South Resident Killer Whale - DFO Preliminary Management Proposal for 2020 Season

What I find interesting is that the sanctuaries aren’t really about fishing per se. As fishermen on this forum it’s often our focus but the closures are to (almost) all vessel traffic. A friend of mine who is a marine pilot finds them as ridiculous as “we” do. And all of us who frequent the area know full well how the recreational boaters ignored or were ignorant of it. Every day, all summer, dozens of boats transited the area off pender after clearing customs or just visiting bedwell/poets. There was little to no visible enforcement. Not unlike gun bans, it was really only the honest people being punished.

So my question to anyone who knows is, was enforcement discussed? Who makes the decisions on enforcement and implementation? Is there a plan? Is there an increased budget? What department is responsible? I know none of my letters with questions were even responded to. My recent conversation at the bluffs just last week with both Dfo and RCMP made it clear that the troops on the “ground” have no idea. So who do I ask? And the big question that so far no one can answer for me is....why are these areas closed when the whales aren’t even there? Which is most of the time. Were flexible closures even discussed? Who advocated for them and who said no? Why? The whole thing seems totally shrouded in mystery. That’s what’s so frustrating. Everyone wants to save a whale but these measures aren’t doing anything or they are really about something else.
DFO handles fishing - TC/CG handles vessel traffic & restrictions. So...

Altho the intent is to protect SRKW (DFO) - the traffic speed & location restrictions are through a number of Acts/Regulations administered through CG/TC. Those specific regulations used in this instance are buried in the announcements but are the Interim Order powers of the Minister of Transport under the Canada Shipping Act (s.10.1(1)), and can be found at:
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/...-whales-waters-southern-british-columbia.html
and
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-10.15/page-2.html

10.1 (1) The Minister of Transport may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made, under this Act, on the recommendation of only that Minister, if he or she believes that immediate action is required to deal with a direct or indirect risk to marine safety or to the marine environment.

The exact wording & details of the restrictions of the 2019 Interim Order for the Protection of Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in the Waters of Southern British Columbia that rolled out of the Minister using s.10.1 of the CSA can be found at:
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/...-whales-waters-southern-british-columbia.html

They basically rolled over the 2019 restrictions into 2020 - as the Interim Order powers are typically for 1 year only.

Enforcement is through any properly trained, designated enforcement officer that is legislated to enforce the federal acts - including the CSA. So, DFO C&P, RCMP, and a very small set of CG/TC enforcement branch.

And it is a big Ocean and everyone has limited funds for personnel, OT & fuel - with no increases in budget specific to this regulation that I know of or has been announced.
 
Last edited:
DFO handles fishing - TC/CG handles vessel traffic & restrictions. So...

Altho the intent is to protect SRKW (DFO) - the traffic speed & location restrictions are through a number of Acts/Regulations administered through CG/TC. Those specific regulations used in this instance are buried in the announcements but are the Interim Order powers of the Minister of Transport under the Canada Shipping Act (s.10.1(1)), and can be found at:
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/...-whales-waters-southern-british-columbia.html
and
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-10.15/page-2.html

10.1 (1) The Minister of Transport may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made, under this Act, on the recommendation of only that Minister, if he or she believes that immediate action is required to deal with a direct or indirect risk to marine safety or to the marine environment.

The exact wording & details of the restrictions of the 2019 Interim Order for the Protection of Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in the Waters of Southern British Columbia that rolled out of the Minister using s.10.1 of the CSA can be found at:
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/...-whales-waters-southern-british-columbia.html

Enforcement is through any properly trained, identified enforcement officer that is legislated to enforce the federal acts. So, DFO C&P, RCMP, and a very small set of CG/TC enforcement branch.

And it is a big Ocean and everyone has limited funds for personnel, OT & fuel - with no increases in budget specific to this regulation that I know of or has been announced.

Good reply. Thanks. Curious how the on-site local enforcement don’t seem to know. Maybe they haven’t been directed yet? The ocean is indeed big, which makes these sanctuaries even more of a head scratcher considering how rarely the whales are in that space and how relatively easy it would be to police such a tiny specific area. Any insight on why it’s closed when they aren’t there? By that I mean the official policy..?
 
Wow you sure are inferring a lot from what I posted lol

All I did was provide a few sitings

Also NRKW don’t eat seals they eat fish.
My post was from an earlier thread and I just wanted to point out that from year to year they will be in different areas depoending on where they are finding food. Also pretty sure NRKW eat seals but probably eat fish as well.
 
ah boy - ya - good question, again PD.

Short version: they wish to be seen to be doing something positive to either keep the ENGOs off their back and/or to show the USA they have marine mammal protection that mirrors theirs to keep the seafood market open. I guess that would be termed the "unofficial" but more honest policy...
 
Good reply. Thanks. Curious how the on-site local enforcement don’t seem to know. Maybe they haven’t been directed yet? The ocean is indeed big, which makes these sanctuaries even more of a head scratcher considering how rarely the whales are in that space and how relatively easy it would be to police such a tiny specific area. Any insight on why it’s closed when they aren’t there? By that I mean the official policy..?
If you look at the info AA has posted for Interim Orders you’ll see it’s somewhat of a stretch to apply it here and perhaps enforcement agencies are avoiding getting tangled up in it. I’m still waiting for the Ministers reply as to how appropriate the use of an Interim order actually is in this case. Pretty sure I’ll still be waiting next year.

 
Another good post, Ziggy.

I guess I would ask the 2 questions:
1/ What is the "measure of success" of the Interim Order, and
2/ Which metric(s) do we use to assess it?

I think the honest answer for both questions are: "I dunno".
 
It is blatantly obvious to all concerned that Pender Bluffs was simply a soft target,"low hanging fruit," that DFO could exploit and write off as collateral damage, as the cost of doing business with the ENGOS.
Write off a few local rec fishers and the associated businesses, and ignore any common sense alternatives to their ridiculous "sanctuaries" . An example of "political window dressing" at it's finest... This Covid situation has provided a perfect diversion for Justin and his merry band and now he is thrilled to have control of the countries purse strings and can use them to buy himself another term and put the country in a depression for the foreseeable future. Perfect timing.... R.I.P. Pender Bluffs and our salmon resource.
 
As has been said so often on here the SFAB is an Advisory Group and not an Advocacy Group, so what’s got your knickers in a knot. What pisses me off is DFO makes a decision and hangs the volunteers out to dry and defend it. That should **** them off as well! Do you agree with the whale sanctuaries? Do you think they are science based? Should we all be quiet about them and just accept that some areas simply need to have them? In favour of one in your area? Sounds like in your post you disagree with them, so why the anger when people directly effected do as well?
Nothing in what I posted should offend anyone, maybe go back and read the thread! The cartoon( seems to have disappeared)If that offended you was in reply to a previously posted one ( seems to have not disappeared) that implied if you don’t volunteer at meetings (undefined) then you must be doing nothing. That offended me because it attempts to divide based on age (ageism) and implies advocacy meetings are taking place! Anyone know where these Advocacy meetings are being held? I also will avoid saying what I’m really thinking, but suffice to say I’m more interested in Advocacy than Advisory. Then again my area is hosting a whale sanctuary that I see no science to support and I have no intention of letting the decision makers in DFO forget.

I think you are missing the point. There are a lot of good folks participating in the Technical Working Group process, hearing the science, listening to experts, working to find a balance between protecting whales and allowing responsible on-water human activity. A wide variety of stakeholders in addition to Science experts participate - Advocacy or at least the sort you allude to, has no place in the room - the focus really should be about working to find that critical balance with job number one being protecting whales. Anything less is self-serving. The SFAB is a public process, and has representatives participating in the TWG process, if you want to get more information and develop an understanding of what their involvement has been, a good start is attending local meetings to ask questions.
 
I think you are missing the point. There are a lot of good folks participating in the Technical Working Group process, hearing the science, listening to experts, working to find a balance between protecting whales and allowing responsible on-water human activity. A wide variety of stakeholders in addition to Science experts participate - Advocacy or at least the sort you allude to, has no place in the room - the focus really should be about working to find that critical balance with job number one being protecting whales. Anything less is self-serving. The SFAB is a public process, and has representatives participating in the TWG process, if you want to get more information and develop an understanding of what their involvement has been, a good start is attending local meetings to ask questions.
I think one of us is missing the point, so I’ll just leave it at that!
 
The hard work and time that volunteers involved on the SFAB is to be respected, honored and be thankful for. They do a invaluable service to the public fishery -- let's be clear about that.

Unfortunately, at this time it is obvious by their poor and biased decisions that DFO senior management (not necessarily front line staff) and the Liberal cabinet are NOT that interested in science based fisheries management. They are interested in appeasing lobbying groups that represent groups that wield political power that could cause the Liberal govt to not look good, lose public support and lose power. This is even more an issue because we have a minority Fed govt right now.

So what's my point - while it is the right thing to do to work with DFO and politicians on science base fisheries management, don't expect right now that they will respond to it much. The Liberal govt. is more interested in keeping the support of their base (including many ENGO's) so their decisions are mostly based on political expediency and what keeps them in power, NOT sound, balanced, science based management. They just want to be seen as doing the right things for their base - that's it.

So I say carry on SFAB and all the good work you do - you must continue - it is the right thing to do.

I can understand why public fishers are very frustrated (as I am) as we do not seem to have any lobby groups that can do much to influence the current Fed govt. like the commercial, ENGO's and FN's can. But this is not the SFAB's role, or fault.

Bottom line - the public fishery sector in Canada has to get it's collective **** together and fast before it is too late! We need to get strategic and political and fight fire with fire. We need to come together (stop fighting amongst ourselves) raise some big $$$, get some wealthy supporters and start lobbying like the other sectors do. We need to educate the public big time in what is really happening to our fisheries (i.e. incompetent, mismanagement that hurts local economies and does little to increase salmon populations or critical ecosystems) and our democratic right to go fishing. Time to stop complaining and time to start acting strategically and politically. If the other sectors can do it, so can we!!!
 
Last edited:
NOAA Fisheries: Alaska chinook harvest not to blame for killer whale decline

https://www.kcaw.org/2020/05/18/noa...arvest-not-to-blame-for-killer-whale-decline/


The National Marine Fisheries Service says shutting down Southeast Alaska’s king salmon season would contribute little to saving an endangered population of killer whales in Puget Sound.

NOAA Fisheries filed a motion on May 11 in US District Court opposing a Washington state conservation group’s effort to block the summer troll and sportfishing season.

asking a federal judge to shut down chinook fishing before it even begins this summer.

“By not identifying the real issues of habitat loss, of dams, of climate change — there are even shifts in predator-prey relationships — they’re really preventing people from understanding the bigger issues, and taking actions that would save orcas,” said Behnken.

Behnken’s organization, the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association, put its name to a statement issued by the Alaska Trollers Association and Juneau-based conservation group SalmonState, opposing the Wild Fish Conservancy’s lawsuit and injunction petition.

In a state where environmental battles are common, it’s unusual for conservation organizations to be on opposite sides. Tyson Fick is a gillnetter and crabber out of Douglas. His official title with SalmonState is “Salmon Evangelist.”

He thinks the Wild Fish Conservancy, based in Duvall, Washington, wants to do more than help the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales.

“Personally, I get really frustrated as someone who works in conservation and harvests salmon for a living when a group comes in under the guise of conservation, but really they want more fish in the rivers for sportfishing in Washington and Oregon,” said Fick.

Fick says he should be more careful about leveling accusations, but the Wild Fish Conservancy’s lawsuit doesn’t make sense to him. No one — not even the National Marine Fisheries Service, the defendant in the Conservancy’s lawsuit — denies that king salmon contribute to the diet of Southern Resident Killer Whales, but the complexities in the Endangered Species Act and fisheries management are so enormous, that singling out the Southeast chinook harvest seems like an oversimplification.

Fick thinks trollers are likely the slowest-moving target.

“And it really is unfortunate that as Alaskans, we’re once again put in a place where we’re going to have to explain how the fisheries work, how sustainability is something that we all believe in,” he said. “And meanwhile they’re painting a picture of this giant killing machine of hook-and-line fishermen, trolling in one-hundred year old wooden boats all along the coast.”

SalmonState hasn’t joined the legal fray, but the Alaska Trollers Association has. On April 23, the ATA filed a motion to intervene in the case, and shortly thereafter, a brief opposing the injunction.

The State of Alaska, meanwhile, is still holding its cards. In an email to KCAW on Monday, May 18, ADF&G Commissioner Doug Vincent-Lang wrote, “We are closely monitoring the lawsuit and respective filings with an eye towards ensuring that state interests are protected.”

The Wild Fish Conservancy suit argues that the National Marine Fisheries Service (aka NOAA Fisheries) failed to comply with the Endangered Species Act in developing a management plan for salmon fishing in Alaska, and it’s asked for an injunction to stop fishing until the case is decided.

The Alaska Trollers Association is being represented by the Portland-based law firm of Landye Bennett Blumstein. The Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the US Justice Department is representing the government. The case is being heard in the US District Court for Western Washington by US Magistrate Judge Michelle Peterson.
 
According to the Wild Fish Conservancy NOAA said the following:

In NOAA’s most recent scientific analysis of the fishery, the agency allowed it to proceed despite concluding, “Under the existing management and recovery regimes over the last decade, salmon availability has not been sufficient to support [Southern Resident killer whale] population growth.” NOAA proposes a series of measures which they claim would mitigate this harm. These measures remain hypothetical and have not received funding or their own environmental review.

Here is the whole article:

https://wildfishconservancy.org/abo...-southeast-alaska2019s-chinook-salmon-fishery

While I don't support everything the WFC does in this case my enemies enemy is my friend.
 
According to the Wild Fish Conservancy NOAA said the following:

In NOAA’s most recent scientific analysis of the fishery, the agency allowed it to proceed despite concluding, “Under the existing management and recovery regimes over the last decade, salmon availability has not been sufficient to support [Southern Resident killer whale] population growth.” NOAA proposes a series of measures which they claim would mitigate this harm. These measures remain hypothetical and have not received funding or their own environmental review.

Here is the whole article:

https://wildfishconservancy.org/abo...-southeast-alaska2019s-chinook-salmon-fishery

While I don't support everything the WFC does in this case my enemies enemy is my friend.

That is from april, The court Filing to block it is from May and from NOAA seems to think WFC cherry picked facts and left out others. Also they apparently don't think hatchery fish feed whales.

https://www.scribd.com/document/461488218/NMFS-opposition-to-injunction

upload_2020-5-20_13-52-50.png
upload_2020-5-20_14-5-22.png
 
Last edited:
Its interesting WFC says NOAA is doing a poor job on accounting for catch and release and incidental take. The court filing is a good read does not look like WFC has a change at all.
 
Good read.
Looks like the NMFS case is largely dependent on the MSA. Judge looks to be a Seattle native & appointed by the Donald.

NMFS looks to be depending on Salmon recovery actions that are non-existent.
Does the MSA trump the ESA? Seriously doubt it.

I'd say odds are 50/50.
 
Back
Top