D
Deleted member 8461
Guest
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is some real world first hand truth regarding Vancouver Island resident Killer Whales. Life long on the water experience. Effects on small Vancouver Island communities.
The Dark History of Killer Whale Captures
Ian's lifetime of observations are 100% correct. Unfortunately this Critical Habitat designation is more about playing politics to appease the Greens than it is about making actual science based decisions aimed at really protecting whales and implementing strategies that will be most effective. The Green NGO's are pressuring DFO and the Minister to make rushed decisions based on flawed science advice. Read carefully the science advice that DFO is relying upon to designate Swiftsure and LaPerouse as Critical Habitat - you will see there is virtually NO actual scientific evidence offered. There is no passive acoustic monitoring for example on LaPerouse, there are virtually no observations of whales actually using this so called critical habitat. Its all make believe. As Ian points out, many people have bee fishing these areas for lifetimes with very few actual observations of killer whales using it other than transients who are not displaying feeding behaviours. Like Ian, I have been guiding off shore for 20 years (not his 30) and only observed the whales 3 times. Each time they were transiting the area and not feeding.
The facts are there are a series of very complicated reasons why this particular population (SRKW) are in trouble. They are things such as a population that has only a few breeding animals contributing to the genetic pool - this population is becoming significantly inbred as a result of those removals and live captures Ian mentioned to feed the demand for captive killer whale businesses - Aquariums. DFO allowed this to take place, without fully understanding the impacts to the genetic integrity of this population of animals - some of whom live very long lives. The population cycle takes a considerable period of time to fully develop due in part to the longevity of these animals. Much like a human population, where it takes time for a cycle such as the baby boomers to flow through the overall population demographic - these whales are no different.
If there is an imminent threat, its coming from the pollution being pumped into the ocean in Victoria and Vancouver - raw sewage in the case of Victoria. These animals are not starving - they are sick from successive decades of pollution exposure.
Add to that we have hordes of whale watching vessels chasing these animals around. We are allowing them to get too close, and this disturbs the feeding behaviour and success in acquiring prey. When whale watching vessels charge ahead of foraging whales they stir up the bait that salmon feed upon, and stir up the salmon themselves - making it more difficult for whales to acquire prey. Aside from this, people forget that these whales share food - the successful hunters will share with those animals who are not successful. Further, as Ian points out in his video there are populations of Chinook and other prey that are abundant and yet the whales are not targeting those in the summer months. Could that be that they are not having a lot of difficulty finding prey in the summer???
Would whales benefit from more food - hard to argue not. What tactics would be most effective at providing more food. Likely a combination of strategies, with no silver bullet or quick fix. Things like:
1) Increase hatchery production of chinook for populations of chinook that actually are known to "stay at home" rather than travel up to Alaska over the winter - we know those chinook are from Puget Sound, East Coast Vancouver Island, Squamish, and Lower Fraser rivers. All those rivers have existing hatchery facilities - lets invest and ramp up production
2) Decrease commercial fishing for salmon prey (herring, krill and crab). Salmon rely upon crab larvae in the early stages of their lives - and later more so on larger prey such as herring. Reducing commercial fisheries on these salmon prey species will enhance the survival and numbers of chinook available
3) Pinniped Predator control - there are well documented problematic individual harbour seals within specific populations that are known to target out-migrating Chinook smolts - we don't need a "seal cull" as much as we need a program to specifically remove the problem animals that are targeting Chinook smolts by up to 64% of all out-migrants. This is a major problem that no one wants to address for purely political reasons.
4) Pollution control - time for Victoria and Vancouver to make significant investments in their treatment facilities to move toward a zero waste clean outfall. Far too many pollutants and toxins are reaching the food chain - we are seeing whales who are sick, not necessarily starving.
5) Physical and Acoustic Disturbance control - whales need to have room. There is a balance that can be struck between protection and human activities such as fishing and whale watching. We need to explore more robust mobile protective measures. Whales range freely and many of the Area Closures are completely useless. Whales are very often not there!! Rather than an ineffective area closure strategy, what would be more effective is a 400m spatial exclusion zone around any whales - where vessel operators are strictly required to turn off sources of acoustic noise (sounders), and to cease activities such as sport fishing immediately, and slowly (less than 5 knots) leave the area to get outside the 400m "bubble zone." Also regulations to prohibit "leap frogging" a practice of positioning vessels ahead of the anticipated path of feeding whales to get in position to intercept their path and gain a good position to easily observe whales. This must be specifically prohibited.
6) The long winter months are more likely those months where finding prey such as salmon are more difficult for whales. Yet little to nothing is really known about what their feeding habits and required habitat during the winter months are. This is a complicated issue, requiring careful science to determine what actually are the limiting factors. We need more science to determine what whales need during the winter months
Would whales benefit from more food - hard to argue not. What tactics would be most effective at providing more food. Likely a combination of strategies, with no silver bullet or quick fix. Things like:
Your grossly mis-informed if you honestly believe that! The lawsuit isn't about demanding a study...it's about demanding a recreational and commercial salmon fishing coastwide closure...in addition to pressuring the government to expand critical habitat.The enviro's are not asking for Swiftsure/La Perouse as critical habitat.
Ian's lifetime of observations are 100% correct. Unfortunately this Critical Habitat designation is more about playing politics to appease the Greens than it is about making actual science based decisions aimed at really protecting whales and implementing strategies that will be most effective. The Green NGO's are pressuring DFO and the Minister to make rushed decisions based on flawed science advice. Read carefully the science advice that DFO is relying upon to designate Swiftsure and LaPerouse as Critical Habitat - you will see there is virtually NO actual scientific evidence offered. There is no passive acoustic monitoring for example on LaPerouse, there are virtually no observations of whales actually using this so called critical habitat. Its all make believe. As Ian points out, many people have bee fishing these areas for lifetimes with very few actual observations of killer whales using it other than transients who are not displaying feeding behaviours. Like Ian, I have been guiding off shore for 20 years (not his 30) and only observed the whales 3 times. Each time they were transiting the area and not feeding.
The facts are there are a series of very complicated reasons why this particular population (SRKW) are in trouble. They are things such as a population that has only a few breeding animals contributing to the genetic pool - this population is becoming significantly inbred as a result of those removals and live captures Ian mentioned to feed the demand for captive killer whale businesses - Aquariums. DFO allowed this to take place, without fully understanding the impacts to the genetic integrity of this population of animals - some of whom live very long lives. The population cycle takes a considerable period of time to fully develop due in part to the longevity of these animals. Much like a human population, where it takes time for a cycle such as the baby boomers to flow through the overall population demographic - these whales are no different.
If there is an imminent threat, its coming from the pollution being pumped into the ocean in Victoria and Vancouver - raw sewage in the case of Victoria. These animals are not starving - they are sick from successive decades of pollution exposure.
Add to that we have hordes of whale watching vessels chasing these animals around. We are allowing them to get too close, and this disturbs the feeding behaviour and success in acquiring prey. When whale watching vessels charge ahead of foraging whales they stir up the bait that salmon feed upon, and stir up the salmon themselves - making it more difficult for whales to acquire prey. Aside from this, people forget that these whales share food - the successful hunters will share with those animals who are not successful. Further, as Ian points out in his video there are populations of Chinook and other prey that are abundant and yet the whales are not targeting those in the summer months. Could that be that they are not having a lot of difficulty finding prey in the summer???
Would whales benefit from more food - hard to argue not. What tactics would be most effective at providing more food. Likely a combination of strategies, with no silver bullet or quick fix. Things like:
1) Increase hatchery production of chinook for populations of chinook that actually are known to "stay at home" rather than travel up to Alaska over the winter - we know those chinook are from Puget Sound, East Coast Vancouver Island, Squamish, and Lower Fraser rivers. All those rivers have existing hatchery facilities - lets invest and ramp up production
2) Decrease commercial fishing for salmon prey (herring, krill and crab). Salmon rely upon crab larvae in the early stages of their lives - and later more so on larger prey such as herring. Reducing commercial fisheries on these salmon prey species will enhance the survival and numbers of chinook available
3) Pinniped Predator control - there are well documented problematic individual harbour seals within specific populations that are known to target out-migrating Chinook smolts - we don't need a "seal cull" as much as we need a program to specifically remove the problem animals that are targeting Chinook smolts by up to 64% of all out-migrants. This is a major problem that no one wants to address for purely political reasons.
4) Pollution control - time for Victoria and Vancouver to make significant investments in their treatment facilities to move toward a zero waste clean outfall. Far too many pollutants and toxins are reaching the food chain - we are seeing whales who are sick, not necessarily starving.
5) Physical and Acoustic Disturbance control - whales need to have room. There is a balance that can be struck between protection and human activities such as fishing and whale watching. We need to explore more robust mobile protective measures. Whales range freely and many of the Area Closures are completely useless. Whales are very often not there!! Rather than an ineffective area closure strategy, what would be more effective is a 400m spatial exclusion zone around any whales - where vessel operators are strictly required to turn off sources of acoustic noise (sounders), and to cease activities such as sport fishing immediately, and slowly (less than 5 knots) leave the area to get outside the 400m "bubble zone." Also regulations to prohibit "leap frogging" a practice of positioning vessels ahead of the anticipated path of feeding whales to get in position to intercept their path and gain a good position to easily observe whales. This must be specifically prohibited.
6) The long winter months are more likely those months where finding prey such as salmon are more difficult for whales. Yet little to nothing is really known about what their feeding habits and required habitat during the winter months are. This is a complicated issue, requiring careful science to determine what actually are the limiting factors. We need more science to determine what whales need during the winter months
You are taking my comments out of context...read carefully please - I'm suggesting we need to increase Chinook abundance and prey availability - that has already been well documented scientifically and to me is obvious therefore does not need to be restated...but I'm also making the point (as does Ian) that food abundance is not the only reason behind SRKW decline. Pollution and the impacts to whale health are also a major factor that many are not addressing - the uncomfortable reality is pumping raw sewage into the environment has unpleasant consequences within the food chain.So Ian, in the video, and you agree that the whales are not affected by a lack of salmon but yet 1/2 of your solutions are to increase the amount of salmon. Do you not see the inconsistency of such an argument? You can bet the the general public will pick that up also.
Minister fires back at groups for suing over killer whales
Lindsay Kines / Times ColonistSeptember 9, 2018
https://www.timescolonist.com/news/...roups-for-suing-over-killer-whales-1.23425377
Your grossly mis-informed if you honestly believe that! The lawsuit isn't about demanding a study...it's about demanding a recreational and commercial salmon fishing coastwide closure...in addition to pressuring the government to expand critical habitat.
The recreational fishery has been significantly reduced over the past few decades, and despite that the decline in Chinook abundance on some stocks has continued. There are clearly other reasons for those declines that go well beyond the few Chinook the recreational fishery removes.
An example from DFO's summary of Management Measures to further reduce recreational chinook fisheries this year by a further 30% which is in addition to the negotiated reductions via the Salmon Treaty that took place in 2009 - no small measure.
"A range of fisheries management measures have been implemented over the past decade to substantially reduce harvest pressure on Chinook Salmon stocks. As an example, the renegotiated Pacific Salmon Treaty terms were put into effect January 1, 2009, and included the implementation of a 30% reduction in the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for the West Coast Vancouver Island Aggregate Abundance Based Management (AABM) fisheries, with a 15% reduction in the Southeast Alaska AAMB fishery. Additional measures have also been implemented annually in Canada to reduce harvest pressure on important Chinook Salmon populations with specific measures identified in the Salmon IFMPs. In particular, a range of management measures have been implemented to address conservation objectives for Fraser River origin chinook may also benefit SRKW diets in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Conservation measures for these populations over the last 10 years have included substantially reduced exploitation rates on Fraser Spring (age-4) and Spring/Summer (age-5) chinook designed to allow more wild Chinook to reach spawning areas. While these measures have decreased exploitation rates to well below historic sustainable levels, there has not been rapid recovery for many Chinook Salmon populations, suggesting that other factors are also contributing to on-going low productivity. These populations exhibit an offshore migration pattern and appear to return to Fraser primarily through the Strait of Juan de Fuca in spring and early summer months."
The total Chinook catch in the 2017 WCVI AABM fishery was estimated to be 46,705, which is down 15% from the 5 year average of 55,000. The total Chinook released in the 2017 WCVI AABM fishery was estimated to be 33,289, which is down 30% from the 5 year average of 47,900. Effort in the AABM area for 2017 was 26,579 boat trips, which is down about 5% from 2016. Please see Figure 6-1 below which illustrates catch and effort from 1995 through 2017. Figure 6-1 WCVI Recreational AABM Catch and Effort- Chinook, 1995-2017
So Ian, in the video, and you agree that the whales are not affected by a lack of salmon but yet 1/2 of your solutions are to increase the amount of salmon. Do you not see the inconsistency of such an argument? You can bet the the general public will pick that up also.
You are taking my comments out of context...read carefully please - I'm suggesting we need to increase Chinook abundance and prey availability - that has already been well documented scientifically and to me is obvious therefore does not need to be restated...but I'm also making the point (as does Ian) that food abundance is not the only reason behind SRKW decline. Pollution and the impacts to whale health are also a major factor that many are not addressing - the uncomfortable reality is pumping raw sewage into the environment has unpleasant consequences within the food chain.
Many are also missing the facts that during the summer months there are plenty of fish available in various areas, but these whales (SRKW) do not use that habitat. LaPerouse is one of those areas they simply do not use - again Ian's point. People are confusing the facts with the politics of the proposed expansion of this critical habitat proposal.
So in conclusion to me ( and point me in the right direction searun if I have this incorrect) it seems that the sport fishing industry's stance with regards to causes of the SRKW decline has shifted away from the idea that lack of Chinook is the problem ( and according to Ian, it seems not even part of the problem)
I don't believe the Sport fishing industry has moved to a position that there are plenty of Chinook as that is going against all of the available science but Ill let others from the advocacy groups answer it definitively. Anyone watching this video will certainly get that message however, and could easily assume, as you have, it is the industries position. That's why that type of rant is harmful overall. Its paints us all as Ians.
The REAL scientists (not to be confused with the armchair "scientists" all too common on this forum) go out on the water and gather scraps left-over by the SRKW's & via a vast DNA bank of Chinook samples fairly accurately determine what, where, & when the SRKW's eat.
What you or I believe doesn't mean whale poop, what matters is who has the most credible argument, which to the vast majority of the population means the most scientific data from multiple sources. For the SRKW issues, to me the evidence seems overwhelming.
ericl, don't go bringing science into this when everyone knows PhD stands for Pathetically hopeless Dweeb. The "observational science" by the accountants, middle managers, and shift supervisors on this forum is much more reliable.