searun
Well-Known Member
Bit of mis-information going on here, with all due respect - although I do agree with the first quote offered. That second comment was indeed a comment from one of the workshop participants, however not based upon any science evidence or observation. There were other scientific opinions voiced at the workshop, and backed up by actual field observations.
Firstly, rec fishers are not pursuing RKW - unlike whale watchers who earn their living chasing RKW. In most instances the problematic vessel interference is not coming from recreational fishers.
Secondly, the vast majority of anglers recognize their success declines markedly when RKW are present, thus they move away from areas whales are actively foraging in.
Rec fishers are also on record asking for 400m spatial exclusion or "bubble zones" to help increase prey acquisition. We are suggesting DFO put into regulation a requirement for fishers (and other vessel operators) to immediately turn off their sounding equipment, and to slowly move away from whales when they are within 400m. This helps mitigate noise that impacts echolocation and physical disturbance that interrupts feeding.
A third point - prey acquisition isn't about scaring away whales per se, it is about disturbing the feeding habits - whales often chase prey for 100's of meters, therefore require vessels to be absent from those areas to be successful. The science workshop recommended that we needed to limit the degree of physical and acoustic disturbance by placing limits on the numbers of vessels to help reduce the cumulative impacts of vessel noise. There is strong evidence that shows that when the vessel noise is reduced, echolocation ease and foraging effort increases. There is a 18% reduction for NRKW and 25% reduction in SRKW feeding habits when vessels are present. Very clearly vessel traffic needs to be limited. Time spent foraging reduces when vessels are present - reducing their numbers and removing those that actively follow whales to observe them lessens the impact. There is also evidence that shows when vessels are present, whales will travel more and forage less. 200m is simply not enough, and further we need regulations that limit the number of commercial whale watching vessels to track pods of whales closely to help limit the accumulated vessel noise - what's wrong with taking turns to get customers within viewing range?
Some other key findings:
Sean Cox (SFU) - lead a NOAA and DFO Science Panel - providing expert opinion and conclusions;
a) Best potential for increased chinook catch available to SRKW is restoration of freshwater habitat; reduce downstream migration mortality
b) Skeptical reduced chinook harvesting would have large impact on abundance available to SRKW
c) Considerable caution warranted in interpreting the correlative results as confirming a linear causal relationship between chinook abundance & SRKW vital rates
d) Not confident that understanding the interaction between chinook salmon fisheries, other predators and SKRW vital rates, was sufficient to expect the model predictions to be accurate - the panel expected the model predictions to overstate the impacts of reductions of chinook salmon catch on SRKW.
Eric Ward (NWFSC)
- critical of DFO studies to "correlative link" indicies of salmon abundance to RKW demographics
- went on to say that studies such as these are problematic because they use low sample sizes, which result in estimates that are sensitive to time and areas samples being used
Let's not forget that one of the factors leading to reduced numbers of chinook has been successive governments in Canada have made decisions to reduce the funding available for DFO to enhance chinook and complete habitat restoration and protection work. What we are seeing today is the predictable end result of very poor leadership decisions that were motivated by short term budget balancing that ignored their duty to protect Chinook abundance. Now that the chickens have come home to roost it is politically expedient to find an easy scapegoat. The rec fishery was and is a low cost target. We never push back, and closing fisheries is a LOW cost option.
What politicians forget is they are making decisions that have unforeseen to them consequences - the rec fishery generates $713 million USD in economic activity to Canada every year. We can keep going around closing this rec fishery, and that rec fishery and not think there are consequences. However, just walk around some of these small coastal communities that rely on tourism once the rec fishery in their area winds down for the season...not much going on! All those businesses that rely upon servicing the rec fishery will slowly dry up and once that infrastructure is gone, it will be very hard to rebuild. Every action has a reaction.
