportive of the sea otters returning, the Service found that beauty, wildlife, mental and spiritual health, and environmental quality were mentioned frequently.
From this mapping activity, the Service categorized the respondent’s comments into three types of value assigned to otters: instrumental (material goods and services), relational (human-nature interactions), and ecological (intrinsic value of nature). Multiple values could be held by one individual.
Graph created by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service based on the community-based mapping survey, correlating respondents’ values with their support for sea otter reintroduction (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
“I really hope that sea otters could help restore the kelp forest as a key player in ecosystem balance,” wrote one respondent at Fort Bragg. “I’m also mindful of the needs of both subsistence and commercial fishermen.”
Many fishermen expressed values of natural beauty, biological diversity, and tradition, and held the belief that introducing sea otters would disturb the environment by removing endangered shellfish species.
“The ocean is in trouble enough, why add another predator to the abalones and other sea life?” asked one respondent in Bodega Bay.
An attendee, who values the Mendocino coast for its natural beauty, recreation, and resource availability, wrote “the cost spent on reintroduction will be better used in direct kelp reforestation and protection.” The respondent fears sea otters will not survive with the growing presence of urchin barrens, and the Service should instead fund “more efficient ways to benefit the ecosystem.”
Situated at another booth, the “Next Steps” activity asked attendees what possible socioeconomic effects the Service should consider at potential reintroduction sites. From this survey, over 60 percent of the 84 responses in California acknowledged the possible or inevitable effects of sea otter reintroduction on the fishing industry.
“I am sympathetic to fisheries’ concerns,” one respondent in Emeryville wrote. “Can they receive subsidies or grants?” Many respondents got creative, proposing that the Service supplement fishermen’s incomes with taxes on vacation rentals or employ fishermen in otter eco-tourism. But some expressed that socioeconomic factors should not even be considered. In California, 13 of the 84 responses explicitly dismissed possible socioeconomic concerns.
“There are no negative economic effects,” one respondent at the Fort Bragg open house said. “The amount of food otters eat should not be considered a loss to anybody.” Another respondent from the San Francisco open house believed that otters should be reintroduced “purely for the preservation of the species” without considering any human impact.
The Service found that people who held recreational versus livelihood-based values were more likely to expect sea otters to have a positive impact on the coastal region by “controlling sea urchin barrens and revitalizing kelp forests.”
“We should not always prioritize corporate or human profits,” one Point Reyes attendee belonging to a family of recreational fishermen wrote. Another respondent wanted to distinguish between who gets the profits.
“We shouldn’t do anything substantial for the corporations, and should focus on those with a real connection to shellfish as a livelihood,” the respondent at Emeryville said. But from surveys, both commercial and subsistence fishermen express that their livelihoods deeply rely on shellfish.
“I am a Native American that has lived in Fort Bragg all of my life,” one respondent wrote. “Sea otters are going to take our food sources away, like abalone and mussels.”
Similarly, “the reintroduction will affect what I do,” wrote a commercial fisherman, translated from Spanish, and asked that the Service consider all families that depend on “ocean products.”
Whether subsistence or commercial, fishermen in northern California harbor a deep and often-generational connection and access to shellfish that has become more fragile. Under these conditions, many are expressing that sea otters are a severe threat to their livelihoods.
Service biologists talk to open house attendees (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
After the open houses, the Service analyzed the results of the feedback they received in an open house report. They state that the viewpoints of those who participated can’t entirely represent the perspectives of their communities, and that the open houses were just a first step in an “ongoing effort” to understand what local community members cared about.
As for next steps, the Service plans to convene a series of workshops with stakeholders and scientific experts to explore options that “might present an acceptable level of risk to all parties”—and ultimately develop criteria for potential reintroduction site selection. After a full-scale socioeconomic impact study, the Service then intends to develop pilot studies or small-scale reintroductions to decide whether surrogate-reared southern sea otter pups or wild captured sea otters in estuaries should be chosen for establishment. Their final step: integrate population growth and expansion models to forecast outcomes of interaction between the reintroduced populations.
The Service also solicited general feedback in California and Oregon on the open houses themselves. Of the 70 comments they received, 63 percent deemed the open houses as very valuable and 24 percent as valuable. Although there were mixed opinions on how sea otters will impact northern Californians, the open houses appeared to be a two-way street in sharing information between the Service and the general public.
For Nick Krieger, he preferred staying under the radar at the Sausalito open house. He did not want to upset people with his controversial views, and chose not to participate in the survey activities.
“I went to listen and observe,” Krieger said.