Editor’s Pulpit: South Dakota unprotects the otter. Why?

From: The Otter - Summer 2020

South Dakota’s Department of Game, Fish and Parks (GFP) commemorated the statewide sighting in 2019 of 40 otters by deciding such a number was impressive enough to remove this charismatic animal from “threatened” status. That’s right, a mere 40 sightings. That figure includes otters accidentally killed by trappers or vehicles. The year before there were 38 sightings in the entire state.

Let’s put those numbers -40 and 38 annual sightings- in perspective. What about populations in neighboring states? In Minnesota, otter numbers top 12,000. Nebraska reports 7,000 otters, and Iowa claims 4,000. North Dakota does not report a survey.

In 2018, South Dakota’s natural heritage program, a division of GFP, described otters as “imperiled because of rarity or because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.” That viewpoint contradicts the agency’s decision to de-list the otter.

Friends of the Big Sioux River (FBSR) named our newsletters after the otter and added the otter to our logo because we admire otters. They are a joyful, communal, beautiful and remarkable animal. Equally important, the presence of otters reflects the condition of the Big Sioux River. Otters need the right habitat and clean water. It’s a positive thing if they populate the Big Sioux. Our mission, after all, is to restore health to the river, and that includes our hope that one day there will be lots of otters using the river. Otters are a symbolic and aspirational animal.

River otters were once common in South Dakota. Trapping, hunting, habitat destruction and waterway degradation combined to decimate the otter population. As recently as 1998 there had been one or less than one otter sighting in the entire state during each of the previous 20 years.

In 1998 and 1999, the Flandreau Sioux Tribe introduced 35 otters to the Big Sioux River in Moody County. In 2004, state otter sightings climbed to 22, and by 2012 they’d risen to 46. Some of the original clan sauntered and swam west and settled along the James and Vermillion rivers. Sightings actually tapered from 2012 to 2019, not an encouraging trend.

GFP’s explanation for de-listing the species and allowing limited trapping hinges on the determination that otter reproduction is happening in three river basins. We don’t think this is sufficient scientific validation to declare victory in the effort to save the otter. Strangely, an overall population estimate was not a benchmark.

Since the otter was classified as a “threatened” species in 1978, no intentional trapping of this animal was permitted. Any kills by trappers were classified as “incidental” or accidental, required a report to the State, and pelts could not be kept by the trapper. Trappers complained that otters inconvenienced them.

The de-listing plan allows for up to 15 otters to be trapped each year by 15 trappers working in any one of 32 east river counties. Assuming that the 40 sightings from last year were different otters, trappers will be able to legally kill 37 percent of the state’s known otter population. Is this sustainable? What about incidental catches? There has been no established limit on those. How could there be? The whole teetering system is built on the honesty of trappers and GFP’s contention that reproduction in three basins is worthy of declassification.

An otter pelt will fetch about $20-30 this year, three times the value of mink and double that of beaver. So, it should be apparent that the monetary value of trapping and skinning otters hardly seems significant. And if the decision to de-list the otter was not made to profit a certain special interest –trappers- than what is the real reason for this determination?

Collette Adkins, Carnivore Conservation Director and a senior attorney specializing in endangered species at the Center for Biological Diversity, expressed alarm about GFP’s decision. “South Dakota’s recovering population of river otters remains small and should be protected, not trapped,” said Adkins. “Unfortunately, the state’s wildlife managers seem determined to appease a minority of trappers at the expense of the rest of us, who would be thrilled to have a chance to see these fascinating animals in the wild.”

What’s with the State’s obsession with trapping? FBSR does not formally oppose trapping, but we can’t help but recall the State’s expensive and mostly unsuccessful pheasant rescue plan that relied on rewarding trappers for killing pheasant predators. Otters, by the way, are not predators of pheasants or their eggs. They don’t degrade croplands, consume cash crops or harm livestock. They do not cut down trees or cause flooding. They do prey on muskrats. They are not a nuisance species to anyone but trappers seeking to kill beaver or muskrat.

Our state’s leadership must realize that interest in outdoor recreation activities like wildlife watching, canoeing/kayaking and hiking are rising quickly, and that activities such as hunting and trapping are losing popularity. This trend won’t change, no matter how much money the State throws at trappers. Otters on the river will attract and delight paddlers, hikers and wildlife watchers.

GFP’s decision to de-list otters is short-sighted, misguided and, frankly, a bit suspicious. Forty otter sightings across the entire state is hardly a reason to celebrate. It is, however, a reason to focus more attention on doing what it takes to restore otters to our landscape. Doing this sort of work –resurrecting a reasonable share of our state’s wildlife heritage through habitat protections and restoration- is how an agency like GFP must earn its keep.