Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales
- Thread starter cohochinook
- Start date
searun
Well-Known Member
Good to see we haven't lost our sense of humour in all this serious debate. I think the thing that stands out is people here want to find the right (science based) and effective (not just fire for effect) set of actions. Better to take our time and get it right, than just be doing something in our haste for the sake of looking good, than (notice comma) 
possibly taking action that leads to more harm than the intended good.
possibly taking action that leads to more harm than the intended good.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Become a food source, and be part of the solution.
GLG
Well-Known Member
It's a four minute video out of the hours and hours of video that are posted under that user. It's not their main point, it's just a little history for those that may not know.
To me this graph tells me that yes the numbers have been lower in the past from the things we did but they can recover if we put the effort into it. It would be nice to have uptodate numbers.
Maybe we can start a go-fund-me page for the lucky nominee....
ziggy
Well-Known Member
No, I get that. But I still feel the capture and deaths are often left out of the story and I question why? Isit due to embarrassment for the experts? Is it because it doesn’t forward their agenda? People often leave out salient points of history if they don’t support their theories, or prejudices. If you want to tell the story for gosh sakes let’s not leave out how 1/3 of these whales were captured for public display in Aquariums and Amusement Parks.To me leaving out things like the fact that at one point they had 80 (All of JKL pods?)whales captured in a cove in Washington in order to select some specimens to sell. Wonder if that has caused permanent trauma?Accidentally killed a few, then tried to hide the bodies, but got caught. Removed roughly 30% of the best specimens over the whale gold rush. Were these the future breeders required for a health population? Remember we are talking very few left to breed!It's a four minute video out of the hours and hours of video that are posted under that user. It's not their main point, it's just a little history for those that may not know.
To me this graph tells me that yes the numbers have been lower in the past from the things we did but they can recover if we put the effort into it. It would be nice to have uptodate numbers.
This to me is critical information for members of the public who didn’t live through it in order to understand how we got here. I guess it’s even more baffling when he mentions things like whales being shot and surviving ,but then fails to mention the damage done through capture and the removal of so many, almost like it never happened. Frankly I find it hard to trust these people.
EXCELLENT post, Ziggy! Well thought out. Totally agree...especially your closing statement....
GLG
Well-Known Member
So here is the same guy and yes he does mention it. In fact it's the origin of how he ended up spending his life trying to protect them for our benefit.
GLG
Well-Known Member
According to the graph that after the "gold rush" we were down to 66 and by 1995 we were back to 98 so that tells me that yes the whales did recover from this bad decision.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
You would have to bump the numbers up against the health and age of the survivors. If for example a large number the whales by 1995 were now beyond the normal breeding range because the younger, fitter ones were captured during the gold rush, it would make sense the population,now relying on fewer capable of breeding and perhaps less healthy whales would result in a long range drop.While 98 looks like a good number, the question may well be how many of these whales were still capable of breeding and was increased inbreeding now contributing to birth mortality and a general thining of the gene pool? You’ll notice that that it took only 7 years for that high of 98 to drop to about 80! That’s pretty significant. Would 30 or so more whales,young enough and capable of breeding,have resulted in a healthier population and as such, less peaks and valleys in the graph?I’d say yes!The graph is interesting but it really just tells us from 1960 when the population was 78 the population has fluctuated between 78 and 98, now 76. I would suggest if one were to discount the baby boom that resulted in a high of 98, the numbers are actually pretty stable with the exception of L pod. Anyway I think the impact of taking 30% of the young fit whales has come back to haunt us.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
That’s a good point Ziggy in such long lived mammals removal of a generation may take quite a long time to see thoes side effects. Thoes breeding removals wile it would cause a imideite declinow. Preceding that their would continue to be generational gaps. Are we just in that general gap now and will naturally come out of it?
I think why they are concerned is just the number of recent failed pregnancy recently.
Another great post, Ziggy.
Most critical examinations of the long-term genetic health of a isolated population use a methodology called "population viability analysis". It usually appears that in order to maintain genetic "viability" that the number of those breeding animals should outnumber a threshold in the order of something like 200 or more - so when you get below 100 and start to knock-off breeders - that population is severely impacted - and might not recover and/or have a long and difficult time recovering. Ghosts or decisions and actions past - might truly be haunting these animals - as you mentioned...
fish brain
Crew Member
It's a four minute video out of the hours and hours of video that are posted under that user. It's not their main point, it's just a little history for those that may not know.
To me this graph tells me that yes the numbers have been lower in the past from the things we did but they can recover if we put the effort into it. It would be nice to have uptodate numbers.
Not including possible side effects from removals. Does the chart above not show a correlating decline in population, with the decision to close a bunch of hatcheries in the 90's? Is there a chart to corroborate this, or am I off base?
Peahead
Well-Known Member
Good to see we haven't lost our sense of humour in all this serious debate. I think the thing that stands out is people here want to find the right (science based) and effective (not just fire for effect) set of actions. Better to take our time and get it right, than just be doing something in our haste for the sake of looking good, than (notice comma)
"Doing more harm than the intended good'.... this is too close to home right now as I am just off a discouraging conversation. It is an example of public perception and what hopefully education via ad compaigns will try and curtail.
I see a FB post that says 'we all need to stop buying and eating wild salmon, humans need to boycott eating salmon so that every salmon possible goes to the whales" . I am thinking great.....what a fU#&ed up idea. Great now farmed salmon are ok because they are not potential food for SRKW!! lol .... anyway I respond by providing some info, research link, list of common misconceptions and Andrew Trites video that has been posted here. This is the response I get:
"Not only are you condescending, but you make a lot of assumptions about me based on a very brief comment on FB. Lol. The fact is the oceans are a mess as a result of human activity. Current fishing practices world-wide are appalling and unsustainable. Fact: people don't need fish or seafood to live healthy lives. Have a nice day."
Apparently I heard the person who wrote that did not have any interest in looking at the video nor seemed to have one iota of interest in learning specifically about the SRKW issue and facts.
This is what we are up against everyone - yes there are world wide problems with commercial fishing practices but if the general public's perception is similar to this person's I honestly think the writing is on the wall. Our children's children may never experience what it is like to fish.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
like Nog said in an early post there is no reasoning with some of these people, "they are openly opposed to any form of consumptive use"
their minds are made up when it comes to hunting and fishing.
RiverBoy
Well-Known Member
In the town i live in the city decided to cut down two massive old sequoia trees right in front of the city hall building. Why? So they could get more natural sunlight on their new rooftop garden complete with pretty little flowers and shrubbery to “help mother earth oxygenate the air.” what do you think the two massive sequoia trees were doing ?!?!
The world is devoid of any common sense anymore.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Practice of fishing unknown stocks of marine salmon raises concern over sockeye run
Millions of sockeye salmon are expected to head up B.C. rivers to spawn this month, but a fisheries adviser is raising concerns about whether the predicted number of fish will show up.
This year is supposed to be a dominant year in the four-year salmon cycle, when significant returns are expected.
But a lack of certainty over the numbers of sockeye in the sea means overfishing is likely, says Greg Taylor, a private consultant and adviser for the Watershed Watch Salmon Society.
"We're probably going to, after the season, find out that we've overfished in the marine environment," Taylor said.
Earlier this year, Fisheries and Oceans Canada forecast a return of 14 million sockeye to the Fraser River, but the numbers could be as low as 5.3 million, it said.
The Adams River sockeye run is one of the largest in the world. (Clive Bryson)
'Don't know what is going to show up'
Only time will tell how badly the stocks have dwindled, Taylor said.
"That kind of uncertainty means that we really don't know what is going to show up … We don't know how many are going to come back to spawn."
Fishing itself is not the only issue.
Unusually warm waters have led to higher pre-spawn mortality and low sockeye survival, according to Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Changes in fishing
But Taylor says commercial fishing methods have to change — now.
"Look back to our First Nations, who have been managing these fisheries for tens of thousands of years: They fished what are called known stock fisheries — that is, they fished on identified surpluses," he explained.
Today, fishing is done from a stock "whose relative abundance we can only guess at" further out in the marine environment, Taylor said.
He's pushing for this to change and for fishing to be done from known stock instead.
"We need to be more precautionary," he said. "The way we've done business since 1880 isn't going to stand up to the future and we need to look to the past to do it differently."
The problem with uncertainty: fisheries adviser raises concerns about upcoming Adams River sockeye salmon run
Hundreds of thousands of wild sockeye salmon are expected to spawn up the Adams River in Interior B.C. this month but a fisheries adviser is raising concerns about whether the predicted number of fish will show up. 5:36
With files from Daybreak Kamloops
Millions of sockeye salmon are expected to head up B.C. rivers to spawn this month, but a fisheries adviser is raising concerns about whether the predicted number of fish will show up.
This year is supposed to be a dominant year in the four-year salmon cycle, when significant returns are expected.
But a lack of certainty over the numbers of sockeye in the sea means overfishing is likely, says Greg Taylor, a private consultant and adviser for the Watershed Watch Salmon Society.
"We're probably going to, after the season, find out that we've overfished in the marine environment," Taylor said.
Earlier this year, Fisheries and Oceans Canada forecast a return of 14 million sockeye to the Fraser River, but the numbers could be as low as 5.3 million, it said.
The Adams River sockeye run is one of the largest in the world. (Clive Bryson)
'Don't know what is going to show up'
Only time will tell how badly the stocks have dwindled, Taylor said.
"That kind of uncertainty means that we really don't know what is going to show up … We don't know how many are going to come back to spawn."
Fishing itself is not the only issue.
Unusually warm waters have led to higher pre-spawn mortality and low sockeye survival, according to Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Changes in fishing
But Taylor says commercial fishing methods have to change — now.
"Look back to our First Nations, who have been managing these fisheries for tens of thousands of years: They fished what are called known stock fisheries — that is, they fished on identified surpluses," he explained.
Today, fishing is done from a stock "whose relative abundance we can only guess at" further out in the marine environment, Taylor said.
He's pushing for this to change and for fishing to be done from known stock instead.
"We need to be more precautionary," he said. "The way we've done business since 1880 isn't going to stand up to the future and we need to look to the past to do it differently."
The problem with uncertainty: fisheries adviser raises concerns about upcoming Adams River sockeye salmon run
Hundreds of thousands of wild sockeye salmon are expected to spawn up the Adams River in Interior B.C. this month but a fisheries adviser is raising concerns about whether the predicted number of fish will show up. 5:36
With files from Daybreak Kamloops
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
DFO Species at Risk Program: Proposed Amended Recovery Strategy for Northern and Southern Resident Killers Whales
https://islandfishermanmagazine.com...orthern-and-southern-resident-killers-whales/
Presentation
https://islandfishermanmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/September-26-aRS-RKW-webinar-presentation.pdf
https://islandfishermanmagazine.com...orthern-and-southern-resident-killers-whales/
Presentation
https://islandfishermanmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/September-26-aRS-RKW-webinar-presentation.pdf
SaltyAlice
Well-Known Member
Article today in the BBC on global orca population and PCBs.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45652149
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45652149
Similar threads
