Washington State Bans Whale Watching of SRKW
- Thread starter SerengetiGuide
- Start date
littlechucky
Crew Member
There should be some wicked winter / early season fishing in the SoG in a few years if this is the case....usually lots of hatchery marked Puget Sound fish around.
(If we are still able to fish...sigh).
(If we are still able to fish...sigh).
searun
Well-Known Member
The WA plan will find its way into ongoing work group deliberations - Canada is stating up front that each WG will include US alignment as a priority. Meaning whatever happens in the US, is an active consideration for Canada to also implement. The Fisheries Minister said the same thing to us directly and candidly when we met with him Oct 11. Simply put the approach (and rules) need to be similar given the ease at which vessel operators cross border shop. If Canada has relaxed rules, then the folks from WA will simply run to Canada where the rules are less robust.
searun
Well-Known Member
Here's the full detailed version of WA Governor's SRKW Plan - Canada will be asked to align to it
https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/SRKW-policy-brief.pdf
https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/SRKW-policy-brief.pdf
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
This being the case, then Canada needs to see the plans from , Oregon, California and finally the USA federal plans.
searun
Well-Known Member
Just over a $billion USD - and interesting approach to management measures - not one recreational area closure outside of PST Treaty - focus instead on main threat pillars of physical and acoustic disturbance, investment in prey abundance via habitat, hatchery, barrier removal; pollutants; managing large vessel noise by installing electric engines in their ferries - and an expectation Canada will follow suit with similar measures.
Last edited:
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Good now for Canada. 400 m all way. Its the best solution.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Why?
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
searun
Well-Known Member
Pacific Salmon Treaty - we have to reduce a further 12.5%. Amoung other things we are looking for additional measures to make more prey available for SRKW and to also address struggling Fraser Chinook. Especially significant will be upper Fraser 4-1 and 4-2 plus Fraser 5-2 stocks. The stream-type chinook that out-migrate as larger smolts are preferred prey for seals. Same fate for any larger out=migrant smolts like Steelhead and coho. Longstanding pattern over last 20 years - the real question being will DFO have the political strength to take action to address predation of out-migrant smolts.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Yuck!
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Because the other two states have them in their waters as well.
The US Federal Government might get involved as well.
Further, this is a Canadian responsibility, not B.C.
The decision is going to be made in Ottawa, not in BC.
The US Federal Government might get involved as well.
Further, this is a Canadian responsibility, not B.C.
The decision is going to be made in Ottawa, not in BC.
searun
Well-Known Member
Yes, our SRKW (2 pods of the 3) return from the US in the spring. When they return most years have appearance of being nutritionally stressed. Indicator that they are not encountering prey while in the southern portion of their range. Run reconstruction up here will tell us a lot about the abundance or availability of Chinook for SRKW while here. One thing I know is we run into lots of Chinook off WCVI, so there appears to be more than enough food available...but is it actually accessible or are the boats inhibiting their prey acquisition? By practicing avoidance zones - staying back 400 m or in the case of US 400 yards, that distance is generally thought to eliminate physical and acoustic disturbance. The US plan is something we will be examining closely going forward when designing management measures here. Alignment between both countries plans is important - but also as noted what is happening in Oregon and California could really matter most! This isn't necessarily a made in BC problem.
BTW, this also shouldn't be an anti Whale Watching issue. I'm not so sure that a ban on whale watching is a smart idea. So that is one thing from the US plan that I really question. The solution IMO really is about following the science to establish an adequate distance that all vessel operators stay back from SRKW, not applying the 400m avoidance zone to other whales (including Biggs and NRKW). The idea here is all vessel operators cooperating to allow adequate space. There can be differential approach zone distances for SRKW that provide additional protective measures, and other approach distances that allow closer approach for whales other than SRKW. Let's let DFO science establish what those differential approach avoidance zones are.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
mmm. Not sure I agree with that statement there, and what it is implying. We have to ask ourselves as recreational fisherman . What is best for our sector alone? An adequate distance seems like better solution than coast wide closures in critical areas. The science identifies acoustics noises a threat, and I am not sure how much more we need to say here ? If we think we are getting closer to the whales can't see DFO backing that especially now with US decision.
We all don't believe whale watching should be closed, but EVERYONE needs to be responsible for the disruption to foraging behavior.
I don't know about all of you but I much prefer a bubble system to what is happening now instead of just single user group being punished. Just my opinion.
Last edited:
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I agree that science should determine what safe ranges are for various types of vessels and all vessels abide by them. I also think though,it’s critical that these ranges should factor in type of vessel, speed of vessel etc., you know, actual noise generated! I am unaware of any hydrophone data that supported the current one off, rec fishing vessel ban, it’s really just a makey uppy rule with no background science. So you have to ask yourself why?
The current selective ban is IMHO complete BS and is an attempt by DFO to use fishing closure as opposed to science based acoustics, or species specific enforcement, in order to make their life easier. I’d like to see their proof that trolling recreational fishing vessels create more noise than whale watchers, tankers, bulk carriers, hell even aircraft carriers! It’s BS, no rational person should accept this leap of logic. At least the Americans appear to be not so quick with selective,random,closures!
Last edited:
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Interesting normally the NGO groups are quite quick with these announcements in social media. Very very quiet yesterday and today on this news release.
SV you just stated my point...what is best for our sector!!! That is all we have to concern our selves with. Science will hopefully let us know if our bubble is the right way to go or not. They will do the same for other marine traffic including whale watchers. We don't need to spend a dime or a second worrying about others...just focus all our resources on our sector and getting the best results for both anglers and whales. The other parties involved will do the same.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Something like this that was proposed in 2008?
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/fraser/docs/abor-autoc/2008FrasRvrChkInformDocument.htm
10 years latter what progress have we made addressing these concerns??? What will we do differently for the next 10?? A bright spot is that coho in the SOG seem to actually be recovering this year.
Many Pacific salmon stocks in southern British Columbia experienced extremely poor production for brood years that entered the ocean in 2005. The widespread pattern of poor production levels amongst Pacific salmon species and stocks is rare and perhaps unprecedented among DFO observations. Pink salmon entering the sea in 2005 returned to spawn in 2006. Their observed returns in 2006 were far below expectations with the pattern of poor returns extended from southern BC through Southeast Alaska.
Coho salmon had very low returns compared to expectations in 2006. Coho have a predominantly 3-year life cycle, and smolts that went to the ocean in 2005 (brood year 2003) returned in 2006. The 2006 spawning escapement to the Interior Fraser was the lowest recorded since 1975. The pattern of extremely low marine survival and spawning escapements extended to other southern B.C. stocks, with the Strait of Georgia hatchery and wild stocks experiencing record low marine survival (since 1985).
Sockeye salmon return mainly at ages 3 to 5 in southern BC with most at age-4. Smolts from brood year 2003 entered the ocean in 2005. Fraser sockeye returns in 2007 were extremely low compared to pre-season expectations, with the estimated survival rate for ChilkoLake sockeye being the lowest recorded in over 50 years (1.2% compared with long term average of 8.7%). In Barkley Sound, age-3 jack returns in 2006 were 10% of the long term average, indicating poor marine survival. In-season run size estimates were two-thirds of expectations and the 2007 spawning escapement was the lowest among all years since 1992.
Chinook returns associated with the poor 2005 ocean entry year are expected to be compounded by apparent poor survival for the 2003 and 2004 brood years for many stocks. In the FraserRiver, Age-4 returns from the 2004 brood year and age-5 returns from the 2003 brood year will account for most of the female spawners in 2008. The poor returns in 2007 and the over-whelming evidence of a 2005 at-sea impact suggests that returns in 2008 will be poor, particularly for interior Fraser River Spring and Summer stream-type Chinook.
Stream-type Chinook spend at least one year in freshwater before migrating to the sea and return to spawn between ages 3 and 6. In the Fraser River, detailed age-structure data are collected at the Nicola River (hatchery and wild) and Nechako River, and spawning returns are monitored for three groups (spring run age 42, spring run age 52 and summer run age 52 stocks). The groups differ in maturation schedules, about 90% of the spring run age 42 group spawn at age-4, and about 70-80% of the spring and summer run age 52 groups spawn at age-5. Spawning escapements observed in 2007 were poor for each of these groups, returning only 11% (spring run age 42), 25% (spring run age 52), and 29% (summer run age 52) respectively of their parental brood year levels. Age structure information sampled from the 2007 returns will not be available until early 2008.
The 2008 Outlook for early timed Fraser Chinook stock components suggests returns in 2008 will continue to be poor due to very poor brood year escapements and over-whelming evidence of 2005 at-sea impact. Abundance of Fraser Chinook returning in the spring is estimated to be at 20 year lows and exploitation rates may have increased in a number of recent years[6]. The earliest timed Chinook populations are the first to return in the spring period and have peak migration into the Fraser in the March to May period. Earliest timed Chinook populations include: Coldwater River, LouisCreek, Spius Creek, CottonwoodRiver, ChilakoRiver, UpperChilcotinRiver and BirkenheadRiver. Poor returns are expected to continue recent spawner declines observed in these populations, with the notable exception of Birkenhead. Birkenhead has had good spawning escapements possibly related to very early migration timing and far north marine distribution. However, in the other earliest timed Chinook populations brood year escapements are at a small fraction of the estimated habitat capacity (e.g. <10%) that would maximize the harvestable surplus (see Appendix B: 1993-2007 Chinook escapement estimates to tributaries in the BC Interior and Lower Fraser).
Similar threads
