House Joint Resolution 26 has cleared its last committee before heading to the Senate Floor for a final vote.
The resolution urges state and federal governments to work with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game and Southeast Alaska Native leaders to set a course for management of the reintroduced sea otter population of Southeast Alaska.
The management practice assumed in the bill is an increased cull to slow the growth of the population and therefore protect specific marine resources.
Sea otters were reintroduced to Southeast Alaska in 1965-1969.
According to resolution sponsor Peggy Wilson, R-Wrangell, said in a statement sea otter populations have grown at a rate of 12 percent in Southeast. The notorious eating habits of enhydra lutris have “cost the Southeast Alaska economy 28.3 million dollars directly and indirectly since 1995,” according to report by the McDowell Group from November 2011.
Wilson’s solution is incentivizing an increased sea otter harvest by Native Alaskans. To do so, Wilson’s resolution encourages the federal government to change the Marine Mammal Protection Act to change the definition of handicrafts to “Alaska native articles of handicraft.” This, the bill’s sponsor and many in the Native community said, will clear up confusion as to whether blankets, vests and teddy bears are permissible uses for sea otter pelts. The hope is that solid definitions will result in less disagreement between Natives and the federal government.
In an email interview following an earlier committee hearing in February, Diana Rae Riedel, owner of Dineega Specialty Furs, said she works with sea otter pelts in her business.
“An easier and better approach to utilizing sea otters would be for US Fish and Wildlife to back off from scaring people to use them and for them to quit harassing native artists,” Riedel stated in the email. “They told me I was not allowed to teach my own daughter how to sew pelts even though she is a coastal residing Alaskan native.”
The resolution originally encouraged the adoption of rules that would allow Natives to sell raw sea otter pelts to non-natives. This was strongly discouraged by the Southeast Native community.
HJR 26 moved out of Senate Resources Committee on Monday — its only committee referral after having passed the House on March 19.
The resolution has yet to be scheduled for a Senate floor vote.
• Contact reporter Russell Stigall at 523-2276 or at russell.stigall@juneauempire.com.
Comments (14)
Add commentHow about opening them up to
How about opening them up to the general hunting populace? More hunters means more otters taken. Make it a huntable specie managed by ADF&G. Buy a license, shoot an otter. Simple.
Eating machines they are.
As cute as they are they are a menace to the food chain.
Thank you Peggy Wilson.
How many thousand years have otters been in Southeast?
The Empire mentioned otters were reintroduced but didn't mention they were slaughtered to extinction in the recent past. They aren't some new dangerous creature that the ecosystem didn't evolve with.
I would wager there was never a shortage of fish in Southeast when otters were abundant. This seems like a plan to shift the blame for overfishing to otters. It also seems like a plan to open the door to commercial hunting, cloaked in the guise of subsistence.
There aren't any sea otters in Juneau right now but they have them in Sitka, Yakutat, and Icy Strait. Funny that the fishing is better there than here.
Southeast Alaska is a natural
Southeast Alaska is a natural habitat for otters, who have lived here for thousands of years. I would argue that this ecosystem without otters would not be as healthy and strong. Native communities have pointed out that otter populations go through natural fluctuations, where for a few years they are higher and then they dwindle down. I think important Alaska Native knowledge such as this should be taken into consideration before jumping to a bunch of legislation.
Sea otters are not only an important subsistence resource for Alaska Natives, but they are also a vital component to much of the artwork of the Southeast Native community. Maybe instead of hunting the otter out again, we should ease legislation and regulations on Native artists and hunters. The hoops that Native hunters and artists have to go through just to sell their goods are often times extreme. Rather than making it harder for the Native hunter or artist, we should try to make it easier for them hunt and sell their pelts and artwork.
jjd
...you missed this part.
"The resolution originally encouraged the adoption of rules that would allow Natives to sell raw sea otter pelts to non-natives. This was strongly discouraged by the Southeast Native community."
If "Natives sold raw otter
If "Natives sold raw otter pelts to non-natives" it would defeat the whole purpose. That would make it even harder for Native artists to sell their artwork. There is other legislation and regulations that make it hard for hunters to sell their pelts to anyone. Once a Native hunter takes an otter, they have 30 days to report it. There are also other things they must do, such as remove a certain tooth and send that in. Native artists also often have a difficult time selling their crafts. A craft is carefully defined in legislation and they must alter the raw pelt by 70%. There have been many works of art deemed unfit under this regulation. Native artists don't need the federal government breathing down their neck, scrutinizing everything they do, and telling them what their artwork should look like and be.
Please! lets not do this.
Please! lets not do this.
Just leave them alone.
Period.
jjd.....what purpose?
the purpose of not allowing anyone but natives access to Otters?
So right now there are too many. Natives apparently aren't taking enough, - a few people still doing art can only make so much in a year - an otter is a big animal. I thought selling it to other people who want to do arts/crafts/make coats, whatever - would be a win win. More $ for natives, otter for everyone, culling for Fish and Game.
If the native art is good enough, it will sell even if other people have access to otter.
But natives don't want other people to have otter, and they don't want to take enough to cull them so there are enough crab around for everyone - what kind of sense does that make?
I'm not convinced...
That they're such a menace. Sure, crabbing takes a hit. But what ecological services do they offer? I'd like to hear from more than commercial interests and Peggy Wilson. NMFS should be making the call here.
They also eat urchins which
They also eat urchins which keep the kelp growth in check. Kelp forests are the rearing grounds of juvenile fish. More kelp forests mean better fisheries. I dont see them as such a menace. I also dont see the harm in allowing them to be hunted like anything else.yearly bag limit of one or two. Seems fine to me.