The real truth on SRKW

[california]

I would completely agree with that. The science is clear thus far that some problem seals are contributing to significant out-migrant smolt (steelhead, chinook, coho) predation. The numbers are staggering.
The solutions are not at all clear however.
The other great unknown is what happens out on the high seas - research funding and program launch this winter is going to find out for the first time. Will be interesting research that we can follow on the web daily - they are going to report daily updates.

There is no doubt seals prey on outgoing smolts. They always have and always will. Of course in recent history we have also been responsible for enabling them. Most estuaries, esp in the Salish Sea, have had the wetlands where smolts can seek refuge drained and replaced with dikes and breakwaters. We provide convenient haul outs on those breakwaters, or put log booms in the area which make great haul outs, safe and right on top of the prey. In many watersheds we have replaced the natural cycle of predator wary smolts trickling into the estuary gradually, with great floods of hundreds of thousands, or millions of plump naive tank raised smolts. At the same time we have removed large amounts of the biomass of alternate prey items like herring and groundfish. Some of the more comprehensive research pegs it at over 30 million chinook smolts eaten by seals coast wide, much of that in the salish sea. It is a big number to be sure, but is still a fraction of the 200 million in hatchery releases of chinook over that same range, and chinook stocks in areas with low seal predation are also depressed. Seal populations stabilized a decade ago, yet Chinook populations continue to decline. So very clearly there is much more going on than seals. The SRKW.org conclusions that seals are THE problem, and killing them is the solution is not true, and only based on a small slice of the science. I accept that some limited removal of problem animals, particularly those using choke points, man made or natural, to target adult returning fish, (far more damaging as these are the natural selection survivors) is likely necessary. If FN were to somehow reaquire and develop a taste for seal again I think it would be within their rights to hunt and utilize them them in that way, however that seems unlikely. There is no commercial value in these animals. They are only one of a long line of animals eating smolts, which includes other adult salmon. Its also worth noting that there is a large seal cull going on every day. There are over 300 transient whales, each needing a seal or sea lion meal every second or third day on average. That's probably at least 30,000 per year.

I don't see the conclusions of the clearly biased and questionable credibility of SRKW.org being helpful to our cause. I do believe that is aimed at mainly appeasing other sport fisherman, but seems it will have little credibility anywhere else. Searun, your posts are almost always much more reasoned, and do not seem to mirror the messages on SRKW.org very closely. My hope is the actions outlined in the new Wild salmon recovery plan are actually implemented, as the only hope for the future is in rebuilding wild stocks, for sport fisherman, FN, commercial, and whales. I was happy to see it's a WILD salmon recovery plan, and DFO has learned from the mistakes of the past of believing hatcheries are the answer. The shift of seeing them as tool to recovery of wild stocks is important.

 

[searun]

I concur with most of your points there CA. Ecosystems are complex, requiring equally diverse solutions. An all out seal cull is a rather simplistic view, and frankly won't help at all. In fact, could backfire for NRKW who rely upon seals as food. I think the more reasonable, science based, approach is to carefully identify problem seals in specific locations (because they are territorial for most part). That would be helpful, and I think the message on SRKW.org likely wasn't intending to promote a broad based "cull," however some appear to be reading it that way. As such, should be revised to reflect the current science and clearly articulate the intended message.

I just had the pleasure of reading the province's wild salmon paper, and for the most part it represents a pretty nice template. Little short on specifics, but frankly don't think it was intended to do anything more than outline the high level concepts. I was hoping to see more of a focus on implementing a habitat restoration program similar to what was axed by the Gordon Campbell Liberals. I would be looking/hoping for more emphasis on local community involvement and stakeholder input than the old approach to how we implemented the former Habitat Restoration Program. Instead prefer adopting the approach as outlined in the policy document with regard to stakeholder and local community involvement to utilize local and indigenous knowledge more tactically. That approach is a breath of fresh air! But, there is still time for the province to tweak the approach. I'm very impressed so far with the Premier's concern and action on the salmon file.

Hatcheries are indeed a tool, not a solution. We need to use them wisely, but use them until we can recover productive habitat. In some cases it may be impossible to recover the habitat, so there also needs to be some strategic utilization of hatcheries to augment the mess we created by destroying habitat beyond repair.

I know everyone seems to be on the band wagon that there is a huge decline in Chinook abundance, but frankly that has not been my experience on the water. This season was epic, and frankly what we experienced on the water flies in the face of what the propaganda machine is spinning. I want to dig into the research to see what is really going on. I suspect we are being fed a line of BS. Not to say there aren't some stocks of concern - we know there are many chinook stocks in specific rivers in trouble...but the overall number of Chinook swimming out there for killer whales as a food source isn't as advertised.

 

[littlechucky]

I concur with most of your points there CA. Ecosystems are complex, requiring equally diverse solutions. An all out seal cull is a rather simplistic view, and frankly won't help at all. In fact, could backfire for NRKW who rely upon seals as food. I think the more reasonable, science based, approach is to carefully identify problem seals in specific locations (because they are territorial for most part). That would be helpful, and I think the message on SRKW.org likely wasn't intending to promote a broad based "cull," however some appear to be reading it that way. As such, should be revised to reflect the current science and clearly articulate the intended message.

I just had the pleasure of reading the province's wild salmon paper, and for the most part it represents a pretty nice template. Little short on specifics, but frankly don't think it was intended to do anything more than outline the high level concepts. I was hoping to see more of a focus on implementing a habitat restoration program similar to what was axed by the Gordon Campbell Liberals. I would be looking/hoping for more emphasis on local community involvement and stakeholder input than the old approach to how we implemented the former Habitat Restoration Program. Instead prefer adopting the approach as outlined in the policy document with regard to stakeholder and local community involvement to utilize local and indigenous knowledge more tactically. That approach is a breath of fresh air! But, there is still time for the province to tweak the approach. I'm very impressed so far with the Premier's concern and action on the salmon file.

Hatcheries are indeed a tool, not a solution. We need to use them wisely, but use them until we can recover productive habitat. In some cases it may be impossible to recover the habitat, so there also needs to be some strategic utilization of hatcheries to augment the mess we created by destroying habitat beyond repair.

I know everyone seems to be on the band wagon that there is a huge decline in Chinook abundance, but frankly that has not been my experience on the water. This season was epic, and frankly what we experienced on the water flies in the face of what the propaganda machine is spinning. I want to dig into the research to see what is really going on. I suspect we are being fed a line of BS. Not to say there aren't some stocks of concern - we know there are many chinook stocks in specific rivers in trouble...but the overall number of Chinook swimming out there for killer whales as a food source isn't as advertised.

Would be interesting to know which rivers all these fish are coming from.

Fishing has been very good in the spring in the Vancouver / Gulf Islands area the past few years. Also the northern straight has been very good in the summer as well. There have been areas which have been slower than usual I am sure as well.

 

[fish brain]

I concur with most of your points there CA. Ecosystems are complex, requiring equally diverse solutions. An all out seal cull is a rather simplistic view, and frankly won't help at all. In fact, could backfire for NRKW who rely upon seals as food. I think the more reasonable, science based, approach is to carefully identify problem seals in specific locations (because they are territorial for most part). That would be helpful, and I think the message on SRKW.org likely wasn't intending to promote a broad based "cull," however some appear to be reading it that way. As such, should be revised to reflect the current science and clearly articulate the intended message.

I just had the pleasure of reading the province's wild salmon paper, and for the most part it represents a pretty nice template. Little short on specifics, but frankly don't think it was intended to do anything more than outline the high level concepts. I was hoping to see more of a focus on implementing a habitat restoration program similar to what was axed by the Gordon Campbell Liberals. I would be looking/hoping for more emphasis on local community involvement and stakeholder input than the old approach to how we implemented the former Habitat Restoration Program. Instead prefer adopting the approach as outlined in the policy document with regard to stakeholder and local community involvement to utilize local and indigenous knowledge more tactically. That approach is a breath of fresh air! But, there is still time for the province to tweak the approach. I'm very impressed so far with the Premier's concern and action on the salmon file.

Hatcheries are indeed a tool, not a solution. We need to use them wisely, but use them until we can recover productive habitat. In some cases it may be impossible to recover the habitat, so there also needs to be some strategic utilization of hatcheries to augment the mess we created by destroying habitat beyond repair.

I know everyone seems to be on the band wagon that there is a huge decline in Chinook abundance, but frankly that has not been my experience on the water. This season was epic, and frankly what we experienced on the water flies in the face of what the propaganda machine is spinning. I want to dig into the research to see what is really going on. I suspect we are being fed a line of BS. Not to say there aren't some stocks of concern - we know there are many chinook stocks in specific rivers in trouble...but the overall number of Chinook swimming out there for killer whales as a food source isn't as advertised.

I agree with everything you say here Searun, even selective culls on Seals, that makes much more sense to me than a broad based slaughter simply to reduce numbers.

WRT Chinook abundance I believe we really need to study the effects of the blob. It lased for four years (2013-2016) until it broke up. Most salmon have a four year life cycle. For the first two years of the Blob fishing was relatively normal. then by year three weird returns were being seen coast wide, by year three, places like Moutcha Bay and Tahsis were having some of their worst years ever 2015-2017 We are now two years with ocean temperatures being close to normal and seeing the return of fish that would have been in that area with a more favorable environment, and thus better returns, which should get better as the remaining fish work through their cycles with no blob......... Now this is just my opinion, and is purely observational. I can't find any reliable science to back this up, and am always open to thoughts from those more knowledgeable than myself. But in my mind it fits with the returns we have been seeing coast wide

 

[searun]

I think we have to look closely at the data, and not buy into the propaganda at face value. I'm slowly learning that the Green ENGO's are very good at spinning false information as if it is fact. When you take the time to fact check most of the stuff they put out is designed to create a false sense of panic. I think Dr. Andrew Trites video has been posted somewhere on here, a good example of calling out the fake news being put out there. We need to seek the truth, and form action plans based on real facts not someone's spin doctoring effort designed to sell memberships.

From my experience the Chinook numbers have been relatively stable in the last decade, so where's this big crisis? Going to reach out to one of the Chinook Biologists to see if there is historic data available to test the propaganda machine's claims.

Lets also not forget that SRKW (the population actually in trouble) spend most of their lives down south in the US. They come here to Canada in the summer - a time of abundance. If there is a Chinook crisis we have to look more closely on where the pods over-winter!!! Remember, the big concern is they return to Canada in the summer looking nutritionally stressed - that happened over the winter months. Why are we not looking south to see what is being done there! Why is BC to blame for everything?

I'm also learning that we can't always trust DFO's science advice - we saw when they shared the data used to determine RKW are "critically" using LaPerouse was very badly flawed. 34 observed sightings in 40 years is nothing more than they occasionally use it. DFO mammal science staff are making huge inferences to spin together loose data to prove their own belief that fisheries are a bad thing that must be stopped - which diminishes their roles as trusted science advisors to the Minister in my mind. Science advice needs to be objective, not partizan. Don't forget that an independent group of scientists reviewed the issue of prey availability and concluded the fisheries (if stopped) would do nothing for RKW recovery. Its prey acquisition that is the problem. Too many vessels hounding whales as they try to hunt their prey. We are loving these animals to death. 200m bubble is a joke - it needs to be 400m or more.

 

[Whitebuck]

Little chucky....our fishing around Vancouver and gulf islands has been great due to the hatchery enhancement in puget sound and our hatcheries in the lower mainland. Take these fish away and watch how quickly those fisheries go to ****!

 

[agentaqua]

I think we have to look closely at the data, and not buy into the propaganda at face value. I'm slowly learning that the Green ENGO's are very good at spinning false information as if it is fact. When you take the time to fact check most of the stuff they put out is designed to create a false sense of panic. I think Dr. Andrew Trites video has been posted somewhere on here, a good example of calling out the fake news being put out there. We need to seek the truth, and form action plans based on real facts not someone's spin doctoring effort designed to sell memberships.

I'm also learning that we can't always trust DFO's science advice...

Talk about a couple of understatements, searun. Couldn't agree more strongly with your comments. I would add however - that the NGOs are actually a spectrum of honesty and support - as I see it - with IFAW, Sea Shepherd and a few others on one side of the spectrum with the Pacific Salmon Foundation, the Atlantic Salmon Federation, the T. Buck Suzuki and a few others on the other side of that spectrum.

wrt DFO science - well way too many years ago DFO science was isolated from the political decisions before DFO was reincorporated into it's current form. There was the Fisheries Research Board of Canada was far ahead of it's time wrt the actual science - and leaving the political decisions to that branch of the government.

And altho I also agree w many of California's comments - I would also add something to his overview. That is - the problem of seals and negative fisheries interactions is not just confined to the "Salish Sea". Recently - with the focus on the SRKW - all the info on seals seems to be focused on that area - a small area wrt the rest of the coast.

 

[searun]

Yes, I had my DFO science is objective and not partizan bubble burst when I started digging into the so called science used to justify the SARA proposed Critical Habitat extension. Talk about junk science! Its more what I would call faith based science, where they believe certain things and try to make whatever data they conjure up fit that belief. For example:

Look closely at the Critical Habitat proposed area - they spin a set of data showing 196 observations of RKW as representative of what is happening inside the actual CH proposed extension area...I could only count 89!! Yup, they included observations from areas that are already within existing CH areas that are under a SARA protection order.

Oh, and that is 40 years of data. Looking closely at LaPerouse could only find 34 over that same 40 year period - less than 1 per year!

Then, tipped off by some guides from Port Renfrew, learned that 30% of the observation data used was from 1 water taxi guy...not DFO. And further, that there was no DFO data until 2003 when they started surveys.

Also learned that most of the surveys are in near shore areas, and that they have limited surveys out on LaPerouse and Swiftsure

Also learned that the Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) they did in only 1 location on Swiftsure had a detection range of only 7.2 km to 8.6 km radius or 232 square km...the proposed extension area for Critical Habitat is 5,025 square km's. How, yes how is PAM data from 4.6% of the total area proposed any representation of how whales actually utilize this so called critical habitat.

No wonder when we talk to folks with 20 to 50 years on the water experience in the proposed CH area, they say no one sees the killer whales out there. I've only seen them 3 times in 20 years of guiding out there.

I started to see a pattern of making giant leaps of faith to string together very few actual data points to sell a fake news story. How can the Minister rely on such garbage to make decisions that have such incredible economic and social consequence?? OMG

 

[agentaqua]

I started to see a pattern of making giant leaps of faith to string together very few actual data points to sell a fake news story. How can the Minister rely on such garbage to make decisions that have such incredible economic and social consequence?? OMG

OMG is right, searun. Been OMFG for quite a while.

Now imagine a newly-elected politician w almost zero science or fishing experience having a visit from an industry lobbyist followed by a industry lawyer's letter into Justice Canada - followed by carefully massaged and worded PR release (aka speaking notes) developed by the Communications Branch based on a few key nuggets pulled from that same study or other similar studies (e.g. no ISAv in Canada) - followed by a private cabinet meeting w the PM who wishes the party to get re-elected and needing funds to run campaigns on, too. Nothing to see here folks!

 

[SpringFever552]

http://flip.it/Amyw09

Data getting screwed with..no never
Bet its done by all sides of any debate

 

[agentaqua]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/491305800985444/permalink/1889913121124698/

 

[searun]

Wow, that's a lot of mis-guided seal anger on that FB page...the science doesn't support the all out seal cull views - carefully selecting problem animals at specific locations yes, but all out assault no. Although, I did once joke about mounting a 50 cal to my boat...amusing thought, but not really smart choice even if I could do it.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Wow, that's a lot of mis-guided seal anger on that FB page...the science doesn't support the all out seal cull views - carefully selecting problem animals at specific locations yes, but all out assault no. Although, I did once joke about mounting a 50 cal to my boat...amusing thought, but not really smart choice even if I could do it.

I can’t see parliament voting on a seal cull for the west cost like they do on the east coast. I believe fishieries already stated they would allow First Nations to harvest seals on the west coast if they could find a use for them for FSC.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/vancouv...ea-seal-population-sparks-call-for-a-cull/amp

“We have talked to the DFO about (a seal cull) and they said they would give us a licence to harvest seals if we could come up with a use for them,” said Malloway.“

 

[cuttlefish]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/491305800985444/permalink/1889913121124698/

Interesting choice for Social Media Campaign Developer. tom sewid sasquatch

 

[fish brain]

Wow, that's a lot of mis-guided seal anger on that FB page...the science doesn't support the all out seal cull views - carefully selecting problem animals at specific locations yes, but all out assault no. Although, I did once joke about mounting a 50 cal to my boat...amusing thought, but not really smart choice even if I could do it.

That would be awesome for so many reasons

 

[wildmanyeah]

Second sea lion found with gunshot wounds in B.C.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/beta.ct.../en/national/canada/2018/10/15/1_4135295.html

 

[Whitebuck]

What a waste of money!

 

[california]

What a waste of money!

For the Aquarium it is not a waste of money at all. its an investment they make that generates publicity, visits to the the aquarium, and donations. Its an important part of their business plan. I can understand them relieving the suffering of an animal that was caused by a cruel human act, but do object to them saving harbour seal pups that were going to die of natural causes. The aquarium released 10 rescued harbour seals at Blackie spit park a few weeks ago, complete with cute names like Bubblegum and Blue Moon. https://www.vancourier.com/news/pho...3455479?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
It underscores just how difficult any kind of cull program would be to implement from a political standpoint. Fishermen (presumably) wounding or killing animals with firearms doesn't do anyone any favours in the PR battles.

 

[agentaqua]

Good point California. Maybe it's time to stand-up to the bullies, then.

 

[california]

Good point California. Maybe it's time to stand-up to the bullies, then.

I have in the past sent letters to the aquarium outlining my objections to the harbour seal rescues. They sent back the following, probably a form letter: Apparently by saving the seal pups they are also saving killer whales.

The Vancouver Aquarium Marine Mammal Rescue Centre provides medical treatment to marine mammals in distress, regardless of species, and is focused on animal welfare. Every seal we respond to is from an ecosystem impacted by human activity — the same human activity that is endangering resident killer whales: underwater noise and disturbance, impact on prey abundance, and pollution. Care of these animals helps to train future experts, helps survey for diseases that are of concern to humans, and contributes to a growing body of peer-reviewed scientific literature from our institution. Once returned to the ocean, the small number of harbour seals rescued by our program will contribute to the ecosystem by eating other fish that prey on fish smolts, and support a growing Bigg’s (transient) killer whale population.