California appears to have Chinook.
- Thread starter OldBlackDog
- Start date
Que the "whales are starving campaign" combined with "it must be those evil rec fishermen" campaign...
(PS after they figured out it was the death of a matriarch that precipitated the change in area/timing they never admitted they were wrong):
Matriarch orca's death may explain J pod’s absence, this scientist says
While environmental factors like the decline in salmon play a role, the real ‘catastrophe’ was likely the loss of the 106-year-old leader.
thediscourse.ca
searun
Well-Known Member
Dr. Andrew Trites has been calling into question the conventional wisdom for some time. I think he is asking the right questions, challenging status quo thinking, and searching for better science understandings of what is actually going on. Canada has listened to the alarmist ENGO narrative - falling for classic ready, shoot, aim. Washington State has taken a much more thoughtful approach to carefully weigh management options against likely efficacy of the benefits vs cost to implement.
I think Dr. Trites is correct - there is a cultural element we don't fully comprehend. He's also correct, nature is complex and things are not always as they appear to be from our limited perspectives. Other researchers have determined there isn't a food shortage (NOAA study) with more than 10 times the abundance necessary to meet prey requirements. Its more of a prey acquisition problem - that could be driven by cultural and leadership related factors or possibly something else we don't yet fully understand.
However, the narrative of "human caused starvation" feeds the pocket books of the ENGO business model IMO, so we won't soon see any movement to find win/win solutions that reinforce that the best protection for SRKW is simply keeping everyone 400m away from whales no matter where they roam. That is supported by recent research, and not yet adopted into strengthened avoidance measures. Fixed spatial closures accomplish nothing when in many circumstances the whales aren't even there most of the time, and the so called experts can't seem to get it right when determining what real estate to close to recreational fishing vessel operators.
And, if I may make a further point. Conventional wisdom (Scientists) said the whales foraged in Areas 20-2 and 20-3 and that it was imperative to SRKW survival for us to put in place a huge expansive fishery closure in 2018, severely impacting communities such as Sooke and Port Renfrew. In case no one noticed...those "imperative" closures are about to be dropped because recent focal follow research determined these are not key forage locations. Back in 2018 locals in Area 20 tried telling the experts these areas are not key forage sites. Hmmm.
Go figure....we have good reason to listen to researchers who seek to ask deep questions before jumping to developing solutions, rather than simply accept the group think and fall for a steady diet of ready, shoot, aim.
I think Dr. Trites is correct - there is a cultural element we don't fully comprehend. He's also correct, nature is complex and things are not always as they appear to be from our limited perspectives. Other researchers have determined there isn't a food shortage (NOAA study) with more than 10 times the abundance necessary to meet prey requirements. Its more of a prey acquisition problem - that could be driven by cultural and leadership related factors or possibly something else we don't yet fully understand.
However, the narrative of "human caused starvation" feeds the pocket books of the ENGO business model IMO, so we won't soon see any movement to find win/win solutions that reinforce that the best protection for SRKW is simply keeping everyone 400m away from whales no matter where they roam. That is supported by recent research, and not yet adopted into strengthened avoidance measures. Fixed spatial closures accomplish nothing when in many circumstances the whales aren't even there most of the time, and the so called experts can't seem to get it right when determining what real estate to close to recreational fishing vessel operators.
And, if I may make a further point. Conventional wisdom (Scientists) said the whales foraged in Areas 20-2 and 20-3 and that it was imperative to SRKW survival for us to put in place a huge expansive fishery closure in 2018, severely impacting communities such as Sooke and Port Renfrew. In case no one noticed...those "imperative" closures are about to be dropped because recent focal follow research determined these are not key forage locations. Back in 2018 locals in Area 20 tried telling the experts these areas are not key forage sites. Hmmm.
Go figure....we have good reason to listen to researchers who seek to ask deep questions before jumping to developing solutions, rather than simply accept the group think and fall for a steady diet of ready, shoot, aim.
Similar threads
