Conservation Measures for Northern and Southern BC Chinook Salmon and Southern Resident Killer Whale

[tubber]

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/comm/atl-arc/right-whale-baleine-noires-1106-en.html

 

[profisher]

Those east coast areas are closed due to the threat of entanglements with the commercial gear.

 

[SpringVelocity]

Why are we trying to pick a fight with anyone other than DFO? Lets cut the crap...if sports fishermen were allowed in the refuge area but not the whale watchers...are you all saying that you wouldn't go in there or that you would be ok with them trying to get us kicked out? Whys are some of you so concerned about those who are allowed in there? The study and the refuge area is flawed and based on nothing but a scam for even junk science. Calling it junk science is being generous. Getting rid of the closed waters is the goal. Not expanding the list of those who can't go in there....that just puts you on the side with DFO and the environmental groups

And again why are we defending whale watching interest above sport fishing interests? Anyway it is impossible to argue because if anyone doesn't agree they get steamrolled.

 

[fogged in]

And again why are we defending whale watching interest above sport fishing interests?

Like this one....
Whales entangled by crab traps

Those east coast areas are closed due to the threat of entanglements with the commercial gear.

Like this one...
Whales entangled by crab traps

This undated photo provided by NOAA shows a humpback whale entangled in fishing line, ropes, buoys and anchors in the Pacific Ocean off Crescent City, Calif. Rescuers freed the badly tangled humpback whale Tuesday, July 18, 2017, after it had struggled for days against the weight of fishing lines, buoys and anchors dragging it to the ocean floor off California. Team leader Pieter Folkens says freeing the whale took nearly eight hours. (Bryant Anderson/NOAA Fisheries via the Associated Press

 

[Aces]

Its not going to matter one bit arguing back and forth is NOT going to solve anything we have to work together with all user groups DFO loves it when we in fight . matter of fact do whatever you want debate do petitions,write letters . It all for not anyways THEY dont care about fishermen or the repercussions job losses or anything.
Hate to say it boys its all over for us as they are really gonna take a bite out of next year and years to come they will keep biting till its all gone.
WE WONT be fishing soon the writing is on the wall...

look back at my post 10 years ago and i said this was going to happen if i remember I said its gonna spider web out well here it comes guys.
I personally am calling it done. there is no future in fishing.
you have a huge uphill battle that you cant and wont win.

Good luck wolf

It's hard to argue with that

 

[profisher]

I'm NOT defending whale watchers at all ...m just not wasting my time worrying about them. That is a difference you don't seem to understand. We have our own fight to win...you seem to think we should be spending our time fighting to make the refuge areas more inclusive...WHY? I want them gone.

 

[searun]

being involved in the leader length debate for over 10 years, It was my understanding that any changes to the fisheries act, has to be put into a bill and voted on by parliament.

I don't believe their is a fine system in place currently to fine recreational boat anglers for trolling or any regulations around that.

someone can correct me on that if im wrong

Yes absolutely correct. I’m sitting on a regulation committee looking at how the changes to the Act can be adapted to fit our desire for greater flexibility and quicker responses to changing abundance etc. It’s not as easy as I imagined.

 

[tubber]

Those east coast areas are closed due to the threat of entanglements with the commercial gear.

The point I was trying to make is that the DFO will ignore the economic impact of closing huge areas if they think it will save an endangered whale. Or to be more cynical, the government of the day will tell DFO what to do in hopes of winning back the growing green vote leading to the next election.
Sooke = Caraquet

 

[SpringVelocity]

I'm NOT defending whale watchers at all ...m just not wasting my time worrying about them. That is a difference you don't seem to understand. We have our own fight to win...you seem to think we should be spending our time fighting to make the refuge areas more inclusive...WHY? I want them gone.

You are Rollie along with all the rest of you. That is why you all came on here and all posted at once. You completely lost my support, and this is huge mess. Anyway I said what I said I don't agree with your whale watching relationship, but can't stop you guys. If you guys won't say anything others will do it for you.

 

[ziggy]

Interesting read it would appear the scientific community was also ignored. Note the preferred option was “C”, just saying the BS decision looks even more lame!


http://www.marinemammal.org/newsletters/march-2018-science-inreach/

 

[ericl]

Good info ziggy, but this is but one small piece of "scientific info" - not that I know any more myself. What seems to be missed here is that by stopping rec fishing, it also stops fish removal as well as disturbance.

 

[ziggy]

Good info ziggy, but this is but one small piece of "scientific info" - not that I know any more myself. What seems to be missed here is that by stopping rec fishing, it also stops fish removal as well as disturbance.

I don’t think it was missed at all?

“Based on the current state of knowledge and best available data, workshop participants had higher confidence in the effectiveness of Action C (limiting vessel disturbances to make the Chinook that are already present easier for SRKW to catch) than they did in increasing the abundance of Chinook by closing or adjusting fisheries (Actions A & B).”

 

[california]

Interesting read it would appear the scientific community was also ignored. Note the preferred option was “C”, just saying the BS decision looks even more lame!

http://www.marinemammal.org/newsletters/march-2018-science-inreach/

I guess I see this study a bit different. If they are touting option C (Increase the accessibility of Chinook by decreasing underwater noise and the physical presence of vessels where SRKW forage) , it supports mainly using exclusion zones for helping the SRKW. That is what the exclusion zones are supposed to do. The overall catch isn't really altered much by exclusion zones as it just shifts fishing effort to other areas. If the advice were to be followed it would likely mean more exclusion zones, and expansion of the existing zones to include more classes of vessels and traffic (Whale watchers and non-salmon commercial fishing?) . There are additional exclusion zones being considered, this type of information will support the establishment of new zones so I'm not sure its a good news study, esp. if you fish in the potential new zones. It supports the use of exclusion zones as a primary tool for increasing SRKW hunting success.

 

[ziggy]

I guess I see this study a bit different. If they are touting option C (Increase the accessibility of Chinook by decreasing underwater noise and the physical presence of vessels where SRKW forage) , it supports mainly using exclusion zones for helping the SRKW. That is what the exclusion zones are supposed to do. The overall catch isn't really altered much by exclusion zones as it just shifts fishing effort to other areas. If the advice were to be followed it would likely mean more exclusion zones, and expansion of the existing zones to include more classes of vessels and traffic (Whale watchers and non-salmon commercial fishing?) . There are additional exclusion zones being considered, this type of information will support the establishment of new zones so I'm not sure its a good news study, esp. if you fish in the potential new zones. It supports the use of exclusion zones as a primary tool for increasing SRKW hunting success.

Or better yet a 400 metre exclusion zone when whales are Present, rather than permanent closures anywhere?I believe the idea of a moving bubble has been brought up by another member. The big issue here is why have a permanent exclusion zone when the whales are only present occasionally? It makes far more sense to control access when the whales are foraging than just a blanket closure when their are no foraging whales in the area. I think most people could live with moving on when whales are present, I know I usually pack it in when they come through because fishing is lousy.

 

[california]

Or better yet a 400 metre exclusion zone when whales are Present, rather than permanent closures anywhere?I believe the idea of a moving bubble has been brought up by another member. The big issue here is why have a permanent exclusion zone when the whales are only present occasionally? .

I believe the premise is the whales may tend to avoid the areas if there are vessels present, which there almost always are a number of sport fishing vessels in the areas. A bubble has been proposed to DFO during the consultation process and rejected.

 

[IronNoggin]

Well that's depressing

Reality often is...

Sadly,
Nog

 

[High Time]

They certainly are going to avoid an area if there is a fleet of boats constantly on there butt. A small pod just went by Pender Bluffs and the usual armada was right behind them with boats constantly joining and leaving.All of them under power.
I watch these whales being hounded every time they appear,usually lasts until they get so fed up of it that they pull a disappearing act and seem to vanish.I guess they sound and hit the pedal for a couple miles. Some quiet foraging area...

 

[ziggy]

I believe the premise is the whales may tend to avoid the areas if there are vessels present, which there almost always are a number of sport fishing vessels in the areas. A bubble has been proposed to DFO during the consultation process and rejected.

If that’s DFO’s argument, then they are truly clutching at straws. It’s also very ironic that they allow vessels to follow the whales if that’s their theory? Wouldn’t those vessels be herding the pods? The only solution that makes any sense is the bubble!

Let’s look at the logic being promoted by DFo
1) Whales primarily only eat Springs
But rather than non retention of Springs, we have full finfish closures in some areas. while adjacent areas on the same Springs migration route are still open for Spring Fishing. Doesn’t make sense?

2) Area closures are to reduce vessel noise in whale forage areas
But we only ban one user group, rec fishermen. Following whales with vessels is still Ok, even into the forage areas.Even if the whales are nowhere near the so called forage area,it’s still closed because rec fishing boats may keep the whales away.


Seems to me logic and science have both left the building and DFO is hoping people drink the cool aid.

 

[IronNoggin]

... Seems to me logic and science have both left the building and DFO is hoping people drink the cool aid.

Many MANY moons ago my Friend.

Nog

 

[Whole in the Water]

You are Rollie along with all the rest of you. That is why you all came on here and all posted at once. You completely lost my support, and this is huge mess. Anyway I said what I said I don't agree with your whale watching relationship, but can't stop you guys. If you guys won't say anything others will do it for you.

It would be fair to say that your arguments and opinion on this has been made loud and clear. One cannot deny the energy and tenacity displayed in putting your position forward. What about using some of this energy to bring about some positive changes by working with others in lobbying DFO to modify their current direction against the rec sector?